The answer to this question depends on a contractual analysis of the situation. It is assumed from the question that a binding contract has been formed at the point when the individual signed the contract and accepted the job. At that point there was an offer, an acceptance, consideration and an intention to create legal relations between the parties. On that assumption, the individual's decision not to carry out their obligations under the contract amounts to an anticipatory breach of contract by them. The courts will not order an individual in these circumstances to work under the contract. The employer is therefore left with a claim for damages in respect of any loss suffered by it as a result of the individual's breach of contract. The question is then what damages the employer is entitled to, if any. Damages Loss may be recovered where the consequences might reasonably be expected to have been in the contemplation

Question scenario This question considers the option open to someone who has signed and agreed an equitable charge with a part owner of a property. The amount owed under the charge is now in default and the equitable chargee wants to commence possession proceedings. This Q&A considers the available remedies. Equitable chargee's entitlement to possession An equitable chargee does not have the remedy of foreclosure or an entitlement to possession (Tennant, Re Lloyd). See Practice Note: Mortgages and land—an introduction to mortgages and legal charges over land. As such it is not possible to use the procedure in CPR 55 to bring a claim for possession in respect of an equitable charge. See the scope of the procedure as set out in CPR 55.2 being limited to: '(1) The procedure set out in this Section of this Part must be used where the claim includes— (a) a possession claim brought by a— (i) landlord (or former landlord); (ii) mortgagee; or (iii) licensor (or former

In financial remedy proceedings, the financial dispute resolution (FDR) appointment is a confidential hearing that is an important part of the settlement process. It is covered by FDR privilege, the full extent of which is set out in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, specifically FPR 2010, PD 9A, para 6.2, which provides that evidence of anything said or of any admission made at an FDR will not be admissible in evidence, except as stated. In V v W (Disclosure), Sir James Munby

Parties’ need to comply with the court’s rules, practice directions and orders (CPR 1.1(2)(f) and CPR 3.8) and, ultimately, have a duty to ensure that the overriding objective is met (CPR 1.1). The courts adopt a robust and pro-active approach to case management, compliance and relief from sanctions. For further guidance on the courts’ attitude to non-compliance, see Practice Notes: Case management—compliance, Relief from sanctions—the courts’ approach and Relief from sanctions—illustrative decisions [Archived]. Buffer agreement If a party if unable to meet a specified deadline in the court order, such as a deadline for the exchange of expert reports, the parties may agree to extend the time limit. Under CPR 3.8 (3): ‘Where

The method of enforcement to be employed in relation to a specific issue order is very much dependent on the nature of the order itself and on the facts of the case. Certain methods of enforcement will not be appropriate for particular orders. The court's primary objective is ordinarily to secure the effective operation of any order, and therefore, some measures that may be taken are not concerned with a formal enforcement procedure but rather are directed to securing the effective operation of the order. When considering how to achieve effective cooperation with a specific issue order measures that may be taken range from those which are in the least interventionist category, to those procedures which can result in the wholesale reconsideration of the substantive order and/or the possible imprisonment of the party in breach. In an appropriate

By section 122 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981), the court has the power to order a person to attend court for examination in open court where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that this person has knowledge of a testamentary document. This can be done whether or not proceedings have started. The court may direct that the person answers any question relating to the document and, if appropriate, order them to bring any such document to court. A person who fails to comply with any requirement to attend for examination, to answer any question or bring in any document shall be guilty of contempt of court, and

By section 122 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981), the court has the power to order a person to attend court for examination in open court where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the relevant person has knowledge of a testamentary document. This can be done whether or not proceedings have started. The court may direct that the person answers any question relating to the document and, if appropriate, order them to bring any such document to court. A person who fails to comply with any requirement to attend for examination, to answer any question or bring in any document shall be guilty of contempt of court and can therefore be sanctioned by imprisonment. By SCA 1981, s 123, where it appears that any person has in their possession, custody or power any document

If pre-application correspondence is leading nowhere, for the applicant the most practical course of action can be to issue proceedings. This is not regarded as a ‘hostile’ step pursuant to the pre-application protocol in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955 in the annex to FPR 2010, PD 9A. This will allow the court to regulate the proceedings efficiently and proportionately, and to make orders for disclosure backed with penal notices and the threat of imprisonment or the sequestration of assets. See Practice Note: Financial proceedings—pre-application requirements. Once proceedings are issued, service can be effected either at the respondent’s usual or last known address (FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 6.13(2)) or, if the applicant has reason to believe that the respondent no longer lives there and cannot after reasonable

As explained in Practice Note: Acquisition of easements by long use, for an easement to be established by long use, the user must be ‘as of right’ and not as a result of: • force • secrecy • permission of the servient owner (this requires an unequivocal overt act; the grant of a personal licence was held not to amount to a positive act evidencing an implied licence to a subsequent owner following expiry of the licence. It was

Bringing a Part 8 claim Our Practice Note: CPR Part 8 claims (alternative procedure for claims) explains that Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 provides a simplified, streamline procedure for the resolution of claims that do not involve a substantial dispute of fact. In a Part 8 claim there are no statements of case, no particulars of claim and the provisions of CPR 15 relating to defence and reply do not apply (see CPR 15.1). Responding to a Part 8 claim A defendant served with a Part 8 claim

We have assumed for the purposes of this Q&A that there are no transfers of the personal data outside of the UK (and no other international element) and this Q&A relates to the transfer of a database of personal data which does not contain any sensitive personal data. We have also assumed that no industry or other specific regulation or guidance apply. To the extent a situation is analogous to the sale of a database you may find the following Practice Note helpful: Dealing with a database (personal data)—data protection considerations. Among other things, that Practice Note explains that there are eight data protection principles embodied in the Data Protection Act 1998 that need to be considered

STOP PRESS: From 6 April 2017, the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925 were revoked and replaced by the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024. The content in this Q&A may have been affected by this change. Does the petitioning creditor have to try to ascertain the identities of other creditors? We are not aware of any obligation in either the Insolvency Act 1986 or the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925 (IR 1986) for a petitioning creditor to ascertain the identity of other creditors at the stage of presenting a bankruptcy petition, or later. However, what we say below will need to be considered as part of the petition process. Prior to the presentation of a bankruptcy petition, the petitioning creditor is required to carry out a search of the bankruptcy register maintained by the Land Charges Department under the direction of the Chief Land Registrar for any bankruptcy petitions already issued but not yet determined—see