Commercial Court orders materials from a previous arbitration to be available for one party to rely on in future court proceedings. This was held on the grounds of protecting the legitimate interests of a party and the interests of justice.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: In this case, the court held that the administrators had acted appropriately. Although Judge Halliwell could well understand the frustration of the individual investors in the circumstances, there was no sufficient basis on which to remove the administrators or otherwise bring their appointment to an end. The court authorised the sale of the freehold property under para 71 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). Re Fox Street Village reinforces the high degree of discretion that is granted to insolvency practitioners (IPs) in the performance of their duties, and particularly in circumstances where they have relied on independent professional advice. The judge also gave some guidance of what might be done by the administrators to manage the potential for conflict. Written by Samuel Parsons, barrister at Guildhall Chambers.

Crime analysis: With defence payments being continually squeezed, Claire Hegarty of Kingsley Napley considers the recent Divisional Court ruling in R v Bolton Crown Court and the implications on the criminal justice and costs.

This Practice Note considers why and when parties should consider using alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to resolve their civil dispute, both pre-action and once proceedings have been commenced. It also considers the court’s powers to encourage or order the parties to consider ADR in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and the ability of the court to stay proceedings to allow the parties to attempt to resolve their dispute using ADR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions. For further information, see: Court specific guidance. For information on the courts’ powers with regard to costs sanctions where a party has failed to comply with an order for ADR or unreasonably failed to engage in ADR, see Practice Notes: Costs consequences of refusing to consider ADR in civil proceedings and Costs consequences of refusing to consider ADR in civil proceedings—illustrative decisions. Changes to the CPR The CPR were amended with effect from 1 October 2024 to include additional

This Practice Note provides details of key and illustrative decisions where the court has either encouraged or ordered the parties to consider or take part in a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), including mediation, to try and resolve their civil dispute. It should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Court powers to order or encourage ADR in civil proceedings, which sets out the parties’ obligations to consider ADR and the courts’ powers with respect to ordering or encouraging the parties to consider ADR, both before and during any litigation. Note that the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) were amended with effect from 1 October 2024 to include additional powers for the court to order parties to use ADR and additional guidance when making costs orders where parties have failed to comply with an order for ADR or unreasonably failed to engage in ADR. The amendments are set out in The Civil Procedure (Amendment No 3) Rules 2024, SI 2024/839 and associated Practice Direction amendments—see:

It is a fundamental rule of English company law that a limited company having a share capital must maintain that capital. Therefore, a company must not reduce its capital, except as prescribed by law. This capital maintenance rule is intended to protect a company’s creditors by ensuring that the assets representing the capital of a company remain available to them for future recourse. There are provisions in the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) governing how a limited company may reduce its capital. The restrictions in CA 2006 relating to reductions of capital do not apply to unlimited companies. For further information on this type of company, see Practice Note: Unlimited companies. The focus of this Practice Note is on reductions of capital in accordance with CA 2006, Pt 17, Ch 10, in particular, those carried out by a special resolution confirmed by court order (the court procedure) rather than those carried out by a special resolution supported by a solvency statement (the solvency statement procedure). In accordance with CA 2006, any limited company

This Flowchart illustrates the process to be followed by a limited company with a share capital (whether

It is a fundamental rule of English company law that a limited company having a share capital must maintain that capital. Therefore, a company must not reduce its share capital, except as prescribed by law. This capital maintenance rule is intended to protect a company’s creditors by ensuring that the assets representing the capital of a company remain available to them for future recourse. There are provisions in the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) governing how a limited company may reduce its capital. The restrictions in the CA 2006 relating to reductions of capital do not apply to unlimited companies. For further information on this type of company, see Practice Note: Unlimited companies. The focus of this Practice Note is on reductions of capital in accordance with CA 2006, Pt 17, Ch 10, in particular, those carried out by a special resolution confirmed by court order (the court procedure) rather than those carried out by a special resolution supported by a solvency statement (the solvency statement procedure). In accordance with CA 2006, any limited

Even if the parties in a matter apply for the post-trial judgment to be withheld, the court has the discretion to hand down the judgment in any event. In deciding whether to do this, it must weigh up the public interest against the interests and wishes of the parties involved. In this case the public interest outweighed that of the parties.

Planning analysis: In Shaman v Lambeth LBC, the court found that the Council had acted unlawfully and irrationally in granting a certificate of lawfulness of proposed use or development (CLOPUD) for a series of festivals in Brockwell Park. In this case, the park would not revert to normal use until 37 days after the commencement of the change of use—a period that ‘incontrovertibly’ exceeded the 28 day limit. The judgment clarifies the interpretation of temporary permitted development rights.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) was asked to interpret the termination procedure provisions in clause 8.9.3 and 8.9.4 of the JCT Design and Build Contract, and in particular in what circumstances the right for the Contractor to terminate arose following the issue of a notice of default under the contract.

Planning analysis: In Swire v SSCLG, the Planning Court quashed a screening direction made by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (the Defendant) that an environmental impact assessment (EIA) was not required for development on a site in Canterbury (the Site) formerly used to bury livestock with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) related contamination. The Defendant had made his decision on the basis of inadequate evidence as to the presence and nature of contamination from BSE-infected carcasses and relied on proposed remediation measures which could not be shown to satisfactorily safeguard and address potential problems of contamination.