This Agreement is made on [insert date] Parties 1 [insert name of employee borrower], of [insert address] (Employee); and 2 [insert name of employer lender], a company incorporated in England and Wales with registered number [insert company number] whose registered office is at [insert address] (Employer). It is agreed as follows: 1 Definitions 1.1 In this Agreement, unless otherwise provided: Drawdown Date • means [insert date]; Event of Default • has the meaning given to it in Clause 6; Loan • means the sum of £[insert figure] (£[insert amount in words] to be lent by the Employer to the Employee under this Agreement, to the extent not repaid; Repayment Date • has the meaning given to it in Clause 4. 2 The Loan 2.1 Subject to the terms of this Agreement, the Employer makes the Loan available to the Employee for the purpose of [buying an annual gym membership OR buying an annual travel season ticket OR [insert description]]. 2.2 The Loan will be provided to the Employee in the form of a bank transfer made [to the Employee’s bank account OR to the bank account of the relevant service provider] on the Drawdown Date. 3 [ Interest 3.1 Interest on the principal amount of the Loan will

Funds (whether sums or assets) held under a money purchase arrangement that have been ‘designated’ to provide a scheme member with an unsecured pension.

A lump sum benefit paid from a money purchase arrangement following the death of the scheme member before the age of 75 from any unsecured pension fund the member held in that arrangement at the point of death,

The twelve-month period from when a member first became entitled to an unsecured pension.

Private Client analysis: In 2019 I wrote articles for the Law Society and LawSkills (founded by Gill Steel) entitled ‘a corpse: who has the right to decide after death’, with the hope that few cases would be litigated thereafter. Such harrowing cases when grief is raw can never be in the best interests of any family member. I have been asked to prepare a short article following another such case Otitoju v Onwordi; Adesanya v Otitoju. Extracted from Otitoju v Onwordi this article gives tips on what to discuss when drafting a Will, what procedure to use, applications to make and directions to seek, and how evidence will be treated in light of the presumptions and shifting burdens involved in challenging a Will, when disputing burial rights. Lady Hale, Hale J as she was then, said: ‘I accept entirely that the courts should be slow to entertain proceedings such as these. Modern methods of refrigeration may make them possible, but they are certainly unseemly. They delay the proper disposal of the body and the normal processes of grieving, while bringing further grief in themselves.’ Buchanan v Milton [1999] 53 BMLR 176. Written by Amy Berry, barrister and mediator at New Square Chambers, Lincoln’s Inn.

A claim for any remedy or remedies which is not a specified claim.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This was an application by the sole shareholder and director of a company for an order declaring invalid the appointment of that company’s administrator. The relevant statutory declaration had been made abroad before an English solicitor. It was argued that this was contrary to section 3 of the Commissioners for Oaths Act of 1889 (COA 1889). Further, there were objections based on the construction of a relevant facility agreement and a deed of assignment. It was also suggested that the interrelationship of certain persons involved in the appointment made the appointment of this particular administrator inappropriate. None of these objections were found to be well-founded or affect the validity of the appointment. The application failed. Written by Nora Wannagat, barrister at 9 Stone Buildings.

Arbitration analysis: Under what circumstances can an appeal arbitrator raise a new point during a challenge to an award? Ben Olbourne, barrister at 39 Essex Chambers, considers the decision in Navigator Spirit SA v Five Oceans Salvage SA and finds some helpful guidance and reminders for anyone looking to challenge an award.

Family Law analysis: The Family Court rejected extensive allegations that the husband had deliberately ‘warehoused’ or dissipated matrimonial assets to defeat the wife’s financial remedy claims, reaffirming that an add-back requires proof of both wanton and reckless dissipation and a contemporaneous intention to deprive the other spouse of assets. The judgment provides a useful application of the principles in Tsvetkov v Khayrova [2023] EWFC 130 and related authorities, emphasising the high threshold for conduct allegations under section 25(2)(g) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973). The subsequent costs decision also serves as a reminder that parties who persist with unsupported conduct allegations after the evidence has undermined them risk adverse costs consequences. Produced in partnership with David Wilkinson of Slater Heelis, who acted for the respondent husband.

A member of a registered pension scheme who cannot be traced prior to their 75th birthday

An untraced drivers agreement is the scheme under which victims of road traffic accidents caused by unidentified or untraced motorists can obtain compensation when no insurer can be pursued. In England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, this is governed by the Untraced Drivers Agreement between the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) and the Secretary of State (or relevant department), rather than by primary legislation, although it operates alongside the Road Traffic Act 1988 and compulsory motor insurance law. Under the agreement, the MIB stands in place of the missing driver/insurer for personal injury and, in limited circumstances, property damage claims, subject to strict time limits, evidential requirements and exclusions (for example, fraud or certain hit-and-run scenarios). Proceedings are usually determined by arbitration rather than court litigation. In Ireland, a similar function is performed under the Motor Insurers’ Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) Agreements, which provide compensation where the at‑fault driver is unidentified, again operating contractually alongside compulsory insurance legislation. Usage of the term “untraced drivers agreement” is broadly consistent across the UK and Ireland, denoting these contractual indemnity schemes for hit‑and‑run or untraced driver claims.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. NOTE: the Untraced Drivers’ Agreement, dated 2003, applies to accidents on or after 14 February 2003 but before 1 March 2017. Before that, claims involving untraced drivers were covered by the Untraced Drivers’ Agreement 1996. There have been supplementary agreements in 2008, 2011, 2013 and 2015. The most recent Untraced Drivers’ Agreement, dated 2017, applies to accidents occurring on or after 1 March 2017—see Practice Note: Untraced drivers and the role of the MIB—for accidents occurring on or after 1 March 2017. The untraced driver Where the driver of a vehicle who causes an accident cannot be identified, eg following a ‘hit and run’ accident, the claimant should apply directly to the Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB). In accordance with the provisions of the relevant agreement, the MIB will compensate the victim of an accident involving an untraced driver for: • injuries • death • property damage Uninsured