Planning analysis: In Marks and Spencer plc v SSLUHC, the High Court quashed the Secretary of State’s decision to block the redevelopment of Marks & Spencer’s (M&S’s) store on Oxford Street, finding that there was no presumption in favour of repurposing and re-using buildings in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Written by Martha Grekos, barrister at MGLC Legal Ltd.

DR analysis: The Queen’s Bench Division has allowed the claimant to call 28 witnesses to give evidence. Its directions arose from the parties’ discussions seeking to effect 'more efficient conduct of this case'. In doing so, the court considered CPR 32.2(3) as revised in the April 2013 Jackson Reforms. In particular, it considered the purpose of the revised provisions and the effect, both on the management and trial of the case, of limiting or allowing the evidence. This judgment is also a useful reminder of the court's expectation that the parties will be co-operative, pragmatic and sensible.

This Practice Note sets out the court's case management powers under the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 4, including changing the time for compliance by the parties (by extending or expediting deadlines), adjourning hearings, ordering attendance at court and directing a separate hearing of any issue. It explains how the court must further the overriding objective by active case management (FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 1.4) and what it takes into account when exercising case management powers. This includes making orders of its own initiative, sanctions for non-compliance and relief from sanctions, provision for vulnerable parties, civil restraint orders and the court's power to rectify where there has been an error of procedure. In summary, the key case management powers of the court are: The overriding objective FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 1 sets out the overriding objective. The overriding objective is to enable the court to deal with cases justly having regard to any welfare issues involved. See also Practice Note: FPR 2010—overriding objective. The court must further the overriding objective

Pensions analysis: In the case of AP v TP, the Family Court decided to set aside a Pension Sharing Order (PSO), citing the respondent wife's continuous lack of participation in executing the order. The court consequently held that these circumstances made it inequitable to uphold the PSO. In light of this ruling, the respondent's entitlement to approximately £94,454 in pension benefits was set aside. However, the court gave the respondent a final 28-day opportunity to comply with the PSO's implementation. Additionally, the applicant husband was awarded £20,000 in legal costs, payable within 21 days or to be deducted from the wife's share of the matrimonial home sale proceeds. The case sets out clear guidelines on (what can be) the challenging task of engaging with an uncooperative party and also highlights the financial consequences of non-compliance with court orders. Written by Daniel Fowler, director in the Pensions Practice at Fieldfisher.

This Practice Note covers receivers who are appointed by the court under the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981) and County Courts Act 1984 (CCA 1984), including the circumstances in which a court will appoint a receiver and who may be appointed by the court. Receivers appointed under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) are also briefly covered. This does not cover LPA/fixed charge receivers appointed by a lender pursuant to a power contained in a charge. For more information on those receiverships, see Practice Notes: Role, powers, functions and duties of an LPA or fixed charge receiver and Procedure relating to appointment of LPA or fixed charge receiver(s). Senior Courts Act 1981 and County Courts Act 1984 SCA 1981, s 37 contains the power of the High Court to appoint a receiver in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so. Any such order may be final or interlocutory and may be made either unconditionally

Application The section 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) is commonly only used by foreign courts making inbound requests to the English courts as a fall-back provision if the following do not apply: • the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency as implemented by the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR 2006), SI 2006/1030 (see Practice Note: When does UNCITRAL (implemented by the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations) apply and what are the effects?). For example, if the office-holder is not a foreign representative (eg a receiver) • the Regulation (EU) 2015/848 (OJ L141 5.6.2015 p 19), Recast Regulation on Insolvency [EU Recast Regulation on Insolvency]. For example, if the relevant foreign insolvency/restructuring proceedings are commenced after Brexit (11 pm on 31 December 2020) and the savings provisions don’t apply (see Practice Note: Brexit—impact on Recast Regulation on Insolvency) The request must come from a court (not an office-holder) in one of the following relevant countries or territories, which are mainly commonwealth countries or former British colonies: Anguilla, Australia, Bahamas, Bermuda,

The Family Justice Council has released guidance for legal practitioners working with neurodivergent users of the family justice system. The guidance is the result of nearly two years of collaborative effort, which aims to enhance access to justice and ensure fair treatment for neurodivergent children and families. The guidance draws together the existing regulatory framework, outlines best practice and compiles relevant resources. It addresses the estimated 15% of neurodivergent individuals in the population, acknowledging that this figure likely underrepresents the proportion within the family justice system. The guidance identifies potential barriers to participation, access to justice issues and provides recommendations for recognising and accommodating neurodivergence. Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, emphasises the importance of understanding individual needs to improve participation and outcomes. Separate guidance for the judiciary is anticipated later this year.

The Courts and Tribunals Bill proposes significant reforms to the criminal justice system in England and Wales which are aimed at reducing backlogs and increasing efficiency. The most notable changes for criminal lawyers include the removal of the right to elect trial by jury, expanding the range of cases which can be tried in the magistrates’ court, removing jury trials for certain either-way offences, revising the process for making appeals to the Crown Court and introducing judge-alone trials for complex or lengthy cases. This Practice Note outlines the key proposals impacting the criminal justice system in England and Wales and what the effect of the proposals might look like in practice, while also outlining some of the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed reforms. Background The Courts and Tribunals Bill was introduced against the backdrop of what the UK government describes as a criminal justice system ‘in crisis’, with a record backlog of tens of thousands of unresolved Crown Court cases leading to long delays for victims, witnesses and defendants.

The Chief Coroner, Her Honour Alexia Durran has welcomed the appointment of four new Senior Coroners and 16 new Area Coroners in England and Wales.

The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published the Rolls Building Practice Note – Summary Assessments (2026), which supersedes the Practice Note issued on 13 March 2026 and came into force on 14 April 2026. The practice note provides that, from 14 April 2026, parties must file and serve an Excel version of Form N260 for all summary assessments, in addition to a signed, read-only PDF. The Excel document is a bespoke template designed to replicate Form N260 with self-calculating formulae, accommodating up to 12 solicitors and two counsel. It replaces the previous pilot forms N260A and N260B.

The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has released new practice guidance on the use of intermediaries, lay advocates and cognitive assessments in family proceedings. The guidance clarifies that applications for such assessments must provide evidence of necessity, emphasising that intermediaries should only be used when essential for fair participation, rarely for entire hearings. It outlines the role of intermediaries under the Family Procedure Rules 2010, Pt 3A, together with the process for preliminary and cognitive assessments, and stresses that while informative, assessment conclusions are not definitive and the decision to appoint an intermediary ultimately rests with the judge. This guidance aims to ensure appropriate use of these measures to support vulnerable parties while maintaining efficient court processes.

The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published the February 2026 interim revision of the Equal Treatment Bench Book (ETBB).