- Published on
KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Maintenance and Champerty
Maintenance refers to the support or encouragement of legal proceedings by a third party who has no legitimate interest in the dispute. Champerty is a more serious form of maintenance in which the supporter receives a share of the proceeds if the case succeeds.
Historically, both maintenance and champerty were treated as crimes and torts because the law sought to prevent abuses of the legal process and speculative litigation. These offences were abolished in 1967, but agreements considered champertous may still be regarded as contrary to public policy.
Traditional English law strongly disapproved of lawyers receiving payment based on a share of the damages awarded to a client. However, reforms later introduced conditional fee arrangements, often known as “no win, no fee” agreements.
Modern courts generally focus on whether third-party funding arrangements threaten the integrity of the justice system. Legitimate litigation funding may now be permitted provided it does not encourage abuse or unfair control of proceedings.
Maintenance refers to the support or encouragement of legal proceedings by a third party who has no legitimate interest in the dispute. Champerty is a more serious form of maintenance in which the supporter receives a share of the proceeds if the case succeeds.
Historically, both maintenance and champerty were treated as crimes and torts because the law sought to prevent abuses of the legal process and speculative litigation. These offences were abolished in 1967, but agreements considered champertous may still be regarded as contrary to public policy.
Traditional English law strongly disapproved of lawyers receiving payment based on a share of the damages awarded to a client. However, reforms later introduced conditional fee arrangements, often known as “no win, no fee” agreements.
Modern courts generally focus on whether third-party funding arrangements threaten the integrity of the justice system. Legitimate litigation funding may now be permitted provided it does not encourage abuse or unfair control of proceedings.
- Published on
KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Malicious Falsehood
Malicious falsehood, sometimes called injurious falsehood, is a tort involving false statements made maliciously that cause financial or property-related harm to another person.
Unlike defamation, which protects personal reputation, malicious falsehood mainly protects economic interests and property rights. Examples include false claims that a business has closed or that goods are defective.
The claimant must usually prove actual financial loss resulting from the false statement. The statement must also have been made maliciously, meaning without honest belief in its truth.
Modern courts have expanded the tort to protect a wider range of economic interests, especially where false statements damage professional or commercial activities.
Malicious falsehood, sometimes called injurious falsehood, is a tort involving false statements made maliciously that cause financial or property-related harm to another person.
Unlike defamation, which protects personal reputation, malicious falsehood mainly protects economic interests and property rights. Examples include false claims that a business has closed or that goods are defective.
The claimant must usually prove actual financial loss resulting from the false statement. The statement must also have been made maliciously, meaning without honest belief in its truth.
Modern courts have expanded the tort to protect a wider range of economic interests, especially where false statements damage professional or commercial activities.
- Published on
KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Male Issue
Male issue refers to descendants traced exclusively through the male line, such as sons, grandsons through sons, and further male descendants.
Traditionally, the term was important in inheritance law, peerage succession, and family settlements. Certain titles or estates could pass only to male descendants under the rules governing succession.
The expression excludes descendants connected through female lines. For example, the son of a daughter would not normally qualify as male issue for inheritance purposes under traditional wording.
Modern succession laws have reduced the practical significance of the concept in many contexts, although it remains relevant in older wills, trusts, and hereditary titles.
Male issue refers to descendants traced exclusively through the male line, such as sons, grandsons through sons, and further male descendants.
Traditionally, the term was important in inheritance law, peerage succession, and family settlements. Certain titles or estates could pass only to male descendants under the rules governing succession.
The expression excludes descendants connected through female lines. For example, the son of a daughter would not normally qualify as male issue for inheritance purposes under traditional wording.
Modern succession laws have reduced the practical significance of the concept in many contexts, although it remains relevant in older wills, trusts, and hereditary titles.
- Published on
KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Malice Aforethought
Malice aforethought is the mental element traditionally required for the offence of murder. Despite the wording, it does not require hatred or long-term planning.
The concept includes an intention to kill or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm. It may also arise where a defendant realizes that death or serious injury is virtually certain to result from his actions.
English criminal law recognizes both direct and indirect forms of malice aforethought. Direct malice involves a deliberate intention, while indirect malice concerns awareness of virtually certain consequences.
Malice aforethought is the mental element traditionally required for the offence of murder. Despite the wording, it does not require hatred or long-term planning.
The concept includes an intention to kill or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm. It may also arise where a defendant realizes that death or serious injury is virtually certain to result from his actions.
English criminal law recognizes both direct and indirect forms of malice aforethought. Direct malice involves a deliberate intention, while indirect malice concerns awareness of virtually certain consequences.
- Published on
KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Malice
In criminal law, malice generally refers to a guilty state of mind involving intention or recklessness rather than personal hatred or spite. It forms part of the mental element, or mens rea, of certain crimes.
The law recognizes concepts such as transferred malice, where a defendant intends harm to one person but unintentionally harms another. General malice may also exist where harm is intended toward an unspecified victim.
In tort law, malice can have different significance. Although lawful acts are generally not made unlawful merely because they are done maliciously, malice remains important in torts such as malicious prosecution and defamation.
Malice may defeat certain legal defences, including qualified privilege in defamation cases, and can also affect liability in conspiracy and nuisance actions.
In criminal law, malice generally refers to a guilty state of mind involving intention or recklessness rather than personal hatred or spite. It forms part of the mental element, or mens rea, of certain crimes.
The law recognizes concepts such as transferred malice, where a defendant intends harm to one person but unintentionally harms another. General malice may also exist where harm is intended toward an unspecified victim.
In tort law, malice can have different significance. Although lawful acts are generally not made unlawful merely because they are done maliciously, malice remains important in torts such as malicious prosecution and defamation.
Malice may defeat certain legal defences, including qualified privilege in defamation cases, and can also affect liability in conspiracy and nuisance actions.
- Published on
KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Mala Fide
Mala fide is a Latin expression meaning “in bad faith.” It describes actions carried out dishonestly, fraudulently, or with improper motives.
The term is frequently used in legal proceedings to indicate that a person acted with deceit, dishonesty, or an intention to abuse legal rights or powers. Courts often distinguish between actions taken bona fide and those taken mala fide.
In administrative law, decisions made mala fide may be challenged and declared invalid because public authorities are expected to exercise powers honestly and for proper purposes.
The concept also appears in contract law, property law, and international law, where good faith dealings are regarded as an essential legal principle.
Mala fide is a Latin expression meaning “in bad faith.” It describes actions carried out dishonestly, fraudulently, or with improper motives.
The term is frequently used in legal proceedings to indicate that a person acted with deceit, dishonesty, or an intention to abuse legal rights or powers. Courts often distinguish between actions taken bona fide and those taken mala fide.
In administrative law, decisions made mala fide may be challenged and declared invalid because public authorities are expected to exercise powers honestly and for proper purposes.
The concept also appears in contract law, property law, and international law, where good faith dealings are regarded as an essential legal principle.
- Published on
KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Malfeasance
Malfeasance refers to the commission of an unlawful or wrongful act, especially by a person holding public office or exercising official duties.
The term differs from misfeasance and nonfeasance. Malfeasance involves actively committing an illegal act, whereas misfeasance concerns performing a lawful act improperly and nonfeasance refers to failing to act when required.
In public law, malfeasance may involve abuse of official authority, corruption, or intentional misconduct causing harm to others. Public officials who act maliciously or dishonestly may face civil liability.
The concept also appears in company law and insolvency proceedings, where directors or officers may be accused of malfeasance for improper handling of company affairs.
Malfeasance refers to the commission of an unlawful or wrongful act, especially by a person holding public office or exercising official duties.
The term differs from misfeasance and nonfeasance. Malfeasance involves actively committing an illegal act, whereas misfeasance concerns performing a lawful act improperly and nonfeasance refers to failing to act when required.
In public law, malfeasance may involve abuse of official authority, corruption, or intentional misconduct causing harm to others. Public officials who act maliciously or dishonestly may face civil liability.
The concept also appears in company law and insolvency proceedings, where directors or officers may be accused of malfeasance for improper handling of company affairs.
- Published on
KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Making Off Without Payment
Making off without payment is a criminal offence committed when a person leaves without paying for goods or services where immediate payment is expected and does so intending to avoid payment.
The offence commonly applies to situations such as leaving a restaurant without paying, escaping from a taxi without paying the fare, or collecting repaired goods without settling the bill.
To secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove that the accused knew payment was expected on the spot and deliberately left to avoid paying. The offence is governed by the Theft Act 1978.
This offence differs from theft because the dishonest intention may arise only after receiving the goods or services, rather than at the time they were initially obtained.
Making off without payment is a criminal offence committed when a person leaves without paying for goods or services where immediate payment is expected and does so intending to avoid payment.
The offence commonly applies to situations such as leaving a restaurant without paying, escaping from a taxi without paying the fare, or collecting repaired goods without settling the bill.
To secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove that the accused knew payment was expected on the spot and deliberately left to avoid paying. The offence is governed by the Theft Act 1978.
This offence differs from theft because the dishonest intention may arise only after receiving the goods or services, rather than at the time they were initially obtained.
- Published on
KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Majority Verdict
A majority verdict is a verdict reached by most, but not all, members of a jury. Such verdicts are permitted in both criminal and civil proceedings under certain conditions.
In criminal trials, the court initially requires the jury to attempt to reach a unanimous verdict. Only after sufficient deliberation time has passed may the judge accept a majority verdict.
Where there are 11 jurors, at least 10 must agree. If only 10 jurors remain, at least 9 must agree. If a guilty majority verdict is returned, the foreman must state openly how many jurors agreed and disagreed.
The use of majority verdicts aims to reduce the risk of hung juries and mistrials while still maintaining confidence in the fairness of jury decisions.
A majority verdict is a verdict reached by most, but not all, members of a jury. Such verdicts are permitted in both criminal and civil proceedings under certain conditions.
In criminal trials, the court initially requires the jury to attempt to reach a unanimous verdict. Only after sufficient deliberation time has passed may the judge accept a majority verdict.
Where there are 11 jurors, at least 10 must agree. If only 10 jurors remain, at least 9 must agree. If a guilty majority verdict is returned, the foreman must state openly how many jurors agreed and disagreed.
The use of majority verdicts aims to reduce the risk of hung juries and mistrials while still maintaining confidence in the fairness of jury decisions.
- Published on
KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Majority Rule
Majority rule is the principle that decisions within a company are generally controlled by the majority of shareholders through voting procedures. The rule reflects the democratic structure of company governance.
The principle was famously established in the case of Foss v Harbottle (1843), which confirmed that courts will usually not interfere with decisions properly approved by the company majority.
Despite this principle, the law also protects minority shareholders against unfair treatment. Certain important decisions, such as altering the company’s articles of association, require special majorities rather than a simple majority vote.
Minority shareholders may also seek remedies where the majority abuses its power, commits fraud on the minority, or acts unfairly prejudicially toward minority interests.
Majority rule is the principle that decisions within a company are generally controlled by the majority of shareholders through voting procedures. The rule reflects the democratic structure of company governance.
The principle was famously established in the case of Foss v Harbottle (1843), which confirmed that courts will usually not interfere with decisions properly approved by the company majority.
Despite this principle, the law also protects minority shareholders against unfair treatment. Certain important decisions, such as altering the company’s articles of association, require special majorities rather than a simple majority vote.
Minority shareholders may also seek remedies where the majority abuses its power, commits fraud on the minority, or acts unfairly prejudicially toward minority interests.