������Ƶ

View the related checklists about Pleadings

Considerations when dealing with litigants in person—checklist

Considerations when dealing with litigants in person—checklist Issue Comment Link to Lexis+® UK guidance/external links To what extent is a represented party required to assist a litigant in person? A legal representative’s paramount duty is to the court and to the administration of justice. Subject to that, the legal representative’s duty is to the client. Practice Note: Litigants in person—general considerations, resources and regulators' guidanceThe Law Society—Litigants in person: guidelines for lawyers, paras 7–9Legal Services Act 2007, s 1(3) A legal representative must not abuse their position by taking unfair advantage of a litigant in person but there is no obligation to help a litigant in person run their case or to take any action on a litigant in person’s behalf. Practice Note: Litigants in person—general considerations, resources and regulators' guidanceSRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs, para 1.2SRA Code of Conduct for Firms, para 1.2The Law Society—Litigants in person: guidelines for lawyers, para 18 When exercising its powers of case management, the court must consider whether...

Pre-hearing considerations in arbitration proceedings—checklist

Pre-hearing considerations in arbitration proceedings—checklist When preparing for an in-person hearing in arbitration proceedings there are many logistical and practical considerations that need to be taken into account, planned and, often, budgeted for. This Checklist should help ensure the key aspects of a hearing have been considered in advance so that the process runs as smoothly as possible. This Checklist is not intended to be exhaustive, and does not, for example, address the numerous legal issues that may be pertinent in advance of and during an arbitration hearing. This Checklist contemplates the requirements of in-person merits, rather than in-person procedural, hearings, although some of the points will be relevant to both hearing types. It also assumes that private practitioners will play a central role in pre-hearing preparations, which may not always be the case. Some of the matters considered in the Checklist will be organised by one or more parties for the benefit of all parties (eg transcription or interpretation services), and so it...

View the related flowcharts about Pleadings

Ireland—Procedure in the Commercial Court—flowchart

Ireland—Procedure in the Commercial Court—flowchart This Flowchart provides a simple diagrammatic illustration of the procedure in the Commercial Court pursuant to Order 63A of the Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) which is supplemented by High Court Practice Direction 122. It should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Ireland—Commercial Court—Rules and Procedures. Note 1 (High Court proceedings issued) High Court proceedings are issued in the Central Office in the usual way. For guidance on issuing court proceedings, see Practice Note: Ireland—Starting a civil action. Note 2 (Entry application filed) One or all of the parties applies for entry into the Commercial Court by notice of motion supported by a solicitor’s certificate in accordance with Order 63A, Rule 4(2) RSC.. Note 3 (Entry application hearing) The entry application requires a hearing (even if on consent) as the judge has discretion on whether or not to enter the proceedings. Entry is either granted or refused. Costs of the application may be awarded against the applicant if their application is unsuccessful....

View the related practice notes about Pleadings

HKIAC (2018)—starting an arbitration

HKIAC (2018)—starting an arbitration This Practice Note provides guidance on starting an arbitration pursuant to the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) Administered Arbitration Rules 2018 (the 2018 HKIAC Rules; HKIAC 2018). As discussed in Practice Note: HKIAC (2018)—the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules—application and key features, the 2018 HKIAC Rules apply (generally) to HKIAC arbitrations commenced on or after 1 November 2018, unless the parties agree otherwise; for HKIAC arbitrations commenced before 1 November 2018, the 2013 HKIAC Rules will apply (generally), unless the parties agreed otherwise. For an introduction to the HKIAC and its structure, see Practice Note: HKIAC—background to and structure of the institution. How to commence an HKIAC arbitration The procedure for commencing an arbitration under the 2018 HKIAC Rules is similar to that provided pursuant to other institutional arbitration rules. A party who wishes to start an arbitration (ie the claimant(s)) pursuant to the 2018 HKIAC Rules shall ‘communicate’ a written Notice of Arbitration (the Notice) to the HKIAC and...

Claims for rectification

Claims for rectification This Practice Note outlines when a claim for rectification may be appropriate, what you need to establish to succeed on such a claim and what evidence may be admissible in support. In Tartsinis v Novana, Leggatt J as he then was questioned the authority of Lord Hoffman’s dicta in Chartbrook v Persimmon Homes (as followed in Daventry v Daventry), with regard to whether the court should apply an objective or a subjective test when analysing claims for rectification. In 2019, Leggatt LJ, gave the Court of Appeal’s unanimous decision in FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation confirming that the test for the relevant intention of the parties to the document sought to be rectified is a subjective test. In summary: ‘176. [...] before a written contract may be rectified on the basis of a common mistake, it is necessary to show either (1) that the document fails to give effect to a prior concluded contract or (2) that, when they...

View the related precedents about Pleadings

ET1 claim—time off work to perform public duties [Archived]

ET1 claim—time off work to perform public duties [Archived] [Insert in para 8.2 of claim form ET1:] 1 I am a [magistrate] and in order to fulfil my duties, I need to have [20] days off work each year. 2 Since [insert date] I have been allowed [15] days off by the Respondent to perform these duties[ and a further [5] days off in respect of my duties as a governor of a maintained school].

ET3 Response to claim—time off work to perform public duties [Archived]

ET3 Response to claim—time off work to perform public duties [Archived] [Insert in para 6.1 of response form ET3:] 1 It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed for the following reasons. 2 The Respondent was justified in refusing to permit the Claimant to take time off on [insert date] because [the amount of time which he requested was excessive having

View the related q&as about Pleadings

What should be included in an application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)? Is it possible for a third party to intervene in a case before the ECtHR?

What should be included in an application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)? Is it possible for a third party to intervene in a case before the ECtHR? For the purposes of this Q&A we have assumed that it is an individual who is making the application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Initial Application According to r 47 of the Rules of Court: “1. An application under Article 34 of the Convention shall be made on the application form provided by the Registry, unless the Court decides otherwise. It shall contain all of the information requested in the relevant parts of the application form and set out (a) the name, date of birth, nationality and address of the applicant and, where the applicant is a legal person, the full name, date of incorporation or registration, the official registration number (if any) and the official address; (b) the name, occupation, address, telephone and fax numbers and e-mail address of the...

Where the petitioner sought 50% of their costs in relation to the divorce suit in the petition, can they increase their claim to 100% of their costs on applying for the decree nisi?

Where the petitioner sought 50% of their costs in relation to the divorce suit in the petition, can they increase their claim to 100% of their costs on applying for the decree nisi? Whether or not a party should pay costs, and if so when and how much, is at the discretion of the judge. In principle, costs are awarded on the basis of CPR 44 (as modified by Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 28) and section 51(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. In the case of undefended petitions, the district judge will determine, when granting a certificate that a party is entitled to a decree nisi or decree of judicial separation in matrimonial proceedings or a conditional order or a separation order in civil partnership proceedings, whether the court’s intention is to make a costs order. The starting point is a 'clean sheet'. In practice, most courts appear to order costs against the respondent when one is sought, where the...

View the related News about Pleadings

Transferred loss—is it recoverable in Scots law? (Simmers v Green Cat)

Construction analysis: The Court of Session (Outer House) held that the pursuer's pleadings were insufficient to support a claim for transferred loss in relation to a claim for defects in wind turbines, while acknowledging that such claims may be possible in Scots law under narrow circumstances. The court also confirmed that standard form contracts might be subject to challenges under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, even if not drafted by the party relying on them.

Ross Intelligence out of options in US copyright fight with Thomson Reuters

MLex: Thomson Reuters has partly prevailed on summary judgment in its infringement case against Ross Intelligence over copyrights associated with the Westlaw database. A side-by-side comparison of the works—which US Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas called for at a hearing in December, led to today’s outcome, with Bibas saying he ‘slogged through all 2,830 headnotes’, ultimately finding 2,243 of them infringed by Ross. While the question of infringement of thousands of other headnotes remains undecided, the defendant has little ammunition left in its arsenal: In the same ruling, Bibas stripped Ross of its ability to argue at trial that its use of Westlaw qualifies as fair.