Preliminary Hearing Definition | Legal Glossary | LexisNexis (2023)

Published by a LexisNexis Arbitration expert

In arbitration, a meeting or hearing (in person or by tele/video conference) organised by the arbitral tribunal with the parties (and, usually, their representatives) soon after the tribunal’s constitution, which seeks to discuss and agree the conduct of, and timetable for, the entire arbitration.

View the related practice notes about Preliminary Hearing

Financial services: references and applications to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Financial services: references and applications to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) Lexis®PSL Financial Services FCA/PRA Enforcement Database: This incorporates detailed information on all substantive FCA and PRA Final Notices and, where available, Decision Notices from 2014 to present. The Database, available here, may be searched and filtered by rule breach, keyword, sector, date, seriousness, aggravating and mitigating factors, financial penalty, and other actions such as appeals. This Practice Note explains the law and procedure for making a reference to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) following a disciplinary or non-disciplinary decision of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) or the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA); including decisions relating to financial penalties and prohibition orders under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000) and the FCA’s registration of cryptoasset firms under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, SI 2017/692 (MLRs). It considers the role of the Upper Tribunal and its powers in determining references in financial services matters. It also considers applications to the Tribunal, along with relevant case law, for the suspension of the effect of the regulator’s decision by the Tribunal under Rule 5(5) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, SI 2008/2698, in addition to applications for privacy, time extensions and costs. Key points in financial services

Employment law in Northern Ireland

Employment law in Northern Ireland Employment law in Northern Ireland has, for many years, followed the same laws as apply in the other jurisdictions of Great Britain. Although a separate legal jurisdiction, government policy in Northern Ireland was that laws in Great Britain could be directly applicable (for example the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA 1995) or the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998)) or that they would follow along the same lines as legislation applicable in Great Britain, albeit with some small differences (for example the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) in Great Britain was followed by the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, albeit with some differences). The only major divergence from the policy of following the Great Britain approach to employment law was discrimination on grounds of religious belief and political opinion. Most of the legislation passed in Great Britain was enacted in Northern Ireland, but at times there was a delay, which could be a matter of weeks, months or even years. For example, the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order was passed in 1997, whereas in Great Britain the Race Relations Act 1976 commenced in that year. There is some legislation that was applicable in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland that has been either repealed in Great Britain (such as the DDA 1995) but still remains in force in Northern Ireland and others

View the related precedents about Preliminary Hearing

Price and services notice—Employment Tribunal—range of costs—law firms

Price and services notice—Employment Tribunal—range of costs—law firms Our pricing for bringing and defending claims for unfair or wrongful dismissal Simple case: £[insert range] (excluding VAT) Medium complexity case: £[insert range] (excluding VAT) High complexity case: £[insert range] (excluding VAT) We charge based on an hourly rate which varies depending on the member of staff dealing with your matter. Our lowest hourly rate is £[insert rate] and our highest hourly rate is £[insert rate]. The seniority of the members of staff dealing with your case will depend on its complexity. We will discuss this with you when you instruct us. Factors that could make a case more complex: • if it is necessary to make or defend applications to amend claims or to provide information about an existing claim; • defending claims that are brought by litigants in person; • making or defending a costs application; • complex preliminary issues such as whether the client is disabled (if this is not agreed by the parties); • the number of witnesses and documents; • if it is an automatic unfair dismissal claim, eg if you are dismissed after blowing the whistle on your employer; • allegations of discrimination which are linked to the dismissal. There will generally be an additional charge for attending a Tribunal hearing of £[insert rate] per day (excluding VAT). Generally, we would allow [insert range] days, depending on the complexity of your case. Disbursements Disbursements are costs related

Costs warning letter (employment tribunal)

Costs warning letter (employment tribunal) [ON YOUR LETTERHEAD] [Name and address of other party, or other party’s solicitor] Dear [insert contact name] [Insert subject of letter, eg names of parties to the claim, or Your client: [name]]: Employment tribunal claim number: [insert number] [ [We refer to our previous correspondence in relation to these proceedings, OR We refer to the ET3 response form which our client has submitted to the employment tribunal in response to your [client’s ]claim,] in which we have [set out brief details of the party’s position, eg set out that the employment tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear your unfair dismissal claim because you do not have the required period of continuous employment with [enter name]]] We write to put you on notice that, if [you continue OR your client continues] to pursue [the OR their] [claim[s] for OR ground[s] of defence that] [insert brief details, eg unfair dismissal, the claim is out of time], our client will make an application to the employment tribunal for a costs order to be made against [you OR your client OR , under Rule 76 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. Rule 76(1) provides: ‘A Tribunal may make a costs order or a preparation time order, and shall consider whether to do so, where it considers that— (a) a party (or that party’s representative) has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise

View the related q&as about Preliminary Hearing

What can a respondent named in the ET1 do if its name is not also in the early conciliation certificate but the tribunal nonetheless erroneously accepts the claim?

What can a respondent named in the ET1 do if its name is not also in the early conciliation certificate but the tribunal nonetheless erroneously accepts the claim? Where a claim is made to an employment tribunal to which early conciliation applies (see Practice Note: The early conciliation requirement—When the early conciliation requirement applies), the contents of the claim must comply with various specific requirements. One such requirement is that the name of the respondent on the claim form must be the same as the name of the prospective respondent on the early conciliation certificate. Failure to comply with such requirements can lead to a rejection of the claim by an employment judge. The relevant paragraphs and subparagraphs of rule 12 of the Employment Tribunal (ET) rules provide as follows: • the staff of the tribunal office shall refer a claim form to an Employment Judge if they consider that the claim, or part of it, may be one which institutes relevant proceedings and the name of the respondent on the claim form is not the same as the name of the prospective respondent on the early conciliation certificate to which the early conciliation number relates • the claim, or part of it, shall be rejected if the Judge considers that the claim, or part of it, is of a kind described in sub-paragraph (e) or (f) of

There is an extant winding-up petition which the petitioner wishes to withdraw but is unable to because it has not yet undergone a pre-trial review. Can a second potential petitioner issue their own petition in the meantime and if so, do they expose themselves to costs risks? Alternatively, can the second potential petitioner support the extant petition as it has not yet been withdrawn?

There is an extant winding-up petition which the petitioner wishes to withdraw but is unable to because it has not yet undergone a pre-trial review. Can a second potential petitioner issue their own petition in the meantime and if so, do they expose themselves to costs risks? Alternatively, can the second potential petitioner support the extant petition as it has not yet been withdrawn? Presenting a second winding-up petition prior to the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 The Practice Direction on Insolvency Proceedings (PDIP) provides at paragraph 9.2 that a search must be undertaken prior to the presentation of a winding-up petition to ensure that no petition is pending, and that a petitioner who presents a winding-up petition (regardless of the ground on which the second petition is based) while another is pending does so at risk as to costs. Although the latest version of the PDIP came into force on 3 July 2020, the requirement to undertake a search for prior petitions and the warning as to costs has existed for a number of years. The reason for this provision is that winding up proceedings are in effect a class action and that there should therefore only be one set of winding up proceedings to avoid duplication of costs and a waste of the court's time and resources. Non-petitioning creditors are entitled to engage in the

View the related News about Preliminary Hearing

Public Law weekly highlights—2 March 2023

This week's edition of Public Law weekly highlights includes comment on the new Windsor Framework, coverage of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry and an update on the ‘go-live’ date of the Procurement Bill. Also featured are selected Brexit headlines, including reactions of the Welsh Government and ClientEarth to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (REULRR Bill). This edition further includes updates on coronavirus (COVID-19), constitutional and administrative law, State accountability and liability, judicial review, equality and human rights, public procurement, subsidy control and State aid and other Public Law updates. Case analysis this week includes a discussion on how Re Allister et al will impact constitutional statutes, Shamima Begum’s appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and a VAT case in the UK Supreme Court raising fundamental principles of statutory interpretation.

Public Law weekly highlights—16 February 2023

This week's edition of Public Law weekly highlights includes news of the introduction of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill, updates on the Preliminary Hearings for the UK COVID-19 Inquiry and coverage of Nicola Sturgeon’s announcement of her intention to step down as Scotland’s First Minister. Also featured are selected Brexit headlines, including the ESC’s 14th report on EU policy areas of UK significance, News Analysis on the post-Brexit trade arrangements for Northern Ireland and an update to the Retained EU law (REUL) dashboard with a new CSV file, as well as the latest post-Brexit guidance and SIs. Further in this edition, News Analysis on the impact that the creation of new government ministries will have on UK digital and energy companies and the settlement of a lawsuit from a judge who alleged she was bullied, harassed and discriminated against by senior members of the judiciary. This edition further includes updates on coronavirus (COVID-19), constitutional and administrative law, state accountability and liability, judicial review, equality and human rights, information law, public procurement, subsidy control and State aid, management and strategic planning and other Public Law updates. Cases this week includes the grant of a decree of absolvitor by the Scottish Outer House of the Court of Session in a case regarding the procurement process for SWAN 2.

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.