ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû

View the related checklists about Counterclaim

Which EU Member State court has jurisdiction?—checklist

Which EU Member State court has jurisdiction?—checklist This Checklist is for use when determining which EU Member State’s courts have jurisdiction to determine a dispute. It does this by considering the articles in Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) that are applied to determine which court has jurisdiction to determine the dispute. The general rule is that a defendant should be sued in the courts of the EU Member State in which they are domiciled. However, a number of articles derogate from this rule. Some derogations are mandatory, while and others apply if the claimant seeks to rely on that provision. The articles are applied in the hierarchy set out in the table below. If the first article listed is not applicable, the next article should be considered to see if that is applicable and so on. Determining jurisdiction Type of jurisdiction Consideration Mandatory/by choice Brussels I (recast) Exclusive jurisdiction Certain prescribed circumstances provide for the courts of an EU Member State to have jurisdiction regardless of...

View the related practice notes about Counterclaim

Making an additional claim under CPR 20—counterclaim

This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions—see: Court specific guidance.CPR 20 and CPR PD 20 set out the process whereby a party can bring an ‘additional claim’, which includes a counterclaim (CPR 20.2). This Practice Note considers when a counterclaim can be made by a defendant against the claimant or a new party and how this is achieved. It also considers how to respond to a counterclaim (the defence to counterclaim and any reply to defence to counterclaim) and the impact of a counterclaim on case management.This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Counterclaims and additional claims under CPR 20—initial considerations and permission, which gives guidance on the factors to consider before making an additional claim and which sets out:•how the CPR defines an additional claim—see: What is an ‘additional claim’ and when might a party...

Adjudication—resisting enforcement using set-off or counterclaim

Produced in association with 4 Pump CourtThe courts have repeatedly held (see eg Ferson Contractors v Levolux) that the policy behind the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996) is that adjudication decisions should be enforced—to allow parties to resist enforcement by raising set-off arguments would frustrate that purpose. As such, a party who is ordered to pay money in an adjudicator’s decision must pay in full without deduction or set-off. Except in very limited circumstances, set out below, a separate contractual entitlement (such as to liquidated and ascertained damages (LADs)) cannot be used to resist enforcement of an adjudication decision.Parties seeking to set-off against an adjudicator's decision therefore face an uphill struggle. The court in Thameside Construction v Stevens said that there were broadly two exceptions to the usual rule: •there was a contractual right to set-off, or•there was a declaratory type decision by the adjudicator (for instance in relation to an entitlement in principle to LADs) that left room within the decision itself for a set-off...

View the related precedents about Counterclaim

Facility letter (term loan): single company borrower—bilateral—unsecured

Facility letter (term loan): single company borrower—bilateral—unsecured [TO BE PRINTED ON THE HEADED PAPER OF THE LENDER] [insert name and address of borrower] [insert date] Dear [insert full name of borrower] We offer to place at your disposal a Sterling loan facility in the aggregate principal amount of £[insert amount in figures] ([insert amount in words] Sterling) [for the purpose of [insert details]] on the following terms and conditions: 1 Definitions 1.1 In this letter, unless otherwise provided: Base Rate • means the base rate of [the Lender OR [insert name of Bank]] for the time being and from time to time; Borrower • means [insert name of company], a company incorporated in England and Wales with registered number [insert company number] whose registered office is at [insert address]; Business Day • means a day, other than a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, on which banks are open for business in London; Commitment Expiry Date • means the earlier of the date falling [insert number]...

Tomlin order

Tomlin order Claim No. [insert claim number]. [IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS [OF ENGLAND AND WALES OR IN [insert location] OR [Specify division] [Specify specialist court] [Insert location] DISTRICT REGISTRY THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert location] [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS LIST before [The Honourable Mr Justice OR The Honourable Mrs Justice OR His Honour Judge OR Her Honour Judge OR Master OR District Judge] [insert name] dated: [insert date] between: [insert name]        Claimant / [Applicant OR Respondent] and [insert name]        Defendant / [Applicant OR Respondent] _______________________________________ [ Draft ] tomlin order _______________________________________ [ Upon hearing the application of the [insert name of party or parties applying] by notice dated [insert date] OR Upon the trial of this claim] OR [ And upon reading the written evidence filed] And the parties having agreed to the terms set out in [the attached Schedule OR a [confidential] [schedule OR agreement] dated [insert date], copies of which are held by...

View the related q&as about Counterclaim

Is a Part 20 defendant normally required to complete a directions questionnaire ‘DQ’ (Form N181), does this answer change if the claim would be fast track, but the Part 20 claim multi-track? If the notice of allocation sent to the claimant does not require budgets, disclosure discussion report etc, can you ignore and propose standard directions? Also, outside the disclosure pilot, can one use standard disclosure?

Is a Part 20 defendant normally required to complete a directions questionnaire ‘DQ’ (Form N181), does this answer change if the claim would be fast track, but the Part 20 claim multi-track? If the notice of allocation sent to the claimant does not require budgets, disclosure discussion report etc, can you ignore and propose standard directions? Also, outside the disclosure pilot, can one use standard disclosure? In this Q&A, the defendant’s Part 20 claim is a counterclaim that has been made against a person other than the claimant under CPR 20.5. Is a Part 20 defendant required to file a directions questionnaire? CPR 20 deals with counterclaims and other additional claims by the defendant. CPR 20.3(2) sets out which of the Civil Procedure Rules do not apply to additional claims (which, as defined in CPR 20.2(2) includes counterclaims). Included in the rules that do not apply to additional claims is CPR 26, which sets out the requirement for the parties to file a directions questionnaire (DQ)....

View the related News about Counterclaim

Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—17 April 2025

This week's edition of Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights includes: the Court of Appeal’s judgment in respect of the Thames Water restructuring plan, an analysis of the Supreme Court’s rejection of an attempt to modify the fiduciary profit rule (Rukhadze v Recovery Partners GP Ltd), a discussion on directors’ duty to account (Official Receiver v Haq), examination of the High Court’s decision to dismiss an appeal to overturn judgment finding that a guarantor is personally liable for debts (Jones v City Electrical Factors Ltd), plus a round-up of other news and cases for restructuring and insolvency professionals.

High threshold for procedural fairness challenges confirmed (Clarke Energy v Power Generation Corporation)

Arbitration analysis: The Supreme Court of Queensland in Clarke Energy (Australia) Pty Ltd v Power Generation Corporation and anor dismissed an application to set aside an arbitral award made on the ground that the award was contrary to public policy in that the applicant was denied procedural fairness. The court accepted that a sufficiently serious denial of procedural fairness could justify setting aside an award on public policy grounds, but applied the orthodox principle that there must be real unfairness or real practical injustice. In this case there was no denial because the issue the applicant said the arbitrator ignored was not raised by the applicant until its closing submissions in reply. The arbitrator in fact dealt with the issue, and there was no relevant injustice. Written by Dr Cameron Ford OAM SC, barrister at William Forster Chambers.