This Practice Note covers the following aspects of an office-holder’s liability for adverse costs in litigation: • the general position if an office-holder is a claimant or a defendant in litigation • the office-holder’s right of recoupment from the insolvent estate • the costs consequences on discontinuance of a claim • the priority of any adverse costs order • the personal liability of office-holders for adverse costs • security for costs The general position if an office-holder is a claimant or defendant in litigation If an office-holder commences proceedings in their own name, they do so at their own risk as to costs. If a costs order is made against them, they will be personally liable and they cannot limit that liability to the amount of available assets in the insolvent estate (Re Wilson Lovatt & Sons). They will however, unless the court orders otherwise, have a right to recoup the amount of such an adverse costs order from the insolvent

We have assumed that: • the distribution to the beneficiaries is within the scope of section 731 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (ITA 2007) • the income of the offshore company and the trust does not constitute ‘protected foreign source income’ within the meaning of ITA 2007, ss 721A and 729A • the settlor is not taxable on the distribution to the

It has been assumed that the trust in question is a non-UK resident (offshore) discretionary trust. We have not considered any UK tax consequences for the offshore trust in making the loans (eg tainting). We have assumed the beneficiary is not also the settlor of the trust, that the beneficiary is both UK resident and domiciled and that the trust property is all excluded property within the meaning of section 48(3) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984). The deductibility of the deceased’s liabilities for inheritance tax (IHT) purposes will depend on a number of factors and circumstances, including whether the loans were created to artificially reduce the value of the estate and whether the debt will actually be repaid on the beneficiary/borrower’s death. IHTA 1984, ss 162–162C

Does Landowner B have to serve a paragraph 20 notice? In the event that Landowner B needs the operator’s equipment to be physically moved from its location on Landowner A’s site, failing which it would create an obstacle to the development or would suffer physical damage as a result of the development, Landowner B will need to serve a paragraph 20 notice for alteration (ie removal or relocation) of the operator’s equipment. This is on the basis that paragraph 20 also covers persons with an interest in adjacent land who wish to redevelop ('improvement' includes redevelop for the purposes of the Code (Telecommunications Act 1984, Sch 2). In

Was the break option effective? If the full year’s rent paid prior to the break date was paid in accordance with the terms and obligations of the lease, ie the monies fell due prior to the termination of the lease, then this is very unlikely to give rise to an implication that the landlord, in accepting those monies: • recognised any right of occupation of the tenant beyond the break date under a new 1954 Act protected periodic tenancy or • had reached an agreement with

Schedule 2 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 sets out the formalities for the execution of a statutory Will and provides that, once authorised by an order of the Court of Protection, the statutory Will must be executed and then sealed with the seal of the Court of Protection. A failure to

Section 29(4) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) provides that ‘[a]ny periodical payments order in favour of a child shall, notwithstanding anything in the order, cease to have effect on the death of the person liable to make payments under the order, except in relation to any arrears due under the

The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) provides the

Charging orders may be enforced by an order for sale of the charged property, following the process in CPR 73.10C and CPR PD 73 (paras 4.1–4.5). Appendix A to CPR PD 73 sets out standard forms of order for sale, although these are not prescribed and may be adapted by the court. The standard order for sale requires the defendant to deliver possession of the property to the claimant by a certain date. A possession order can be enforced by a warrant of possession,

It is unfortunately a regular occurrence that where an order for sale of the former matrimonial home is made in financial remedy proceedings, one party will seek to frustrate that sale by insisting on an appropriate sale price, or failing to allow viewings, or refusing to sign the necessary documents. This may lead the other spouse to be forced to make an application to court for a penal notice, conduct of the sale, or for the court to sign the necessary documentation. Unfortunately, this can lead to a delay, and can result in the mortgagee taking steps to enforce the mortgage where it has gone into arrears

The first consideration must be the precise terms of the clean break order made. While the actual dismissal of claims contained in the operative part of the order will relate to orders capable of being made in the context of financial remedy proceedings, there will usually have been an introductory recital containing an all-embracing clean break (for example, the introductory recital at paragraph 24 of order 2.1 in the standard compendium of orders, see Precedent: Standard order 2.1—financial remedy order). If such a recital is present, it is capable of being used as part of a defence by the defendant in any civil proceedings brought in the County Court. If there is no such recital although

An order made within financial remedy proceedings between divorcing spouses may make provision for periodical payments to be paid by one party to another in a specified amount and for a period or on a joint lives basis, or subject to the occurring of certain triggers. By section 23 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973), the court may order that a party pay to the other party periodical payments