The British Virgin Islands (BVI) are a British overseas territory. As the lease is silent as to jurisdiction and there appears to be no contractually agreed method for service, the claimant must obtain the court’s permission to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction. Obtaining the court’s permission An application for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction can generally be made without notice to the defendant (CPR 6.37). It must address the following points: • which of the 20 jurisdictional gateways set out at CPR PD 6B, para 3.1 the claimant relies on. For more information, see: Practice Note: Serving outside the jurisdiction with court permission—jurisdictional gateways • the application must confirm the claimant’s belief that the claim has a reasonable prospect of success • the application must state the

Charging orders It is possible to seek to have a charging order varied or discharged (CPR 73.9), and any registration at HM Land Registry consequently removed. For guidance on charging orders generally and seeking to have them varied or discharged, see Practice Note: Charging orders. The application

The proprietor of a registered estate can make a disposition of almost any kind permitted by the general law (section 23(1) of the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002)) and someone dealing with the proprietor can assume that their powers are unlimited except for any restriction reflected by an entry in the register or imposed by or under LRA 2002 itself. Once entered, a restriction will remain in the register until it is cancelled or withdrawn. There are generally two ways of amending or modifying a restriction which has already been registered. The first would be for the original restriction to be withdrawn by applying

Section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA 1982) gives the High Court the power to grant interim relief in support of pending or extant foreign proceedings provided that it is expedient to do so. The High Court can thus grant domestic or world-wide freezing injunctions in support of foreign proceedings, which can be a very powerful weapon in the course of litigation. CJJA 1982, s 25 confers such jurisdiction upon the High Court in circumstances where the court would not otherwise have jurisdiction. The relevant case law illustrates that decisions in such cases are highly fact-specific and whether the remedy will be available will depend on a case by case basis. However an applicant for

Section 421A of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) overcomes the common law to the effect that, where a person dies insolvent, their interest in a joint tenancy passes automatically to the other joint tenant and could not be regarded as part of the insolvent's estate. Under this provision the surviving joint tenant can be ordered by a court, on the application of the trustee in bankruptcy, to pay to the bankrupt estate an amount up to the value that the estate has lost. The value is defined in IA 1986, s 421A(9) as being the amount which, if paid to the trustee, would in the court's opinion restore the position to what it would have been

Until 13 June 2016, section 237 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) conferred powers to override easements and other rights benefitting adjoining land in connection with development. From 13 June 2016 onwards, TCPA 1990, s 237 was repealed in both England and Wales by HPA 2016, s 206,

As you have noted, the 113th practice direction update amends Practice Direction 22—Statements Of Truth with effect from 6 April 2020. It amends the statement of truth that must be included in certain court documents to require, among other things, that a statement of truth: • be dated with the date that it is signed, and • include a warning that proceedings

The position on this will largely depend upon whether the relevant share option agreements are drafted to be deeds or to be bilateral contracts with consideration. In practice, share options are most often granted by deed in order to make sure that a validly binding contract is made. However, if a deed isn’t used then all the other requirements must be met in order for a binding contract to be made. This includes a need for consideration to paid by the prospective option holder to the grantor of the option in order for the share option to be granted to them. Therefore, typically, if a share option is not being granted by means of a deed then the share option terms will require the employee to make a nominal payment (such as £1) to the company in order for the company to grant the option to them. Bilateral contracts with consideration can be executed

Unfair terms There is nothing within the relevant unfair terms legislation to prevent a business from requiring customers to pay by direct debit. See the following Practice Notes: Consumer Rights Act 2015—summary and Consumer Rights Act 2015—unfair terms, in particular section ‘Terms listed in Schedule 2’, which sets out the list of terms in the Act which may be regarded as being unfair. See further Boilerplate clauses in business-to-consumer contracts—general principles—The ‘grey list’ in the CRA 2015 in Practice Note: Boilerplate clauses in business-to-consumer contracts—specific clauses. Guidance from the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) on

MLex: If EU legislators don't want the contentious proposal for an AI Liability Directive withdrawn, they just have to make clear to the European Commission that they still want to work on it, commissioner Maroš Šefčovič said on 12 February 2025. The European Parliament and Council of the EU could contest this decision to withdraw the EU AI Liability Directive, but the Council is unlikely to ask to continue working on it. Parliament could seek judicial review, but a previous court case might not play in its favour.

Law360: A judge on 1 March 2024 delayed the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA)'s enforcement proceedings against a wealth manager over an £80m shortfall, finding the watchdog should prioritise deciding whether to charge the company's founder over one of the 'most significant frauds' it ever investigated.

What does this Practice Note cover? This Practice Note explains what weather derivatives are, their purpose and applications and the regulatory framework governing their use. For information about sustainability and environmental, social and governance (ESG) derivatives generally, see Practice Note: ESG derivatives. What are weather derivatives? The weather risk market is designed to assist users in managing the adverse financial impact of weather through risk transfer instruments based on weather variables (chiefly temperature, rain, snow, wind and sunshine). Solutions to the problem of weather-related financial risk will normally take one of two principal forms: catastrophe insurance or weather derivatives. While catastrophe insurance is suitable for addressing low probability weather risks with a high potential impact, such as severe drought or flooding, weather derivatives are better suited to low impact/high probability events such as an unseasonably cool August or an unusually wet May Bank Holiday. One of the advantages of standardised weather derivatives for low impact events is that pay-out will occur automatically once the index sinks or rises past a certain point. In contrast, to recover under