Section 8 of the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (CAP Code) addresses promotional marketing and several rules within that section acknowledge the possibility that prize promotions can be affected by unexpected events that are outside of the promoter's control. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) stated that in order for an event to be outside of the promoter's control, 'promoters must be able to demonstrate that the unexpected situation made it necessary to rethink elements of the promotion, and that where this was the case, this was done in line with the

The Gambling Act 2005 (GA 2005) defines two types of lottery: simple and complex. A simple lottery is where entrants are required to pay to participate, one or more prizes are allocated to the participants in the scheme, and prizes are allocated wholly by chance. A complex lottery is one where entrants are required to pay to participate, one or more prizes are allocated to the participants

The costs regime in the Children Act 1989 cases disapplies the ordinary principle contained within the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), SI 1998/3132 that costs follow the event by virtue of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 28.2(1). While the rule applies CPR 44 to such proceedings, CPR 44.2(2)–(3) (previously 44.3) are disapplied. As a result, notwithstanding the suggestion in Gojkovic v Gojkovic (No 2) that the general rule is still likely to be the starting point but is more readily displaced, the Family Courts are more reluctant to make costs orders. In Re T (a child) (order for costs), the Court of Appeal suggested that in some cases involving children, costs awards are exceptional as the court is anxious to avoid the feeling of punishment, reducing co-operation and impinging on welfare. The conduct of

Is permission required from the court in order to lodge evidence before the first hearing dispute resolution appointment (FHDRA) in the absence of directions to do so? The rules in respect of private law proceedings relating to children are largely contained in Part 12 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, SI 2010/2955 (FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 12) and the accompanying FPR 2010, PD 12B, the Child Arrangements Programme (CAP). The documentation to be filed and served in relation to an application for a child arrangements order is strictly controlled to try and avoid matters becoming inflamed by comments and allegations in forms, statements and reports before the parties have had an opportunity to resolve matters amicably by negotiation. Certain documents are required by the rules to be filed and served and do not require

It is not unknown for a parent with care to ‘disappear’. This can be for good reason, for example, fleeing domestic violence or abuse. Therefore, care needs to be taken when seeking to establish a child’s whereabouts so as to not be accused of harassment or to risk allegations of continuing to perpetrate abuse. The legal route for identifying the whereabouts of a child is contained within section 33 of the Family Law Act 1986 (FLA 1986). This order is directed against any person whom the court ‘has reason to believe’ may have relevant

In Tchenguiz v Imerman, the Court of Appeal delivered a judgment that made clear a person enjoys legal protection in respect of their confidential and private documentation. The court confirmed that it would be a breach of confidence for one party, without the authority of the other, to examine, make, retain or supply copies to a third party of a document whose contents it should have appreciated would be confidential. Looking at documents which a party knows to be confidential is capable of constituting an actionable wrong (para [68]). They may be guilty of a criminal offence and be at risk of being sued in civil proceedings for breach of

The powers of the court are set out in sections 23–24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973). While those powers relate to the sale of land and the payment of lump sums, nothing expressly relates to ordering one or both parties to renovate a property. This is in contrast to the powers included in the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996), whereby the court’s powers extend to that which a trustee could do (and a trustee could carry out repairs). TOLATA 1996, s 14(2) states: ‘(2) On an application for an order under this section the court may make any

Parties to financial relief proceedings often make statements about third parties—for instance, the other party’s new partner, family members or business associates—either in: • Form E • their statements under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, or • other documents If those comments relate to matters which are relevant to the proceedings the third party can be joined to the proceedings under Family Procedure Rules 2010, SI 2010/2955, 9.26B, either at the invitation of the

The court may make a non-molestation order under section 42 of the Family Law Act 1996 prohibiting a person (the respondent) from molesting another person who is associated with the respondent or a relevant child. Applications for non-molestation orders are governed by the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, in particular FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 10 and the supporting practice direction FPR 2010, PD 10A. FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 10.6 provides that, subject to any order made under FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 6.35 or 6.36 (service by an alternative method or at an alternative place or dispensing with service),

A property transfer order is an order in personam, ie it is not an order in relation to the property itself but directs the spouse concerned to take specific action (see Hamlin v Hamlin and Tallack v Tallack and Broekema). As such, an enforcement action can lie against that spouse in England and Wales if they fail to take the steps they have been ordered to take. This might include, for example, using the procedure in section 39 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981) to enable the court to sign

In civil proceedings, where a party does not disclose evidence in line with a disclosure order by the court, this may be a breach of the party’s disclosure duties. Guidance on such a failure can be found in Practice Note: Determining parties’ disclosure duties, which considers (among other things): • whether a case will be struck out

The new disclosure pilot scheme came into force on 1 January 2019. It is contained in CPR PD 51U, and in effect replaces CPR 31. It applies (i) to existing and new proceedings; (ii) in the Business and Property Courts (B&PCs). For guidance on where the disclosure pilot scheme applies, see Practice Note: Disclosure scheme—when and where it applies. CPR PD 51U, para 5 provides for ‘initial disclosure’. In essence, when a party serves a statement of case (save in a Part 8 claim and a Part 7 claim without particulars of claim) it is required to provide a list with copies of: • the key documents on which it has relied