Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court set aside the statutory demand of the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund (BMIF), which was premised on an interim payment on account of costs. The debtors (the Kings) were unsuccessful in many respects of their application. The statutory demand was set aside on the sole basis that they had commenced a cross claim for professional negligence against barristers who were (as regulation dictates they must be) insured by the BMIF. The BMIF was consequently able to, and had, taken control of all of the proceedings initiated by the Kings. The cross claim was not challenged on the basis of absence of a real prospect of success. Her Honour Judge Kelly therefore concluded that there was sufficient ‘mutuality’ between the parties at the intersection of the professional negligence proceedings and the interim payment order. Written by Samuel Parsons, barrister at Erskine Chambers.

Online provider of news and data on global high yield, distressed debt, leveraged finance and restructuring situations.

MLex: A UK accounting firm is the first to face prosecution for failure to prevent tax evasion, eight years after the offence was written into UK law. While the law may have changed some companies’ behavior, the case highlights questions over a lack of enforcement so far. But it could help to re-focus compliance efforts: ‘It’s a big moment. It will re-energise those conversations with corporates, Simon York, the former lead fraud prosecutor at the UK tax authority told MLex.

Decanting or moving people and equipment in or out of existing premises and into new or the refurbished premises. Decant is a particular issue on school or social housing projects where strict timetables will need to be met.

Heat produced by the decay of radioactive materials in a reactor that has been shut down.

The process of allowing material containing short lived radionuclides to decay so that the final waste is easier to dispose of as radioactive waste, or until the point where the waste becomes exempt from specific regulatory requirements.

The decrease in the radioactive nature of any material with the passage of time. This is due to the spontaneous emission from the atomic nuclei of either alpha or beta particles and is often accompanied by radiation'>gamma radiation.

This Practice Note considers: • the standard of proof required for a deceit claim • how to plead a deceit claim, including the questions to ask of the claimant when considering bringing such a claim • pleading joint liability for deceit • the difference between a claim in deceit and a claim for misrepresentation and why you may choose one cause of action over the other • whether you can plead the costs of a previous failed action as damages for deceit • the use of deceit claims in civil fraud actions For guidance on the necessary elements to found a claim for deceit, see Practice Note: The tort of deceit—required elements. Deceit claim—standard of proof required The burden of proof in a deceit claim lies on the claimant. The standard of proof in a claim in deceit is the civil standard, ie the balance of probabilities—meaning that a court is satisfied an event occurred if the court considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the event was more likely than

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court has considered the distinctions between pleading a claim in deceit and one of misrepresentation under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 (MA 1967). The judgment highlights the importance of ensuring that you adequately plead and evidence these distinct claims from the outset.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court has addressed an apparently undecided question—when does time begin to run where a claimant is induced by fraudulent misrepresentation to enter into a purely personal, unsecured guarantee? Applying Law Society v Sephton and principles developed primarily in professional-negligence cases, the court held that the assumption of the contingent liability on the facts did not, without more, constitute damage. The claimant’s proposed cause of action in deceit accrued only when the demand was made under the guarantee. The claim was therefore within the six-year time limit under section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980). As the defendants had no reasonably arguable limitation defence, CPR 17.4 did not apply and the amendment could be permitted under CPR 17.1(2). This decision indicates that, absent additional measurable loss, execution of a purely personal, unsecured guarantee alone will not start time running.

This is insurance taken out by contractors that covers costs in the event of a building collapsing (partially or totally) or discovery of latent/structural defects that compromise the building’s safety or stability. The name derives from the fact that it covers the ten year period after completion of the project.

For the purposes of the offence of obtaining property by deception under the Theft Act 1968, s 15, 'deception' means any deception, whether deliberate or reckless, by words or conduct as to fact or law, including a deception as to the present intentions of the person using the deception or any other person.