V v V order meaning

Search orders Formerly known as Anton Piller orders, search orders are frequently made in conjunction with a freezing order and permit an applicant to attend at the respondent’s premises to search for and safeguard evidence that might otherwise be disposed of, concealed, or destroyed. The order may only be served by a supervising solicitor and is subject to very strict requirements as set out in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955. The adoption of Anton Piller relief, now codified within FPR 2010 as search orders, gained prominence in family proceedings through two authorities on disclosure and self‑help (L v L and Tchenguiz v Imerman; Imerman v Imerman). The courts have issued a firm caution against self‑help in preference to pursuing the proper court‑based remedies; see Practice Note: Procedural aspects of disclosure in financial proceedings—Disclosure of documents belonging to the other party. Great care should be exercised when drafting the terms of the order. A standard form search order has been produced—see Precedent: Standard order 3.2—search order—family...

Reviews In insolvency cases, a review occurs when the court returns to and considers an order it has previously made. This mechanism (across corporate and personal insolvency) permits the decision to be reconsidered either by the judge who issued it (see Official Receiver v Bathurst) or also by a different judge (see Re W & A Glaser Limited). Both personal and corporate insolvency courts hold power to review, rescind, or vary their own orders (section 375 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) and the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, r 12.59(1)). A review should not be treated as a substitute for an appeal, and the court will deploy its discretion with particular caution when asked to formally revisit an order. For more detail, see Practice Note: Reviews of insolvency orders. General The table below addresses reviews of any order, other than a winding-up or bankruptcy order, made by the insolvency court. Step/action Time Authority 1...

Undue influence Where a person gives security to support a third-party borrower, a presumption of undue influence may arise in particular situations and, in certain circumstances, be assumed—for details on when this presumption is engaged, see Practice Note: Taking a guarantee or third party security from an individual—undue influence. After the House of Lords ruling in Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2), the Law Society issued guidance for solicitors advising security providers to protect themselves from negligence claims. The judgment itself also explained the means by which a lender may protect itself from third-party security being set aside in circumstances where there is potentially undue influence. Checklist for a lender taking third-party security from an individual To rebut the presumption of undue influence (see above), a lender must be able to demonstrate that the security provider understood the nature of the transaction and chose to grant the security on an informed basis. In order to do this, whenever the relationship between the debtor and...

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...

Antitrust The application in Case C-60/25 Livronsa has now been published, an Italian national reference asking whether national courts must regard the Euribor manipulation evidence confirmed by the Commission and the Court of Justice as conclusive, and whether the ensuing competition restriction applies only to the derivatives market or instead to all markets that use the manipulated Euribor benchmark—see also the application The General Court has recently issued an order in Case T-413/21 Feralpi v Commission, an action lodged against the Commission for failing to pay Default Interest as required by the General Court in Cases C-85/15 Feralpi v Commission...

In this issue: Air emissions and climate change Energy for environmental lawyers Environmental disputes and proceedings Environmental permits and consents Environmental taxes, reliefs and incentives ESG and sustainability Hazardous substances and chemicals Marine Nature, biodiversity and habitat conservation Waste Waste producer responsibility regimes Water, flooding and drainage Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Air emissions and climate change DESNZ releases quarterly waste data reporting template for the UK ETS. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) has issued a template for quarterly waste data submissions under the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS). It is designed for waste operators to use when sending quarterly data reports to their regulator during the voluntary monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) period. See: LNB News 19/02/2026 50. AFME responds to European Commission consultation on climate resilience legislative framework. The Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME) has provided...

The Czech Republic v Diag Human SE and another [2024] EWHC 708 (Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment offers practical guidance on how the ‘reasonable diligence’ condition in AA 1996, s 73(1) operates. It warns parties in arbitration to remain vigilant to unfolding factual matters that may demand further enquiry, in order to satisfy the ‘reasonable diligence’ requirement and maintain an arguable case that is not rendered time-barred under AA 1996, s 73(1). It also emphasises the elevated duty of care owed by investment arbitration practitioners when advising clients in arbitral proceedings, so as to avoid claims of insufficient diligence in the conduct of jurisdictional challenges before the tribunal. What was the background? ...

This tracker monitors current Court of Justice appeals concerning State aid (Articles 107–109 TFEU) and other aid recovery actions. For concluded matters, consult Court of Justice State aid appeals—closed cases tracker. Note—closed appeals are transferred from this page to the closed trackers within seven days of the final ruling. For the Commission’s recent State aid decisions, see EU State aid decisions—ongoing cases tracker; for appeals pending before the General Court, see General Court State aid appeals—ongoing cases tracker; and for national references before the Court of Justice touching on State aid, see Court of Justice State aid national references—ongoing cases tracker. Appeals from the General Court Case C-306/26 P, LM v Commission — Appeal against the General Court’s order in Case T-261/25 declaring inadmissible an annulment action concerning parts of Commission decision SA.44944—Tax treatment of public casinos in Germany and SA.53552—Alleged guarantee for public casinos in Germany (Wirtschaftlichkeitsgarantie). Latest development: Lodged—07/04/2026. Case C-505/24 P, Condor Flugdienst v Ryanair —...

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 examines the principles governing the tort whereby a defendant deliberately interferes with a claimant’s rights in a judgment debt. For wider guidance on enforcing judgments, see: Introduction to enforcement—overview and related content. What is the Marex tort? The Marex tort describes a tort-based cause of action premised on an alleged intentional infringement of the claimant’s rights in a judgment debt. Its contours were first confirmed by Bryan J in 2021 in Lakatamia v Su, having been raised by Knowles J in 2017 in Marex v Garcia (also known as Marex v Sevilleja). See: Marex tort—history below. In Lakatamia v Su, Lakatamia pursued two claims against the defendants, Mr Su and his mother, Madam Su, including: unlawful means conspiracy—alleging a concerted plan to harm Lakatamia by unlawful means, through breaches of a 2011 worldwide freezing order in related Commercial Court proceedings against Mr Su (the Blair Freezing Order), by procuring the dissipation of two of Mr Son’s assets: the net sale proceeds...

INSOLVENCY ACT APPLICATION NOTICE Case No: [ insert case number ]. Court: High Court (Business and Property Courts, Insolvency and Companies List (ChD)) OR Business and Property Courts in [ insert location ] OR County Court at [ insert location ] (Business and Property Work). In the matter of [ insert company’s name ] and the Insolvency Act 1986. Parties: [ Insert Applicant(s) ] v [ Insert Respondent(s) ]. Under IR 2016 r 18.23. Parties and addresses: Applicants [ names/addresses ]; Respondents [ names/addresses ]. Application relates to [ details ]. Judge: [ level ]. Venue: [ court/hearing centre ]. Ref: [ number ]. Orders sought: Fix remuneration at £[ insert sum ] plus VAT; disbursements £[ insert sum ]. Costs to be an expense of the [ liquidation/administration ]. Any further order or relief the court considers appropriate. Grounds: witness statement of [ name ], dated [ date ]. Service/notice: [ names/addresses, if any, or none ]. Address for...

[ insert name and address of the claimant or the claimant’s legal representative ] [ insert date ] [ Claimant v Defendant—Case number ] Dear [ insert organisation name ] Thank you for your letter dated [ insert date ] seeking extra time for [ describe the length of the extension requested and the step to be taken ]. [ Either: We have reviewed your request and are unable to agree. [ Provide reasons for refusal ] OR explain why the period requested is too long and put forward a shorter timetable ] OR We have considered the request and will agree subject to these conditions: Your client shall pay our client’s costs arising from this request [ in the sum of £… ] within [ ] days of this letter. AND/OR All directions in the order of [ insert name ] dated [ date ] are extended correspondingly so that: ...

[ Insert date ] [ Insert ] Employment Tribunal [ Insert address ] To the [ insert ] Employment Tribunal [ Insert name of case, eg X v Y ] Claim Reference: [ insert claim number ] Application for an order for the [ Claimant OR Respondent ] to provide additional information We represent the [ Claimant OR Respondent ] in the above matter herein...

When a baby is born, the birth must be registered, and the surname entered at that time is intended to be the name by which the child is known. If a parent later wishes to change the child’s surname, they should first consult any other person who holds parental responsibility before any step is taken. This applies irrespective of the existence of a child arrangements order, and regardless of whether that person has contact with the child (Re PC (Change of Surname)). Where there is disagreement, the matter must be placed before the court for a determination. A contested change of surname must not be made unilaterally (Dawson v Wearmouth). Altering a name is a significant matter and should not be approached lightly. In deciding whether to grant leave, the court is guided by the welfare principle in section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989), and will act accordingly...

The court holds comprehensive jurisdiction to sanction or decline a financial remedy consent order embodying the parties’ bargain (see section 33A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) and the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 9.26). Yet the court is neither ‘a rubber stamp’ nor a ‘bloodhound’ or ‘forensic ferret’ (see Pounds v Pounds and L v L). Its jurisdiction cannot be excluded. The court undertakes an autonomous and independent evaluation to enable it to discharge and fulfil its statutory duties by reference to the relevant factors set out in the MCA 1973, s 25...

Such works may fall under section 105(1)(b) of the HGCRA 1996 Such works may fall within section 105(1)(b), which treats road maintenance as a construction operation covering the construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, extension, demolition or dismantling of works forming, or to form, part of land, including walls, roadworks, power lines, electronic communications apparatus, runways, docks, harbours, railways, inland waterways, pipelines, reservoirs, water mains, wells, sewers, industrial plant, and installations for land drainage, coast protection or defence. Alternatively, section 105(1)(e) catches operations integral to, preparatory for, or rendering complete those works, including site clearance, earth-moving, excavation, tunnelling, laying foundations, erecting, maintaining or dismantling scaffolding, site restoration, landscaping, and providing roadways and other access. No specific authority concerns these works, yet courts have often held that less orthodox activities are construction operations, for example: Baldwins Industrial Services plc v Barr: crane with driver hire held integral, preparatory to, or completing works under sections 105(1)(a) and (e). Some contracts are excluded from being a ‘construction...