Legal versus equitable assignments A so-called ‘legal’ assignment (also commonly known as a statutory assignment) derives from a statutory power for a contracting party to assign a chose in action. The most modern iteration of the right is found at section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925). This provides that to take effect as a legal assignment, an assignment of a chose in action: • must be absolute and not purport to be by way of charge only, and • must be in writing and executed by the assignor In addition, express notice in writing must be given to the person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim the chose in action—eg a debtor (where the chose in action is a debt) or contract counterparty (where the chose in action consists of contractual rights). For more information on legal assignments, see Practice Note: Assignments

We are not authorised to provide advice in relation to client-specific queries through the LexisAsk service, as we are not insured to do so. We are able to point customers to related content available in Lexis+ UK that may assist with their research. The factors to be considered by the proposed applicant in the circumstances outlined in the query may include the following: • what other countries potentially have jurisdiction to entertain divorce proceedings • the possibility of a forum dispute, including: ◦ how the forum dispute will be decided in the relevant overseas jurisdiction(s) ◦ whether the relevance of first to issue will be of prime importance or whether the dispute will be decided, as in England and

A corporate power of attorney is used to authorise a person, usually a lawyer or a senior employee, to sign documents on behalf of the company. A company can grant another person the authority to execute deeds or other documents on its behalf as its attorney, provided the instrument of authority is executed as a deed. As long as the documents executed by the attorney are executed in accordance with the powers granted under the power of attorney, such a signature by the attorney is a signature as if by a director of the company authorised by the company to sign. Thus, the attorney can, for example, enter into contracts on behalf of the company. Such a power can be highly useful where the directors are absent or abroad, or where it is not convenient for a director to sign on each occasion that is required on behalf of the company. The

This Q&A discusses the factors a lender will need to consider if it is asked to waive an event of default under a loan agreement. The following Practice Notes provide further guidance on some of the issues that arise where a lender considers a waiver request: • Debt waivers, extending maturity and debt rescheduling • Covenant waivers and resets • Amendments, waivers and consents—overview; and • How to prepare to enforce security Summary This Q&A looks at the key issues for a lender faced with a request for a waiver of a default under a loan agreement. It discusses the provisions of the loan agreement that should be checked, the practical issues that a lender should consider and some items that might be included in any waiver agreement between the lender and the borrower. Doing nothing about a default Once a default occurs under a loan agreement, a lender must consider whether it should act. Simply doing nothing could have serious

Section 31 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) gives the court the power to vary or discharge orders that require payment of income to another (this includes payment of a lump sum by instalments) and orders for sale of property. There is no jurisdiction to vary capital orders under MCA 1973, s 31, save for a few limited exceptions (where a pension attachment lump sum order has been made under MCA 1973, s 25B(4) or s 25C; where a pension sharing order has been made and the order has not yet taken effect; where settlement of property has been made in the course of judicial separation proceedings and there is a subsequent petition for divorce or rescission of the decree of judicial separation). An application for variation under MCA 1973, s 31 follows the procedure set out at Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 9.18–9.20, and FPR 2010,

When an application for a child arrangements order or other order under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) is made, the application is considered by a nominated legal adviser or District Judge, and the case will be allocated to a level of judge in the Family Court in accordance with the Guidance issued by the President on Allocation and Gatekeeping for Proceedings under Part II of the Children Act 1989 (Private Law Proceedings) and the Family Court (Composition and Distribution of Business) Rules 2014 (as amended), SI 2014/840 (the 2014 Rules),

Where a bankrupt is the sole legal proprietor and there is no underlying applicable trust of land, the trustee in the bankrupt’s application for possession and sale is made under section 363(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA

Every case in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) is different, including subject matter, complexity, and value. For that reason, it is always difficult to exactly predict the fees that a party will incur in the IPEC for each key stage. Nevertheless, some helpful guidance in estimating the fees payable can be found in the Part 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR). Under the CPR PD 45, the IPEC is subject to strict caps on the costs which the winning party can recover for each key stage, as well as the total amount it can recover. According to CPR 44, ‘costs’ include fees (ie solicitor fees), charges, disbursements, expenses or remuneration, unless expressly stated otherwise. These costs caps can assist both claimant and defendant in determining their budgets for each stage of the proceedings, in the knowledge that if their costs exceed that amount, that it is unlikely to be recoverable from the other side. In an ideal scenario,

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note sets out the fees payable on undertaking different steps to enforce a High Court or County Court judgment or order. For guidance on the fees recoverable by enforcement agents engaged in taking control of goods to enforce a judgment debt or order for payment of money, see Practice Note: Taking control of goods—fees of the enforcement agent. For guidance on the fixed costs that are recoverable for certain enforcement steps, see Practice Note: Fixed costs—enforcement costs. For more information on court fees, see Practice Note: Court fees in civil proceedings. Fees payable where enforcement is in the High Court The fees payable for certain steps in enforcing a judgment or order in the High Court are set out in the Civil Proceedings Fees Order 2008, SI 2008/1053, Sch 1, para 7 (as amended), as follows: Para 7.1: on sealing a writ of control/possession/delivery.Note: where the recovery of a sum of money is sought in addition to

The first consideration is the wording of the covenant itself. On the assumption that the covenant does not identify specific heads of expenditure which can be recovered (eg ‘professional fees’) and does not provide that the landlord must act ‘reasonably’ in giving or refusing consent, then the amount to be paid (and whether as compensation, or for payment of legal or other professional fees, or otherwise) would appear to be a matter for negotiation. That negotiation will be influenced by

It is assumed that the overseas company and its UK establishment are solvent. If an overseas company closes a UK establishment that is registered at Companies House, it must file a form OS DS01. Once Companies House has registered that document, the company no longer needs to file any documents for the UK establishment. See details in: Companies House guidance—overseas companies in the UK. Whilst there are no other company law filings required at Companies House regarding the closure of the establishment, other filings or notifications might be required depending upon its business and activities. For example, if the establishment has its own business and dealings with UK-based customers, any contracts

From 1 October 2023 the fixed recoverable costs (FRC) regime was introduced in respect of most civil claims with a value of up to £100,000. This has entailed a wholesale re-write of CPR 45 as well as changes to CPR 26, CPR 28 and CPR 36. The Fast Track remains for cases up to £25,000 and above the relevant small claims limit, and the new Intermediate Track was introduced for cases above the Fast Track limit up to £100,000, though there is a discretion to allocate cases worth less than £100,000 to the Multi-Track instead of the Intermediate Track. CPR 45.50 provides that for as long as the case is not allocated to the Multi-Track, the only costs allowed in any claim which would normally be or is allocated to the intermediate track are the