ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû

View the related checklists about Representation

Responding to a freezing injunction—checklist

Responding to a freezing injunction—checklist This Checklist provides a suggested approach for dealing with and responding to a freezing injunction. It is intended as a starting point, listing various key matters which you should consider when preparing your client’s response. It is assumed that: • the freezing injunction was granted pre-action and without notice, and • your client is the defendant in the underlying substantive claim For further guidance on freezing injunctions generally, see Practice Notes: • Freezing injunctions—guiding principles • Freezing injunctions—the application • Freezing injunctions—the draft order Ensuring you have all the necessary documentation The applicant should have provided the following documentation (at the very least): • the application notice • the affidavit(s) in support • the sealed order • a transcript of the hearing • the skeleton argument (if one was used at the hearing) If any of the above documents are missing, ask the applicant’s solicitors for them as a matter of urgency. You will need all of the documents relied upon at the without notice...

Misrepresentation—tough questions for assessing a misrepresentation claim—checklist

Misrepresentation—tough questions for assessing a misrepresentation claim—checklist This Checklist considers the questions to discuss with a prospective claimant bringing a claim for misrepresentation. For guidance on what a claim for misrepresentation is and the key elements required to establish such a claim, see Practice Notes: • Misrepresentation—what it is and similar claims • Misrepresentation—what statements will establish a claim? • Misrepresentation—what is inducement? • Misrepresentation—falsity (fraudulent, innocent or negligent misrepresentation) Assessing the merits of a claim for misrepresentation involves a detailed analysis of the facts, investigating the pre-contract negotiations and discussions that may have taken place many years before. There is a risk that the claimant’s view now of what was said then, and how important it was, may be coloured by their experience of what has happened since. The following is a list of the sort of questions that will need to be asked of the claimant (the representee) at an early stage to help form a view of the strength (or weakness) of any claim: • what was...

View the related flowcharts about Representation

¸é±ð²Ô³Ü²Ô³¦¾±²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²Ôâ€Äì±ô´Ç·É³¦³ó²¹°ù³Ù

¸é±ð²Ô³Ü²Ô³¦¾±²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²Ôâ€Äì±ô´Ç·É³¦³ó²¹°ù³Ù This flowchart deals with the position where an executor wishes to renounce probate and how this will impact the issue of a grant of

View the related practice notes about Representation

General Optical Council—fitness to practise proceedings

General Optical Council—fitness to practise proceedings Who is the General Optical Council (GOC) The General Optical Council (GOC) is a body corporate created by the Opticians Act 1989 (OA 1989) to have the general function of promoting high standards of professional education, conduct and performance with an over-arching objective of the protection of the public. The GOC role is to protect, promote and maintain: • the health, safety and well-being of the public • public confidence in the professions they regulate • professional standards and conduct for Registrants and prospective Registrants, and • proper standards and conduct for business Registrants This Practice Note provides a guide to GOC fitness to practise proceedings, investigations, and applications to be restored to the Register. The GOC regulates registered Optometrists as well as Dispensing Opticians. In this Practice Note a ‘Registrant’ is: • a registered Optometrist • dispensing Optician • student Optometrists, or • a Registered Business This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Notes: Common principles in fitness to practise...

Commercial annual round-up: reviewing 2017 and previewing 2018 [Archived]

Commercial annual round-up: reviewing 2017 and previewing 2018 [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This year’s annual round-up reviews some of the most significant developments of 2017 and previews what is on the horizon for 2018. This includes the cases of Wood v Capita Insurance Services Limited [2017] UKSC 24 and Ilkerler Otomotiv Sanayai Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Perkins Engines Company Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 183, among others. Also included are updates on ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû®’s content, including news of exciting developments from the past year and what is coming up in the next 12 months. Reviewing 2017 Contract law What happened in Wood v Capita Insurance Services Limited? The Supreme Court held in Wood v Capita Insurance Services Limited [2017] UKSC 24 that the appellant, which had purchased a company from the respondent, could not recover compensation it subsequently had to pay to the company’s customers who had been affected by mis-selling before it took over the company. The...

View the related precedents about Representation

No representation/inducement clause

No representation

Conflicts guidelines—property transactions

Conflicts guidelines—property transactions Our Conflicts, confidentiality and disclosure policy sets out our general position on when we can act in conflict situations. We also issue guidelines for certain [departments OR types of work]. These guidelines illustrate how our policy could apply in different situations, but they are not intended to be exhaustive or rigid. In each situation covered by these guidelines we must consider whether a conflict arises and, if so, whether we can act. 1 Substantially common interest 1.1 We will not act for clients under the substantially common interest exception where: 1.1.1 we may need to negotiate on matters of substance between the clients, eg negotiating on price between a buyer and seller of a property 1.1.2 there is unequal bargaining power between the clients, eg where a builder is selling to a non-commercial client 1.1.3 one or both clients will be prejudiced by lack of separate representation 1.1.4 we cannot represent the client even-handedly, or 1.1.5 the clients’ interests in the end...

View the related q&as about Representation

What is the common law position where a supplier of a service erroneously undercharges a customer for that service (eg due to miscalculation of the amount of service used at the fault of the supplier)? Is the supplier entitled to back-bill a customer for historic supplies which it has undercharged for, and is the customer obliged to make further payments? Is there any time limit?

What is the common law position where a supplier of a service erroneously undercharges a customer for that service (eg due to miscalculation of the amount of service used at the fault of the supplier)? Is the supplier entitled to back-bill a customer for historic supplies which it has undercharged for, and is the customer obliged to make further payments? Is there any time limit? In answering this question, we have assumed that you are referring to a services agreement between two businesses in an unregulated supply sector. The ability to recover sums under a commercial contract will depend on the terms of the contract relating to calculation of payments, invoicing and dispute resolution. For general information, see Practice Note: Price, payment terms and interest. If the contract introduces a process for agreeing invoices for services and agreeing these invoices as ‘final’ for parts of the work there is likely to be no right to go back to recover errors, regardless of the error. The nature of...

Where the sole executor and residuary beneficiary (A) of the testator T’s estate survives T but dies before taking a grant of probate, leaving a Will appointing B as executor of their own estate, what steps are required in order for B to administer T’s estate?

Where the sole executor and residuary beneficiary (A) of the testator T’s estate survives T but dies before taking a grant of probate, leaving a Will appointing B as executor of their own estate, what steps are required in order for B to administer T’s estate? On the basis that the sole appointed executor (A) died before taking out the grant in T’s estate and there is no surviving executor (nor a substitute executor), the chain of representation has been broken and the grant will need to be one of administration with Will annexed. See Practice Note: The chain of representation. The Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987, SI 1987/2024, r 20 sets out the ‘Order of priority for grant where deceased left a Will’. The first person in that order is the executor (ie A) but in the absence of an executor (ie because A has died) it is necessary to scan the subsequent list to determine a surviving person who is able to apply for a grant. As noted in...

View the related News about Representation

All that glitters is not gold? Promotions for valuation and purchase of gold from consumers fall within the scope of the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (Guldbrev AB v Konsumentenombudsmannen)

EU Law analysis: The judgment contains a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice on the interpretation of the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC (the EU UCPD). The Court of Justice held that a valuation service for goods (here, gold) which is provided by a trader to a consumer before the purchase of those goods from that consumer and which makes the purchase subject to acceptance of the price determined by the trader during that valuation, qualifies, together with that purchase, as a ‘product’ under the EU UCPD. Consequently, practices directly connected with the promotion of that (combined) product to consumers come within the scope of the EU UCPD. This case confirms the broad scope of application of the EU UCPD in order to achieve a high level of consumer protection and is in line with previous Court of Justice case law on the applicability of the EU UCPD to combined offers of at least two products or services. Written by Florence Danis, partner at Linklaters LLP; Gert-Jan Hendrix,...

Speeches delivered at the CJC’s 13th National Forum

The Master of the Rolls (MR), Sir Geoffrey Vos, the Lady Chief Justice (LCJ),  Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill , Heidi Alexander MP and Director of Office for Access to Justice, US Department of Justice,  Rachel Rossi have each delivered speeches at the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) 13th National Forum on 29 November 2024, the theme of which was ‘access to justice—working together’.