"In some areas of research there were also significant time savings. You get to what you are looking for more quickly, which all goes to the value of the product."
Harper Mcleod
Access all documents on Duty of disclosure
When completing a proposal form for a protection product, the applicant has a duty to disclose all facts relevant to the application, particularly in relation to health. Failure to do so can allow the life company to refuse to admit a claim and cancel the policy from inception on the grounds of non-disclosure.
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
STOP PRESS: On 28 March 2024, the Pensions Regulator (TPR)’s new General Code of Practice came into force, through the Pensions Act 2004 (General Code of Practice) (Appointed Day, Amendment and Revocations) Order 2024, SI 2024/431. The General Code merges and updates ten of TPR’s existing codes of practice into a single code made of ‘51 shorter, topic-based modules’. TPR say this new format will make it easier for governing bodies to find TPR’s expectations and certify whether they meet them. The ten codes of practice affected are those relating to reporting breaches of the law, early leavers, late payment of contributions, trustee knowledge and understanding, MNTs/MNDs, internal controls, dispute resolution—reasonable periods, DC governance and public sector governance.Among other things, the General Code of Practice includes a module on trustee remuneration and sets out TPR's expectations on administration and maintaining an effective system of governance (ESOG), as required by the Occupational Pension Schemes (Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, SI 2018/1103 (which implement IORP II). Scheme governing bodies will be expected to...
THIS PRACTICE NOTE APPLIES TO PERSONAL PENSION SCHEMES This Practice Note looks at the disclosure requirements that were applicable to trustees (or managers) of personal pension schemes before 6 April 2014 under the Personal Pension Schemes (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 1987, SI 1987/1110. Those regulations were repealed with effect from 6 April 2014 and are therefore no longer applicable. In this Practice Note, any reference to 'trustees' includes, in the context of a contract-based personal pension scheme, the managers of the scheme.For information on disclosure requirements applicable to occupational pension schemes before 6 April 2014 under the Occupational Pension Schemes (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 1996, SI 1996/1655, see Practice Note: Occupational pension schemes—disclosure requirements before 6 April 2014.With effect from 6 April 2014, the disclosure requirements applicable to occupational and personal pension schemes were consolidated and harmonised into one set of regulations, the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/2734. For information on the disclosure regime applicable from 6 April 2014, see Practice Note: Disclosure...
Discover our 35 Practice Notes on Duty of disclosure
Conflicts and confidentiality report form Instructions to fee earners on completing this form Fee earners should complete Section A and, if relevant, Section B, C or D. [You do not need to complete this form where you reject instructions at the outset because the conflict was obvious and it was not necessary to refer the matter to [your head of department OR your manager OR the COLP].] [In all other cases where OR Where] a conflict or confidentiality issue is identified, please complete this form and pass it to [your head of department OR your manager OR the COLP] together with: • the results of your conflict check • any notifications from members of staff suggesting there may be a conflict • all relevant documents or information You must submit this form before taking any steps to obtain the clients' consent to our acting. It is for [your head of department OR your manager OR the COLP] to decide whether it is appropriate to...
Memorandum on directors’ responsibilities and potential liabilities in respect of an AIM admission document 1 Introduction 1.1 This memorandum has been prepared for those persons who are to be named in the document to be published by [insert name of company] (the Company) as directors or proposed directors of the Company (the Directors) in connection with the proposed admission (the Admission) of the ordinary shares of the Company to trading on AIM, a market operated by the London Stock Exchange plc (the LSE). 1.2 An AIM admission document (the Admission Document) is required to be prepared by the Company in connection with the application for the Admission. The Admission Document will disclose financial and other information about the Company[ and its subsidiaries] and must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the AIM Rules for Companies published by the LSE (the AIM Rules). 1.3 The Directors (among others) are responsible for the contents of the Admission Document and a...
Dive into our 9 Precedents related to Duty of disclosure
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...
Do boundary disputes between neighbours need to be disclosed to buyers by the seller when selling residential property? On the sale of a residential property, it is standard practice for the buyer's solicitors to raise enquiries of the seller using form TA6 (the Property Information Form). Although it would be open to a seller to refuse to provide replies to these enquiries, it would be highly unusual and might well lead the buyer to withdraw from the transaction. Form TA6 deals specifically with both boundaries and disputes (see enquiries 15 and 16 respectively). The replies given to enquiries before contract are representations made by the seller to the buyer. The buyer is entitled to rely on them in deciding whether or not to proceed with the transaction. If information given in replies to enquiries before contract can be shown to be incorrect (whether deliberately or not), the buyer may have a remedy against the seller for misrepresentation, see Practice Note: Misrepresentation, misstatement and non-disclosure in property matters. Form TA6 also...
See the 3 Q&As about Duty of disclosure
This week's edition of Arbitration weekly highlights includes: coverage of arbitration-related decisions from England, UAE, Singapore, France, Brazil and the USA; and updates from AAA-ICDR, VIAC, HKIAC, KCAB, SCMA, LCAM and ICCA. All this, and more, in our weekly highlights.
Arbitration analysis: Reversing a first-instance judgment, the Court of Appeals of the State of São Paulo annulled an arbitral award after concluding that one of the co-arbitrators breached his duty to disclose that he had previously served in another arbitral tribunal with one of the attorneys for the prevailing party. The court held that, under Brazilian law, arbitrators’ duty of disclosure is objective and continuous, and failure to reveal facts capable of creating a ‘reasonable doubt’ as to an arbitrator’s impartiality and independence suffices to vitiate the award, even in the absence of evidence of actual bias. This decision is significant for arbitration practitioners, as it occurs during a period of heightened scrutiny regarding arbitrators’ disclosure obligations in Brazil. Written by Renato Stephan Grion, partner at Pinheiro Neto Advogados, and Guilherme Piccardi, senior associate at Pinheiro Neto Advogados.
Read the latest 11 News articles on Duty of disclosure
**Trials are provided to all ½Û×ÓÊÓƵ content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these ½Û×ÓÊÓƵ 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