In the county court at [insert] Claim No: [insert claim number] Between A B        Claimant and X Y        Defendant _____________________________________________________________________________ PARTICULARS OF CLAIM _____________________________________________________________________________ 1 At all material times, the Claimant was the owner and driver of a [insert make and model of vehicle] registration number [insert registration number]. The Defendant was the owner and driver of a [insert make and model of vehicle] registration number [insert registration number]. 2 On [insert date], the Claimant was lawfully travelling along [insert street name, town, county], when they were required to slow their vehicle due to a set

[ In the High Court of Justice OR In the County Court at [insert] ] [ [Specify division] ] [ [Specify Specialist court] ] [ [Insert location] District Registry ] Claim No: Between [A B]        Claimant and [X Y]        Defendant PARTICULARS OF CLAIM 1 The Defendant is and was at all relevant times the highway authority responsible for [insert street name, town, county], a highway within the meaning of the Highways Act 1980. 2 On [insert date] the Claimant was lawfully driving their motor car [insert registration number] along the highway in the direction of [insert city/town/village], when the vehicle skidded on ice and/or compacted snow present on the surface of the carriageway and, as a result, skidded from the road and crashed into a ditch causing the Claimant

In the county court at [insert] Claim No: Between A B        Claimant and X Y        Defendant PARTICULARS OF CLAIM 1 The Defendant is and was at all relevant times the highway authority responsible for [insert street name, town, county], a highway within the meaning of the HiA 1980. 2 At approximately [insert time] on [insert date] the Claimant was lawfully walking along the pavement on the [right OR left] side of the highway. As the Claimant walked, their foot went into a pothole outside [insert house number/name of business/name of landmark nearest pothole], they tripped and fell to the ground suffering injury. 3 The accident was caused or contributed to by the negligence and/or breach of statutory duty of the Defendant, their employees or agents acting in the course of their employment. Particulars

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [INSERT] CLAIM NO Between [XX]        Claimant and [YY]        Defendant _____________________________________________________ PARTICULARS OF CLAIM _____________________________________________________ 1 At all material times the Claimant was employed by the Defendant as a Catering Assistant at the Defendant’s store at [insert details] (“The Store”), premises which the Defendant occupied for the purposes of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (“OLA 1957”). 2 On or about [insert date] the Claimant was at The Store in the course of [her OR his] employment. At about [insert time] the Claimant was walking across the kitchen area in the course of [her OR his] duties when [she OR he] slipped on grease that was on the floor causing [her OR his] to fall to the floor. 3 The

Claim No. [insert number] In the County Court at [insert location] Between [Insert claimant’s name]        Claimant and [Insert defendant name]        Defendant _____________________________________________________________________________ PARTICULARS OF CLAIM _____________________________________________________________________________ 1 This is a claim for damages for noise-induced hearing loss. 2 The Defendant employed the Claimant as a [insert job title] from [insert date] to [insert date]. 3 In the course of [his OR her] employment with the Defendant the Claimant was persistently exposed to dangerously high levels of noise in the high 90s dB(A) LEP,d, in the following circumstances: (a) The Claimant worked on big building projects, such as hotels and bus stations. (b) [He OR She] used power tools such as drills, electric planers and circular saws on a daily basis. [He OR She] used drills for at least [insert number] hours a day and circular saws for [insert number] hours a day. (c) [He OR She] used the drills to drill into concrete and steel. Two cement mixers were in constant operation. (d) While [he OR she] was at work, other trades were also at work around [him OR her]. They too

[IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [INSERT] OR IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [[SPECIFY DIVISION]] [[SPECIFY SPECIALIST COURT]] [[INSERT LOCATION DISTRICT REGISTRY]] ] CLAIM NO: [Insert claim number] Between [Insert name and details of the Claimant]        Claimant and [Insert name and details of the Defendant]        Defendant _____________________________________________________ PARTICULARS OF CLAIM ______________________________________________________ 1 At the relevant time the Claimant was employed by the Defendant as a [insert job title] at their premises at [enter name and address of hospital/facility]. 2 The following provisions were in force at the time of the incident detailed below: 2.1 The Workplace (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1992 (WR) 2.2 The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (MHSWR) 3 For the avoidance of doubt, and despite the passage of section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, the provisions relied upon in paragraph 2 above remain minimum standards in relation to workplace safety. Although section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 removed breach of statutory duty as a cause of action, no reasonable employer would ignore the above provisions given that a failure to comply

Environment analysis: The applicant (an environmental protection charity) was granted an order capping the recoverable costs of judicial review proceedings under CPR 46.24–28 (applicable to claims falling within the Aarhus Convention). The underlying proceedings challenge regulations implementing the UK’s obligations under a free trade agreement with Australia (‘2023 Regulations’). The court found that the claim was brought within the terms of the Aarhus Convention (under which the UK must ensure that members of the public have access to procedures enabling challenge to acts which ‘contravene provisions of national law relating to the environment’) by: the claimants’ claim that the defendant public bodies had breached national law (the Taxation (Cross Border Trade) Act 2018 (TCTA 2018)) which arguably required them to take into account the UK’s obligations under the Paris Agreement when making the 2023 Regulations; and the nature of the claims made, which relate to the environmental impacts of allegedly failing to take into account ‘carbon leakage’ (differing carbon emissions across jurisdictions) resulting from cattle meat production. Written by Sarah Ellington, Partner at Watson Farley & Williams LLP.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has confirmed that paying the wrong court issue fee does not prevent a claim being 'brought' for the purposes of limitation. In a decision which will be welcomed by many, the court ruled that provided a fee is proffered, paid or a help with fees form lodged, the claim is 'brought' (for limitation purposes) when it is 'delivered' to the court office. Resolving a long-standing question, the Court of Appeal held that limitation does not turn on the interpretation of the civil procedure rules or practice directions. Citing many impracticalities and injustices with any other interpretation, it held that the action is 'brought' when the claim (set out in sufficient terms) is first 'delivered'. While the correct fee must be paid before the claim is 'issued', that date of issue is immaterial for limitation purposes. Written by Harriet Campbell, senior knowledge lawyer at Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP.

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert] Claim No: BETWEEN [A.B.]        Claimant -and- [C.D.]        Defendant ______________________________________________________________ PARTICULARS OF CLAIM ______________________________________________________________ 1 At all material times the Claimant was the [owner and] driver of a [make, model] motor vehicle, registration number [insert registration number] and the Defendant was the driver of a [make, model] motor vehicle, registration number [insert registration number]. 2 [Details of accident] 3 [The Claimant relies upon an admission of liability made by the Defendant/the Defendant’s insurance company on [insert day/month/year]]. [The accident was caused by the negligence of the Defendant.] [PARTICULARS OF NEGLIGENCE] 3.1 [particulars relevant to case] 3.2 […] 4 By reason of the negligence of the Defendant, the Claimant [who was born on [insert day/month/year]] has suffered [pain, injury,] loss and damage. PARTICULARS OF INJURY 4.1 The Claimant suffered [brief details of injury]. 4.2 Further particulars of the Claimant's medical condition are contained in a report of [insert details of medical report] dated [insert day/month/year] attached. PARTICULARS OF LOSS AND DAMAGE [The damages claimed are set out in the schedule of loss attached.] 4.2.1 Hire Charges £[insert amount] 4.2.2 [Repairs £[insert amount]] 4.2.3 [Other items of special damage £[insert amount]] 5 The Claimant hired a [make, model] motor vehicle, registration number [insert

Employment analysis: It is not possible to enter into a binding agreement in ‘full and final settlement’ of a claim for statutory maternity pay (SMP) (even under the auspices of Acas) unless the employer has actually paid the employee her entitlement to SMP, according to the First-tier Tax Tribunal.

Personal injury and clinical negligence analysis: This is the first time the Court of Appeal has considered the situation where credit hire charges are claimed following a road traffic collision damaging the claimant’s vehicle, yet the claimant’s damaged vehicle did not hold a valid MOT certificate at the time of the collision. Previous County Court decisions, and one Irish High Court decision, have held that such credit hire claims are unrecoverable based on illegality and/or causation arguments. In a rare second appeal, the Court of Appeal took a different view to the lower courts and allowed the credit hire charges to be recovered. It considered that the fact that the car did not have a valid MOT certificate did not prevent damages being recovered for loss of use. Further, it would be disproportionate to bar the claim on the grounds of illegality. Written by Jasmine Murphy, barrister, at Gatehouse Chambers.

This Practice Note considers the required elements to bring a claim for dishonest assistance: that the defendant must have assisted another to commit a breach of trust or fiduciary duty and that the defendant’s state of mind in so doing was dishonest. It considers what level of knowledge or dishonesty is required, what may amount to assistance and the potential remedies available. It also considers the 2025 Supreme Court decision in Stevens v Hotel Portfolio II on some of the more difficult issues around remedies against dishonest assisters. A claim for dishonest assistance is sometimes referred to as a claim of accessory liability or secondary liability, in that the claim is not brought against the primary wrongdoer. Given that dishonest conduct is central to the claim, it is one which is often pursued in the context of ‘civil fraud’ scenarios. For guidance on the accessory liability claim for knowing or unconscionable receipt, see Practice Note: Claim for knowing receipt. See also: Knowing receipt and dishonest assistance claims—comparison checklist to compare the two types of claims