Featured documents
Introduction to statutory interpretation The aim of statutory interpretation is to determine the legal meaning of a statute, that is, the sense that expresses the legislator’s intention. The clearest guide to that intention is the statutory wording itself, read in its context and with its overall purpose in mind, and its broader legislative setting. Courts should seek to fulfil the purpose of legislation by construing its language, so far as they can, in the manner that most effectively serves that purpose. Put differently, the courts’ default method is purposive, and every enactment is to be construed with that end in view. There is a starting presumption that the grammatical and ordinary sense of an enactment reflects the meaning intended by the legislator. Where an enactment reasonably bears only a single meaning, and no other interpretative tools or
This Practice Note addresses identifying a fiduciary, fiduciary duties and obligations, the no conflict rule, the no profit rule, a fiduciary's duty of confidence, and the remedies available for breach of fiduciary duty. Who is a fiduciary? There is no definitive catalogue of relationships that give rise to fiduciary obligations at common law in every situation universally. Certain relationships are inherently fiduciary, eg trustee and beneficiary, solicitor and client, principal and agent, business partner and co-partners, together with mortgagor and mortgagee. The obligations of some fiduciaries have been set out in statute; for instance, trustees owe a statutory duty of skill and care under section 1 of the Trustee Act 2000 (TrA 2000), and directors' relationships with their companies are addressed in the Companies Act 2006 too. For guidance on directors' fiduciary duties, see Practice Note: of directors for further detailed
Definition of ADR Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is defined in the CPR Glossary as a collective label for methods of settling disputes other than through the usual trial process. Some courts adopt the term ‘negotiated dispute resolution’ (NDR) to describe resolution by alternative means; for ease, this Practice Note uses ADR. For guidance on how ADR is addressed in the various court guides, see Practice Note: ADR and NDR in the court guides. In essence, ADR is a means of resolving a dispute outside the court system. It typically involves a neutral third party who either helps the parties reach a negotiated outcome, or issues a determination of the dispute that is legally binding. A binding result can follow where the agreement to refer the dispute to ADR so provides. There are multiple forms of ADR processes. For an outline of the different types and their
In brief The British constitution is uncodified, meaning it does not spring from a single constitutional document or code. It draws on a wide range of written and unwritten sources. Alongside the principal written sources of law in England and Wales—legislation (which has also introduced international and human rights principles into our constitution) and the common law—the constitution also rests on two further unwritten bases within this system: the prerogative, and non-legal constitutional conventions. In addition, on one view the basic or prevailing principle of our constitution, Parliamentary sovereignty, is ultimately grounded in political fact rather than in law. Legislation Legislation is the foremost source of constitutional law. Acts of Parliament may set out detailed constitutional rules, or even pass authority to create them to ministers or to others. Under the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty, legislation is traditionally regarded as taking precedence over any other form or kind of
Most recent Practice notes
This Practice Note This Practice Note sets out the provisions governing wardship and the court’s inherent jurisdiction in child abduction cases where the country involved is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on Civil International Aspects of Child Abduction 1980 (the 1980 Hague Convention) or the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (the 1996 Hague Convention), and addresses the principles to be applied and procedural considerations. For practical assistance on proceedings brought under the 1980 or 1996 Hague Conventions, refer to Practice Notes: Child abduction—introduction and issuing proceedings (1980 Hague Convention) and Child abduction—1996 Hague Convention. In March 2018, the then President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, issued wide‑ranging guidance dealing, in particular, with case management and matters, such as witness evidence and...
This Practice Note examines a party’s right to adjudicate, addressing its sources (arising under statute, contract and/or on an ad hoc basis), the timing of its use, and whether a dispute has emerged under a construction contract. It also reviews assignment, novation and third party rights, the conduct of serial adjudications, and adjudication where the referring party is in liquidation. For direction on questions about the scope of a dispute, see Practice Note: Adjudication—is there a ‘dispute’? which considers whether a dispute has crystallised, amounts to a single dispute (even if comprising several issues), is not the same or substantially the same as one already decided in adjudication, court or arbitral proceedings, and matters relating to settlement. For practical points to weigh before starting an adjudication, consult Checklist: Issues to consider before commencing an adjudication and Practice Note: The Notice of...
What is retention? Holding back a retention from interim payments is a common feature of commercial construction contracts, particularly those using standard forms. Retention describes the portion of each interim payment an employer withholds as security for the contractor’s future performance and as an incentive to ensure every obligation is fulfilled. A set percentage is deducted from each payment; this amount is referred to as the ‘retention’ (or ‘retentions’). This approach is often mirrored down the supply chain—for example, a main contractor may retain sums from a sub-contractor. The arrangement facilitates part-payment as the works advance, while postponing the balance until all contractual duties are completed. In addition to promoting completion of the works, the retained funds can be used to pay for correcting defects where the contractor is in default under the contract. How much retention is...
This Practice Note explores the nature of joint names insurance, the differences between joint and composite cover, and the broader implications for construction insurance contracts. It is a frequent stipulation of construction agreements that insurance be placed in joint names, so that one policy extends protection to the interests of all parties involved. Under the umbrella of joint names insurance we mean: joint insurance, and composite insurance (commonly known as co-insurance) Joint insurance—definition Insurance that, through a single policy, secures the identical interests of two or more parties in the insured subject matter—for instance, spouses’ stakes in a matrimonial home. A breach by any one party of the policy terms—such as fraud, non-disclosure, breach of condition or breach of warranty—can impair the other insured’s rights. In joint insurance, each insured’s entitlements stand or fall together; in other words, they hold an...
On most projects, a construction contract assembles a set of documents that, taken together, set out each party’s obligations and liabilities, and define the works plus when, where and how they are to be delivered. These are commonly called the ‘contract documents’. Beyond the conditions of contract, the documents included will depend on the procurement route selected. Typically (using JCT terms for ease), these comprise: employer’s requirements contractor’s proposals a contract sum analysis or (depending on the form of contract) bill of quantities specifications drawings the programme BIM protocol Other ancillary documents may clarify the parties’ responsibilities, for example the tender, minutes of a pre‑contract meeting, or derogations/tender clarifications. Where appropriate, these may appear as separate contract documents or be incorporated within one of the items above. Conditions of contract The conditions of contract commonly adopt, or are based on, an...
As a general rule, the English courts refrain from interfering in arbitral proceedings ( AA 1996, s 1(c)). That said, there are specific provisions within the Arbitration Act 1996 ( AA 1996) which permit the courts to ‘assist’ the arbitration process where appropriate. Under AA 1996, s 42, and absent a different party agreement, the court can order a party to obey a peremptory direction issued by the tribunal ( AA 1996, s 41(5)) or, following the Arbitration Act 2025 ( AA 2025), by an emergency arbitrator. This mechanism supports the parties, as well as the tribunal or the emergency arbitrator, where a recalcitrant party declines to comply with such directions. Tribunals and emergency arbitrators have authority to issue peremptory orders under AA 1996, s 41(5) and s 41( A), again save where the parties expressly agree otherwise in their...
Applications to stay litigation in favour of arbitration under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 This Practice Note addresses applications to the courts of England and Wales ( England and English are used as convenient shorthand) seeking a stay of court proceedings in favour of arbitration under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 ( AA 1996). Even where the parties have inserted arbitration clauses into their substantive contracts, once a dispute surfaces one party may decide it no longer wishes to arbitrate. In that scenario, the party may instead issue court proceedings so that the dispute is resolved by the court. The motivations for doing so can differ, for example: the dispute involves three or more parties, at least one of whom is not a party to the arbitration agreement; the parties have concluded several substantive agreements with inconsistent...
We have assembled a series that brings together essential, key practical guidance on the particular legal and operational consequences of data protection law in the UK. The collection concentrates on the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation ( EU) 2016/679 ( UK GDPR). In respect of the collection’s subject matter, there......
FORTHCOMING CHANGES to EIS and VCT financial limits and call for evidence on tax support for entrepreneurs: At Budget 2025, the government announced that the upfront income tax relief for individuals investing in a VCT will drop from 30% to 20%, while the EIS upfront income tax relief remains at 30%. It also outlined three measures covering both EIS and VCT: Raising the annual investment limits companies can secure under EIS and VCT from £5m to £10m, and from £10m to £20m for knowledge‑intensive companies ( KICs). Increasing the lifetime company risk finance investment cap from £12m to £24m, and from £20m to £40m for KICs. Lifting the gross assets threshold an investee must not exceed to £30m before shares are issued (from £15m), and to £35m thereafter (from £16m). These changes will be legislated in Finance Bill 2026 and take effect from 6 April...
FORTHCOMING CHANGES to EIS and VCT financial limits and call for evidence on tax support for entrepreneurs: At Budget 2025, the government confirmed that the up-front income tax relief available to an individual for funds placed in a VCT will drop from 30% to 20%. The up-front income tax relief for EIS stays at 30%. Remains unchanged for EIS. It also set out three measures applying to both the EIS and VCT schemes as follows: raising the annual amounts per year companies may secure under EIS and VCT from £5m to £10m, and from £10m to £20m for knowledge-intensive companies ( KICs) increasing the lifetime company risk finance investment cap from £12m to £24m, and from £20m to £40m for KICs, and lifting the gross assets ceiling, in aggregate, that an investee company must not exceed from £15m to £30m before shares are...
Like the enterprise investment scheme ( EIS), the venture capital trust ( VCT) regime exists to stimulate investment in smaller, higher‑risk trading businesses. A VCT is a company (not a trust), authorised by HMRC, with shares admitted to trading in a manner that satisfies the listing condition outlined in Practice Note: VCTs— VCT conditions for HMRC approval— The listing condition. Individuals may access a range of tax reliefs, while spreading risk, by subscribing for (or, for certain reliefs, buying) VCT shares. The VCT then invests by subscribing for new shares or debt issued by unquoted companies (for these purposes, companies quoted on AIM are treated as unquoted). For fuller information on the tax reliefs available to individual VCT investors, and on the corporation tax reliefs applicable to VCTs themselves, see Practice Note: VCTs—introduction, tax reliefs and returns. The VCT regime is...
FORTHCOMING CHANGE relating to penalty reform calls for evidence and behavioural penalties reform: At Budget 2025, the government released a summary of responses to the Spring Statement 2025 consultation on behavioural penalties reform, and confirmed plans to advance proposals to amend penalties for inaccuracies in tax returns and for failures to notify chargeability. That consultation was preceded by two calls for evidence: An initial call for evidence on ‘ The Tax Administration Framework: Supporting a 21st Century tax system’ issued on 23 March 2021, with a summary of responses published on 30 November 2021, and A second call for evidence on ‘ The Tax Administration Framework Review–enquiry and assessment powers, penalties, safeguards’, on 15 February 2024, followed by a summary of responses on 30 October 2024—this later call outlined potential options for penalty reform, including revisions to penalty suspension and escalation for continued or repeated...
FORTHCOMING CHANGE relating to penalty reform calls for evidence and behavioural penalties reform: At Budget 2025, the government released a summary of responses to the consultation opened at Spring Statement 2025 on behavioural penalties reform, and confirmed its intention to move forward with proposals to revise penalties for inaccuracies in tax returns and for failures to notify chargeability. This consultation built on two earlier calls for evidence: An initial call for evidence, ‘ The Tax Administration Framework: Supporting a 21st Century tax system’, issued on 23 March 2021, with a summary of responses published on 30 November 2021; and A second call for evidence, ‘ The Tax Administration Framework Review–enquiry and assessment powers, penalties, safeguards’, issued on 15 February 2024, followed by a summary of responses on 30 October 2024. This second exercise explored potential options for penalty reform, including reforms to penalty...
FORTHCOMING CHANGE relating to penalty reform calls for evidence and behavioural penalties reform At Budget 2025, the government released a summary of responses to the consultation launched at Spring Statement 2025 on reforming behavioural penalties, and confirmed its intention to proceed with proposals to revise penalties for inaccuracies in tax returns and for failures to notify chargeability. This consultation was preceded by two calls for evidence: an initial call for evidence on ‘ The Tax Administration Framework: Supporting a 21st Century tax system’ on 23 March 2021, with a summary of responses on 30 November 2021; and a second call for evidence on ‘ The Tax Administration Framework Review–enquiry and assessment powers, penalties, safeguards’, on 15 February 2024, followed by a summary of responses on 30 October 2024—this second call set out potential options for penalty reform, including changes to penalty...
FORTHCOMING CHANGE relating to penalty reform calls for evidence and behavioural penalties reform: At Budget 2025, the government published a detailed summary of responses to the consultation first unveiled at the Spring Statement 2025 concerning behavioural penalty reform, and confirmed its intention to move ahead with concrete proposals to amend penalties for errors in tax returns and for failures to notify chargeability. That consultation directly followed two earlier calls for evidence: an initial call for evidence on ‘ The Tax Administration Framework: Supporting a 21st Century tax system’ on 23 March 2021, with a published summary of responses on 30 November 2021; and a second call for evidence on ‘ The Tax Administration Framework Review – enquiry and assessment powers, penalties, safeguards’, on 15 February 2024, followed by a summary of responses on 30 October 2024 — this second exercise explored a range of...
FORTHCOMING CHANGE relating to penalty reform calls for evidence and behavioural penalties reform: At Budget 2025, the government released a summary of feedback to the consultation opened at Spring Statement 2025 on behavioural penalties reform, and confirmed its plan to move ahead with proposals to revise penalties for inaccuracies in tax returns and for failures to notify chargeability. This consultation was informed by two earlier calls for evidence: an initial call for evidence, ‘ The Tax Administration Framework: Supporting a 21st Century tax system’, published on 23 March 2021, followed by a summary of responses on 30 November 2021 a second call for evidence, ‘ The Tax Administration Framework Review – enquiry and assessment powers, penalties, safeguards’, issued on 15 February 2024, with a summary of responses on 30 October 2024; this phase set out potential penalty reforms, including changes to...
FORTHCOMING CHANGE relating to penalty reform calls for evidence and behavioural penalties reform: At Budget 2025, the government published a summary of responses to the consultation opened at Spring Statement 2025 on behavioural penalties reform, and confirmed its intention to move forward with proposals to amend penalties for mistakes in tax returns and for failures to notify chargeability. This consultation was informed by two earlier calls for evidence: an initial call for evidence on ‘ The Tax Administration Framework: Supporting a 21st Century tax system’ on 23 March 2021, with a summary of responses issued on 30 November 2021; and a second call for evidence on ‘ The Tax Administration Framework Review – enquiry and assessment powers, penalties, safeguards’, on 15 February 2024, followed by a summary of responses on 30 October 2024—this second exercise set out potential options to reform...
FORTHCOMING CHANGE relating to penalty reform calls for evidence and behavioural penalties consultation : Building on an earlier 2021 call for evidence, on 15 February 2024 HMRC issued a further call for evidence titled “ The Tax Administration Framework Review: enquiry and assessment powers, penalties safeguards”, which set out potential routes to reform penalties, including changes to penalty suspension and escalation for ongoing or repeated non-compliance. On 30 October 2024, HMRC published the outcome, providing a summary of responses and the government’s proposed next steps. Following this, at Spring Statement 2025 on 26 March 2025, the government launched a consultation on behavioural penalties relating to penalties for inaccuracies in returns and failure to notify. The consultation outlines two possible approaches to reform these regimes: Refining the existing framework while simplifying how penalties are calculated and applied; and Exploring a more...
FORTHCOMING CHANGE relating to penalty reform calls for evidence and behavioural penalties consultation Building on the 2021 call for evidence, HMRC issued on 15 February 2024 a further evidence-gathering document, The Tax Administration Framework Review: enquiry and assessment powers, penalties safeguards. It set out potential penalty reforms, including changes to penalty suspension and escalation where non-compliance is ongoing or repeated. On 30 October 2024, HMRC released the outcome, providing a summary of responses and the government’s planned next steps. Following this, at Spring Statement 2025 on 26 March 2025, the government launched a consultation on reforming behavioural penalties relating to inaccuracies in returns and failure to notify. The consultation outlines two possible directions for reform: Maintain the current framework while simplifying how penalties are calculated and applied. Explore a more fundamental alternative model, with a clear separation between penalties for...
FORTHCOMING CHANGE relating to penalty reform calls for evidence and behavioural penalties reform: At Budget 2025, the government released a summary of feedback to the consultation launched at Spring Statement 2025 on behavioural penalty reform and confirmed plans to proceed with changes to penalties for inaccuracies in tax returns and for failures to notify chargeability. This consultation was informed by two calls for evidence: an initial call for evidence, ‘ The Tax Administration Framework: Supporting a 21st Century tax system’, issued on 23 March 2021, with a summary of responses on 30 November 2021; and a second call for evidence, ‘ The Tax Administration Framework Review – enquiry and assessment powers, penalties, safeguards’, published on 15 February 2024, followed by a summary on 30 October 2024—this later paper set out potential options for penalty reform, including revisions to penalty suspension and escalation where...
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
