Scheme that does not require members to contribute to it.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court extended a passport order (an order requiring the passport to be held by the applicant’s solicitor) and an injunction restraining the respondent from leaving the jurisdiction for a period of up to 12 months despite the orders having already been in place for four years. The court considered the rights of the Respondent, that the law favours liberty, and that the longer the restrictions are in place the more exceptional the circumstances need to be. The conduct of a convicted fraudster who had not fully cooperated with a liquidator or with his Trustee in Bankruptcy, and where there was a risk that the respondent would abscond and not return, to the detriment of the insolvency process, provided those exceptional circumstances. However, it was the second application, brought by the Trustee, rather than the continued desire of the liquidator to obtain information from the respondent, which convinced the Court to make the order. Written by Mark Sands, head of insolvency at Apex Litigation Finance Ltd.

The statutory term for alternative methods of dispute resolution in family cases with effect from 22 April 2014.

This Practice Note sets out commonly used terms and their meaning in the non-court dispute resolution processes of family mediation, collaborative law and family arbitration. It includes an explanation of the relevant rules and forms to be used together with links to related resources. Mediation Term Description Agreement to mediate An agreement signed by the parties to the mediation and the mediator(s) setting out the parameters of the mediation. See Precedent: Agreement to mediate BFLS 6E [21004]. Co-mediation Mediation undertaken by two mediators—a common model is for one of the co-mediators to be a lawyer and the other a non-lawyer. Form FM5 (statement of position on non-court dispute resolution) A form that must be completed setting out the parties’ views on engaging with non-court dispute resolution. This form must be filed and served seven days before the first ‘on notice’ hearing and, if the court so directs, before any subsequent hearing in the proceedings. Intake session The first meeting between the mediator(s) and the parties, usually approximately 30 minutes long,

This document provides general guidance regarding alternatives to court in family law matters including the requirement to attend a mediation information and assessment meeting (MIAM) prior to the issue of certain family proceedings. Your family lawyer will be able to provide specific advice based on your circumstances. There are three main alternatives to court when you are trying to work things out after separation: • mediation • collaborative law • arbitration Mediation How does it work? In mediation a trained mediator speaks to you and your former partner separately at first, then aims to get everyone together to talk about what arrangements will be made for the future. It can be used to work out financial matters or children’s schedules and any other practical decisions that need to be addressed. It is a process that focuses very much on the future, rather than the past. Mediation is a voluntary, confidential process. In the meetings the mediator will guide you through discussions that help you both to explain what you want to happen and eventually to reach an agreement. If you don’t manage to agree everything,

This Practice Note covers the pre-application requirements set out in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955 and reflects the significant changes in effect in family proceedings from 29 April 2024 in relation to mediation information and assessment meetings (MIAMs) regarding, inter alia, the information that must be provided to the court on the issue of proceedings, gatekeeping, the court’s powers to adjourn for the parties to consider non-court dispute resolution, the format and content of a MIAM, exemption from attending a MIAM and costs, see: Changes from 29 April 2024. The pre-application requirement for attendance at a MIAM is set out in FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 3, supplemented by FPR 2010, PD 3A, which provide that before making an application in relevant family proceedings a person must attend a MIAM unless an exemption applies. The requirements initially came into force on 22 April 2014 and have been subsequently amended. The court has a duty to consider whether non-court dispute resolution is appropriate at every stage of the proceedings and

Preference shares where the right to a dividend does not accumulate until it is paid (if profits are insufficient in any year to pay the dividend). See cumulative preference shares.

As a general rule, an employer is not liable for the torts of his independent contractors. However, in certain exceptional circumstances the employer will be liable, if the employer's own duty is of an unusual type such that the actions of the independent contractor place the employer in breach of his own duty. Duties of this kind are known as non-delegable duties and they can be at common law or imposed by statute.

Personal Injury analysis: Nigel Poole QC, clinical negligence specialist and head of chambers at Kings Chambers, discusses the practical implications of the judgment in the Razumas case, concerning the nature of the non-delegable duty of care owed to prisoners in relation to healthcare and the application of section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (CJCA 2015) regarding ‘fundamental dishonesty’.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In a claim in by a patient against her dental practice where she had received negligent treatment over several years the court held, following trial of three preliminary issues, that the owner of the dental practice, the defendant, was liable to the claimant on the basis that: (1) a non-delegable duty of care was owed to the claimant; and (2) that the defendant was vicariously liable for the negligent actions of the associate dentists operating out of the practice. The court also considered limitation and found for the claimant on both the issue of ‘date of knowledge’ under sections 11 and 14 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) and would in any event have disapplied the limitation period pursuant to LA 1980, s 33. Written by Katie Ayres, barrister at 1 Chancery Lane Chambers.

Construction analysis: The court refused permission for a defendant engineer to amend its plea of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant contractor (who claimed that the engineer’s design was defective). The engineer sought to rely on the negligence of a sub-contractor in carrying out the works, arguing that the contractor was liable for those works as it owed a non-delegable duty to a neighbour to support its property—this failed as such a duty only arose between landowners. A claim that a non-delegable duty was owed because the works were exceptionally hazardous would also fail—the high threshold was not met. Further, even if the contractor owed a non-delegable duty, it would not mean it had been contributorily negligent—contributory negligence was about the contractor preventing harm to itself, not others.

Please click for a Word version of this