"The forms and precedents section is essential so that I can quickly and easily look up provisions to include in templates or bespoke project contracts."
RWE
Access all documents on Party
A natural or legal person involved in proceedings, either as claimant or defendant; also, any person who, under any rules of court or any other statutory provision, has been served with notice of proceedings or has intervened in them.
Rules governing the parties to proceedings are found in CPR r 19.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.
For our full legal glossary and more legal research sources, register for a free Lexis+ trial
Ireland—Determining jurisdiction in civil litigation—checklist This Checklist offers guidance on how to determine whether an Irish court has jurisdiction to deal with the specific civil dispute. In doing so, it considers provisions under Brussels I (recast), the Lugano Convention and the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. This Checklist provides an overview of jurisdiction in terms of considering whether the dispute should be dealt with in Ireland. For guidance on: • which specific court an action should be raised in, see Practice Note: Ireland—Starting a civil action • other issues to consider before bringing a civil claim in an Irish court and how to start and progress a civil claim in Ireland, see Practice Notes: Ireland—Starting a civil action and Ireland—Pre-action conduct, and in initiating and case managing a civil claim, Ireland—Progressing and managing a High Court civil claim respectively • other aspects of Irish civil litigation, see: Ireland—Alternative dispute resolution and settlement—overview which links through to detailed guidance on specific aspects of dispute resolution in Ireland This Checklist...
Drafting a building contract/schedule of amendments—checklist Once the procurement route and form of building contract has been selected (see Practice Note: Choosing the right procurement method—construction projects) the employer should consider the following matters and incorporate the appropriate drafting in the building contract particulars and schedule of amendments. This Checklist assumes that the parties are using a standard form of building contract, such as a JCT form, and that the employer is proposing the first draft including the completed contract particulars and a schedule of amendments, which amends the standard terms. This list is not exhaustive, however, and there may be other project specific matters/risks that need to be taken into account: Contractual matters • Carry out due diligence on the contractor The employer needs to carry out due diligence on the contractor at the outset to determine whether its financial position is acceptable. Confirm the contractor’s company number and name at Companies House. • Obtain consultants’ details Confirm the full details of the consultants engaged by the employer; some...
Discover our 54 Checklists on Party
Step-in clauses—flowchart This flowchart is an example of the step-in rights process that may be contained in a collateral warranty. The terms of any step-in rights contained in
Claims under the FIDIC Red and Yellow Books 2017 (clause 20.2)—flowchart This flowchart sets out the process for claims by the Contractor or Employer under clause 20.2 of the FIDIC Red and Yellow Books 2017, which applies to: • claims by the Employer for: ◦ additional payment or a reduction in the Contract Price, and/or ◦ an extension of the Defects Notification
Discover our 6 Flowcharts on Party
This Practice Note identifies the parties’ duties to assist the court in relation to disclosure considering the overriding objective, CPR 31 including CPR PD 31B and data protection provisions. It also emphasises the duty to co-operate during the disclosure process and how the disclosure statement in the List of Documents should be dealt with. Finally, it looks at failing to deal with disclosure properly and the drawing of adverse inferences by a court when that does not occur.What are a party's duties?CPR 1.3 requires a party to assist the court to further the overriding objective. This means that a litigant must act in a co-operative, proportionate and reasonable manner during the litigation process to minimise costs. In reality, this may mean discussing and seeking to agree the scope of any disclosure exercise. See Practice Note: Disclosure obligations in multi track claims.This Practice Note does not cover the provisions of the disclosure scheme operating in the Business and Property Courts. For guidance, see: Disclosure scheme—overview.In relation to disclosure, a litigant has...
Produced in association with 4 Pump CourtThis Practice Note considers whether it is possible to have an adjudication between three or more parties (known as multi-party adjudication), for example if an employer wishes to adjudicate in relation to a defect that was caused by a contractor and a consultant.Adjudication is not a procedure well suited to multi-party disputes—dealing with submissions from two parties within a 28-day timeframe is often challenging enough, without adding in a further layer of complication (particularly if the two responding parties need to reply to arguments from each other, as well as the referring party). As such, most adjudication regimes, and the Scheme for Construction Contracts, do not contemplate multi-party adjudications. For guidance on which common adjudication rules and standard form contracts permit multi-party disputes, see Practice Note: Adjudication procedure under various construction contracts and rules.There are, however, contractual schemes purporting to allow non-parties to be joined in an adjudication under that contract. The difficulty in principle with this approach is that it is not easy...
Discover our 776 Practice Notes on Party
Consultancy agreement—company and individual—pro-client (short form) [ON HEADED NOTEPAPER OF CLIENT COMPANY] [Insert consultant’s name] [Insert consultant’s address] [Insert date] Dear [insert consultant’s name] [ Consultancy agreement OR Insert name of project ] Further to our recent discussions, I am pleased to confirm the terms of our agreement regarding the provision of your consultancy services to [insert name of client company] (Company). 1 Term 1.1 [Subject to the terms set out in this letter, your engagement [will commence OR commenced] on [insert date] and will continue unless or until either party gives to the other not less than [insert number] [weeks’ OR months’] prior notice in writing. OR 1.2 Your engagement will be for a fixed period of [insert number] months from [insert date], subject to the terms of this letter and subject to the right of either the Company or you to give to the other not less than [number] [weeks’ OR months’] notice in writing during such fixed period terminating the...
ET3 grounds for resisting claim—religion or belief: direct or indirect discrimination, harassment [Insert in para 6.1 of response form ET3:] 1 Paragraph 1 of the Grounds of Claim is admitted. 2 It is admitted that on or about [insert date], the Respondent announced the introduction of a new rolling shift system which would require all poultry processors to work on Sunday one week in every four and that the Claimant objected to the new system on the basis that she attends religious services every Sunday. It is admitted that the Respondent has implemented the new shift system. 3 The new shift system was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The Respondent had to introduce Sunday working in order to ensure that its poultry business remained profitable and to avoid closing down that part of its operations. A questionnaire circulated amongst employees on or about [insert date] revealed that very few wanted to volunteer for Sunday shifts for a variety of reasons including family and other...
Dive into our 890 Precedents related to Party
In the context of understanding whether or not permission is needed to serve debt proceedings on a company based in Jersey where there is an express jurisdictional clause in the contract submitting to the English courts, could Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) apply? This Q&A considers the relevance of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) when considering whether permission is required to serve out of the jurisdiction. What is the relevance of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I (recast)) when considering whether permission is required to serve out of the jurisdiction? Permission is not required to serve a claim form out of the jurisdiction where the factors in CPR 6.32 or CPR 6.33 are satisfied (note that CPR 6.32 is not relevant in this instance as it only applies to Scotland and Northern Ireland). CPR 6.33 sets out various scenarios where the permission of the court is not required to serve out of the UK. These include (at CPR 6.33(2)) reference to various provisions of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I...
A litigant in person has filed a list of documents for disclosure but has not filed a disclosure statement. Does CPR 31.21 apply and is there an automatic sanction for failure to provide a disclosure statement? Can the litigant rely on the documents without permission from the court or have relief from the sanctions? Disclosure statement CPR 31.10 sets out the procedure for giving standard disclosure. This requires a party to make a list of documents in the relevant practice form (N265) which includes a disclosure statement (see the annex to CPR PD 31A). CPR 31.10(5) requires a list of documents to include a disclosure statement which should indicate the individual statements listed in CPR 31.10(6): • setting out the extent of the search undertaken to locate documents to be disclosed • certifying that the party giving disclosure understands the duty to disclose documents • certifying to the best of his knowledge he has carried out that duty Unless the parties have agreed in writing that...
See the 65 Q&As about Party
Dispute Resolution analysis: This case provides an analysis of asymmetrical jurisdiction clauses in the context of a dispute arising from the sale of the back catalogue of Mr Barry Manilow. It serves as a reminder that the jurisdiction of the English Courts is determined at the date of issue of proceedings. The concept that the English court had jurisdiction when the proceedings were issued, but that was ‘floating’ and was lost in favour of California when the option to sue there was exercised, was heretical and contrary to authority. Written by Georgia Whiting, in-house legal counsel, at Ardmore Group Ltd.
This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including the 11th edition of the King’s Bench Guide and the Court of Appeal decision in Freeman v Home Farm Ellingham Ltd (specific performance); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.
Read the latest 131 News articles on Party
**Trials are provided to all ÑÇÖÞÉ«ÇéÍø content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these ÑÇÖÞÉ«ÇéÍø services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
0330 161 1234