A claim form is valid for a set period of time which starts to run from the date it is issued. The claimant must serve the claim form on the defendant during that period (the validity period).

Dispute Resolution analysis: Master Thornett has refused an application to set aside the grant of permission to serve a claim form out of the jurisdiction in the context of a personal injury claim following an accident at an air base in Antarctica. Where the defendant is out of the jurisdiction, and it is always intended that the claim will be served on them out of the jurisdiction the claim form does not lapse after four months. Written by Phillip Patterson, barrister, Gatehouse Chambers.

Valuable consideration describes something of economic value given in return for a promise or transfer, such as money, goods, services, release of a debt, or other “money’s worth”. In contract practice (England & Wales, Northern Ireland and Ireland), it underpins enforceability of simple contracts: consideration must be real (not illusory) though need not be adequate. “Natural love and affection” alone is not valuable consideration. In Scotland, contracts do not require consideration; the closest concept is an “onerous” (for value) as opposed to a gratuitous obligation, but the phrase is widely used in property and insolvency contexts.Across property law and equity in the UK and Ireland, the term distinguishes transfers “for value” from gifts. It is central to the bona fide purchaser for value without notice defence, to whether a disposition is voluntary, and to priority on registered land. In England & Wales, the Land Registration Act 2002 treats valuable consideration as money or money’s worth (not a gift), which affects priority under section 29. Similar usage appears in Northern Ireland and Ireland land registration legislation.Practically, identifying valuable consideration affects: contract validity; conveyancing priorities; whether notice binds; insolvency challenges (transactions at an undervalue); and tax/stamp duty analysis (distinct from “chargeable consideration”).

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) held that a contractor had served a valid payment and pay less notice in relation to an interim payment dispute. The judgment gives important guidance on the timing and form of payment and pay less notices, and payee’s notices in default, addressing several matters that have not been considered in prior decisions. It also brings into question whether certain provisions of the Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) forms of sub-contract comply with the payment requirements of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996).

Section 20(3) of the Theft Act 1968 defines 'valuable security' as any document creating, transferring, surrendering or releasing any right to, in or over property, or authorising the payment of money or delivery of any property, or evidencing the creation, transfer, surrender or release of any such right, or the payment of money or delivery of any property, or the satisfaction of any obligation.

The method by which it is decided how much a contractor should be paid at any one time.

A report issued by a third party valuer, stating the realisable value of an asset and the basis upon which the valuation has been made.

Family analysis: With total assets found to be £89.5m, the parties were significantly apart in respect of the value of certain business interests and a substantial property in Spain. The judgment is particularly noteworthy for its treatment of computation issues in respect of those interests, and the linked matters of a party giving opinion evidence and shadow expert participation at trial. Sitting as a deputy High Court judge, Mr Nicholas Allen KC endorsed the single joint experts’ valuation evidence on all major points and made useful general remarks in relation to the sale costs of property and earnings-based valuations of businesses. Ordering a 55:45 division in the husband’s favour, the limited 5% ‘court discount’ was made on the basis that the wife would retain a greater share of the more liquid and copper-bottomed assets. David Wilkinson, solicitor and senior knowledge lawyer at Slater Heelis, considers the issues.

The CE valuation calculated for the purposes of negotiation or a court hearing. The evidential valuation must be dated within one year of the date of the issuing of divorce/dissolution proceedings.

The date on which the CE is re-calculated by the PRPA to implement a pension sharing order. It is any day within the implementation period as the PRPA may specify by notice in writing to the parties. Any benefits accrued since transfer day are excluded from the valuation exercise as this is the date on which the pension sharing order takes effect.

Why are valuations necessary? In general, valuations in the context of schemes of arrangement or Part 26A restructuring plans are used to compare estimates for (i) the recoveries to creditors/shareholders under the scheme/restructuring plan with (ii) the value that would be obtained for the business if the scheme/restructuring plan were not to happen and the relevant recoveries in that scenario. The context and manner in which a business is sold can drastically affect the amount or value realised in a sale. In providing any valuation, it will be necessary for the valuer to make assumptions about the process and context in which a hypothetical sale would occur. For schemes or restructuring plans (which frequently involve companies in distress that could end up in administration or liquidation) determining the appropriate context or comparator is an important and often contentious issue. The value of the business and assets of a company proposing a scheme/restructuring plan is relevant for a number of related reasons: • first, the likely value of the company’s business should

Property Disputes analysis: In Bratt v Jones, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that to establish negligence against a valuer, the claimant must demonstrate both that the valuation fell outside the applicable bracket and that the valuer failed to exercise reasonable care and skill. The decision confirms the continued relevance of the 'bracket' concept in valuation negligence claims and clarifies that being outside the bracket does not automatically imply negligence. Written by Tom Bell and Priya Gopal, barristers at Gatehouse Chambers.