Type of covenant which is tested on a regular basis; contrasts with an incurrence covenant where compliance is only tested when the borrower wishes to take a specific action, such as incurring additional debt.

This typically refers to financial covenants which are tested on a regular basis; maintenance covenants can be contrasted with incurrence covenants where compliance is only tested when the borrower wishes to take a specific action.

Those expenses incurred by the life company in maintaining all of its in force policies. The total expenses of the life company are divided up in either acquisition or maintenance expenses.

Highways not maintainable There are some, but very few, highways for which nobody has any liability for maintenance. This would occur in the rare circumstance where a highway was dedicated by a landowner, but never adopted nor the maintenance responsibilities specified. In that scenario, it is a common misconception that the constructor or dedicator of a highway will become the person who is liable for its maintenance and repair. This is incorrect. If a way dedicated as a highway, and if not adopted, then it will be maintainable by no one as there is no obligation on the dedicator to maintain/repair it. All other highways are maintainable either at the public expense, by a private firm or by one or more private individuals who (in most cases) turn out to be frontagers or owners of the subsoil. Highways privately maintainable The most common form of privately maintainable highway is one that has been recently built under section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 (HiA 1980) agreement. Until a new adopted highway has been open

A periodical payments/maintenance order made for a limited period of time on an interim basis.

The period following completion'>practical completion during which the contractor is required to return to site to make good any defects which arise or which are discovered during that period. It is similar to 'rectification period' or 'defects liability period', but where the term 'maintenance period' is used it will typically be that the contractor is required to carry out maintenance or repairs even if they are not due to any defects in the work (for example, due to wear and tear).

This Practice Note sets out the court’s powers to make a periodical payments order (maintenance provision) for a child under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989), including details of what orders may be made and who may apply. It also considers interim orders, jurisdiction and the matters to which the court will have regard. The court can make orders for child maintenance in matrimonial or civil partnership proceedings. It also has the power to make periodical payments orders under ChA 1989, Sch 1. The majority of applications under this provision involve parties who have not married or entered into a civil partnership, particularly where the paying party has significant financial resources. The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) has near-exclusive jurisdiction to deal with child maintenance. However, the court will have jurisdiction to make a periodical payment order in a series of defined situations (see: Jurisdiction). See Practice Notes: Statutory child support scheme and Child support—respective jurisdictions of the Child Maintenance Service and the court. The

Speculation or gambling.

Law360, London: A group of major banks accused the Court of Appeal on 1 April 2025 of circumventing Britain's specialist competition tribunal when it allowed a £2.7bn foreign exchange claim to go ahead against them as an opt-out class action.

The claimant was crossing the road when a patrol car on an emergency call came through a red light and collided with her. Although she put herself in danger by crossing when she did, she had not suddenly run into the car’s path. The judge at first instance had erred in finding that she should take the major part of the blame.

Public Law analysis: This is the first High Court judgment to interpret the new provisions in the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (IMA 2023) which purport to alter the approach to be taken by the court when applying the Hardial Singh principles. The court determined that the new legislation now requires it to merely review the decision-making of the Home Secretary. That marks a major shift from the previously accepted position that the court would make its own decision regarding whether or not detention was in compliance with the Hardial Singh principles. The court also determined that there was no obligation for the defendant’s Adults at Risk policy to contain specific guidance about the actions which should be taken to care for detainees who are HIV positive. Written by Alex Schymyck, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.

Law360: An aircraft lessor has brought a £472m claim against dozens of major insurers over planes stranded since the invasion of Ukraine, following a landmark London court ruling that blocked attempts to move similar cases to Russia.