Search results
208 results ordered by
Guaranteed to fail? Oral funding arrangements may be enforceable
Funding arrangements should be in writing, or at least impose a primary obligation on the funder to pay. So said the Court of Appeal in exploring whether an oral arrangement to fund a litigant was an unenforceable guarantee or an enforceable agreement to pay in any event (Deepak Abbhi -and- Richard John Slade (t/a Richard Slade and Company)
Read moreA litigator's quiz: Fourth candle of Advent
The UK Supreme Court, and Lady Hale's brooch, hit the headlines this year with a landmark constitutional decision on the prorogation of Parliament. Outside that context, however, the Supreme Court has been busy. In this fourth and final part of our Advent quiz, test your knowledge of the key commercial decisions of 2019 and the decisions to look out for in 2020.
Read moreA litigator's quiz: Third candle of Advent
The third Sunday of Advent was traditionally a time to lift the gloom of Advent and celebrate Christmas to come – and hence was also known as Gaudete (Rejoice!) Sunday or Rose Sunday. So what has there been to celebrate in the legal profession in 2019?
Read moreDuty of care can exist between parent company and third parties affected by subsidiaries' actions
Vedanta(1) is one of three similar cases progressing through the English courts concerning jurisdiction, mass tort claims and the potential liability of an English parent company for the actions of its foreign subsidiaries,(2) the others being Unilever and Dutch Shell.
Read moreIs the FCA to blame for BSPS? MPs seem to think so
The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) yesterday published a report entitled "Investigation into the British Steel Pension Scheme". The report makes a number of recommendations in light of its investigations in to the FCA's conduct and regulatory oversight at the time of the issues arising from the British Steel Pension Scheme (BSPS) and in particular the decision by 7,834 members to transfer to a personal pension arrangement. The report is heavily critical of the FCA's handling of BSPS and its regulatory oversight of the defined benefit transfer market generally. Given the request in the report for an update from the FCA on its progress on the various recommendations and conclusions in 6 months' time, we wait to see how the FCA reacts to yet further criticism of its handling of BSPS at a time when it is reviewing responses to the consumer redress scheme consultation.
Read moreSIPPs and FOS - does the Rowanmoor decision change anything?
Last week FOS published a decision it reached last year in a complaint against a SIPP provider involving advised sales. The FOS upheld the complaint, finding that the SIPP provider should have rejected business from the regulated financial adviser, CIB Life and Pensions Limited (CIB), given, broadly, red flags available to the SIPP provider with respect to the operation of CIB's business model including that CIB was not advising on the ultimate investment within the SIPP and as a result such introductions involved a significant risk of consumer detriment. The decision has received quite a bit of press attention - but has it moved the dial for SIPP complaints before FOS or not?
Read moreThe Future of Insolvency Regulation
On 21 December 2021 the Government launched a consultation into the future of insolvency regulation. The changes proposed in the consultation document will have a wide ranging impact on the insolvency profession (and its insurers) with the proposals including: the direct regulation of insolvency firms, the introduction of a single regulatory body with powers to order compensation against insolvency practitioners and firms, a new additional requirements regime, changes to the bond regime and a public register of insolvency practitioners and firms. Many of the changes proposed require primary legislation and so it may be some time before the changes to take effect (if adopted). But there does appear to be some wind behind these proposals given they follow on from the Call for Evidence in 2019 and a more general focus on insolvency issues in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Read moreFull and frank disclosure means more than just putting relevant matters in evidence – a new year warning in UKIP v Braine & Others
New year, new reminder of the obligation to make full and frank disclosure in without notice applications, this time in the context of a falling out within the UKIP party. The obligation can only be satisfied by drawing the court's attention to legal or factual matters which could undermine the applicant's own application; it is not enough to simply put relevant matters in evidence before the court (UKIP v Braine & Others). Injunction, confidential, publication and non-disclosure.
Read moreStay connected and subscribe to our latest insights and views
Subscribe Here