GLOSSARY

Final hearing definition

Produced in partnership with Keith Puttick of Staffordshire University

What does Final hearing mean?

Where the parties to financial proceedings are unable to reach an agreement, and all other steps have been taken, the application will be listed for a final hearing for the court to determine the application.

View the related practice notes about Final hearing

Fixed costs in road traffic accident claims

Fixed costs in road traffic accident claims NOTE: The Pre-Action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims Below the Small Claims Limit in Road Traffic Accidents applies to accidents which occurred on or after 31 May 2021. The small claims track limit for personal injury claims arising from a road traffic accident has been increased to £5,000 in respect of general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity (subject to exceptions set out in CPR 26.6A and CPR 26.6B). For further details see: The RTA small claims protocol—key features checklist. Fixed costs under the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents The Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents (the RTA protocol) applies to road traffic accident (RTA) claims: • where the claim includes damages in respect of personal injury; and • where the small claims track would not be the normal track and damages are valued at no more than £25,000 where the accident occurred on or after 31 July 2013 or £10,000 where the accident occurred on or after 30 April 2010 and before 31 July 2013, and • where the accident occurred in England or Wales Fixed costs under Section III of CPR 45 (CPR 45.16 to CPR 45.29) The only costs allowed are: • fixed costs; and • prescribed disbursements • if the case settles after the Court Proceedings Pack has been sent

US bankruptcy financing—debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing

US bankruptcy financing—debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing DIP financing generally Debtor-in-possession financing (DIP financing) is new, post-petition financing provided to a debtor in a bankruptcy case. The financing may be secured or unsecured, although generally the term DIP financing is used to refer to a sizable, secured loan that funds a debtor’s obligations during its chapter 11 case. Secured DIP financing may rank above the payment rights of existing secured lenders. Statutory authority for DIP financing is found in the US Bankruptcy Code, s 364. The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (Bankruptcy Rules) also contains rules concerning DIP financing (see Rules 4001 and 6003) and many venues have local rules promulgated by the relevant bankruptcy court concerning the provision of DIP financing. The need for DIP financing DIP financing may be used by any company seeking to restructure or liquidate its business through a bankruptcy filing that cannot meet its business needs from: • cash on hand and/or • cash from operations A debtor may need financing to: • fund its cash needs, including the costs of the bankruptcy proceedings • stabilise its business, or • provide comfort/confidence to trade vendors and customers to continue to do business A debtor may use DIP financing as a bridge to: • a sale of the business under Section 363 (see Practice Note: US Prepacks and US Bankruptcy Code, s 363 asset sales), or • confirmation of a chapter 11 plan (see Practice Note:

Discover our 196 Practice Notes on Final hearing

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

View the related precedents about Final hearing

Case management directions

Case management directions Standard case management directions 1 The Claimant to provide the Respondent with a schedule of loss by 4.00pm on [insert date] [together with any documents relevant to mitigation of loss and any documents which evidence the sums set out in the schedule]. 2 [A list of issues to be agreed on or before 4.00pm on [insert date]. OR The Claimant to send a draft list of issues to the Respondent on or before 4.00pm on [insert date] and the Respondent to provide any amendments on or before 4.00pm on [insert date].] 3 The Respondent to serve a counter-schedule of loss on or before 4.00pm on [insert date] setting out which aspects of the schedule of loss are disputed and why and any alternative figures and calculations contended for. The Claimant to update the schedule of loss two weeks before the substantive hearing. 4 Mutual disclosure of documents by exchange of lists on or before 4.00pm on [insert date], copies of documents to be requested on or before 4.00pm on [insert date] and provided on or before 4.00pm on [insert date]. 5 [The parties to agree an index for the hearing bundle on or before 4.00pm on [insert date] and the Respondent to prepare bundles on or before 4.00pm on [insert date] and provide a copy to the Claimant. OR The Respondent to send a draft index for the

Letter to client enclosing order made at FDR and explaining final hearing preparation

Letter to client enclosing order made at FDR and explaining final hearing preparation Dear [insert client name] Finances I enclose a copy of the order made by [insert name of judge] at the financial dispute resolution (FDR) appointment on [insert date] at the [insert name of court]. The order provides that: • [your case has been listed for a pre-trial review on [insert date] at [insert time] at [insert name of court]] • your case has been listed for a final hearing on [insert date] at [insert time] at [insert name of court], with a time estimate of [insert number] days. You must ensure that you are available to attend court, including for the purposes of giving oral evidence and I would be grateful if you could confirm that you will attend court for the duration of the final hearing • both you and your [former] [husband OR wife OR civil partner] must file and serve your ‘section 25’ narrative statements by [insert date] (see below) • both you and your [former ] [husband OR wife OR civil partner] must file and serve updating financial disclosure by [insert date] • [add any other directions from the FDR order] Section 25 statement I will prepare the first draft of your narrative statement. This will cover key issues in relation to your case, with reference to the factors set out in section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973,

Dive into our 36 Precedents related to Final hearing

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

View the related q&as about Final hearing

What is the procedure in the small claims court for relying on a statement made otherwise than by a person giving oral evidence?

What is the procedure in the small claims court for relying on a statement made otherwise than by a person giving oral evidence? Small claims track—case management Claims on the small claims track are known as small claims and are governed by CPR 27 and CPR PD 27. Parties on the small claims track often act in person (known as litigants in person) and so the case management provisions have been focused and designed to make the resolution'>dispute resolution process as quick, cheap and straightforward as possible. For further guidance on case management in relation to litigants in person, see Practice Note: Litigants in person—case management and relief from sanctions. The court has a very wide discretion as to the conduct of the proceedings. It is important to be aware that: • many parts of the CPR do not apply to small claims eg CPR 33, which includes provisions on dealing with hearsay evidence which might otherwise apply in these circumstances—see CPR 27.2 for a full list • recoverable costs are very limited The court can adopt any procedure it believes to be fair and appropriate to the dispute. Generally, the strict evidence rules don't apply, evidence does not need to be on oath and the court can limit cross-examination (CPR

If a party seeks an injunction regarding interference with a right of way, but does not consider an interim injunction necessary, preferring instead simply to apply for a perpetual injunction at a final hearing, how should such a claim be issued (eg Part 7, Part 8 etc) and what other forms, if any, are required?

If a party seeks an injunction regarding interference with a right of way, but does not consider an interim injunction necessary, preferring instead simply to apply for a perpetual injunction at a final hearing, how should such a claim be issued (eg Part 7, Part 8 etc) and what other forms, if any, are required? There is no special form applicable to a claim which includes a claim for final injunctive relief. The usual considerations on choosing the appropriate type of claim form set out in CPR 8.1 apply. The key consideration is likely to be whether the court will need to resolve a substantial dispute of fact in order to determine the claim. Using the Part 8 procedure can be tempting as it seems simpler, but it often only leads to increased costs and delay where Part 7 is more appropriate. In all but the simplest cases there will be a lot of scope for factual disputes where a right of way is being interfered with, not least because the grant of an injunction is a discretionary remedy and the court will need to give some consideration to reasonableness and proportionality in concluding whether to grant an

See the 43 Q&As about Final hearing

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

View the related News about Final hearing

New Practice Direction and Presidential Guidance on the use of witness statements in Scottish employment tribunals

Employment analysis: The President of the Employment Tribunals (Scotland), Susan Walker, has issued a new Practice Direction and Presidential Guidance in connection with the use of witness statements in employment tribunal cases to be heard in Scotland. The Practice Direction applies to all hearings scheduled to take place on or after 1 October 2022.

Practical and procedural difficulties of mass traveller injunctions (Thurrock Council v Stokes)

Planning analysis: In Thurrock Council v Stokes, Mr Justice Nicklin refused to grant Thurrock Council (‘Thurrock’) final injunctions imposing a borough-wide prohibition on forming encampments and/or fly tipping against 51 named defendants. The injunctions were sought under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) to restrain breaches of planning control. The case is the third by Nicklin J dealing with so-called ‘traveller injunctions’ sought by local authorities. The decision will be of particular interest to any party seeking an injunction against a large number of defendants and reaffirms the necessity of providing solid evidence demonstrating the injunction sought is both necessary and proportionate. Further, the case is of broader relevance in showing the court’s reticence to the use of Part 8 proceedings against multiple defendants as well as showing courts will have little sympathy for procedural and evidential deficiencies caused by claimants under-resourcing claims. Written by Christopher Moss, pupil barrister at 39 Essex Chambers, and reviewed by Daniel Kozelko, barrister at 39 Essex Chambers.

Read the latest 299 News articles on Final hearing

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

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.