Property Disputes analysis: This was a multi-party claim involving the removal of airplanes parked at an aerodrome in Leicestershire. Claims were brought in trespass (and involuntary bailment) to seek the removal of the aircraft, the principal claimant being the freeholder of the air-strip. The essence of the claim against each of the eight defendants was that aircraft was parked unlawfully on the air-strip without licence. The judgment explores the standing on which to bring a claim in trespass, the nature of bailment, the operation of contractual and gratuitous licence, and proprietary estoppel. The claimant sought summary judgment and the case also then examines the appropriate test under CPR 24. Ultimately each defence was found not to be arguable and the claimants were granted relief whereby the planes could be removed and sold under section 13 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 (T(IG)A 1977). Written by Kevin Long, solicitor, at Hackney Community Law Centre.

This Practice Note sets out the defence under article 12 that may be raised in response to an application under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the 1980 Hague Convention), namely that where it has been over 12 months since the removal or retention of the child, it may be submitted by the abducting parent that the child is now settled in the new jurisdiction. For practical guidance on the defences that may be raised in response to an application under the 1980 Hague Convention, see Practice Notes: • Child abduction—introduction to defences under the 1980 Hague Convention • Defences under the 1980 Hague Convention—consent, acquiescence and non-exercise of rights of custody • Defences under the 1980 Hague Convention—grave risk of physical or psychological harm • Defences under the 1980 Hague Convention—child settled in new jurisdiction, and • Child abduction—defences in response to an application under the 1980 Hague Convention—flowchart For practical guidance on proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention, see: • Child abduction—introduction

STOP PRESS: On 9 September 2026, the Supreme Court gave judgment in the case of In the Petition of DM [2026] UKSC 32, which provides important guidance on the application of article 13(b) of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, including the relevance of the child’s views. This Practice Note is being updated to reflect the relevant changes. This Practice Note sets out the defence under article 13 in response to an application under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the 1980 Hague Convention), namely that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of their views. For practical guidance on the defences that may be raised in response to an application under the 1980 Hague Convention, see Practice Notes: • Child abduction—introduction to defences under the 1980 Hague Convention • Defences under the 1980 Hague Convention—child settled

This Practice Note sets out the defences under article 13(a) that may be raised in response to an application under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the 1980 Hague Convention), namely that the left behind parent consented to or acquiesced in the removal or retention of the child, or that the left behind parent was not actually exercising their custody rights at the time of removal or retention. For practical guidance on the defences that may be raised in response to an application under the 1980 Hague Convention, see Practice Notes: • Child abduction—introduction to defences under the 1980 Hague Convention • Defences under the 1980 Hague Convention—child settled in new jurisdiction • Defences under the 1980 Hague Convention—grave risk of physical or psychological harm • Defences under the 1980 Hague Convention—child’s objections to return, and • Child abduction—defences in response to an application under the 1980 Hague Convention—flowchart For practical guidance on proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention, see:

STOP PRESS: On 9 September 2026, the Supreme Court gave judgment in the case of In the Petition of DM [2026] UKSC 32, which provides important guidance on the application of article 13(b) of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, including the relevance of the child’s views. This Practice Note is being updated to reflect the relevant changes. This Practice Note sets out the defence that may be raised under article 13(b) in response to an application under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the 1980 Hague Convention), namely that there is a grave risk that the child’s return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation. For practical guidance on the limited defences that may be raised in response to an application under the 1980 Hague Convention, see Practice Notes: • Child abduction—introduction to defences under the 1980 Hague Convention

Dispute Resolution analysis: In this case, the court examined whether defences, which did not plead to individual allegations of fact, but instead set out a bare denial, met the requirements of CPR Part 16.5 (even where, as was common ground, the defences, if proved, would give rise to a complete defence to the claims). The court gave guidance on the correct approach to be taken and the remedy where a breach of CPR Part 16.5 had occurred. Written by Oliver Browne, partner and chair of the London Litigation & Trial Department at Latham & Watkins.

ARCHIVED: This Precedent has been archived and is not maintained. In the County Court at [insert] Claim No: Between A B        Claimant and X Y        Defendant Defence 1 It is admitted that the accident described at paragraph 1 occurred at the time and place stated. 2 For the purposes of this action, it is admitted that the accident was caused by the negligence of the Defendant. 3 The Defendant requires the Claimant to prove all items of damage alleged. Counter Schedule 3.1 Repairs—The Claimant is required to prove this head of loss. The Defendant notes that no documentary evidence has been provided and requires sight of the same. 3.2 Recovery—The Claimant is required to prove this head of loss. The Defendant notes that no documentary evidence has been provided and requires sight of the same. 3.3 Storage—The Claimant is required to prove this head of loss. The Defendant does not admit and requires the Claimant to prove that she needed to place his vehicle into storage and that the rate charged was reasonable. 3.4 Hire—denied 3.4.1 Enforceability (a) It is denied that the Claimant is liable for

In the high court of justice [[SPECIFY DIVISION]] [[INSERT LOCATION] DISTRICT REGISTRY] Claim No: [insert number] Between: C (Widow and executrix OF the Estate of [name of deceased] (deceased))        Claimant and D LTD        Defendant ________________________________________________ Defence ________________________________________________ 1 Paragraph numbers in this Defence relate to paragraph numbers in the Particulars of Claim dated [insert date], unless otherwise stated. 2 Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Particulars of Claim are admitted subject to sight of the grant of probate. 3 In respect of paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim the identity of the deceased employer and the period of the alleged employment by the Defendant is required to be proved by the Claimant save that the Defendant admits that the HMRC schedule of employment records the Defendant as the deceased

A person against whom a claim is brought.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The net loss approach to the quantification of damages for loss of profit in a breach of contract claim requires account to be taken of costs and expenses for which the claimant would have been liable in law had the contract been performed, even where, in practice, it would not necessarily be required to pay those expenses. Written by Phillip Patterson, barrister, at Hardwicke.

Planning analysis: In this claim Westminster City Council sought to enforce a planning obligation to provide affordable housing in accordance with an agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The defendants were not parties to the agreement and claimed to benefit from an express exemption clause, the interpretation of which was in dispute. The single short issue raised by the claim was whether the first defendant was entitled to claim the benefit of an exemption from the obligation as a person deriving title through a mortgagee of a registered social provider, where the mortgagor had been compulsorily removed from the register after obtaining the mortgage and before the mortgagee transferred its interest to the first defendant. The judgment sets out the principles applicable to the interpretation of these agreements and the competing arguments. The judge found that the defendants’ interest in the affordable housing units came within the claimed exemption, such that they were entitled to sell the units on the open market. Written by Harriet Townsend KC, barrister, at Cornerstone Barristers.

This Checklist on receiving a Part 36 offer identifies the key factors that a defendant should consider on receipt of a claimant’s Part 36 offer. Consideration Guidance Further information Relevant period The defendant should calculate the date when the relevant period expires for accepting the claimant’s Part 36 offer, which must be no less than 21 days from when the Part 36 offer was served (CPR 36.5(1)(c)).It is important to note this date because there may be costs consequences for late acceptance of the claimant’s Part 36 offer. There will also be costs consequences if the claimant’s Part 36 offer is not accepted and the claimant obtains a judgment that is at least as advantageous as their own Part 36 offer (CPR 36.17(1)(b)). For further information, see Practice Notes: Part 36 offers—how to make a valid Part 36 offer—The relevant period (minimum 21 days) and Part 36 offers—costs consequences of rejection or non-acceptance—Costs consequences—defendant not accepting a claimant's Part 36 offer. Validity of Part 36 offer The defendant should check whether