The remedy of rescission should be distinguished from the remedy of termination for breach of contract. Rescission is not available as a remedy for breach of contract (though see below re a repudiatory breach). The term rescission is used to describe two very different remedies: • rescission ab initio, and • rescission for breach (or more accurately discharge by breach) Rescission ab initio is where the contract is treated as if it never existed. This remedy is available: • where the contract was entered into on the basis of a common/mutual mistake, or • where a misrepresentation by one party induced the other to enter into it Rescission for breach is available where one party accepts the other's repudiatory breach. A repudiatory breach is a breach of contract

The Regulatory Reform (Business Tenancies) (England and Wales) Order 2003 (RRO 2003), SI 2003/3096, Sch 2, paras 5–6 require, as part of the contracting out process, reference to the landlord’s notice and to the tenant’s simple or statutory declaration and reference to the parties’ agreement under section 38A(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to be contained in or endorsed on the instrument creating the tenancy: • paragraph 5—‘A reference to the notice and, where paragraph 3 applies, the declaration or, where paragraph 4 applies, the statutory declaration must be contained in or endorsed on the instrument creating the tenancy’ • paragraph 6—‘The agreement under section 38A(1) of the Act, or a reference

Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (LP(MP)A 1989) applies to any agreement for the disposition of any interest in land. Promotion agreements do not usually provide for the disposition of land. Generally,

Wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent is only triable in the Crown Court.

The offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent is triable only in the Crown Court on indictment. Elements of the offence Under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (OATPA 1861), the prosecution must prove the defendant unlawfully and maliciously: • wounded with intent to cause GBH, or • caused GBH with intent to do so, or • wounded with intent to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of any person, or • caused GBH with intent to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of any person ‘Unlawfully’ and ‘maliciously’ Unlawfully The wounding or causing of GBH must be unlawful. Wounding or causing GBH may be lawful if used: • in self-defence • in defence of another • in defence of property • for the prevention of crime • where the victim gave express or implied consent For further information on these defences, see below: Defences. Maliciously If the accused is charged with maliciously

Goods or other items that are washed ashore following a shipwreck or other maritime incident.

Law360: A London judge ruled on 14 March 2024 that Australian computer scientist Craig Wright is not the pseudonymous inventor of bitcoin, ruling that the evidence against his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto was 'overwhelming'.

A writ of prohibition is a court order stopping a lower court, tribunal or public body from continuing proceedings because it is acting outside, or in excess, of its lawful jurisdiction. In modern practice across England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Ireland, this remedy survives as a form of judicial review, usually called an order of prohibition rather than a traditional “writ”.It is typically sought where a decision‑maker proposes to hear a case it has no power to determine, applies the wrong legal test so fundamentally as to exceed its powers, or ignores mandatory procedural requirements. It is generally prospective, restraining further steps rather than quashing a decision already made (for which certiorari/quashing orders are used), though the remedies may overlap.The principles are largely case‑law based, reflecting the historic supervisory jurisdiction of the higher courts (High Court; Court of Session in Scotland). In Scotland, prohibition is part of the Court of Session’s nobile officium and judicial review jurisdiction, serving a similar function of preventing unlawful excess of jurisdiction.Practitioners use prohibition to protect clients from ultra vires regulatory or disciplinary proceedings, criminal prosecutions before the wrong court, and other unlawful exercises of public power.

This Practice Note explains how to enforce a debt within family proceedings against a debtor’s goods and chattels where a judgment or order for payment of money has been obtained by a writ or warrant of control (formerly a writ of fieri facias or a warrant of execution). It sets out the applicable procedure to execute against goods, together with guidance on requirements for permission, exempt goods, and fees. Section 62 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCEA 2007) provides for the procedure (detailed in TCEA 2007, Sch 12) where a court issues a writ or warrant for an enforcement agent to take control of goods in order to recover a sum of money due under a judgment or order. The provisions came into force on 6 April 2014. A writ of fieri facias (High Court) was renamed a writ of control and a warrant of execution (Family Court/County Court) renamed a warrant of control. Revised Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), SI 1998/3132, Pts 83–84 consolidate and update many of the rules relating

A writ of delivery (High Court) or warrant of delivery (Family Court or County Court) may be used to enforce an order that provides for the delivery or transfer of specific goods. A writ of delivery is issued to a High Court enforcement officer; a warrant of delivery to a County Court bailiff. Where a party has a judgment or order for the delivery of any goods, and the respondent has failed to deliver them, then it may be enforceable by a writ or warrant of delivery in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), SI 1998/3132, r 83.14 (High Court) or CPR 83.23–83.25 (Family Court) (as applied by the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 33.1(2)), unless (in the case of the Family Court) any other rule or Act provides otherwise. A writ or warrant of delivery grants the relevant enforcement officer the authority to enforce the delivery by taking possession of the items listed from the individual in default of the order and delivering them to the appropriate party. An

A writ (High Court) or warrant (Family Court) of possession of land can be used to give effect to an order that provides for a party to it to be granted possession of land or buildings, for example, under a property adjustment order or an occupation order. When the court makes an order for sale under section 24A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, it may order any party to deliver up to the purchaser or any other person possession of the land and/or receipt of rents and profits relating to it under Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 9.24. Where an order for possession has not been made at the same time as the order for sale, it will be necessary to obtain an order for possession prior to issuing a writ or warrant of possession. A standard form for an order for possession has been issued, see Practice Note: Standard orders—enforcement, order 4.5. A writ of possession is issued to a High Court enforcement officer and a warrant of possession

If you have been tasked with preparing a business case, you should already be aware of the purpose of the business case, why it is you are preparing it and what you are seeking if, and when, you obtain approval for it from your organisation. Perhaps you are looking to introduce a new practice management tool for the legal department and are seeking the appropriate financial investment and buy in from your organisation, or funding for some other purpose. While the end result may be clear, what you may not be aware of, however, are the various points you need to take into consideration and factor in to your business case before you submit it for approval, to put yourself in the strongest position so that it is likely to be approved. The importance of being able to prepare a business case If you speak to a number of lawyers, it is likely that many of them have never had to review a business case, let alone prepare one themselves; after all, what would they be writing