The hearing of the court to sanction a scheme of arrangement.

Insurance and Reinsurance analysis: Geoffrey Maddock, a partner at Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, and Grant Murtagh, of counsel, examine the High Court’s decision to sanction a scheme for the transfer of insurance business from Legal and General Assurance Society (LGAS) to ReAssure which, despite objections by some policyholders, it found to be fair in all the circumstances.

Law360: A London court has allowed insurers to make claims under reinsurance contracts for business interruption losses claimed during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, saying that the outbreak of an infectious disease constitutes a 'catastrophe' under the policy wording.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) held that an amended particulars of claim issued by a claimant in a dispute arising in relation to a Trade Contract for an M&E package did not comply with the requirements of CPR 16.4, CPR PD 16 and the TCC Guide, citing issues such as a lack of clarity on what they were seeking to be construed in a pleading for the proper construction of the Trade Contract and erroneously seeking to rely on pre-contract negotiations to interpret the contract. A request for a negative declaration that two adjudication hearings should have ‘no effect’ was also struck out through a summary judgment as having no reasonable grounds of success.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court struck out wide-ranging conspiracy and fraud claims against former administrators and their firm as disclosing no reasonable grounds, constituting an abuse of process, and failing to comply with statutory requirements governing claims against discharged administrators. It confirmed that the Fraud Act 2006 (FrA 2006) creates no civil cause of action, reiterated the strict pleading requirements for fraud, and reinforced the principles preventing relitigation and forum shopping. The decision provides a clear reminder that litigants, including litigants in person, must comply with procedural rules and that persistent meritless litigation may justify the imposition of an extended civil restraint order. Produced in partnership with Laura Newberry of Addleshaw Goddard LLP.

A court trial is the formal hearing at which a criminal charge or civil claim is determined by a judge, and where applicable a jury, on the basis of evidence and legal argument. It involves the calling and cross‑examination of witnesses, presentation of documents and other evidence, and submissions on fact and law, leading to a judgment or verdict.“Trial” is a descriptive procedural term used across criminal and civil courts rather than a concept with a single statutory definition. In England & Wales and Northern Ireland, the term is used in both civil and criminal procedure rules; in Ireland it is likewise central to court practice; in Scotland the equivalent criminal process is a “trial diet” and in civil proceedings a “proof” or “proof before answer”, though “trial” is still widely understood.Key issues at a court trial include the applicable standard and burden of proof, admissibility of evidence, case management directions, and compliance with rules of procedure. For litigators, the trial is the culmination of pleadings, disclosure, and interim applications, and determines liability, conviction or acquittal, and the basis for any appeal.

Planning analysis: In Herstmonceux Museum v SSCLG, the court held that challenges to enforcement appeal decisions involving a deemed planning application must proceed under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990), not section 288. It further confirmed that strict compliance with service and procedural requirements is essential, and failures within the 28-day limit are fatal to jurisdiction.

Law360, London: The Court of Appeal has not only upheld a finding that drug company Advanz excessively inflated the price of its thyroid tablets for the National Health Service (NHS) but also reimposed fines against the company's former owner that a lower tribunal had cut by almost a third.

Planning analysis: The Court of Appeal endorsed the High Court’s analysis, concluding that there is ‘no legal distinction’ between the online planning practice guidance (PPG) and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and ‘no hard and fast rules on what each must contain, or how each must be expressed’. The judgment concerns the interplay between paragraph 162 NPPF (‘Development should not be … permitted if there are reasonably available sites … in areas with a lower risk of flooding’) and paragraph 7-028 of the Flood Risk and Coastal Change PPG (which gives guidance on ‘What is a “reasonably available” site?’) The court rejected the appellant’s argument that the PPG could not redefine or alter the concept of ‘reasonably available sites’ in paragraph 162 of the NPPF. There is no legal bar to the PPG amending the NPPF. However, it had not done so in this instance. The PPG was consistent with paragraph 162 and ‘provided practical guidance on the application of the policy as it stood’. Written by Emma Dring, barrister at Cornerstone Barristers.

Information law analysis: The High Court has upheld a claim for misuse of private information and copyright infringement in this case which involved the publication of a book containing intimate details about the relationship between the claimant and defendant. The court granted a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from publishing four categories of private information which the claimant complained about and also upheld the claim for copyright infringement in relation to photographs taken by the claimant and used in the defendant’s book without permission.

A court witness is a person who gives evidence to a court, usually orally on oath or affirmation, in civil or criminal proceedings. Most are called by a party either as a factual (lay) witness to prove events or documents, or as an expert witness to provide opinion evidence within their expertise. Evidence is ordinarily given in chief, tested by cross-examination, and clarified on re-examination.Witness competence and compellability, and available privileges (such as the privilege against self-incrimination and legal professional privilege), are governed by statute and case law. Attendance can be compelled by a witness summons (England & Wales and Northern Ireland), a citation (Scotland) or a subpoena (Ireland). Non-compliance may lead to contempt.Special measures and live-link evidence for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses are provided for by legislation, including the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (England & Wales), the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) legislation and the Criminal Evidence Act 1992 (Ireland).Exceptionally, a judge may direct that an individual be called as a “witness of the court”, allowing both parties to examine; this power is recognised in case law. Usage and core features are broadly consistent across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland. False testimony may constitute perjury.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Sean Linley of Carter Burnett, Legal Costs Consultants, considers a recent County Court decision where an appeal was allowed to a decision to disallow the deduction of an ATE premium and reduce the amount of the solicitor’s success fee from a child's damages in a successful personal injury claim.