sham transaction
Lord Diplock described a “sham” as having three elements: (i) acts are done, or documents are executed, (ii) which appear to others to create legal rights and obligations, (iii) but the parties intend that the apparent legal rights and obligations are either different from the actual rights and obligations, or there are not any actual rights and obligations. See Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd [1967] 2 QB 786 (CA) at 802; followed by Lord Justice Arden in Hitch’s Executors v Stone [2001] EWCA Civ 1224 at [63]–[69].

• unregistered land
• unsecured creditor
• unsolicited goods
• unsworn evidence
• unsworn statement
• uplift
• Upper Tribunal
• urine specimen
• usage
• use
• use and occupation
• use classes
• use of force
• user
• use upon a use
• usual covenants
• usufruct
• utilitarianism
• utility model
• uti possidetis
• utter Bar
• vacantia bona
• vacant possession
• vacations
• vaccine damage payment