Where interest is added to the principal amount of a loan to be paid at the same time as the principal. This contrasts with cash interest which is paid by the borrower at regular intervals throughout the life of the loan.

This Practice Note sets out the circumstances in which the court may make a lump sum, property adjustment or pension sharing order by way of capitalised maintenance on an application for the variation of a periodical payments order in favour of a party to the marriage or civil partnership. Such orders may not be made in nullity or judicial separation proceedings. It considers the orders that can be made by the court and the court’s approach. General principles Under sections 31(7A)–(7F) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) and the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004) equivalent provisions, the court has the power in specified circumstances to make a lump sum order, property adjustment order(s) or pension sharing order(s) (unless the pension in question was shared at the time of the original divorce/dissolution proceedings) by way of capitalisation of the maintenance provision made in favour of a party to the marriage/civil partnership. These powers may be exercised only where, after the dissolution of a marriage or civil partnership, the court: • discharges a periodical payments order

This Practice Note provides guidance on the basis and use of Duxbury calculations in relation to the calculation of capitalised spousal or civil partner maintenance/periodical payments, within financial remedy proceedings, including the assumptions made, limitations and the suitability of such calculations. It also considers the courts’ approach to rates of return generally. The basis of Duxbury calculations A Duxbury calculation was originally a calculation designed to identify the capital sum required to meet a periodical payment requirement at a fixed rate for the remainder of the recipient’s life (ie their actuarial life expectancy). In November 2024, the Duxbury Working Group, which is self-selected, published a final report (following a provisional report in October 2024) addressing previous criticisms and putting forward proposals ‘to banish outdated concepts and generally to modernise the approach’, while confirming that ‘it will be a matter for the courts whether to adopt the recommendations’. The Duxbury calculations are available via: At a Glance 2026–2027. From 2025 onwards, the calculations do not default to the lump sum required for the duration of the recipient’s life

The annual withdrawal cap equal to 100% of comparable annuity; ie the maximum amount which can be taken as income if no annuity is bought at retirement

Dispute Resolution analysis: Following the dismissal of the claimants’ claims, it was ordered that they pay the defendant’s costs on the indemnity basis. The cumulative effect of the exceptionally wide case, grave allegations without adequate evidential foundation, failure to reassess or withdraw allegations, reliance on compromised evidence and unpleaded allegations at trial amounted to unreasonableness to a high degree. The court also held that it had jurisdiction to impose a quantified ceiling on costs subject to detailed assessment, including indemnity costs, but declined to do so in this case as there was insufficient material available.

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note is retained for reference only and is not maintained. It discusses the capping provisions set out in the draft 2016 regulations, which have now been superseded by 2020 draft regulations (not yet in force). For the current position in regard to the capping of exit payments to public sector employees and office holders, including discussion of the 2020 draft regulations, see Practice Note: Capping the size of public sector exit payments—the revoked 2020 regulations [Archived]. For the workings of proposed legislation (also not yet in force) designed to allow for claw-back of part or all of an exit payment paid to a public sector employee or office holder who returns to work in the public sector within one year of receiving the payment, see Practice Note: Claw-back of public sector exit payments. The full history of the status and legislation to cap exit payments in the public sector is set out in Practice Note: Government proposals to reform public sector exit payments [Archived]—Capping

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note sets out the workings of the Restriction of Public Sector Exit Payments Regulations 2020 (2020 Regulations), SI 2020/1122, now revoked. The 2020 Regulations came into force on 4 November 2020. The government announced on 12 February 2021 after only four months that the 2020 Regulations were to be revoked, and a Treasury Direction disapplied the cap from 12 February 2021 until the Regulations were officially revoked, by the Public Sector Exit Payments (Revocation) Regulations 2021, SI 2021/197, with effect from 19 March 2021. Public sector exit payments will have been made while the statutory exit pay cap applied, and therefore the details of the 2020 Regulations continue to be of relevance. It is not maintained and is for background information only. For details of the history of the proposals and legislation to cap exit payments in the public sector, including the background to the 2020 Regulations, see Practice Note: Government proposals to reform public sector exit payments [Archived]—Capping the size of public sector exit

A fund partly owned by a larger financial institution.

A equity'>private equity firm that is tied to a larger organisation, typically a bank, insurance company or corporate.

What is a captive? Captive insurance is a method of self-insurance. A captive insurance company is, in simple terms, an insurance company or reinsurance company which is owned by the ultimate policyholder (or reinsurance policyholder) whose risk it assumes. The captive is a regulated (re)insurance company in its jurisdiction and is therefore able to assume risks in the same way as any other (re)insurance company, but the key characteristic of a captive is that it will exclusively or predominantly take on risks arising from its corporate parent or from within its corporate group. HM Treasury has stated that in 2021 there were around 7000 captives globally, with premiums approximating US$69bn. Structures involving captives can range from very simple to highly complicated. The simplest captive structure would be a single company which owns a single captive insurance company and insures risks to that captive. Other structures involve layering so that risks are passed to a fronting insurer (usually a standalone third party) before being reinsured back to

Date [date] Parties 1 [name of Licensor] [of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [number]) whose registered office is at] [address] (Licensor) 2 [name of Licensee] [of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [number]) whose registered office is at] [address] (Licensee) 1 Definitions In this Licence, the following definitions apply: Car Park • the car park shown [edged OR coloured OR hatched] [colour] on the Plan; [Lease • a lease of the [Property OR property known as [description]] made [today OR on [date]] between (1) the Licensor as landlord and (2) the Licensee as tenant;] [Legislation • all legislation having effect in the United Kingdom at any time during the term of this Licence, including: (a) Acts of Parliament; (b) orders, regulations, consents, licences, notices and byelaws made or granted: i under any Act of Parliament; ii by a local authority or by a court of competent jurisdiction; (c) any approved codes of practice issued by a statutory body;] Licence Fee • £[amount] each [week OR month] plus any applicable VAT; Licence Period • the period starting on (and including) [today OR [date]] and (unless terminated under clause 10.2) ending on (and including) [date]; [Permitted Hours • [time] to [time] on any Working Day;] Plan

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 17 June 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into a cartel in the market for car and truck bearings (COMP/39.922). Latest development On 19 March 2014 the Commission issued its enforcement decision and it was announced that all six defendants had settled with the Commission. The total fine imposed was €953.306m–this was broken down as follows: • JTEKT was not fined as it received full immunity for informing the Commission of the cartel • NSK was fined €62.406m (including a 40% for leniency) • NFC was fined €3.956m (including a 30% reduction for leniency) • SKF was fined