Search Results for: 1z1-078 Reliable Exam Blueprint 🛰 1z1-078 Valid Cram Materials 🔫 1z1-078 Exam Braindumps 🙄 Easily obtain ⮆ 1z1-078 ⮄ for free download through ➡ www.pdfvce.com ️⬅️ 🅱1z1-078 Exam Consultant

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

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> >