The Bar Council has published a press release on the Bar Council Chair, Sam Townend KC’s opening speech to the Bar Conference 2024, in which he set out the challenges for the next government for the justice sector and prescribes a remedy via the eight-point plan of the Bar Council ‘Manifesto for justice’. Townend has called on the new government to do the right thing by the justice system and public, uphold the rule of law and respect the separation of powers in all statements and legislation brought forward. The Bar Chair argued that the Bar Council Manifesto for justice is needed to rebuild confidence in the justice system.

Sir Charles Haddon-Cave, the Chair of the Independent Inquiry Relating to Afghanistan, has ruled that former Minister of State for Veterans’ Affairs, Johnny Mercer, has been given until 25 July 2024 to comply with a disclosure notice under section 21(2)(a) of the Inquiries Act 2005 (IA 2005). Sir Haddon-Cave therefore dismissed Mercer’s application under IA 2005, s 21(4) to set aside part of the notice which remained unanswered. Mercer publicly disclosed that friends told him of allegations of unlawful killings by British special forces in Afghanistan, however refused to disclose their names in the statutory inquiry investigating the alleged unlawful killings. Mercer’s failure to comply with the notice may result in the case being referred to the High Court for enforcement.

Court Reference No: [INSERT COURT REF. NUMBER] Claim No. [insert claim number]. [ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE] [ BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS [OF ENGLAND AND WALES] OR IN [insert location] OR THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert location] [ BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS LIST In the matter of [Insert company name] And In the matter of the companies act 2006 Report I, [Insert name], of [insert firm/company], [insert address], was appointed by the Court to act as chairperson of the meeting[s] of Creditors/Members of [insert company name] (the Company) (as defined in the Restructuring Plan referred to below) (the Meeting[s]) convened pursuant to an order made herein and dated [insert date] (the Order). The Meeting[s] [were OR was] held at the offices of [insert address] [virtually] on [insert date] at [insert time] and summoned by notice dispatched at least [insert number] clear days prior to the Meeting[s] by prepaid first class mail to Creditors/Members for whom address details not believed to be incorrect were available [and the Pensions Protection Fund/Pensions Regulator] and by notices published at least [insert number] clear days before the

Court Reference No: [INSERT COURT REF. NUMBER] [ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS[ OF ENGLAND AND WALES][ IN [INSERT LOCATION]] INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST (ChD) OR IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION ] In the matter of [Insert company name] And In the matter of the companies act 2006 Report I, [Insert name], of [insert firm/company], [insert address], was appointed by the Court to act as chairperson of the meeting[s] of Scheme Creditors of [insert company name] (the Company) (as defined in the scheme of arrangement referred to below) (the Meeting[s]) convened pursuant to an order made herein and dated [insert date] (the Order). The Meeting[s] [were OR was] held at [[insert address] OR virtually by telephone/webinar] on [insert date] at [insert time] and summoned by notice dispatched at least [insert number] clear days prior to the Meeting[s] by prepaid first class mail to Scheme Creditors for whom address details not believed to be incorrect were available and by notices published at least [insert number] clear days before the day appointed for the

For the Annual General Meeting of [Name of company] to be held on [Date] at [venue] 1 Demand for a poll by Chair on a resolution [Resolution [insert no.] has not been carried and based on the number of proxy votes I hold I must demand a poll. I have received proxies votes in respect of [insert no.] of ordinary shares for the resolution and [insert no.] against.] In the circumstances, I exercise my right as Chair to call for a poll. A poll on resolution[(s)] [insert no.] [and[ insert no.]] will now be conducted by our registrars. Please remain in your seats while the poll is being conducted. The registrar’s representatives will now distribute [poll cards OR voting handsets]. On a poll, each shareholder present in person, by corporate representative or proxy has one vote for every share held. If you have already lodged a form of proxy you do not have to vote again now, unless you wish to change the way you originally voted or unless you did not appoint me (the Chair) as your proxy and the

For the Annual General Meeting of [Name of company] to be held on [Date] at [venue] 1 Introduction Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen. I am [insert name], the Chair of [insert name of company]. It is now [insert the exact time], which is [just past] the time set for the Annual General Meeting of [insert company name] to commence. A warm welcome to shareholders joining us electronically, as well as those present in person today. 2 Quorum Having checked with Company Secretary/advisers/registrars There is a quorum present, so I declare the meeting open. 3 Housekeeping Before we commence, I would like to run through a few practicalities. Fire exits are located [[over there] OR [insert location]] and there is no fire drill planned for this morning. May I ask everyone to make sure mobile phones are switched off. Thank you. [[You may also be interested to note that this meeting is being recorded so that those shareholders and interested parties who are unable to be here today can view it on the company’s website from tomorrow onwards].] 4 Outline of proceedings You may wish to follow the proceedings

For the Annual General Meeting of [Name of company] to be held on [Date] at [venue] 1 Introduction Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen. I am [insert name], the Chair of [insert name of company]. It is now [insert the exact time], which is [just past] the time set for the Annual General Meeting of [insert company name] to commence. 2 Quorum Having checked with Company Secretary/advisers/registrars There is a quorum present, so I declare the meeting open. 3 Housekeeping Before we commence, I would like to run through a few practicalities. Fire exits are located [[over there] OR [insert location]] and there is no fire drill planned for this morning. May I ask everyone to make sure mobile phones are switched off. Thank you. [[You may be interested to note that this meeting is being recorded so that those shareholders and interested parties who are unable to be here today can view it on the company’s website from tomorrow onwards].] 4 Outline of proceedings You may wish to follow the proceedings by referring to the Notice of Meeting document published on [insert date].

Number of matter CVA [insert matter number] of 20[insert year] Report of the consideration of the proposal In accordance with sections 4(6) and 4(6A) of the Insolvency Act 1986 and rule 2.38 of the Insolvency Rules 2016, I confirm that the company meeting in the above matter duly convened for [insert time and date] at [insert place of meeting] was held and the creditors were invited to consider the proposal at a decision procedure and I report as follows: 1 The proposal by the directors of [insert company name] Limited for a Voluntary Arrangement under Part I of the Insolvency Act 1986 dated [insert date] was [approved OR rejected] by the company and [approved OR rejected] by the creditors with the modifications attached as Appendix 6. [IF THE PROPOSAL WAS APPROVED THEN ADD THE RELEVANT PARTS OF (2)] 2 The following resolutions were taken at the meeting: That certain proposed modifications should be made to the proposal by addition to clauses as indicated and as set out in Appendix 6. This resolution was approved. That certain

Local Government analysis: In Swansea City Council (‘SCC’) v Education Tribunal for Wales (‘ETW’) and another, SCC sought to judicially review a review decision made by the ETW to the Upper Tribunal (‘UT’) regarding a special educational needs statement (‘SEN statement’) for a child. SCC argued it was incorrect for the ETW to set aside its original decision and order a fresh hearing. The UT dismissed the claim for judicial review. The UT determined that the correct route for challenging a review decision was via a statutory appeal rather than judicial review, based on AB v Newport City Council. Judicial review is meant to a be a remedy of last resort. However, as the parental appeal, that had triggered the ETW’s jurisdiction, had been withdrawn, the appeal of the review decision was academic and so permission to appeal to the UT was refused and the judicial review claim dismissed. Written by Trish D’Souza, legal director at Browne Jacobson LLP.

Property analysis: The High Court upheld three significant leasehold reform measures in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 (LFRA 2024) as compatible with property rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol (A1P1). The measures cap ground rent for enfranchisement calculations, remove marriage value from enfranchisement premiums, and abolish landlords’ non-litigation costs recovery in enfranchisement claims. These reforms aim to address systemic unfairness in leasehold tenure is by reducing premiums payable by enfranchising tenants. The ruling enables implementation of a simplified valuation process, eventually leading to an online premium calculator. While potentially triggering an initial surge in claims, the removal of marriage value considerations may reduce pressure on leaseholders to extend leases before they fall below 80 years. Practical implications written by Robyn Cunningham of Tanfield.

Public Law analysis: The High Court has dismissed a challenge to an Order made by the defendant Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (SSHSC) under section 62(3) of the Medicines Act 1968 (MA 1968) restricting the supply of Gonadotrophin-Releasing Hormone Analogues (commonly referred to as puberty blockers) to under-18s (the Order). In dismissing all three grounds of challenge Mrs Justice Lang DBE reiterated that, notwithstanding that anxious scrutiny applied, the court should exercise restraint when considering whether the test for making such an urgent order was met. She further found that there was no duty to consult affected individuals in circumstances where the ‘urgent’ order procedure set out in the statute expressly dispensed with the specified consultation requirements. The judgment serves to underline the difficulties that prospective claimants face in seeking to bring public law challenges to decisions that involve ‘complex and multi-factored predictive assessment, involving the application of clinical judgment and the weighing of competing risks and dangers’ (at para [228]), with the courts taking a deferential approach to decisions made in such contexts. Written by Freya Foster, barrister at Henderson Chambers.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court dismissed the applicants’ applications to remove and replace the joint administrators. The administrators’ decisions fell within the range of decisions that were open to them, even though further renegotiations with the secured creditor (Desiman) and the purchaser’s ‘chipping’ at the purchase price during turbulent economic conditions eroded the prospect the applicants would receive an economic return in the administration. In that respect, Desiman could be said to have driven a hard commercial bargain, but that was not a circumstance for which the administrators were ultimately responsible. Nor was it sufficient for any of the allegations to be made out. Written by Samuel Parsons, barrister at Erskine Chambers.