This is one of four Practice Notes on adverse possession. The others are: • Establishing adverse possession of land • Claiming title by adverse possession under the Limitation Act 1980 or the Land Registration Act 1925 • Adverse possession and leases Introduction The Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002) came into force on 13 October 2003. It wholly repeals the Land Registration Act 1925 (LRA 1925), but subject to transitional provisions. It is these transitional provisions which preserve the old regime for claiming title by way of adverse possession in relation to: • unregistered land, and • registered land where the right to be registered was acquired before 13 October 2003 For more information on the old regime, see Practice Note: Claiming title by adverse possession under the Limitation Act 1980 or the Land Registration Act 1925. Overview of the new regime under LRA 2002 LRA 2002 introduces an entirely different regime for claiming title by way of adverse possession in relation to registered land

This Practice Note explains when it is possible to claim title by way of adverse possession in relation to (a) unregistered land, or (b) registered land where the right to be registered was acquired before 13 October 2003 (ie the squatter can show adverse possession for an uninterrupted period of at least 12 years prior to 13 October 2003). It also considers situations where such a claim may be defeated, and the application procedure for a squatter registering their title on the basis of adverse possession, including the requirements for a statement of truth. This is one of four Practice Notes on adverse possession. The others are: • Establishing adverse possession of land • Claiming title by adverse possession under the Land Registration Act 2002 • Adverse possession and leases Unregistered land A claim to title by way of adverse possession in relation to unregistered land is governed by the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980), sections 15, 17 and Schedule 1. In summary,

A liability policy that covers losses arising out of claims or circumstances notified to insurers during its policy period, whether or not such losses occur after the policy period has expired.

Claims Portal Ltd has released a Simplified User Guide to help organisations and users navigate the Claims Portal securely and efficiently. The guide serves as a quick-reference resource focused on safeguarding information, protecting organisational and client data, and reinforcing compliance with the existing User Agreement. Claims Portal has asked that the guide be circulated to all Portal users within each organisation to promote consistent and secure use of the platform.

The purpose of this Practice Note is to touch on some of the considerations that must be considered where someone wishes to commence a claim against a company subject to a company voluntary arrangement (CVA). This Practice Note does not deal with the procedure and process for a company entering into a CVA, the overall effect of a CVA, or the ways to challenge a CVA. For further reading on these topics, see: • Practice Note: In what circumstances can a CVA be proposed and by whom? • Practice Note: The CVA proposal and procedure • Overview: Company voluntary arrangements • Practice Note: Proprietary claims Practical issues to consider before bringing a claim against a company subject to a CVA Is the claimant bound by the CVA? The first question the claimant must consider is whether it is bound by the terms of the CVA and is therefore—probably—restricted from bringing any claim. Broadly speaking, a creditor of a company is bound by the CVA, even where they voted

This Practice Note looks at claims made against professional consultants (also known as construction professionals) on construction projects and issues that typically arise in these claims. It considers the potential sources of liability, the standard of care expected in carrying out services, and common claims/issues in relation to designers, contract administration and supervision/inspection roles. This Practice Note also highlights points to consider in relation to the quantum of claims and dispute resolution in the context of claims against a consultant. Consultants are typically engaged by a client to provide it with advice regarding the various aspects of the project and/or to ensure the contractor completes the works properly, on time, within budget and in accordance with the client’s requirements. They are not, in most forms of procurement, a party to the building contract or any sub-contract, nor are they responsible for carrying out any physical construction works. For further information on the key consultants (such as architects, engineers, quantity surveyors and contract administrators (eg project manager or employer’s agent)) and their main duties, see Practice

This Practice Note summarises of cases relevant to claims involving directors. It is intended to provide an illustration of the diverse range of actions and issues which can arise in proceedings involving directors, with particular focus on decisions dating from February 2026 onwards. For summaries of decisions dated prior to 2026, see Practice Note: Claims against directors—key and illustrative decisions [Archived]. For further guidance on the main heads of claim potentially pertinent to disputes involving directors, as well as details of the key practical issues that are sensible to address at the outset of any claim against a director, see Practice Note: Claims against directors—key considerations for dispute resolution practitioners. Case details and analysis Judgment date Case summary King’s Bench Division (Circuit Commercial Court) Del Bosque Ltd v Shafie [2026] EWHC 2292 (Comm) 4 September 2026 The court upheld claims arising from a director's appointment of and dealings with an IT supplier operated initially by his father and subsequently through a company in which his father was a director and shareholder.The director breached section

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. It summarises a number of key and/or illustrative decisions relevant to claims involving directors. It is intended to provide an illustration of the diverse range of actions and issues which can arise in proceedings involving directors, with particular focus on decisions dated from July 2018 to December 2025, and therefore not all key cases relevant to claims concerning directors will be included below. For further guidance on the main heads of claim potentially pertinent to disputes involving directors, as well as details of the key practical issues that it is sensible to address at the outset of any claim against a director, see Practice Note: Claims against directors—key considerations for dispute resolution practitioners. Case details and analysis Judgment date Case summary Supreme Court Mitchell (joint liquidators of MBI International & Partners Inc (in liquidation)) v Al Jaber; Mitchell (joint liquidators of MBI International & Partners Inc (in liquidation)) v Al Jaber (No 2) [2025] UKSC 43News Analysis: Supreme

This Practice Note outlines some of the key considerations when dealing with claims concerning company directors. It addresses the definition of a director, the likely claimant(s) in actions involving directors as well as the potential heads of claim, including breaches of a director’s duties as well as claims in tort, equity and contract. It also sets out a number of practical issues which a litigator should have in mind at the outset of any dispute involving a company director. For summaries of key and/or illustrative cases relevant to claims against directors, see Practice Notes: • Claims against directors—illustrative decisions • Claims against directors—key and illustrative decisions [Archived] What is a director? It is important to be aware that the law recognises three categories of director: • de jure directors—a person who has been formally appointed to the company’s board (see section 250 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006)) • de facto directors—a person who performs the functions of a director, but who has not been formally appointed (CA 2006, s 250)

Insurance & Reinsurance analysis: In Infinity Reliance v Heath Crawford, the court considered a negligence claim brought by the claimant (‘Infinity’) against its insurance broker (‘HC’), in relation to various alleged breaches of duty which were said by Infinity to have resulted in it being underinsured and, consequently, unable to recover the full extent of its losses from its insurer when the need to do so arose. The case serves as a helpful reminder of certain aspects of the scope of insurance brokers’ duties, including the extent to which brokers are expected to interrogate a client’s preference, for the purposes of ensuring they are making an informed decision, and the extent to which they are expected to actively raise matters with the client in order to ensure their business and insurance needs are properly understood. The court’s consideration of the contributory negligence arguments put forward by HC to reduce the sum recoverable by Infinity also merit close attention. Written by Emily Lodge, associate at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP.

Claims by pupils against schools can be brought in negligence and/or for breach of statutory duty. Particular issues arise when bringing a claim on behalf of a child, including limitation and specific court requirements. This Practice Note covers these issues and other topics such as identifying the correct defendant, vicarious liability and non-delegable duties of care. Claims against schools by pupils can arise in a number of ways, including pupils: • being injured due to the condition of premises • injuring each other or themselves • being injured by a teacher or other school employee • being injured outside school premises while undertaking activities Cause of action and who to sue Claims can be brought against schools in negligence and/or for breach of statutory duty. There is considerable overlap but generally, claims can be divided into two categories: • occupancy duties—duties which relate to the condition of school premises • activity duties—duties which concern things done on school premises (or outside school premises while performing school activities, eg a school trip or sporting activity) Claims

1 General information Date of review [Insert date] Person(s) conducting review [Insert name(s)] 2 Rolling data Criteria In the last [insert period, eg quarter] Over the last 12 months Number of potential claims received Number of potential claims notified to professional indemnity insurer Number of claims closed/settled/resolved Value of claims closed/settled/resolved 3 Snapshot data Criteria In the last [insert period,