In proceedings subject to the disclosure pilot scheme under CPR PD 51U, the disclosure review document (DRD) sets out the list of issues for disclosure in the case, proposals for extended disclosure, and information about how documents are stored and how they might be searched and reviewed. Section 1A DRD, s 1A allows the parties to summarise their proposals in relation to extended disclosure by setting out the issues for disclosure and the proposed models for disclosure. This section of the DRD also contains a column for the decision of the court in respect of these matters. Section 1B DRD, s 1B only needs to be completed where Model C extended disclosure is requested (see CPR PD 51U, para 10.5). DRD, s 1B comprises

The solicitor cannot seek to be covered by the non-molestation order granted to their client, nor would they be entitled to apply themselves for a non-molestation order. A non-molestation order prohibits the respondent from molesting another person ‘who is associated with the respondent’. A person is ‘associated’ with another person for the purposes of the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996) if they fall into one of the categories listed in FLA 1996, s 62(3), for example if they are or have been married to that person, are relatives, or are cohabitants or former cohabitants. The applicant’s solicitor is highly unlikely to fall into one of these categories. If

There is no specific statutory regime for costs allowances under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989), as the power to make legal services payment orders under section 22ZA of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973), does not apply to such applications. There remains, however, a discretionary common law jurisdiction to make a costs allowance under the principles laid down in Currey v Currey (No 2). Such an allowance may be made by way of a periodical payments order or a lump sum order. It has been held that, while the order must be of benefit to the child, it may be for proceedings under ChA 1989

Form C100 is the form on which a party can make an application to the court for a child arrangements order, prohibited steps order or specific issue order under section 8 of the Children Act 1989. Form C1A is a supplementary form which accompanies Form C100 if the applicant is making allegations of domestic violence. The court procedure in relation to these forms is set out in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955 whereby it states at FPR 2010, PD 12B, paras 8.7 and 8.8 that: ‘…8.7 If possible at the time of issue, and in any event by no later than one working day after issue, or

In cases where there is concern as to the safety of any child or children, an order may be made that provides that contact be supervised whether by an agreed third party, a professional or through a contact centre, under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989). Under ChA 1989, s 11(7): ‘(7) A section 8 order may— (a) contain directions about how it is to be carried into effect; (b) impose conditions which must be complied with by any person— (i) who is named in the order as a person with whom the child concerned is to live, spend time or otherwise have contact; (ii) who is a parent of the child; (iii) who is not a parent of his but

By virtue of Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996), the court has the power to make a non-molestation order and/or an occupation order. The former ordinarily prohibits a person from using or threatening violence, damaging property and/or sending offensive messages, among other things, but can be drawn widely to include, for example, a zonal exclusion. Breach of the terms of a non-molestation order is a criminal offence. By an occupation order, the court can control the occupation of a property, and can attach a power of arrest to such an order. Such

The law relating to the recording of conversations between private individuals and the use of those recordings in court proceedings is a developing area. As a matter of first principles, there is no offence committed where an individual covertly records a conversation with another individual. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA 2000) applies to public bodies but not to individuals. Likewise, the Telecommunications(Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000, SI 2000/2699 apply to businesses in respect of the recording of conversations without notice to the person being recorded or in certain specified exceptional circumstances. In Jones v University of Warwick, an enquiry agent posed as a market researcher

‘Equitable accounting’ is a process whereby an adjustment is made in the ultimate division of the proceeds of sale of a property, following the ascertainment of the parties’ shares (Wilcox v Tait), to enable fairness to be done between them (Bernard v Josephs; Murphy v Gooch). It is a discretionary exercise. In so far as it relates to the concept of charging the party in occupation with an ‘occupation rent’ the discretion should be exercised in accordance with sections 12–15 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees

Proceedings under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 are dealt with under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), not the Family Procedure rules 2010, SI 2010/2955. CPR 32.10 provides that if a witness statement or a witness summary for use at trial is not served in respect of an intended witness within the time specified by the court, then the witness may not be called to give oral evidence unless the court gives permission. However the CPR allows the parties to agree a limited extension of time for serving a witness statement. CPR 3.8(3) and (4) provide

Claims brought for a remedy under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996) are brought using either the CPR Part 7 or CPR Part 8 procedure. Many practitioners will plead claims under CPR Part 7 where there is likely to be a significant dispute. The procedural difference between CPR Part 7 and CPR Part 8 claims is principally that the claimant may not obtain judgment on an admission (CPR 8.9(b)). See Practice Note: TOLATA 1996—when to use Part 7 and when to use Part 8. In the circumstances, whether proceedings have been commenced under CPR Part 7 or CPR Part 8, it

Under the provisions of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996), the court is able to make orders: • relating to the exercise by the trustees of any of their functions, including an order relieving them of any obligation to obtain the consent of or consult with any person in connection with the exercise of any of their functions, or • declaring the nature or extent of a person's

In commercial transactions it is frequently the case that an ‘entire agreement’ clause will be inserted into the contract with the purpose of seeking to exclude any liability in respect of matters arising outside of the terms of the contract. This will include representations that have been made with regard to the contract which are in fact inadvertent misrepresentations. An effective entire agreement clause therefore prevents the rescission of the contract or a claim for damages on the basis of a non-fraudulent misrepresentation. The standard contractual terms for commercial property sales include a clause of this type and such clauses are also standard in residential property sales. Similarly, exclusion