Case studies

"LexisLibrary gives us the most relevant and recent cases and always has the latest information on them. It makes research so much easier. We're more cost-effective for our clients and more efficient each day"

Advocates

Access all 36 documents on AC

GET ACCESS NOW

GLOSSARY

AC definition

Published by a LexisNexis Energy expert

What does AC mean?

access controller

Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

E&W Brussels I (recast)—the harmful event for specific tort and delict claims (art 7(2)) [Archived]

E&W Brussels I (recast)—the harmful event for specific tort and delict claims (art 7(2)) [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the requirement for a harmful event to enable a court to have special jurisdiction under Article 7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). It then considers what is a harmful event when considering specific types of claims: economic loss, damaged or defective goods, personal injury claims, intellectual property claims, actions for inducing breach of contract as well as other types of claims. For guidance on the general principles that apply when dealing with tort and delict claims under the regulation, see Practice Note: E&W Brussels I (recast)—tort and delict claims (art 7(2)) [Archived]. For guidance when dealing with contract claims under the regulation, see Practice Note: E&W Brussels I (recast)—contract claims (art 7(1)) [Archived]. Impact of UK’s departure from the EU Following exit day (ie 31 January 2020), the UK became a third state in respect...

US Section 1782 discovery for use in foreign proceedings—illustrative decisions

US Section 1782 discovery for use in foreign proceedings—illustrative decisions This Practice Note contains illustration decisions as to the application of Section 1782(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code (28 USC § 1782) (Section 1782). The section empowers US federal district courts to compel discovery of documents, testimony (including depositions) or other evidence for use in (or in aid of) proceedings before 'a foreign or international tribunal’. The leading case in this area, is the House of Lords decision in South Carolina Insurance Co v Assurantie Maatschappij de Zeven Provincien NV, which is explored in detail in Practice Note: US Section 1782 discovery for use in foreign proceedings—principles and making an application, specifically, main section Application to restrain enforcement of a Section 1782 order in England. Note: All references to US and other foreign case law in this Practice Note are not reported by LexisNexis®. For guidance on making an application and the statutory requirements and discretionary factors the court will apply, see Practice Note: US Section...

Discover our 13 Practice Notes on AC

Claimant witness statement on quantum

Claimant witness statement on quantum Filed on behalf of the claimant Witness Statement of [insert initial and surname of witness] Number of witness statement: [insert number of witness statement in relation to the witness] Exhibit details: [insert initials and number of each exhibit referred to] Date on which statement was made: [insert date] [Date of translation: [insert date]] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [[SPECIFY DIVISION]] [[INSERT LOCATION] DISTRICT REGISTRY] Claim No. [insert number] Parties A Claimant and B Defendant ________________________________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [INSERT FULL NAME] ________________________________ I, [insert full name], of [insert full address and occupation] make oath and say as follows: 1 The facts and matters set out in this witness statement are within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated, and I believe them to be true. 2 [I drafted this witness statement myself and these are my own words. OR This witness statement was prepared on my behalf by [insert name and/or role of person who drafted the document] following discussions ...

Planning and development overage—permission for additional units obtained or implemented

The ScheduleOverage–ascertainment and payment 1 Definitions In this Schedule the following definitions apply: Additional Residential Unit any Residential Unit on the Property in excess of [insert threshold number of units] and Additional Residential Units shall have a corresponding meaning; Index HM Land Registry’s House Price Index under the ‘[House price index OR Average price OR Property type]’ report type for [insert location specifying region, county and borough as required]; Overage a sum in...

Dive into our 2 Precedents related to AC

Pensions and limitation—High Court Allows Appeal in Philips v National Grid

Pensions analysis: In Philips v National Grid, the High Court (Mr Justice Lavender) allowed an appeal against a decision of the County Court giving summary judgment for the defendant on the basis that the claimant’s claims were out of time. The claimant brought claims in June 2022 for negligence and breach of contract in respect of the defendant’s failure to provide him with an ill-health pension following his dismissal in August 2002 ‘on the grounds of capability due to ill health’, and a continuing failure to obtain a proper medical opinion as to the claimant’s ability to work. The High Court considered that it was arguable that the defendant had a duty to obtain a fresh medical opinion within a reasonable time after a request made by the claimant in 2009. This decision will be of interest to pensions practitioners, but it will also be of interest to those who advise on limitation issues and the potential impact of a continuing breach of duty on time limits. Written by Elizabeth...

First-tier tribunal misdirection on ‘commercial context’ of a contract (Morgan Lloyd Trustees Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners)

Pensions analysis: The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) erred when it misunderstood what was meant by the ‘commercial context’ of certain contracts under which employers had transferred assets to their small self-administered pension schemes, that HMRC had assessed as unauthorised employer payments, and which had given rise to unauthorised payment charges and surcharges. HMRC had assessed the appellant to scheme sanction charges. The time limit for making an application under section 268 of the Finance Act 2004 (FA 2004) to be discharged from a scheme sanction charge ran from the end of the accounting period in which the liability to the charge arose, not from the end of the year of assessment in which the assessment had been made. The FTT made no error of law in finding that the appellant did not reasonably believe that certain unauthorised payments were not scheme chargeable payments and there was no basis to interfere with its decision that it would be just and reasonable for the scheme administrator to be liable to the scheme sanction...

Read the latest 21 News articles on AC