We do not have a Precedent to assign a County Court judgment on Lexis+® UK. However, see Precedent: Assignment agreement. Assignment of a judgment A judgment is a chose of action which can be assigned. See Practice Note: In what circumstances can you assign a claim or cause of action? There are two types of assignment which can be effective: legal and equitable. The former will result in the assignee becoming the sole owner of the judgment. The assignor will no longer have any interest in the judgment and will not be party to enforcement proceedings. See Practice Note: How do I assign a claim or cause of action? Any other assignments are equitable. In the context of judgments, the assignor under an equitable assignment will ordinarily be required to remain a party to the proceedings with the assignee being added

Remainders are either vested or contingent, according to whether they are or are not ready for the time being to take effect in possession in the event of the determination of all the preceding estates, whether by natural expiration or otherwise. The remainder may in fact determine before the preceding estates and thus never take effect in possession, but this does not prevent it from being vested. A contingent remainder is a remainder limited so as to depend on an event or condition which may never happen or be performed, or which may not happen or be performed until after the determination of the preceding estate. Contingent remainders are divisible into four classes: • where the remainder depends entirely on a contingent determination of the preceding estate itself • where the contingency is independent of the determination of the preceding estate • where the contingency is certain to happen, but may not happen until after the determination

It is assumed that the company was dissolved by way of the voluntary striking off procedure or the Registrar of Companies’ powers to strike off a company that appears to no longer be in operation under Part 31 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), and was not dissolved pursuant to the members' voluntary liquidation procedure or any insolvency process. The most effective and widely used mechanism for protecting overage is to: • obtain from the buyer a covenant that it will • make an overage payment to the seller if an overage trigger event occurs • not dispose of its legal or equitable interest in the land without requiring its disponee to covenant directly with the seller to observe and perform the overage obligations, and • protect that arrangement by entering a restriction (usually in HM Land Registry standard

The starting point is that the benefit of a contract can be assigned to a third party. To this there are a number of immediate exceptions: • first if there is a contract for personal services, then it cannot be assigned. If A contracts to provide services to B, then the benefit of that contract cannot be assigned to C such that A becomes obliged to provide them to C: see, for example Nokes v Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd • secondly, if there is a covenant in a contract preventing assignment, then any attempt to do so is ineffective: see Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd where the House of Lords held that such a provision is effective thereby drawing a distinction between purely contractual rights and those in land where the common law has always been slow to countenance inalienability Choses in action can be assigned under the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925)

This Q&A assumes that the disqualification in this case was made by an undertaking given under section 1A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA 1986) and not by a court order under CDDA 1986, s 1. We are not aware of any authority in which a disqualification undertaking has been backdated in the circumstances you have set out. CDDA 1986 provides for directors who have been found guilty of misconduct to be disqualified from acting as a company director for a specified period. Usually, any application to set aside or vary the period of disqualification that has been made at a contested hearing or at a hearing which the defendant has attended should be by way of appeal. However, a disqualification order and/or the period of disqualification may, in certain limited circumstances, be set aside or

The proper parties to a claim against a trust to name as the defendant(s) are the trustees as individuals in their capacity as trustees. It is appropriate to describe them in that way in the heading to any proceedings. Service is effected on each individual trustee who has been named as a defendant

The scope of Part IV of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) (IA 1986, s 73) suggests that a section 212 action should apply to companies registered under the Companies Acts. However, the comments of Arden LJ in Base Metal Trading Ltd v Shamurin (para [67]), suggests that the provision could have a wider application. Where a company has operations in more than one jurisdiction, the directors of the company may need to consider the relevant insolvency laws and laws applicable to directors’ duties in each relevant jurisdiction. For example, certain jurisdictions have prescribed

Legislation Section 5(4) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994) prevents the registration of a trade mark where a successful action for passing off may be brought. Even if the mark is registered before the passing off action is brought, the mark may be declared invalid by the registrar or the court under TMA 1994, s 47(2)(b)). The elements of a claim for passing off are summarised in Practice Note: Introduction to passing off. Misrepresentation and confusion In a claim for passing off, an alleged infringer’s misrepresentation must deceive actual or potential customers, to the extent that those purchasers are confused as to the origin of the goods or services sold by the similarities between the proprietor’s and alleged infringer’s branding. The question here is, therefore, whether confusion, sufficient to bring

Companies House can provide certified copies for certificates of incorporation and other documents held on the register (other

Part 4 Class D of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, SI 1995/418 (SI 1995/418, Sch 2, Pt 4) permits a flexible change of use, so that a building falling within use class A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, D1 or D2 may be used for a use falling within either A1, A2, A3 or B1 for a period of two years. During this two-year period, the building can be used for any use within A1, A2, A3 or B1 use, and can be changed to another

Property which becomes subject to inheritance tax (IHT) on death is set against the combined total of the available transferable nil-rate band (TNRB) and the deceased’s own available basic nil-rate band. The relevant legislation does not permit any choice as to how to apply the TNRB, as contemplated by the question. For information on how the available TNRB is calculated

In Lemmon v Webb, the House of Lords held that there could be no prescriptive easement entitling a dominant owner to overhang the servient tenement with trees. In that case, Lord Herschell addressed the issue as follows: ‘The tree of to-day is not in the condition in which it was twenty years ago. It would be idle to suggest that the right