Section 25(2)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) provides that the court must have regard to, inter alia ‘…the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future’. No exception applies as to personal injury damages. The family courts also have jurisdiction to consider assets that are held in trust. See Practice Notes: • Factors considered by the court on financial provision • The assets of the parties • Introduction to trusts within financial proceedings In addition, the needs of the parties is

Arbitration analysis: The Hong Kong Court of First Instance refused to set aside a partial arbitral award for apparent bias where the presiding arbitrator had previously heard evidence from the same fact witness in an unrelated arbitration. Prior exposure to a witness does not itself establish apparent bias or necessarily require disclosure; the nature of any earlier findings and their relevance to the witness’s role in the later arbitration are material. The judgment emphasises that non-disclosure and apparent bias are distinct questions and that post-award relief requires evidence linking the prior involvement to a possible departure from impartial adjudication and potential prejudice. It also highlights the importance of precisely defining issues allocated between phases of bifurcated arbitral proceedings. Produced in partnership with Julien Chaisse of City University of Hong Kong.

Cause How much does it contribute to the problem? (0 = not at all, 10 = a lot) How easy is it

The ranking of security interests ie the order in which each of the secured creditors can claim on the secured property in an enforcement or insolvency scenario. A deed of priority or intercreditor deed can vary the priority a security interest enjoys by virtue of general law.

The priority date is the point from which a patent application is examined for novelty and inventive step. The priority date is usually the same as the application date, but it can be back-date up to one year before the application date.

Priority School Building Programme (PSBP) (which is the successor to the Building Schools for the Future programme) announced in December 2012. Under PSBP the private sector invests and participates in the design, construction and maintenance of implemented by the Education Funding Agency (EFA) who have been selected by the Department for Education (DfE) to implement PSBP.

This aims to address the needs of schools most in need of refurbishment/rebuilding, and replaced the Building Schools for the Future scheme.

A company that is a member of a loss relief group and has incurred any of the types of losses available for surrender by way of group relief (or group relief for carried-forward losses) may, without any further rules, have more than one way in which to use the loss. For example, it could either surrender the loss for group relief or use the loss against its own profits in the current or later accounting period. There are a number of rules, however, that restrict the company's choice by, for instance, prescribing which types of loss relief must be used first and against which types of profits those losses can be set. This Practice Note sets out the rules that apply when a company in a loss relief group has more than one way in which it could potentially make use of a particular loss, ie could either surrender the loss for group relief or use the loss against its own profits in the current or another period. It covers the rules (choices

In addition to ensuring its security has been validity created and perfected, a secured party will want to ensure its security ranks as it expects against any other competing security interests. Disputes as to priority arise less commonly than might be expected due to the use of deeds of priority and intercreditor agreements. However, these are only of use if the creditors are aware of each others' security interests and agree on whose interest should take priority. Where there is no contractual agreement, the general law as to priority will apply. For detailed information on contractual priority arrangements, see Practice Note: Contractual priority—varying the basic rules on priorities. This Practice Note examines the rules which determine the priority of competing security interests where the holders of those interests have not specifically agreed an order of priority among themselves by contract. Practice Note: Priority between security interests—practical examples sets out some common situations and suggests how priority rules may work in practice. It is important to note that English law priority rules are complex and are

This Practice Note sets out examples of how the rules on priority could work in practice with reference to the relevant priority rules under English law. It complements and should be read in conjunction with our other Practice Notes on priority. Additional examples are added to this Practice Note on a regular basis. If you come across a priority situation in practice that you would like us to include, please use the LexisAsk function to let us know. Practice Note: Priority between security interests sets out the rules on priority from a more technical perspective and should be used for information about the black letter law which underpins the practical examples in this Practice Note. It is important to note that English law priority rules are complex and are generally accepted not to be clear in every respect. The rules can also be affected by the actions of the parties meaning that law firms will often not give an opinion on the priority of security and expert advice will need to be sought if there

The priority date is the date upon which the novelty and inventive step of a patent is judged.

Benefits and other liabilities that are given precedence in accordance with a scheme's priority rule when a scheme is being wound-up.