This Practice Note considers the position where there is a conflict in an administration appointment. It discusses: • situations when a conflict might arise • the court’s reluctance to interfere in conflict situations • the circumstances in which a conflict needs to be managed, and • the role and legal status of the conflict administrator For key cases and associated relevant content, see Practice Note: The conflict administrator—key cases. Definition In this Practice Note, the term ‘conflict administrator’ applies to an insolvency practitioner (IP) appointed as administrator for the purpose of handling specific matters in circumstances where a previously appointed administrator is unable to act due to a conflict of interest. While this Practice Note uses the term ‘conflict administrator’, the principles and law discussed apply equally to a conflict liquidator or any other person appointed as an office-holder in an insolvency procedure to handle conflict situations faced by a previously appointed office-holder. Situations when a conflict might arise The work of insolvency office-holders is probably subject to more conflict issues than an accountant

This Practice Note sets out certain key cases and associated relevant content in relation to the appointment of a conflict administrator. The cases are divided by topic area and include: • situations when a conflict may arise • the court’s reluctance to interfere in conflict situations • circumstances in which a conflict administrator may be appropriate • delineation of responsibilities and powers For further reading on this topic, see Practice Note: The conflict administrator. Situations when a conflict may arise Names of parties Judgment date Case summary Relevant content Re BHS Ltd (in administration) [2016] EWHC 1965 (Ch), [2016] All ER (D) 20 (Aug) 29 July 2016 A conflict may arise where administrators are appointed by the directors of a company with the consent of the owner of the company, which also has security over the company’s assets. Sisu Capital Fund Ltd v Tucker [2005] EWHC 2170 (Ch), [2005] All ER (D) 200 (Oct) 9 September 2005 An appointment itself may create a conflict, such as when office-holders of

This Practice Note highlights some of the legal consequences of civil partnership. It explains the parties' financial obligations to each other and the rights of occupation acquired in relation to the family home. It considers the tax treatment of civil partners. It also looks at the rights of civil partners in relation to children and the new definition of children of the family. It explains the position of civil partners on death. The implementation of the Civil partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004) brought into effect a host of ancillary changes both by virtue of the provisions of CPA 2004 itself and by amendments to related legislation under various statutory instruments. When introduced by the CPA 2004, civil partnerships related only to two people of the same sex. However, from 2 December 2019 the Civil Partnership (Opposite-sex Couples) Regulations 2019 (CP(O-sC)R 2019), SI 2019/1458 are in effect and the eligibility criteria in CPA 2004 amended to allow opposite-sex couples to register a civil partnership in England and Wales. Although a civil partnership is not a marriage (see

This Practice Note highlights some of the legal consequences of marriage. It explains the parties' financial obligations to each other and the rights of occupation acquired in relation to the family home. It considers the tax treatment of spouses. It also looks at the effect of marriage on a father’s parental responsibility for his children. It explains the position of spouses on death. A marriage can only be ended by a decree of divorce or nullity Under the law of England and Wales, a marriage may only be ended by a decree of divorce/final order or nullity. A decree of judicial separation does not end a marriage. See Practice Note: Void and voidable marriages The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (DDSA 2020) is in force from 6 April 2022. It removed the requirement to establish one of the five facts contained in section 1(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) to establish irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and allows married couples to divorce without assigning blame. The final divorce order (formerly decree absolute) ends a marriage. See

Employment analysis: In the recent landmark case of Uber v Aslam, the Supreme Court found that drivers working for Uber London Ltd were workers. In this analysis, Jason Galbraith-Marten QC and Chris Milsom of Cloisters examine the reasons for the Court’s decision and its potential future impact.

This Practice Note looks at the construction due diligence process and how a construction lawyer will be involved where a client is buying a property or where it is buying a company whose assets include properties. It also introduces the key issues to consider when drafting construction clauses for a sale and purchase agreement, depending on what stage the relevant construction works have reached. What is construction due diligence? When a client is proposing to purchase a property (or properties) or purchase a company, whose assets include properties, due diligence will need to be carried out to ensure that the properties are sound and that 'good title' can be obtained. Where the property in question contains a building which was built less than 12 years before, or where a substantial amount of construction work was carried out at the property within the past 12 years, it is advisable that full due diligence of the construction documentation is carried out. In addition to carrying out a survey of the property to assess its condition, the purchaser

The construction industry scheme (CIS) rules were devised to limit the amount of tax lost as a result of sub-contractors in the construction industry under-declaring, or failing to notify, their chargeability to UK tax. This Practice Note explains the additional measures that tackle businesses operating within the CIS who knowingly enter transactions connected with fraud. The measures, which took effect from 6 April 2026, were announced at Budget 2025 and legislated for in sections 220–222 of the Finance Act 2026, which inserted sections 62A–62C and 72A–72C into the Finance Act 2004 (FA 2004) and regulation 13A into the Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005, SI 2005/2045 (the CIS Regs). They enable HMRC to recover lost tax, impose penalties on both a company and its officers, and remove gross payment status in cases where payments are made or returns are submitted when the person doing so knew, or should have known, that within the chain of construction contracts relating to the same construction operations there had been, or would be, a fraudulent evasion of

In practice, a lawyer is likely to come across the construction industry scheme (CIS) rules when representing: • a party to: ◦ a construction contract ◦ a sale of a company ◦ certain transfers of trade between companies ◦ an agreement for lease with development obligations, or • a person failing to comply with its obligations under the CIS rules (or at least accused of such failure) Listed below are some of the key issues to consider in these circumstances. For more information on the CIS rules, see Practice Notes: • Construction industry scheme—overview • The construction industry scheme—when does it apply? • Construction industry scheme—contractors' obligations • Construction industry scheme—sub-contractors' obligations • Construction industry scheme—contract payments • The construction industry scheme and deliberate non-compliance • Loss of CIS gross payment status—practical considerations for sub-contractors, and • Construction industry scheme penalties Construction contract When a lawyer is acting for a party to a construction contract, the key points are: • that the CIS rules apply in respect of some agreements that are

FORTHCOMING CHANGES: At Budget 2025, the government announced that it will legislate in Finance Bill 2026 (also known as Finance (No 2) Bill 2024–26) for the introduction of new powers for HMRC to tackle fraud by businesses operating within the CIS. Modelled on the VAT measures that restrict input tax recovery where the supplier knew or should have known that the supply was connected to the fraudulent evasion of VAT, the new CIS measures will: • provide for the immediate cancellation of a business’ gross payment status • make a business liable for lost tax, and • allow a penalty of 30% of the lost tax to be imposed on the business, its directors, and other connected persons where it can be shown that the business knew or should have known that it entered into a transaction connected with the fraudulent evasion of tax. Further, the waiting period to reapply for gross payment status that has been immediately removed will be increased from one year to five years. The

Dispute Resolution analysis: The claimant applied for summary judgment on its claim for the repayment of money advanced to the defendant under a contract for the supply of goods. The defendant was unable to deliver the goods in question, asserting that this was as a result of a force majeure event, and that the repayment clause in question did not accordingly apply. For the purposes of the summary judgment application, it was assumed that a force majeure event had occurred, and valid notice given pursuant to the terms of the contract. The court held that, on a proper construction of the terms of the contract, the obligation was for the seller to repay the advance payment if the product was not delivered when due (subject to any extension) for any reason whatsoever. In particular, as a result of the broad and all inclusive language of the repayment clause, the obligation to repay was not affected by any force majeure event, despite there being some cross-referencing between the force majeure clause and the repayment clause. In fact, the court held that the cross-referencing, if not completely surplusage, was demonstrating that it would be open to the parties to agree a different course if they so chose in light of a force majeure event occurring (understandable in light of such a stark and wide-ranging phrase as ‘if for any reason whatsoever…the product has not been delivered…’) but that they had not done so. Written by Georgia Whiting, barrister, 4 King’s Bench Walk.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case considers a jurisdictional clause in the context of service under CPR 6.33(2B)(b), which allows service out of the jurisdiction where the defendant is party to a jurisdiction clause. There is no corresponding requirement for the claimant to be a party to that jurisdiction clause. The starting point is that jurisdiction clauses are not generally intended to concern disputes with third parties. However, that is no more than a starting point and one which can be departed from in appropriate cases. This was one such appropriate case whereby the circumstances and construction of the clause led to the finding that it did include the third party claimant’s (Mr Campeau) claim. While not strictly necessary given the judge’s findings in relation to the construction of the clause, Mr Justice Butcher considered that, where a jurisdictional clause was wide enough to encompass disputes from third parties, then it will likely also amount to a ‘relevant term’ for the purposes of section 1(4) of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (C(RTP)A 1999). That meant that the third party, in seeking to enforce their rights under the SPA, was statutorily obliged to do so in England and so could rely upon CPR 6.33 (2B) (b) in that respect also. Written by Georgia Whiting, legal counsel (contentious construction) at Capita.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This decision of Nicklin J illustrates the ongoing and increased importance of the now 175-year old decision of Sir James Wigram VC in Henderson v Henderson 3 Hare 100. Henderson v Henderson is a case which is regularly cited in proceedings in a diverse range of courts and tribunals and, in light of the increased numbers of cases involving litigants in person (LiPs), it represents a key weapon for litigants having to deal with misconceived and duplicative proceedings. By contrast, Nicklin J’s judgment demonstrates how limited the scope is for striking out a claim on the basis that it has been issued out of time. Written by Phillip Patterson, barrister at Hardwicke Chambers.