Dispute Resolution analysis: This was a fairly hopeless appeal against the High Court’s decision to impose an immediate custodial sentence of nine months on Mr Cooper, who was in breach of two separate court orders. The case serves as a reminder that appealing a decision not to suspend a sentence of imprisonment is a high bar and is rarely successful as it requires the appellant to demonstrate that the decision not to suspend the sentence was either manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. In this case, the High Court had taken into account Mr Cooper’s personal mitigation and had regard to the relevant factors when considering whether to suspend the sentence. Accordingly, the appeal failed, and costs were ordered against Mr Cooper. Written by Alexander West, barrister at Albion Chambers, Bristol.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This was an unsuccessful appeal against three decisions of Mr Justice Miles which had ultimately resulted in Mr Hussain being committed to prison for 24 months. The judgment is useful as a Court of Appeal authority which deals with various procedural points under the CPR Part 81 regime that has been in place since October 2020. The judgment answers the following questions—Does the imprisoned contemnor’s right to appeal against a committal order extend to the liability judgment against them, or is it restricted to appealing the sanction imposed? If the order said to have been breached was not personally served on the defendant, does the court have the power to retrospectively dispense with personal service during the contempt proceedings? When drafting a contempt application, how detailed do each of the allegations need to be? When it comes to sanction, is it improper for a claimant to suggest to the court what the appropriate sanction might be? Written by Alexander West, barrister at Albion Chambers, Bristol.

The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (CCA 2004) provides the primary framework for dealing with large-scale emergencies under UK law: • CCA 2004, Part 1 concerns the responsibility of various public bodies and certain private bodies (eg energy suppliers or telecommunications providers) to undertake contingency planning for emergencies • CCA 2004, Part 2 enables a senior government minister to make emergency regulations with the power to amend primary legislation It is important to bear in mind, however, that there are a wide range of other exceptional statutory powers that may be deployed in times of crisis without an emergency first having been declared under CCA 2004, Part 2. For example, primary legislation such as the Coronavirus Act 2020 and section 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) permit a Secretary of State to make a designated derogation from rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Although a derogation under Article 15 of the ECHR may only be made

This Practice Note provides an overview of the court structure for civil cases in Scotland, covering the Supreme Court, the Court of Session, the Sheriff Appeal Court and the Sheriff Courts. It summarises the role of each court, how they are constituted and their jurisdiction. It also considers the procedural rules applicable in each court, the binding nature of their judgments and how to appeal them. It should be read in conjunction with Civil court structure in Scotland—flowchart, which provides a simple diagrammatic illustration of the civil court structure. Note: any reference in this Practice Note to appeals to the Supreme Court are to be read as referring to cases where the application for permission to appeal or the notice of appeal was filed on or after 2 December 2024, on which date the SCR came into force (SCR 1). The SCR 2009 (referred to in this Practice Note as the ‘old SCR) are revoked on that date (SCR 62(2)). However, the old SCR continue to apply to:

This Flowchart provides a simple diagrammatic illustration of the civil court structure in Scotland. It should be read in conjunction with the Practice Note: Civil court structure in Scotland, which provides further detail on the role of each court, how

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note explains the civil enforcement options available to the enforcers of consumer protection laws when responding to breaches of consumer protection legislation. It covers the civil injunction powers, known as enforcement orders and undertakings, available under the Enterprise Act 2002 (EnA 2002), Part 8, and the enhanced consumer measures (ECMs) introduced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. From 6 April 2025, EnA 2002, Part 8, is replaced in its entirety by the provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA 2024), Part 3 (consumer protection enforcement). This Practice Note explains what measures were available to enforcers under EnA 2002, Part 8, when those measures can be used and which enforcers can call upon such measures when enforcing consumer protection laws. EnA 2002, Part 8, will continue to govern breaches of consumer protection law that preceded the introduction of DMCCA 2024, Part 3. For more information

An engineer who deals with the design, construction and maintenance of the physical and naturally built environment, eg bridges, roads, buildings and other large structures.

Physical local loop facilities deployed by an electronic communications provider to host local loop cables such as copper wires, optical fibre and co-axial cables. It typically refers, but is not limited to, subterranean or above-ground assets such as sub-ducts, ducts, manholes and poles.

This Practice Note considers the standard of proof in civil claims based on the defendant’s alleged fraud. It considers the test for dishonesty (per Ivey v Genting) and when dishonesty (and therefore fraud) may be inferred from the facts proved before the court. This discussion is distinct from (although related to) the issues regarding pleading fraud and dishonesty, on which see Practice Note: Civil fraud—pleading fraud and dishonesty. This Practice Note considers: • the standard of proof in civil fraud cases • dishonesty in a civil context • whether recklessness is the same as dishonesty and the concepts of ‘targeted suspicion’ and ‘blind eye knowledge’ • evidencing and proving dishonesty in civil claims, including discussion as to the general approach to the evidence in fraud cases, whether the alleged fraud should have been obvious, the witnesses (their credibility or indeed their absence) and the position of third parties • whether you can infer dishonesty in civil fraud claims • the use of expert evidence to gauge dishonesty • the impact of criminal convictions

Fraud—what is it? Fraud can best be described as the deliberate or intentional use of misrepresentation, deception or dishonesty to deprive, in order to make a gain or achieve an advantage for someone or something or to disadvantage or cause loss (usually financial) to another person or party. That said, it is not always necessary that a scenario, which has at its heart elements of dishonesty, requires establishing dishonesty on the part of some or all of the protagonists in order to seek a civil remedy. Fraud is defined differently depending on whether you are acting in a civil or criminal context, and even within civil and criminal law the definition changes depending on the type of claim or offence being pursued. Fraud is something which is done by an individual, who may or may not be acting on behalf of a company. In either case, it can have significant ramifications for any company associated with the individual, as well as the victims of the fraud (whether individual or corporate). Here are some examples of recognised

This Practice Note on civil fraud (commercial fraud) summarises the main heads of claim (causes of action in fraud) which you may consider pleading in a civil fraud claim, ie fraudulent misrepresentation, deceit, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, conspiracy (lawful means conspiracy and unlawful means conspiracy), dishonest assistance, knowing receipt, inducing (procuring) breach of contract and conversion and the applicable limitation periods for such ‘fraud’ claims. It also considers relief by way of constructive and resulting trusts (including following and tracing), sham transactions, hacked emails (business email compromise (BEC) fraud and ransomware attacks), authorised push payment (APP) fraud and briefly fraud issues around cryptocurrencies. ‘Illegality’ is not a cause of action but it can arise in the context of civil disputes, particularly as a defence. See Practice Note: Illegality in civil claims. For guidance on the standard of proof and the test for dishonesty in civil fraud claims, see Practice Note: Civil fraud—dishonesty and standard of proof and for the specific requirements when pleading fraud, see Practice Note: Civil fraud—pleading

The legal issues that arise in civil fraud cases can be many and varied and are usually also inherently complicated. While it is critical that each case is analysed on its own merits and its own unique set of factual and legal circumstances, it is of use to understand the operation of the key legal principles in their factual context. This Practice Note therefore includes some of the more illustrative decisions in the field of civil fraud cases. The decisions listed below are those dating from 1 January 2024 (for relevant cases from 13 December 2019, see Practice Note: Civil fraud—key and illustrative decisions (December 2019–December 2023) [Archived]. We do not include every decision but only those from which interesting points of illustration arise. The decisions listed below include full links to the judgment (and, where available, our News Analysis of the judgment). For further guidance on pursuing or defending civil fraud claims, see: Civil fraud—overview. For guidance on the types of cause of action seen in such claims, see also: • The economic torts—overview