The Council of the European Union has agreed on a negotiation mandate for targeted amendments to the Eurovignette Directive, which sets EU rules on road tolls and user charges for heavy duty vehicles. The objective is to improve legal clarity, simplify implementation and ensure consistent application of CO₂-based charging rules. In response to new CO₂ emission standards applying from 1 July 2026, the Council clarified key provisions to ensure their smooth interaction with CO₂-based road charging. It refined definitions, including zero- and low-emission vehicles, vehicle groups, emission reduction trajectories and reference CO₂ emissions. It specified when CO₂-based charge variations apply to vehicle sub-groups and established uniform timelines for introducing new or updated variations. The Council acknowledged the climate benefits of retrofitting but confirmed that such modifications do not allow reclassification of a vehicle’s CO₂ class. It invited the European Commission to assess policy options on retrofitted electric vehicles within two years.

A letter from the Counsel General for Wales, Mick Antoniw MS, has resulted in a day of resignations for Welsh politics on 16 July 2024, including the First Minister's (FM) resignation. Just after 9.30 am on 16 July 2024, Antoniw posted a letter on X (formerly known as Twitter) in which he called on Vaughan Gething to resign as First Minister of Wales, drawing attention specifically to the Senedd's vote of no confidence in the FM in early June 2024. Antoniw wrote, 'you have lost a vote of confidence in the Senedd. That is something I regard as being of major constitutional importance.' Gething had refused to resign following the vote, which was not legally binding and was passed with a majority of two, as two Labour members of the Senedd had been absent with illness. The background is a series of troubles for the FM, including a row on political donations and reports that, as health minister, he had deleted chat messages during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Shortly after the Counsel General published his letter, it was reported that he had resigned, together with three other Welsh ministers, including Julie James, Lesley Griffiths and Jeremy Miles. The FM announced his own resignation a few hours later.

An independent advocate, appointed at the request of a court.

This Practice Note provides information on the recovery of counsel’s fees from the other side in proceedings. It considers the liability for counsel’s fees, how such fees are assessed and the approach where two or more counsel are instructed. It also considers the effect of adjournment or settlement and looks at the concept of devilling and the impact of this on costs recovery. It is settled law that counsel’s fees are recoverable as disbursements, irrespective of whether the work could have been done by the instructing solicitor, a principle set out by the Court of Appeal in Crane v Canons Leisure Centre (2007). They are in principle recoverable from an opposing party in litigation. For general guidance on the recovery of disbursements, see Practice Note: Disbursements—costs recovery. Note, in a summary assessment there ‘is no conventional requirement’ for a fee note to be provided to evidence counsel’s fees (McGivern v MBR Acres Ltd (2025)). However, in a summary assessment, where a party is seeking to recovery counsel’s fees as a disbursement, a

Measuring and monitoring the number of ionizing radiation particles present using radiation detection equipment.

Ireland-Commercial analysis: This article, was produced in partnership with Katie O’Connor, Denise Daly Byrne, Laura Quinn and David O’Reilly of A&L Goodbody LLP .

TMT analysis: This is the latest judgment in ongoing libel proceedings brought by well-known television presenter Rachel Riley against political journalist Michael Sivier over an article published on his website. Ms Riley applied to strike out Mr Sivier’s defences of truth, honest opinion and publication in the public interest. The court agreed with Ms Riley, striking out all three defences on the basis that it was not even arguable that she had engaged in the conduct alleged in the article. This judgment is a concise and clear application of the principles of strike out in the context of pleaded defences in libel. In addition, Mrs Justice Collins Rice adds to the increasing body of judicial observation about how the court should consider social media posts (in this case Twitter) in the context of libel proceedings. Written by Edward Smith, associate, at Payne Hicks Beach.

[IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert] OR IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE] [[SPECIFY DIVISION]] [ [Specify Specialist court] ] [[INSERT LOCATION] DISTRICT REGISTRY] Claim No: Between [A B]        Claimant and [X Y]        Defendant ________________________________________________ COUNTER SCHEDULE OF LOSS ________________________________________________ The Defendant reserves the right to alter, amend or add to this counter schedule at any time up to and including trial. Item Claim Defendant’s figure Defendant’s comments General damages To be assessed To be assessed Loss of earnings £3,500.00 £1,200.00 The Defendant will rely on the evidence of Dr Smith

[IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert] OR IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE] [ [Specify division] ] [ [Specify Specialist court] ] [[INSERT LOCATION] DISTRICT REGISTRY] Claim No: BETWEEN [A B]        Claimant and [X Y]        Defendant ________________________________________________ COUNTER SCHEDULE OF LOSS ________________________________________________ The Defendant reserves the right to alter, amend or add to this counter schedule at any time up to and including trial. 1 GENERAL DAMAGES 1.1 The dates set out by the Claimant are agreed. 1.2 The Defendant relies on the evidence of Mr. T. Magnum, Consultant Spinal Surgeon, that a significant deterioration some 12 months after the accident was probably unrelated to it. If there was an acceleration, Mr. Magnum's view is that it was by no more than 2 years. 1.3 The

[IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [INSERT] OR IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE] [[SPECIFY DIVISION]] [[SPECIFY SPECIALIST COURT]] [[INSERT LOCATION] DISTRICT REGISTRY] Claim No: Between [A B]        Claimant and [X Y]        Defendant ________________________________________________ COUNTER SCHEDULE OF LOSS ________________________________________________ The Defendant reserves the right to alter, amend or add to this Counter Schedule of Loss at any time up to and including trial. PAST LOSSES 1 Past loss of earnings (i) Loss of earnings to [insert date eg 26 February 2019] are agreed in the pleaded claim of £[insert amount]. (ii)–(iii) Loss in the period [insert date eg 26 February 2019] to [insert date eg 25 August 2019] is not admitted. In principle, the Defendant would accept that it might take some time to obtain equally remunerative work. However, the Claimant’s evidence does not evidence reasonable steps to: 1.1 obtain work at a similar salary; 1.2 obtain an improved salary from that which he earned as a [insert job title eg HGV driver]. 2 Past care and assistance This is denied in part. Both the net hourly rate (£[insert net hourly care rate claimed]) and the number of hours claimed ([insert number of hours claimed] or [insert number of hours claimed]

To: [insert Building Owner] Of: [insert Building Owner’s main address] As Adjoining [Owner OR Owners] under the Party Wall etc Act 1996 (the ‘Act’) of [insert Adjoining Owner’s building] and having received a notice dated [insert date] in respect of proposed works at [insert Building Owner’s building] and without prejudice to any of [my OR our] rights under the Act, [I

[Insert date] Dear [insert name of employee], Thank you for your letter dated [insert date].[ As from