Receiving party meaning

Created in collaboration with 4 Pump Court. This Checklist highlights several principal matters a responding party ought to review on receiving a Notice of Adjudication. That review includes assessing whether grounds exist for a jurisdictional objection—if they do, the responding party must take particular actions so as not to forfeit its ability to advance the objection (either within the adjudication or later at enforcement). Further direction on jurisdiction can be found in Practice Notes: Grounds for a jurisdictional challenge in an adjudication and Making a jurisdictional challenge. Are there possible grounds to dispute the adjudicator’s jurisdiction? Initial points to consider include: the contract: is there a contract between the parties to the adjudication and has it been properly identified in the Notice of Adjudication? See Practice Note: The Notice of Adjudication (What should the Notice of Adjudication contain?) have the correct contracting parties been stated in the Notice of Adjudication? entitlement to adjudicate: ...

Checklist Use this Checklist when assessing a confidentiality agreement (also called a non-disclosure agreement or NDA) where you are the party receiving confidential information under that arrangement. Before you begin your review, consider: what information the business needs to obtain and for what reason; whether the business will also be sharing information with the other side; what information is being received and who should be able to access and use it. For further information, see Precedent: Confidentiality agreement—one-way—pro-recipient. The third column can be used to capture observations or comments as you work through the Checklist. Further information Notes (if any) ☐ Confirm the parties to the agreement. Reflect on which individuals and/or entities should be party to the agreement. □ Confirm how confidential information will be defined. Consider: whether a general definition or a list format is more suitable; whether any confidential information will be shared with group...

When applying for a detailed assessment using form N258, ensure you submit every document required under CPR PD 47 para 13.2. Refer to the checklist below for guidance. You must also give an estimate of the time the detailed assessment hearing will require. Request for Detailed Assessment Hearing (general form) (Form N258) If the request is made by a party other than the receiving party, the applicant should provide all the documents listed below that are in their possession (CPR PD 47, para 13.2(k)). Checklist (Practice direction para reference / Document / Have I provided it?) CPR PD 47, para 13.2(a): A copy of the notice of commencement of the detailed assessment proceedings CPR PD 47, para 13.2(b): A copy of the bill of costs CPR PD 47, para 13.2(c): The document conferring the right to detailed assessment...

Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954), a business lease carries on automatically after the end of the contractual term if the tenant remains in occupation for business purposes. Either party can bring those statutory rights to an end by serving one of the prescribed termination notices. This flowchart explains the steps for an unopposed business lease renewal under the LTA 1954. For the procedure where renewal is opposed, see: LTA 1954 opposed lease renewal procedure—flowchart. For further detail on LTA 1954 security of tenure and the court process, consult Practice Notes: LTA 1954 business lease renewal—proceedings and LTA 1954 business lease renewal—termination. Note 1 Diarise a date at least 12–18 months before the contractual expiry of the existing lease. See Practice Note: LTA 1954 business lease renewal—termination. Note 2 Information must be supplied within one month of service of the notice. A party is obliged to correct any information provided for six months after receiving the notice. This applies to both parties equally...

JXX (a protected party by his litigation friend ABB) v Archibald [2025] Lexis Citation 43 In JXX (a protected party by his litigation friend ABB) v Archibald [2025] Lexis Citation 43, Costs Judge Rowley addressed a challenge where the defendant said the claimant’s Bill of Costs was defective because no expert fee notes were supplied and there were no separate itemisations for the medical agency’s charges and the experts’ own fees. The defendant invited the court either to strike out the Bill or to assess the expert fees at nil. Having examined the key points, the judge concluded that comparisons could be drawn with the often sparse detail on counsel’s fee notes, which still require judicial scrutiny. Mr Mallalieu submitted—and the court accepted—that further particulars can be demanded where necessary. However, on a standard basis assessment the evidential burden rests with the receiving party. If a terse invoice prompts the court to doubt whether a bare figure on a fee note is reasonable, it is the receiving party who...

Background The narrative in Santander UK Plc v CCP Graduate School Ltd [2025] EWHC 667 (KB) is a textbook example of APP fraud. CCP moved just under £416,000 from its NatWest Bank Plc account to an account at Santander. It asserted that it had fallen prey to an APP fraud, whereby payers are duped into approving transfers to an impostor’s account masquerading as a genuine beneficiary. During September and October 2016, CCP executed 15 transfers from its account to a Santander account in the name of PGW Consultants Ltd, believing PGW to be an authentic recipient. Each payment was sent in line with directions supplied to CCP by the fraudsters. After the monies landed in the Santander account, the fraudsters then swept the funds out. In its defence, Santander explained that, after PGW made a further transfer to an account at Lloyds Bank Plc, Lloyds grew suspicious of possible fraud when that sum was promptly dispersed from the Lloyds account. Lloyds raised its concerns with Santander, and Santander provided...

Muller UK and Ireland Group LLP and others v HMRC [2026] EWCA Civ 248 The second, third and fourth appellants (the Corporate Members) were part of the Muller multinational corporate group trading in dairy products. In 2013, those appellants moved their respective trades and assets, including intellectual property and goodwill, to the fourth appellant, Muller UK and Ireland Group LLP (LLP), receiving membership units in the LLP in exchange. The LLP recorded amortisation of the assets and goodwill (the Material Assets) in its accounts on a straight-line basis over five years. When calculating their taxable profits from the LLP for the 2013–18 accounting periods, the Corporate Members claimed deductions for that amortisation under Part 8 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 (CTA 2009). HMRC rejected the claims on the footing that the Material Assets did not satisfy the Part 8 ‘gateway’ in CTA 2009, s 882(1)(b) (as then in force). That provision removed from Part 8’s scope assets obtained from a related party. While Part 8 does not expressly...

This Practice Note This Practice Note outlines how the family courts address questions of capacity and the methods for assessing it, including the use of expert opinion. Within family proceedings, capacity is pertinent both to a person's ability to litigate and to settle proceedings, such as by agreeing a consent order. The focus is chiefly on an adult's capacity, or on cases where a 16–17 year old is involved in the proceedings and is expected to lack the necessary decision-making capacity on reaching 18. For matters concerning children's representation, see also Practice Note: Children as parties to public law proceedings. Broader issues about capacity in the context of family relationships are addressed in Practice Note: Capacity to marry, cohabit and have sexual relations. In Richardson-Ruhan v Ruhan, Mostyn J observed that a person's capacity to run proceedings is not contingent on receiving legal advice (whether sound or poor); if, with the benefit of advice, they would be able to take the required decisions, they have capacity, regardless of whether...

This Practice Note sets out practical direction on exemption reviews. It explains the scope of such reviews, who is eligible to apply, the application process, and the potential outcomes. It covers what the review examines, who may bring a request, how to proceed, and possible decisions. It serves as concise practitioner guidance. Introduction The UK Trade Remedies Authority (TRA) may grant exemptions to importers or foreign exporters from anti-dumping duties or countervailing measures. The TRA can also exclude a particular importer or overseas exporter from these measures during the initial investigations, or in any interim or expiry review, where it determines that the party concerned is not dumping or not receiving a subsidy. For further reading and context: On the original anti-dumping investigation, see Practice Note: An introduction to anti-dumping duties. On the original countervailing investigation, see Practice Note: An introduction to the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. On interim reviews concerning anti-dumping duties, see Practice Note: Interim reviews in anti-dumping...

This Practice Note reviews the principal features of the 2010 Act, which superseded the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (the 1930 Act) with effect from 1 August 2016. The framework can assist where the insured is insolvent, as it permits a third party that has suffered loss to pursue a direct claim against the other party’s insurer in defined situations (the claimant is the third party because they are not a party to the insurance contract). This offers a marked advantage to the third party, who may recover 100% of their claim from the insurer’s substantial funds, rather than proving in the insured’s insolvency as an unsecured creditor and receiving only a fraction. In short, the law enables the intended beneficiaries of an insurance policy to access the cover. It extends to all categories of liability insurance (for a summary, see Practice Note: Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010—one minute guide). Delayed implementation of the 2010 Act The 2010 Act received Royal Assent on 25...

Before purchasing anything on our website, please read these important terms and conditions and ensure they include everything you expect and nothing you are unwilling to accept. Summary of some of your key rights: The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 state that, in most cases, you can change your mind within 14 days of receiving your goods and receive a full refund. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires goods to be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality. During the expected lifespan of your product, you are entitled to the following: up to 30 days: if your goods are faulty, you can get a refund; up to six months: if repair or replacement is not possible, you are entitled to a full refund in most cases; up to six years: if the goods do not last a reasonable length of time, you may be entitled to some money back. This is a summary...

Before purchasing from us, please review these important terms and conditions to confirm they include everything you expect and nothing you would be unwilling to accept. Summary of some of your key rights: Under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, you generally have 14 days from receiving your goods to change your mind and obtain a full refund. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 states that goods must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality. Across the expected lifespan of your product, you are entitled to the following: up to 30 days: if your goods are faulty, you can get a refund; up to six months: if it cannot be repaired or replaced, you are entitled to a full refund in most cases; up to six years: if the goods do not last a reasonable length of time, you may be entitled to some money back. This is a brief outline of...

1 Introduction to the policy 1.1 [ Firm name ] must implement appropriate systems and controls to combat money laundering, terrorist financing and proliferation financing under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (MLR 2017), SI 2017/692, as amended. 1.2 For further detail on MLR 2017, see section 10. 2 Scope and application 2.1 This policy sets out the procedures we have developed to comply with MLR 2017, as amended. 2.2 This policy applies to all [ our offices, ] employees, officers, consultants, contractors and to other workers, including agency workers, casual workers [ , volunteers ] [ , interns ] and home workers. 2.3 All staff must be familiar with this policy and comply with its terms. 2.4 This policy does not form part of any contract of employment and we may amend it at any time. 3 Responsibility for AML, CTF and counter-proliferation financing...

A rentcharge is an amount due from a landowner to a third party lacking any proprietary stake or right in that land, and so it clearly differs from ground rent, which a leaseholder pays to the freeholder. Developers frequently used rentcharges to facilitate development and building on land without paying the landowner a premium for it, with the owner receiving an ongoing income from the land instead. The Rentcharges Act 1977 (RcA 1977) banned the creation of any new rentcharges, save for narrow exceptions, and mandated that most existing rentcharges would end by the year 2037 (RcA 1977, s 3). An estate rentcharge remains one such preserved exception...