ARCHIVED: this archived Practice Note is not maintained and is for background information purposes only. Further, some of the links may not direct you to the provisions as at the date the guidance in this Practice Note was published. Introduction of the single County Court On 22 April 2014, section 17 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 established a single, national, County Court and amended the County Courts Act 1984 (CCA 1984). Some key effects of this change included: • references to 'a county court' or 'county courts' being changed to 'the County Court'. References to a specific county court were changed to a County Court hearing centre • sittings of the County Court and any other business of the County Court can be held anywhere in England and Wales and are not be restricted to a particular district • Judges of the County Court include Circuit Judges, District Judges (including Deputy District Judges) and all Senior

The upper tier of two-tier authorities, generally responsible for core services such as adult social services, education, transport and highways, waste disposal and strategic planning.

Warning: this is for historical purposes only. From 30 September 2013, this pilot scheme has been implemented permanently. Accordingly, the majority of registry counters will be open between 10 am and 2 pm daily, with some registries offering a more limited counter service. It is advisable to check online via the Gov.uk 'Find a court or tribunal' service or by contacting the registry directly. Pilot scheme A pilot scheme of reduced access to the public counter services (for filing documents, issuing claims and applications, collecting orders etc) is running in all county courts from 3 September 2012 to 29 March 2013. Note: although the official guidance note on this pilot scheme, available on the Justice website, still refers to the pilot scheme running

The interest payment on a bond.

The performance of services or other conduct indicative of acceptance of an offer can result in a contract being formed (Trentham v Archital Luxfer [1993] Lloyd's Rep 25 (unavailable)). The failure by a party to object to the other party's terms may over time, result in their acceptance (Balmoral v Borealis [2006] All ER (D) 378 Jul). In commercial dealings between parties who are familiar with the trade in question, and particularly where the parties have acted in the belief that they had a binding contract, the courts are willing to imply terms, where that is possible, to enable the contract to be carried out.

An organisation providing banking and administration services for the courts.

The Court Funds Office has confirmed there was a further reduction in interest rates for its accounts, effective from 6 December 2024. The Special Account rate has been lowered from 5.00% to 4.75%, whilst the Basic Account rate has been reduced from 3.75% to 3.56%.

The Court Funds Office has reduced the interest rate for special and basic accounts accounts from 12 June 2024. The interest rate for special accounts decreased from 6.00% to 5.25% and the interest rate for basic accounts decreased from 5.00% to 3.94%.

Planning analysis: In Mansell v TMBC, the Court of Appeal upheld the ability of a local planning authority to consider the position under permitted development rights as a fallback which could be taken into account in granting planning permission for development contrary to the development plan. In doing so it also offered clarification around the interpretation of the permitted development rights which allow buildings to be converted from agricultural to residential use.

The Ministry of Justice has announced updates to court and tribunal fees from 13 July 2026. The changes are implemented by the Court and Tribunal Fees (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2026, SI 2026/642, as amended by the Court and Tribunal Fees (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Change of coming into force) Order 2026, SI 2026/665.

Private Client analysis: The High Court decided that, applying the rule in Jones v Westcomb, a testatrix’s will, which provided that her residuary estate would go to her son and then, if he died childless, to her friend or, if the friend had predeceased the testatrix, to the friend’s daughter, meant that the residuary estate went to the friend’s daughter even though the son died without issue after the friend’s death and the friend had not predeceased the testatrix. The court also determined whether various charities were beneficiaries of the will of the testatrix’s husband (the testator). Josh Lewison, barrister at Radcliffe Chambers, and Helen Fry, associate at Bircham Dyson Bell, examine the court’s decision.

Family analysis: Richard Castle, barrister at 1 King’s Bench Walk Chambers, discusses the court’s approach when determining the division of assets between a husband and wife on the basis of the husband’s post-separation bonus earnings and what the husband asserted to be non-matrimonial property.