Joint liability arises where two or more persons jointly promise to do the same thing.

Parties who are jointly liable share a single liability and each party can be held liable for the whole of it.

Protection contracts can be established on the basis of more than a single life. Joint life policies can be written on the basis of either the first of the two to die (often linked to covering a mortgage) or the last of the two to die (often used for IHT planning purposes).

An order of the court providing for ongoing maintenance (periodical payments) which will continue until either the paying party or the receiving party dies, or in the event of the remarriage or formation of a subsequent civil partnership of the receipent.

This Practice Note examines the nature of joint names insurance, the distinction between joint and composite insurance and its impact on construction insurance contracts generally. A common requirement of construction contracts is to execute insurance in joint names. This means the interests of the various parties are covered under a single policy. Under the heading of joint names insurance we will refer to: • joint insurance, and • composite insurance (often referred to as co-insurance) Joint insurance—definition Insurance which under a single policy covers the identical interests of two or more parties in the subject-matter of the insurance, for example, spouses' interests in a marital home. A breach by one party of the policy conditions for example by fraud, non-disclosure, breach of condition or breach of warranty, may affect the rights of the other insured. In joint insurance, the respective insureds’ rights stand and fall together. That is to say, they have undivided interests in the subject-matter. If the policy is truly joint in that the interest on the part of one or

All insolvency processes allow for the joint appointment of office-holders if required. Whether it is appropriate or not to have more than one office-holder will depend on the circumstances. For example, in a particularly large and complex administration or administrative receivership it is likely that there will be more than one appointee. This is usually for practical reasons, to enable there to be more than one signatory available when required and to divide specific tasks and responsibilities, more particularly when trading a company which can take significant manpower and can be logistically difficult to manage. While there will usually be two or more office-holders from the same firm working together on a case this won't necessarily always be the case. If there is a serious conflict the creditor vote will usually take precedence. However, if there is some moderate difference of opinion, for example if there is equal support for two different but well respected office-holders they may agree to take the appointment together. In the case of Re Angel Group Ltd, four joint liquidators

The principal forum for the battle of wills between the operator and the non-operating parties is the operating committee (OpCom) (at least where a joint operating agreement (JOA) includes the concept of an OpCom—not all do). This Practice Note presumes that one of the parties to the concession and the JOA has been appointed to act as the operator (rather than that a contracted third party operator has been appointed, although the principles in this paper apply equally in respect of an incorporated operator entity) and that the JOA makes provision for the constitution of an operating committee (OpCom) to represent the interests of the non-operating parties. For more information on joint operating agreements generally, see Practice note: The purpose and the principles of the joint operating agreement. The operator's perspective At the highest level, the role of the operator is to exercise its rights and to perform its obligations under the JOA so as to manage the performance of the joint operations on behalf of all parties, and in doing so to ensure compliance

The joint operating agreement (JOA) has a number of key commercial provisions. Scope The scope of the JOA is, generally speaking, to establish the respective rights and obligations of the parties with regard to operations and activities under the JOA including the joint exploration, appraisal, development, production and disposition of petroleum products from and decommissioning of the area of joint operations. The scope of the JOA will be determined through a list of identified activities which will constitute the joint operations and a list of activities which are specifically removed from the definition of joint operations, as ‘excluded activities’. Joint operations might be described as those activities necessary to exercise the rights and perform the obligations which result from the concession. Alternatively, the JOA could apply a more technical definition of what constitutes joint operations, derived by reference to the distinct operational elements of a typical petroleum project (exploration, appraisal, pre-development, development, production, disposal and decommissioning). Over the lifetime of a concession these various operational activities could occur at varying stages and the

Natural Resource Wales (NRW) has reported that it plans to join forces with Denbighshire County Council, North Wales Police and Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) for a day of action in Rhyl to target waste carriers who are operating without a permit or licence and criminals who use the roads to commit waste offences. Any suspect vehicles will be stopped with the aim of finding out if there is any waste on board the vehicle and where it is due to end up.

Joint ownership describes a situation where two or more persons hold rights in the same asset at the same time, most commonly land, but also shares, bank accounts and other property. It is a descriptive term rather than a single statutory concept, and its legal effects vary by jurisdiction and by form of co‑ownership.In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, co‑owners of land may hold as joint tenants (with equal, undivided shares and a right of survivorship) or as tenants in common (with distinct, usually quantifiable, shares and no survivorship). Similar distinctions apply in Ireland. These concepts are primarily shaped by common law and equity, and by legislation such as the Law of Property Act 1925 (England and Wales) and equivalent statutes.In Scotland, “joint ownership” is often used informally to describe common property, including joint ownership of heritable property, but Scots property law uses different technical structures (such as pro indiviso ownership).Practically, joint ownership is central to conveyancing, succession planning, family and cohabitation disputes, insolvency and secured lending, determining who can sell, mortgage or be pursued for debts, and what happens on death or relationship breakdown.

When parties collaborate on creative projects or research and development, complex questions arise about the ownership of any resulting IP. Joint ownership of IP may seem like a straightforward and fair solution where parties have worked together and cannot distinguish the output of their respective efforts. However, where parties fail to give careful consideration as to how their jointly created IP will be owned, organised and exploited, there are legal pitfalls, practical difficulties and obstacles to full commercialisation of the IP. In the vast majority of cases, it is preferable for parties to enter into an express agreement on joint ownership of IP rather than relying upon the default legal position. This Practice Note provides an overview of the law on joint ownership of IP (also known as co-ownership, used interchangeably in this Practice Note): • Implied joint ownership—basic principles • Implied joint ownership—risks and obstacles • Joint ownership agreements—key considerations • Alternatives to joint ownership of IP • Summary—joint ownership checklist A working knowledge of IP law is assumed. For background

Property analysis: In this case the court considered a claim by a co-owner (CR) who paid for a property which was conveyed into joint names at law with no declaration of trust on the TR1. CR’s application was for a declaration that he was solely beneficially entitled to the property with the other co-owner (SB) having a mere life interest, with remainder to CR’s daughter. He also pleaded a claim for occupation rent of £371,000. Written by Simon Lillington LLM MCIArb, barrister, mediator, family arbitrator at 3 Paper Buildings, Temple, London, who acted for the defendant in this case.