As a preliminary point, we are not dealing here with the situation where a claim form has been filed but not yet served. In this situation, CPR 17.1(1) provides that the claimant may amend the claim form to add a new defendant without either the permission of the court or the consent of any other parties. No question of an application notice therefore arises, although the amended claim form (appropriately endorsed as required by CPR PD 17, para 2.1(2)) must obviously be filed and served on the new defendant if it is to be effective. Note that an amendment made without permission can be disallowed under CPR 17.2. The position is different where the claim form has already been served on the original defendant. In this case CPR 17.1(3) expressly provides that an application to amend must be made to the court in accordance with CPR 19.4 in order to add a new defendant (or

For the purposes of this Q&A we have limited our research to cover the situation in which the defendant participated in the proceedings. Setting aside An application to set aside a statutory demand can be made under Rule 10.4 of the In (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024. The grounds for setting aside a statutory demand are provided in IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, r 10.5(5). They are: • the debtor has a counterclaim, set-off or cross-demand in an amount which equals or exceeds the debt • the debt is disputed on substantial grounds • the creditor is a secured creditor who has not waived their security, or • the

The impact of the Part 36 offer and the non-acceptance will depend on whether the old CPR 36 provisions apply or whether the new Part 36 provisions which came into force on 6 April 2015 apply. You may wish to refer to the transitional provisions as to when the old and new rules apply, see Practice Note: Illustrating the changes—the transitional provisions for the revised Part 36 in force as of 6 April 2015 [Archived] which will help you determine which Part 36 regime applies. New Part 36 provisions The starting point is that where the Part 36 offer is not accepted and the claimant secures judgment which is ‘at least as advantageous’ as the offer, costs consequences will apply which include that the claimant is entitled to costs on the indemnity basis from the date on which the Relevant Period expired (CPR 36.17(4(b)). However, this will not apply if the court considers

Use of disclosed information If a document has been disclosed, the other parties may only use it for the purpose of proceedings, unless: • it has been read to or by the court at a public hearing • the court gives permission, or • the party who disclosed the document and the person to whom it belongs agree The court may also make an order restricting or prohibiting the further use of the document. See Practice Note: Disclosure in employment tribunal proceedings—Use of disclosed information. Data protection Before processing personal data in a given situation, an employer (as controller) needs to consider whether that processing is lawful under Regulation (EU) 2016/679, GDPR

What steps can be taken to prevent sale of the property? A restriction can be entered by application to the registrar by or with the consent of the registered proprietor, or person entitled to be, or where the applicant has sufficient interest in the making of the entry. The Land Registration Rules 2003, SI 2003/1417, r 93 sets out a non-exhaustive list of examples which indicates that a person might have a sufficient interest without having, or even claiming a proprietary interest in land—see paras 93(h) and (i), which refer to a person with the benefit of a freezing order. Accordingly it would appear arguable a restriction could be used in the context of a freezing injunction obtained in order to protect a

Where a party is legally aided, qualified costs protection arises. The provisions are now found in section 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO 2012), supplemented by the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/611, but were previously found in similar form in section 11 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 (AJA 1999). LASPO 2012, s 26 provides that costs ordered against an individual in relevant civil proceedings (which includes proceedings under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996)) must not exceed the amount (if any) which it is reasonable for the individual to pay having regard to all of the circumstances, including all parties’ financial resources and conduct within the proceedings. Civil Legal Aid (Costs)

Trustees and trust property This Q&A refers to an express obligation of the beneficiary to repair but must be considered in the context of the following wider principles relating to trustees’ obligations and duties in respect of trust property: • the trustees have a primary duty to preserve the value of the trust property, having regard to the needs of all beneficiaries. Trustees cannot allow property to fall into disrepair, thereby reducing the capital value of the trust assets. See Practice Note: Trustees—duties • trustees, having the legal title to the property, can potentially still be liable to third parties under the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA 1972). While a beneficiary in occupation is not a tenant, the DPA 1972 applies to

If we have reached settlement for a personal injury client as part of our legal services and are in a position to send settlement funds as agreed in our retainer to our client but they advise they do not have a bank account (eg because they are a traveller or in prison etc), and want us to instead send their funds to a relatives bank account from which they can access it, will complying with that request mean we will have breached Rule 3.3 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 2019? Please note that we are unable to give legal advice and this email does not constitute legal advice. You must not use client account to provide banking facilities to clients or third parties. Payments into, transfers or withdrawals from client account must be in respect of the delivery by you regulated services. SRA Accounts Rules 2019, r 3.3 This

The relationship between a franchisee and a franchisor is one of contract. It shares some characteristics with that of a distribution agreement. There are a few methods of franchising, but this Q&A refers to the business-method of franchising: a franchisor (A) grants a franchisee (B) a right to distribute A's products or services, using A's business method and technology and under A's trade marks. A supervises that use and provides training and other assistance (eg publicity) to B to help B in running the franchise. A is responsible for operating its franchise and enters into contracts

Part 18 Request A Part 18 request is a request for further information which can be made under CPR 18 where a party has been served with a statement of a case and a review raises concerns that the statement of case does not set out the other side's case with sufficient clarity or detail. A Part 18 request can be made

It is assumed the charge has been given and received by entities capable of making charges of this nature, and registered in time at HM Land Registry. The question states that it is the land being purchased that is subject to a charge under the Agricultural Credits Act 1928 (ACA 1928), but this cannot be correct. ACA 1928 created a right on the part of ‘farmers’ (as defined in ACA 1928) to secure lending from banks via fixed or floating charges over agricultural assets. However, charges under ACA 1928 can only be made against either ‘farming

For the purposes of this Q&A, we have assumed that both Wills, and the codicil, were all validly executed in accordance with the Wills Act 1837. Briefly, whether the later Will has revoked the codicil is a matter of construction of the later Will. A codicil is similar in nature to a Will: section 1 of the Wills Act