Undertaking (promise) meaning

Summary The Pensions Ombudsman has supported a grievance concerning a scheme’s refusal to supply details of a member’s annual allowance status within the expected timescales. Repeated holdups in issuing the necessary statements amounted to maladministration. The scheme had pledged to exceed the obligations set by the relevant disclosure regulations, and it was fair for the complainant to expect that undertaking to be honoured. The commitment created a clear expectation that the promised information would be delivered promptly. This decision illustrates that a pension scheme can be liable where it promises to go beyond statutory duties and then fails to do so. What were the facts? Dr S belonged to the 2008 Section and the 2015 Section of the NHS Pension Scheme (the Scheme)...

ARCHIVED This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. STOP PRESS This Practice Note is being reassessed in view of the ruling in Xiamen Xinjingdi Group Co Ltd v Eton Properties Limited and Others [2020] HKCFA 32. A party that succeeds in arbitration may enforce the award in Hong Kong in one of two ways: under statute, via the summary procedure set out in the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609), or at common law, by bringing proceedings founded on an implied undertaking to comply with the award (often described as an ‘action on the award’) (Xiamen Xinjingdi Group Co Ltd v Eton Properties Ltd [2016] 2 HKLRD 1106) This Practice Note examines actions on the arbitration award under Hong Kong law. For guidance on statutory enforcement in Hong Kong, see Practice Notes: Hong Kong—enforcement—New York Convention arbitration awards—procedure, Hong Kong—enforcement—New York Convention arbitration awards—grounds of refusal, Hong Kong—enforcement—non-New York Convention and non-Mainland China arbitration awards, and Hong Kong—enforcement—Mainland...

Introduction This Practice Note is part of our student series for those undertaking the LLB. It charts the development and contemporary operation of the doctrine of privity, opening with the orthodox common law stance and its conceptual underpinnings, including the connection between privity and consideration. It reviews the doctrine’s evolution, operation and reform, then assesses principal judicial techniques used to mitigate its rigidity—collateral contracts, agency, trusts of a promise, restrictive covenants and routes to recover third-party loss—illustrated by leading cases. The Note then considers the statutory reform in the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, setting out the structure and interpretation of sections 1(1)–1(6), including the identification requirement in section 1(3), with key authorities. It highlights when clearly identified third parties may enforce contractual terms, and how the Act maintains certainty and party autonomy. A consolidated case table and comparative perspectives are included, together with integrated exam guidance to support structured and critical analysis. Overview of privity Definition and core principle The doctrine...

This Practice Note considers when an indemnity covenant ought to be provided upon the transfer of land by a seller to a buyer. What is an indemnity? An indemnity is a primary undertaking, meaning one party agrees to shoulder the expense of specified losses or liabilities incurred by another in defined situations. Land transfers frequently include a promise by the buyer to indemnify the seller against any losses suffered as a result of the buyer’s breach of covenant. When is an indemnity covenant needed in a transfer? A transfer should contain an indemnity covenant where, after completion, the seller remains, or may remain, responsible under covenants affecting the property. There are several scenarios where this can occur in relation to covenants affecting the property. Property is subject to covenants Someone who has entered into a covenant relating to land will, on disposing of the land, almost invariably insist on an indemnity from their purchaser in respect of that covenant. The purchaser, and every subsequent...

Q&A: Is a solicitor bound by an undertaking that they cannot complete because the client has changed solicitors? This addresses a scenario in which a solicitor is unable to fulfil an undertaking owing to factors wholly beyond their control. It notes that decisions of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) abound with rationalisations from defaulting practitioners for failing to comply, such as claiming the promise related to a client for whom they no longer act. However, ceasing to act does not absolve those solicitors from their ongoing professional duty to honour the undertaking...