DR analysis: The Court of Appeal has had to consider the reach of its decision in the PPI case of Harrison, that a lender’s failure to disclose commission amounts to customers does not give rise to an ‘unfair relationship’ within the meaning of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974), where the relevant regulatory codes do not require such disclosure to be made. In the instant appeals, the court held: (i) that Harrison was binding on the narrow non-disclosure of commission point and that, if it extended any further, it was only to the extent that CCA 1974, ss 140A and 140B are not aimed at reopening a creditor-debtor relationship where there has been no legal or regulatory misconduct of any kind by anyone on the creditor's side of the transaction, thus Harrison is not authority for the proposition that the requisite misconduct must be that of the creditor, or even that for which the creditor is responsible; and (ii) a broad interpretation of ‘on behalf of’ in CCA 1974, s 140A(1)(c) is to be favoured. In so doing Lord Justices Briggs and Moses yet again bemoaned the consequences of the decision in Harrison on the non-disclosure of commission point, which, at least for the time being, and if forming the sole basis for the claim to unfairness, seems to favour the lenders over the consumers.

A court of law is a judicial body where legal disputes are heard and determined by judges (and, where applicable, juries) in accordance with established legal rules and procedure. Legal practitioners use the term broadly to cover all forums exercising judicial power, including first‑instance courts and appellate courts, whether civil, criminal, family, commercial or administrative.“Court of law” is a descriptive expression rather than a technical term defined in UK or Irish legislation, but it is widely used in statutes, case law and procedural rules to distinguish judicial bodies from administrative or purely arbitral forums.In England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, a court of law is characterised by: independence and impartiality of the judiciary; authority to interpret and apply the law; power to issue binding judgments, orders and remedies; and procedures guaranteeing a fair hearing. The term is commonly contrasted with tribunals, arbitration panels and other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, which may not exercise the full judicial authority of the state.In practice, identifying whether a body is a court of law affects rights of appeal, judicial review, enforcement of decisions and the application of open justice principles.

Commercial analysis: The claimant (Almacantar) had the benefit of a tax indemnity in respect of a potential stamp duty land tax (SDLT) liability. Almacantar and the defendant (RailPen) participated in many years of correspondence with HMRC to dispute the revenue’s determination that SDLT was payable. The court held that RailPen was not estopped from relying upon the contractual time limits and requirement to serve a notice of claim. There was no shared assumption between the parties that those time limits and/or notice requirements would not apply. This was an assumption on Almacantar’s part only. The case serves as a useful lesson that the English court will hold the parties to their bargain, particularly in the case of the contractual time limits and notice provisions in contracts between commercial parties. Succeeding on an estoppel argument will be an uphill battle, unless there is clear evidence of common assumption which is expressly shared between the parties, reliance and detriment on that assumption. Written by James Lancaster, managing associate at Trowers & Hamlins LLP.

A court order is a formal written direction by a court requiring a person to do, not do, or permit something, or determining rights, remedies, or procedural steps in a case. The term is descriptive rather than defined in a single statute; its form and effect are governed by rules of court (e.g., Civil Procedure Rules in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, Rules of the Court of Session and Sheriff Court Rules in Scotland, and the Irish Rules of the Superior/Circuit/District Courts).Typical orders include interim relief (injunctions/interdicts, freezing orders), case management directions, disclosure orders, stays/sists, peremptory orders, and final orders/judgments/decrees. Consent orders (including Tomlin orders in England and Wales) and undertakings are common. An order usually takes effect when pronounced and, once drawn up and sealed/perfected, must be served; time for compliance runs from pronouncement or service as stated.Non-compliance is enforceable and may amount to contempt of court, exposing a party to committal, fines, sequestration, or execution. Penal notices are used in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. Orders can be stayed/suspended, varied, set aside, or appealed.Terminology varies: in Scotland, the court’s decision is recorded in an interlocutor, with “decree” for final orders and enforcement after extract for diligence; in Ireland, an order/judgment is perfected by the court office (e.g., Central Office of the High Court) before enforcement.

Private Client analysis: In the unreported decision of In re the Estate of David Walter Peace (Decd), the High Court confirmed that, where all potential beneficiaries to a Will or intestacy are of age and have capacity, they are capable of waiving the forfeiture rule by agreement. Such an agreement is not unenforceable as contrary to public policy and will bind the deceased’s personal representatives who can rely on it in distributing the estate. Raghav Trivedi and Charles Towl of St Philips Chambers discuss the decision and its implications for Private Client practitioners.

ARCHIVED: This Precedent has been archived and is not maintained. This Precedent and associated drafting notes are for use in proceedings commenced in the courts of England and Wales at any time provided that the related proceedings in the EU Member State court were commenced on

ARCHIVED: This Precedent has been archived and is not maintained. This Precedent and associated drafting notes are for use in proceedings commenced in the courts of England and Wales at any time provided that the related proceedings in the EU Member State court were commenced on or before

No. [insert number] of [insert number] In the high court of justice BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST (ChD) Companies court In the matter of [insert company name] [LTD OR PLC] and In the matter of the companies act 2006 _______________________________________ Order _______________________________________ Claimant: [insert name] and Defendant: The Registrar of Companies

Local Government analysis: The claimant, HXN, by his mother and litigation friend brought a claim for judicial review against Redbridge to require that Redbridge comply with its statutory duty under section 42(2)–(6) of the Children and Families Act 2014 (CFA 2014) which placed a duty on Redbridge who maintained an Education Health and Care Plan (‘EHCP’) to ensure a child with special educational provision as specified in the EHCP. HXN is a child with autism who has severe leaning difficulties and whose needs were subject to a EHCP. Redbridge has sought to delegate the responsibility for ensuring that the requirements of HXN’s ECHP was delivered by HXN’s school via securing specialist applied behaviour analysis (ABA) which had failed. The court held that the statutory responsibility for securing special education specified in the ECHP rested with Redbridge, not the school, and made a mandatory order requiring Redbridge to provide this. Written by Tim Baldwin, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.

The Commercial Court ordered the appointment of an independent supervising solicitor to conduct the disclosure exercise on behalf of a defendant who had not taken part in proceedings for some time so that their disclosure obligations could be fulfilled. The order was also made against a respondent who, although not a party to the proceedings, held various documents which may be under the defendant’s control. In doing so the court considered whether it had jurisdiction to make this novel order. It also looked at issues of control, the quantity of documents to be the subject of the standard disclosure order and who the supervising solicitor should be. The court was keen to ensure that there should be no injustice and that the order should not be oppressive. This was particularly so where the respondent had no connection to the litigation.

The High Court has made a costs order on a partial indemnity basis due to the unjustifiable conduct of the claimants (the losing party) after a certain point in the litigation. Essentially the claimants had been told by the court that their case had been seriously undermined by their own expert and yet they still refused to accept an offer to settle at a level which they themselves had previously offered. The court emphasised that it is not just the court but also the parties that are bound by the overriding objective and litigants had to consider seriously the impact of costs in their decisions.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This decision considers an application by the claimants for the court to order the parties to mediate their dispute pursuant to the courts’ powers to do so in CPR 1.4(2)(e) and CPR 3.1(2)(o), following the leading Court of Appeal decision of Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council in which the Court of Appeal determined that courts have the power to order parties to engage in a non-court based dispute resolution process.