Legacies of equal amount given by the same instrument are prima facie substitutional.

These clauses are for insertion into HM Land Registry form of transfer of the whole of registered freehold or leasehold land prescribed by the Land Registration Rules. Form TR1 may also be used

This Practice Note summarises the following information for different types of claim funded by way of a conditional fee agreement: • the maximum success fee you can charge, as a percentage of base costs • whether there is a damages-based cap on success fee • whether the success fee can be recovered from the client’s opponent and, if so, is there a limit on what can be recovered inter partes • whether a costs insurance premium is recoverable The information in the tables has applied since 1 April 2013 under the Conditional

An additional fee which is payable in certain circumstances under the terms of a conditional fee agreement.

Arbitration analysis: This case deals with the challenge of a sole arbitrator on the ground of apparent bias pursuant to section 24(1)(a) of the English Arbitration Act 1996 (the ‘Act’) in the film industry. Applying the test laid down in the landmark ruling of Haliburton, the court found that the arbitrator’s actions would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility that the arbitrator was biased. Following Haliburton, the court’s approach in the present case serves as an illustration par excellence of factual circumstances that may give rise to the successful invocation of apparent bias within the meaning of the Act. Notably, the enquiry into apparent bias is fact-driven and, as such, will differ on a case-by-case basis. The ruling is of interest to arbitrators more generally but, in particular, to those who arbitrate in niche industries more specifically as these tend to give rise to the type of circumstances, such as professional acquaintanceship, from which situations of apparent bias that qualify for a successful challenge under section 24 may readily arise. Written by Dr Gordon Blanke, founding principal at Blanke Arbitration, and Farhan Shafi, associate at Blanke Arbitration.

Dispute Resolution analysis: In an unusual intervention with a case management decision made by a judge, the Court of Appeal has overturned a decision to refuse to allow a claimant to amend its claim on grounds of lateness. Assuming that, because the lateness of the claimant’s application may have led to a failure on its part to require its subsidiary companies to retain potentially disclosable documents-by issuing them with a ‘litigation hold’ direction-the judge inferred prejudice may be caused to the defendants if the amendments were allowed. The Court of Appeal found that the correct approach would have been for the court to allow the amendments but keep under review whether failure to provide disclosure, if established, would make a fair trial impossible. Written by PSL Dispute Resolution.

Pensions analysis: This case involved an appeal, on the grounds of perversity, against the decision of the Pensions Ombudsman (the ‘PO’) dismissing Mr Andrew’s complaint that, but for a negligent misstatement on the part of his employer, he would not have taken ill-health early retirement (‘IHR’) when he did. The High Court held that the PO had been entitled to find that the provision of an incorrect estimate of his IHR pension had not caused Mr Andrew to retire early from his job as a specialist orthotic technician. However, it was held that the PO had erred in his consideration of the possibility that Mr Andrew might have secured an alternative role by way of a reasonable adjustment. The case was remitted to the PO for consideration of the question as to whether reliance on the inaccurate IHR estimate had caused Mr Andrew any financial loss due to a failure on his part to take steps to seek redeployment into another role. Written by Saul Margo, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers.

This Practice Note highlights the need to correctly identify and know your defendant prior to issuing proceedings with the aim of improving your chances of a successful enforcement post judgment. It considers pre-issue and ongoing enquiries as well as tools that may be used to obtain information about the judgment debtor post judgment. For information on the different methods of enforcement available, see Practice Note: Which enforcement of judgment method should I choose? When should you consider enforcement issues? It cannot be overstated that the issue of enforcement—the actual act of recovering the debt or property for which your client commenced proceedings in the first place—should be foremost in your mind at the point of initial receipt of instructions from your client. This is because the degree of success of enforcement of a judgment or order finally obtained from the court will, in large part, be determined by certain factors concerning the claim which it is critical to consider at the outset of the matter. These include: • proper identification of the correct party to sue—your pre-issue

Restructuring & Insolvency Analysis: This decision confirms that directors who implement aggressive tax avoidance arrangements for their own benefit may face substantial personal liability where those arrangements expose the company to foreseeable tax liabilities and prejudice creditors’ interests. ICC Judge Mullen held that participation in employee benefit trust (EBT) and employer financed retirement benefit schemes (EFRBS) rendered the company insolvent, engaged the creditor duty identified in Sequana, and constituted a breach of duty. The judgment provides important guidance on the limits of reliance on promoter-led advice, the need for independent advice and adequate provision for contingent tax liabilities, and the ability of office-holders to pursue historic misfeasance claims notwithstanding limitation arguments. Produced in partnership with Georgia Purnell, barrister of 3 Hare Court.

Family analysis: In EK v DK and others, Mr Justice Francis considered a wife’s application to set aside a consent order on the basis of her former husband’s fraudulent non-disclosure. Francis J set out the approach to a set aside application and found that the husband had behaved dishonestly in relation to his liquidity and in respect of an intended purchase and that there was no burden on the former wife to show that the misrepresentation was material to the order, as the general principle that fraud unravels all applied.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This is a judgment on the defendant’s application under CPR 3.4(2)(a) to strike out the claim on the basis that the claimants’ particulars of claim discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, and/or for summary judgment pursuant to CPR 24.2 on the basis that the claimants have no real prospect of succeeding in their claim because they have not established that the Defendant owed them a duty of care. The court carefully considered the relevant facts, before concluding that the defendant owed no duty of care to any of the claimants. In doing so, the court applied Lord Bridge’s triple test in Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568 and was guided by Customs & Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank plc [2007] 1 AC 181 and John F Hunt Demolition Ltd v ASME Engineering Ltd [2007] EWHC 1507 (TCC), when considering the ‘spectrum’ of cases in which a duty of care might be established. Written by Oliver Browne, partner and chair of the London litigation & trial department at Latham & Watkins.

How a person’s property is dealt with on their death, including who is entitled to inherit the deceased’s property.