Requests for further information under CPR 18 (known as Part 18 requests) can be a powerful procedural tool when used correctly. This Checklist provides a structured approach to deciding whether or not to make a Part 18 request, drafting the request itself and then making an application under CPR 18.1. Detailed guidance on the considerations highlighted below can be found in Practice Note: Making a Part 18 request for further information and the below checklist should be read in conjunction with that guidance. Should I make a Part 18 request? Consideration Comment Is CPR 18 available in your proceedings? CPR 18 is restricted in certain types of case, most notably small claims. Does the information you seek relate to a matter that is ‘in dispute in the proceedings’? This is a key threshold question for Part 18 requests—they should not be used as a fishing expedition or speculative exercise to identify a new case or defence. For

This Checklist deals with the practical information that should be gathered prior to an application being made for a grant of letters of administration (with Will annexed). It will apply to all applications to prove a Will other than by an executor. For the circumstances where this may apply, see Practice Notes: • Letters of Administration with Will annexed • Administration with Will annexed—priority to apply for grant—Q&As It is necessary to inspect the Will and then ensure that the application statement of truth within the application form PA1P or online application is completed correctly. The Will • check that the original Will is to hand and that it was made in the full name of the testator. Where the name used in the Will does not match the testator’s official name, the reason for this must be stated in the application statement of truth (which will follow from the application form PA1P or the online application). See Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 (NCPR 1987), SI 1987/2024, r 9.

This checklist is aimed at an employer client and outlines the steps an employer will typically take when seeking to effect changes to terms and conditions of employment that are not permitted by the employees' existing contracts. It reflects the Statutory Code of Practice on dismissal and re-engagement (Code) that came into force from 18 July 2024. For more information on the Code, see Practice Note: Changing terms and conditions of employment—Statutory Code of Practice on ‘fire and re-hire’. The Code states (among other things) that an employer should not raise the prospect of dismissal unreasonably early, as this can be detrimental to attempts to reach an agreed outcome. It also states that: • threat of dismissal should not be used as a negotiating tactic to put undue pressure on employees in circumstances where the employer is not, in fact, envisaging dismissal as a means of achieving its objectives • the employer should contact Acas for advice before raising the prospect of dismissal and re-engagement For a more detailed checklist, aimed at employment

Defence Principle Further reading Contributory negligence Where the defendant is primarily responsible for the accident, they may allege the other party was guilty of contributing to the accident. The issues to consider are:—which parties were at fault in the accident?—in what proportion should the damages be apportioned having regard to the respective responsibilities of those at fault? Practice Note: Contributory negligence in PI and clinical negligence claims Contributory negligence for failure to wear a seat belt As a general principle:25% deduction to damages—if wearing a seat belt would have prevented the injuries sustained15% deduction to damages—if wearing a seat belt would have made a considerable difference to the injuries sustained0% deduction to damages—if wearing a seat belt would not have made any difference to the injuries sustained Practice Note: Defences in road traffic accidents Contributory negligence for failure to wear a motorcycle crash helmet Leading case law has suggested:15% deduction to damages—if wearing a helmet would have resulted in less severe injuries10% deduction to damages—where the

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: For information that must be given to workers on commencing employment, a new right for a worker to be given a written statement of their right to join a trade union, at the same time as receiving a section 1 statement of employment particulars, is to be introduced under proposed amendments to Part III of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, as provided for in section 58 of the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025). Details of the information that must be provided in such a statement, the form the statement must take and the manner in which the statement must be given will be set out in secondary legislation, following consultation. To track the implementation of ERA 2025, see Practice Note: Employment Rights Act 2025—tracker. This Checklist sets out the requirements in relation to a written statement of employment particulars, under sections 1 to 3 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The right to a written statement of employment particulars applies to all categories of ‘worker’ (see

The general rule is that an on notice application should be served on each respondent as soon as practicable after filing and in any event at least three clear days before the day on which the court is due to hear the application, unless another time limit is specified in a rule, practice direction or court order (CPR 23.7(1)). For further guidance, see Practice Note: Filing and serving applications. It can be easy to lose sight of how far in advance three clear days actually is, particularly

Where default judgment has been entered against a defendant, the court has no discretion and must set that judgment aside under CPR 13.2 if it was ‘wrongly’ entered. It is therefore important to identify whether a defendant against whom default judgment has been entered has a potential application under CPR 13.2, even if they also have grounds to apply under CPR 13.3 to set aside the judgment on discretionary grounds. Detailed

Directors of insolvent companies or companies that are likely to become insolvent can obtain an initial 20-business day moratorium period under Part A1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). This is designed to allow viable businesses time to restructure or seek new investment free from creditor action. The moratorium is free-standing—it is not a gateway to a particular insolvency. The intention is to provide a streamlined procedure that keeps administrative burdens to a minimum, makes the process as quick as possible, and does not add disproportionate costs on to struggling businesses. The moratorium is overseen by an insolvency practitioner (IP) acting as a ‘monitor’ although, subject to certain constraints, the directors will remain in charge of running the business on a day-to-day basis—known as a ‘debtor-in-possession’ process with the company being the ‘debtor’. The monitor has substantial duties but not many powers since the directors remain in control of the day-to-day running of the company. This Checklist sets out the issues that a monitor should consider prior to taking an appointment to ensure they comply

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: The existing enhanced protection from redundancy that is available to employees during pregnancy, maternity leave and other types of statutory leave (and for an additional period after the leave has ended) is to be extended to cover other forms of dismissal. The powers to make regulations under sections 49D, 74, 75C, 75J, 80D and 80EH of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) were extended by sections 26 and 27 of the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025), in force 6 January 2026 and 6 April 2026 respectively, and regulations are expected to come into effect in 2027 (probably on either of the common commencement dates of 1 April or 1 October). The Department of Business and Trade has published a Factsheet on enhanced dismissal protections for pregnant women and new mothers and a consultation on the proposed new measures ran between 23 October 2025 and 15 January 2026. For more information, see Practice Note: Employment Rights Act 2025—tracker. The qualifying period for bringing a claim of unfair dismissal

MLex: Conducting a data protection impact assessment for AI systems is a fundamental compliance requirement under the GDPR and should not be treated as a mere tick-the-box exercise, said Cian O’Brien, Ireland’s Deputy Data Protection Commissioner. For the Irish regulator, this requirement is at the heart of how the GDPR can keep up with technological developments.

Cheltenham Borough Council (CBC) has successfully prosecuted Victor Whitham for operating private hire vehicles without the required operator’s licence. Whitham entered a guilty plea on 27 October 2025 for continuing to dispatch Cheltenham-licensed private hire vehicles after his company, Spa-Tax Cheltenham, had its licence suspended for non-payment of fees in October 2024.The magistrates imposed the maximum fine of £1,000, plus a £400 victim surcharge and £1,706.40 in costs, bringing the total to £3,106.40.The case established that Whitham’s private hire operator’s licence with Tewkesbury Borough Council did not permit him to operate Cheltenham-licensed vehicles and drivers. Cheltenham Borough Council’s licensing enforcement officers led the prosecution, with assistance from One Legal, a shared legal service covering multiple local authorities in the region.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 5 April 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related cases Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the proposed acquisition of Syngenta AG (Syngenta) by China National Chemical Corporation (ChemChina). The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in markets for the supply of ‘crop protection’ products as well as the supply of ‘active ingredients’ as key chemical input for the process of manufacturing crop protection products. Latest developments On 5 April 2017, the Commission cleared the transaction subject to commitments. Under the commitments, the parties will divest significant parts of ChemChina’s European pesticides and plant growth regulator business. Parties Syngenta, a Swiss based agrochemical and seeds company, produces and sells crop protection products, seeds and lawn and garden products. Syngenta is active on a global basis in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of a wide range of crop protection products and seeds. ChemChina is a diversified Chinese state-owned company active in the agrochemical sector through