Standard disclosure meaning

Introduction to freezing injunctions and scope of this checklist A freezing injunction (also known as a freezing order) is a temporary court order that prevents a respondent from disposing of or transferring its assets out of the relevant jurisdiction—namely England and Wales—or, in the case of a worldwide freezing order (WFO), from moving them anywhere in the world. The court’s principal aim in granting such relief is to preserve the respondent’s assets so that, if the applicant later obtains judgment against the respondent, there will be assets available for recovery by the applicant and, if necessary, enforcement action. This Checklist explains how to make an application for a freezing injunction where claims are contemplated or already underway in a corporate or personal insolvency context. As the precise circumstances of each matter must be assessed, this Checklist does not claim to be exhaustive; rather, it provides an overview of the key considerations at each stage when seeking an order of this kind. The focus throughout is asset preservation pending determination...

STOP PRESS: The Financial Remedies Guide 2026 Published on 13 March 2026 by Mr Justice Peel and His Honour Judge Hess, and approved by the President of the Family Division, the Guide replaces and supersedes: efficiency statement for High Court judge cases (1 February 2016) efficiency statement below High Court judge level (11 January 2022) Financial Remedies Court Primary Principles (11 January 2022) Notice: electronic bundles (19 April 2022) Allocation of financial remedies cases to High Court judge level (21 May 2024) This document is being updated accordingly. The flowchart maps the steps when the accelerated first appointment procedure is available in the Financial Remedies Court within the Family Court. For practical guidance—including overviews, Practice Notes, precedents, guides, legislation, forms and further reading—see Financial provision—practice and procedure—overview or the related documents on the right-hand side of the flowchart; for all Lexis+ UK family flowcharts see Index of family flowcharts; for the accelerated route, see Accelerated first appointment...

STOP PRESS: The Financial Remedies Guide 2026, issued on 13 March 2026 by Mr Justice Peel and His Honour Judge Hess with the approval of the President of the Family Division, now replaces and supersedes: Statement on efficient conduct for High Court judge cases (1 February 2016) Statement on efficient conduct for hearings below High Court judge level (11 January 2022) FRC Primary Principles (11 January 2022) FRC notice: electronic bundles (19 April 2022) Allocation of cases to High Court judge level (21 May 2024) This document is being updated to reflect these changes. See News Analysis: Financial Remedies Guide consolidates existing guidance and efficiency statements. The flowchart charts the standard-procedure route to a final hearing after a financial remedy application. It covers FDR directions, open proposals and bundles; Form H1 costs, disclosure, section 25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 factors, available orders, and the below High Court judge level efficiency statement. Further resources: Financial provision—practice and procedure—overview;...

Stage 1—preparing to bring a claim and pre-action matters Guidance on infringement, defences, ownership, injunctions, running disputes, and the Business and Property Courts Disclosure Scheme; cease and desist precedent; timetable checklist; key forms; IP insurance. Stage 2—letter of claim alleging copyright infringement Guidance on infringement, drafting letters of claim, unjustified threats and remedies, with precedents for standard and peer‑to‑peer infringement letters. Stage 3—commencing proceedings Notes on infringement, secondary infringement, permitted acts, remedies, criminal offences, the Business and Property Courts and the Disclosure Scheme; pleadings/initial disclosure precedents; Disclosure/IPEC flow tools; CPR claim/defence/settlement/default forms. Stage 4—case management Guidance on running disputes, costs management and the Disclosure Scheme; checklist; Chancery, Patents Court and IPEC Guides; Mitchell v NGN; core case‑management and disclosure forms. Stage 5—disclosure and evidence Notes on e‑disclosure, witness statements and the Disclosure Scheme; PD 57AC for Business and Property Courts trial statements (not...

FORTHCOMING CHANGE : The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 obtained Royal Assent on 27 October 2025. For insight into how it affects residential tenancies in England, refer to Practice Note: Renters' Rights Act 2025—key provisions. This Flowchart outlines the steps for ending an assured shorthold tenancy (AST) under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988) via the standard possession route, covering when to serve a section 21 notice, when to issue proceedings, and the procedural milestones up to a possession order. Where HA 1988 governs, unless the tenant chooses to leave of their own accord, a landlord may regain possession only by following the mechanisms in HA 1988, ss 8 or 21, securing a possession order and enforcing it. For more detail, see Practice Note: Assured and assured shorthold tenancies—terminating. Under HA 1988, s 21, a landlord may terminate a fixed-term AST by giving the tenant no less than two months’ written notice, exercising a break clause during the term, or at the end of, or after the...

Mandatory Disclosure Rules (MDR) for Common Reporting Standard (CRS) Avoidance Arrangements and Offshore Structures In March 2018, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) issued the model Mandatory Disclosure Rules (MDR) for Common Reporting Standard (CRS) avoidance arrangements and offshore structures, intended to encourage country by country consistency in applying disclosure and transparency so as to combat aggressive tax planning on a global scale...

Motor Insurers Bureau v Houston [2025] EWHC 3178 (KB) What are the practical implications of this case? Although the outcome may catch seasoned credit hire practitioners off guard, it was driven in large part by the precise language of the debarring order in this case. The order confined any future debarring strictly to the question of rate and made no reference to reliance on impecuniosity for the hire period or for any wider purposes; appellant counsel on appeal suggested this flowed from a legacy version of a standard form. Practitioners familiar with credit hire litigation will know that, more often than not, directions orders bar a claimant from reliance on impecuniosity for all purposes following a failure to provide financial disclosure. Even so, the judgment is a clear reminder that the courts will apply the ordinary and natural meaning to the words of any order, and practitioners should take care to verify the exact wording of a debarring order in every case. That is not, however, to suggest the...

What are the most significant changes introduced by the Act that pension scheme trustees need to prepare for? The most notable reforms in the Act that trustees should be ready for are: Data subject complaints: complaints about the handling of personal data must be acknowledged within 30 days and answered without undue delay. ICO enforcement powers: the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) now has authority to compel interviews and require the production of documents to assess compliance. Data subject access requests (DSARs): the Act codifies the ICO’s existing guidance, meaning (i) trustees must apply a ‘reasonable and proportionate’ search standard when responding; and (ii) the ‘stop the clock’ rule pauses the one-month deadline for a response. Automated decision making (ADM): the Act allows reliance on the full set of lawful bases — including ‘legitimate interests’ — when non-special category personal data is used for significant automated decisions about an individual, provided suitable safeguards are in place. ...

Aroma Franchise Company, Inc v Aroma Espresso Bar Canada Inc. 2024 ONCA 839 What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling confirms that, unless the parties stipulate otherwise in their arbitration clause, the Model Law’s objective yardstick governs both arbitrators’ disclosure duties and their potential disqualification in international arbitrations seated in Ontario. In the absence of express agreement to the contrary, that objective benchmark is the applicable test. As the Model Law is embedded in the international commercial arbitration statutes of every other Canadian province, and incorporated into the provisions of the Code of civil procedure of Québec, the judgment carries significance across Canada and will be relevant nationwide. The Court further determined that the application judge erred in relying on pre‑appointment communications between the parties to find a reasonable apprehension of bias, given those exchanges were never put before the arbitrator; it was inappropriate to draw such an inference from material unknown to the tribunal. Overall, the decision serves as a timely prompt to practitioners...

STOP PRESS: A major overhaul of the UK listings regime took effect on 29 July 2024, scrapping both the premium and the standard listing segments and replacing them with a single category for equity shares in commercial companies. That commercial companies category is heavily disclosure-led and sits alongside other listing categories, including the shell companies category, the secondary listing category and the closed ended investment fund category, among others. A new UK Listing Rules sourcebook came into force to deliver these changes, and the previous Listing Rules sourcebook was revoked. For further information and detail, see Practice Note: Reform of the UK listing regime—fundamentals. This Practice Note reflects the regime as it existed prior to 29 July 2024. A limited company may buy back shares in itself, provided conditions set out in the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) are satisfied, where applicable. This is known as a share buyback or a purchase of own shares. In addition to CA 2006, there are other rules and guidelines that are relevant...

This Practice Note examines enquiries before contract—also referred to as pre-contract enquiries, preliminary enquiries or standard enquiries—within residential conveyancing transactions. It proceeds on the basis that the parties have adopted the Law Society Conveyancing Protocol (2019) (the Protocol) and that the buyer’s conveyancer is additionally acting for a lender in line with the UK Finance Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook (the UKFML Handbook) or the Building Societies Association Mortgage Instructions (the BSA Instructions). See Practice Notes: The Law Society’s Conveyancing Protocol and Lenders' instructions—the UK Finance Mortgage Lenders' Handbook and the Building Societies Association Mortgage Instructions. Why raise enquiries? At common law, the guiding doctrine is ‘caveat emptor’—‘let the buyer beware’—so a seller has only a limited duty to disclose information about the property. It is principally for the buyer to ensure they understand what they are purchasing, including the nature of the property and any rights or liabilities that may attach to it. Accordingly, a buyer’s conveyancer raises enquiries before contract to secure information about the property...

This Practice Note This Practice Note examines how standard essential patents (SEPs) and fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing feature in patent disputes before the Courts of England and Wales (the English Courts). It focuses, in particular, on the legal position following the UK Supreme Court’s ruling of 26 August 2020 in the combined Unwired Planet and Conversant appeals, and the practical consequences of that decision. For further information, see News Analysis: Supreme Court—English courts can determine terms of global licences for portfolios of standard essential patents (Unwired Planet v Huawei). Since then, two further significant rulings on FRAND rates have been issued in England and Wales and have been the subject of appeal judgments, as noted below: First, judgment was handed down on 16 March 2023 in the dispute between InterDigital and Lenovo following a High Court FRAND trial in January 2022. It offered additional guidance on several of the issues considered in Unwired Planet. The appeal judgment in InterDigital v Lenovo was handed...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES, KINGS’S BENCH DIVISION, COMMERCIAL COURT before [ The Honourable Mr Justice OR The Honourable Mrs Justice ] [ insert name of judge ] (in private session) Claim No. [ insert claim number ] between: [ insert name(s) ] as Claimant(s)/Applicant(s) and [ insert name(s) ] as Defendant(s)/Respondent(s) [ The Claimant(s) and Defendant(s) in an Intended Action ] DRAFT FREEZING ORDER PENAL NOTICE If you, [ insert name of respondent(s) ], do not comply with this order, you risk being found in contempt of court and could face imprisonment, a fine, or confiscation of assets. Anyone else with knowledge of this order who assists or allows the Respondent to contravene it may likewise be found in contempt and be imprisoned, fined, or have their assets taken. 1 THIS ORDER 1.1 By order of Mrs/Mr Justice [ ] on [ ], this Freezing Injunction is granted against [ ] (‘the...

In the Family Court sitting at [ Court name ] Case no: [ Case number ] Proceedings under: The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 The Civil Partnership Act 2004 The Child Support Act 1991 Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 The Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 and Schedule 7 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 The Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 The Married Women’s Property Act 1882 and ss 67, 68 and 74 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 OR [ (DELETE AS APPROPRIATE) ] The [ Marriage OR Civil Partnership OR Relationship OR Family ] of [ applicant name ] and [ respondent name ] Heard [ name the advocate(s) who appeared ]; considered documents filed by the parties [ [ (IN THE CASE OF AN ORDER MADE WITHOUT NOTICE) ] read the statements and heard the witnesses...

The Investment Property Forum (IPF) produced this precedent because they recognise it is very common for the parties to a prospective property deal to enter into a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) so they can review certain marketing material and/or commence due diligence...

CPR 31.10 contains provisions for the disclosure of documents by way of a list. Obligations to disclose continue until the case is concluded. If additional documents are discovered after a list has been served, a supplementary list must be provided (CPR PD 31A, para 3.3). For broader guidance on disclosure, see Practice Notes: Disclosure under CPR 31—introduction and Disclosure—standard disclosure and the reasonable search. When issuing directions, the court will fix the deadline by which the list must be served on the other party. CPR 31.21: a party cannot rely on a document it has not disclosed unless the court grants permission. CPR 32.10 (witness statements) and CPR 35.13 (experts’ reports) are framed so that, upon default, court permission is required to adduce or rely on that evidence. This points to an application for permission, rather than an application for relief from sanctions, being the more suitable course where these kinds of breaches arise...