An undertaking may not be varied by a court, but the person making it may, on application, be released from its performance, often having offered an alternative, or on condition that a further undertaking is given (see Birch v Birch). In determining whether to exercise the discretion to release, where an undertaking could have been framed as a variable order (such as an order for sale under section 24A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973)), the court should apply the criteria of MCA 1973, s 31(7), which effectively requires an exercise balancing the competing interests of the parties. Such an exercise was carried out (though in a rather different case) by Cohen J in A v A (Financial Remedies:

This Q&A considers the principle and procedure of contribution or indemnity claims in respect of a joint and several debt arising from a costs order, which it is assumed is for a specified sum. The principle of contribution If a paying party finds themselves in the position of having paid more than a proportionate share, there is a right to seek a contribution from the other paying parties based on a longstanding equitable principle. In Wolmershausen v Gullick, Wright J set out a detailed history

Partnership Act 1890, s 33(1) Section 33(1) of the Partnership Act 1890 (PA 1890) provides that: ‘...subject to any agreement between the partners, every partnership is dissolved as regards all the partners by the death or bankruptcy of any partner.’ If PA 1890, s 33(1) applies, the bankrupt’s interest in the dissolved partnership, and indeed in any other assets, vests in the trustee in bankruptcy. The partnership assets as such do not vest in the trustee in bankruptcy and the trustee does not have a direct interest in or claim to such assets. In practice, a trustee in bankruptcy will usually seek to agree a valuation and payment by the remaining partners. If negotiation fails and the remaining

It is usually the case in court proceedings that both parties will be present in court, however there is guidance in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 3A and FPR 2010, PD 3AA as to participation of vulnerable persons in proceedings and giving evidence. FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 3A.4 provides that the court must consider whether a party’s participation in proceedings is likely to be diminished by reason of vulnerability. If it considers that it is, the court will consider the views expressed by the party who is vulnerable and can potentially give participation directions. There are a number of circumstances the court must have regard to when deciding whether to

Once a party remarries, they are barred from making an application to the court for a financial provision order or property adjustment order (section 28(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973)). This means that they can no longer seek an order for periodical payments, a lump sum order or an order in relation to a property. This is often referred to as the ‘remarriage trap’. It is worth noting

It is assumed for the purposes of this answer that the divorce proceedings were issued on or after 6 April 2022 and that the applicant, as well as not knowing the respondent’s whereabouts, does not have an e-mail address for the respondent, which would permit service in accordance with Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 6.4, 6.7A and 6.8. The applicant must now embark upon a three-stage process in order to effect service of the application. First, if the applicant has reason to believe that the respondent no longer resides at their usual or last known postal address or no longer has access to their usual e-mail, the applicant must take reasonable steps to attempt to ascertain

The purpose of Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (LTA 1987) is to require the landlord of a block of flats who wishes to dispose of the freehold or some other interest in the block or its common parts, but not the grant of a lease of a single flat, the right of first refusal to the qualifying tenants within the block to collectively acquire that interest on the same terms proposed by the landlord. If the landlord wishes to make such a disposal (disposal includes entering into a contract to sell an interest) he is obliged to serve a notice under LTA 1987, s 5 on the qualifying tenants. A person in occupation of a flat under an assured shorthold tenancy or pursuant to a tenancy terminable on cessation of his employment will not be

We are not aware of the existence of any case law dealing with the disposal of applications connected with the charging of VAT on private school fees, which took effect on 1 January 2025 (see: GOV.UK—VAT on private schools: everything you need to know). The following information may be of assistance. The court has no power to impose a variation of a voluntary undertaking but can achieve a similar effect by the total or partial release of a party from an undertaking on the basis of that party offering a further undertaking in different terms. The test is whether or not a significant change in circumstances has occurred which make it just to permit the release (Birch v Birch). This course is not restricted to the very limited circumstances

Generally, when applying for an interim injunction, which form needs to be used will depend on where the application is brought. Forms N16, N16(1) and N16A are used in the County Court. For further guidance, including on the forms used in other courts, see: Opposing an on notice interim injunction application—checklist. For guidance on interim injunctions without

It is assumed that: • the relevant retained land is unregistered • the caution is a caution against first registration Pursuant to section 19 of the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002) the registrar must keep a register of cautions against first registration. In relation to LRA 2002, s 19, Halsbury’s Annotations sets out that, prior to the passing of LRA 2002, details of cautions against first registration were kept in paper form on a ‘caution title’. This recorded certain essential information relating to the caution, such as the name and the address for service of the cautioner, details of the solicitor or licensed conveyancer who lodged the caution, and the estate against which the caution has been registered – see Commentary: 19 Cautions register: Halsbury's Annotations. Cautions against first registration were previously

The LPA receiver is deemed to be agent of the mortgagor and therefore can exercise all the powers that the mortgagor has in respect of the property owned by the mortgagor subject to the charge according to section 109(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925. The LPA receiver’s duty is to protect the mortgagee according to Shaw LJ in Newhart Developments v Co-operative Commercial Bank. For more information on the various situations in which an LPA receiver is appointed and the LPA receiver’s obligations, see Practice Note: Effect of appointment of LPA or fixed charge receiver on property. For information

Hearsay evidence Hearsay is ‘a statement made otherwise than by a person while giving oral evidence in proceedings which is tendered as evidence of the matters stated’ (section 1(2) of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 (CEA 1995) and CPR 33.1). Therefore, evidence given by way of a witness statement rather than as evidence given orally at trial (thereby depriving the other parties of cross-examining them on their evidence) will constitute hearsay evidence. The rules on hearsay only apply to the giving of evidence at trial and not for an application. Where witnesses are deceased, a party may choose to rely on the witnesses’ evidence as hearsay evidence at trial. The weight