The statutory ground to award security for costs against an impecunious company: should we mourn its passing?

Analyses the approach of the courts to their jurisdiction to make an order for security for costs against an impecunious company under the Companies Act 1985 s.726 and under the CPR r.25.13(2)(c). Compares the courts' interpretation of the two jurisdictions with regard to their extent, their application to counterclaims and interim proceedings, the standard of proof of impecuniosity required, and the circumstances taken into account by the courts when exercising each jurisdiction. Assesses the likely impact of the repeal of s.726 expected on October 1, 2009

Dean Petersen Elementary School

To educate their students by using a trauma-informed approach that allows students to be vulnerable to learning new information and provide a safe spacehttps://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/educ_fys_103/1044/thumbnail.jp

Security for costs and the foreign resident claimant

Discusses the courts' discretion under CPR r.25.13(2)(a) to order security for costs against a claimant resident outside the Brussels regime. Analyses the wording of the rule, noting the difference between "resident" and "ordinarily resident" and the difficulties arising in cases of multiple residence. Considers whether the focus on residence could indirectly amount to discrimination. Suggests that the courts have countered this possibility by developing an additional requirement for an applicant to demonstrate potential difficulty in enforcement. Calls for the rule to be amended to reflect this development

Solicitors' CPD: time to change from regulatory stick to regulatory carrot?

Summary: The legal professions are agreed on the need for some form of continuing professional development (“CPD”) after qualification. What is less clear is the intention of such frameworks and in contrast to other forms of more diffuse learning in the workplace. I will explore two areas of tension in the current solicitors‟ CPD system which will bear attention before any of these three related objectives can be achieved: Between a didactic form of delivery focussing on technical updating of knowledge of law and procedure and more “difficult” participative CPD activity; Between accountability, regulation and personal development as drivers behind the CPD scheme dear to different stakeholders. The paper will conclude that, whilst the paradigm shift apparent in the regulators and the professional body is to be welcomed, a change of culture in the profession as a whole is required. This requires CPD, in partnership with other forms of learning, to be viewed in terms of outputs and benefits: the carrots of the title. It is not only a negligence-avoiding maintenance of a static level of competence but a mechanism to address the change which will inevitably result from the full implementation of the Legal Services Act 2007