Search Results for: Salesforce CRT-402 試験対策: Certification Preparation for Platform App Builder - GoShiken 365日無料アップデート 🐬 （ CRT-402 ）を無料でダウンロード➽ www.goshiken.com 🢪で検索するだけCRT-402合格資料

See you in court, AGAIN: variation applications – clarity or confusion?

10th Feb 2022

 Michael George and Aimee Fox have penned a review on variation applications for the latest issue of Family Law, contrasting the treatment of the applications for variations in income awards with those for non-income/capital provision.

The feature reviews two key cases of BT v CU and T v T, offers a postscript on PAG Report 2019 and suggests several lessons learnt from these important cases for divorce and financial settlement, notably:

  • The test for varying the quantum or rights vested under a non-income/capital award is either very high or in the alternative they are not amenable to variation as to quantum and these two strands of thinking persist for the moment
  • Practitioners should be mindful that an order for a series of lump sums may be deemed to be a camouflaged order for a series of lump sums and care needs to be made when advising and drafting
  • The costs rules as drafted do seem logical in the context of applications for variation of non-income/capital awards
  • Practitioners should be wary of inadvertently giving impermissible regulated financial advice if there is an option for an internal transfer.

This article was first published by LexisNexis® on 10 February 2022.

View Article

Expert evidence and second opinions: process and pitfalls

25th Aug 2022

3PB's family law specialist, James Legg, alongside Alex Brereton from Mishcon de Reya LLP, writes for Family Law on how the use of expert evidence is tightly regulated by the Judges in the Family Court.

Expert evidence can only be used where it is ‘necessary’ to assist the court to resolve the proceedings. In proceedings relating to children (including claims under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989), experts are only usually instructed once the court has given its permission to do so. On the other hand, in financial remedy proceedings the permission stage is engaged when a party seeks to adduce the evidence from the expert into the proceedings (i.e. permission is not normally needed to obtain the evidence, only to adduce it into the proceedings).

Part 25 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 and its associated Practice Directions provide detailed practical guidance as to applications to adduce expert evidence and how it is dealt with once permission has been granted. A ‘Daniels v Walker’ application may provide a party with an opportunity to challenge an expert's evidence by adducing the evidence of a second expert. Generally, this is only permitted where there is a good reason and, in all of the circumstances, it would be unjust not to allow the adducing party to rely on that evidence.

The full article has been published in the September issue of Family Law.

View Article

Breaching payment obligations under agency agreements in the case of Aston Martin MENA Ltd v Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd

15th Jan 2024

Alexander Whatley has written, for LexisNexis, an article about breaching payment obligations under agency agreements in the case of Aston Martin MENA Ltd v Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd. The analysis highlights the partially-successful claim, following trial, brought against this well-known manufacturer of luxury cars by its exclusive distributor in the Middle Eastern, North Africa and Turkish (‘MENA’) region.

Both parties had entered into an agency agreement which the distributor had terminated upon alleged breaches of payment obligations. The claim also included numerous allegations of breaches of good faith. The court found that the claimant had been entitled to terminate the agency agreement for non-payment.

View Article

Seeking the dismissal of a winding-up petition Tanfield (as executor of the Estate of Paul Watkins and another company v Meadowbrook Montessori Ltd)

23rd Jul 2024

Rebecca Farrell has written an article for LexisNexis regarding a landlord’s winding-up petition for £167,593.41 against a company incorporated to run a school which was dismissed. The court found there was a strongly arguable case that the bulk of the petition debt did not represent rent arrears payable, but rather a purchase price payable for shares in the company. The court also accepted that there was a cross-clam with a real prospect of success in a sum of at least £546,000 in general damages and potentially exemplary damages as well. The company had raised a strongly arguable case that the purported forfeiture of the lease by physical re-entry between the first and second hearing of the petition (causing the abrupt closure of the school) was unlawful, amongst other arguments in the cross claim.

This article was first published by LexisNexis on 23 July 2024.

View Article
<< /span> >