This Checklist highlights the key preliminary steps and considerations for defending a judicial review claim in the Administrative Court, including preliminary assessment, acknowledgement of service and skeleton arguments. On receipt of pre-action protocol letter Ensure the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review has been followed • The Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review should be followed unless extreme urgency or other good reason dictates otherwise. • Failure to follow the pre-action protocol may have cost consequences and should be drawn to the court's attention in the acknowledgement of service. • See Practice Note: Judicial review—time limits and the pre-action protocol. Ensure the claim is within time limit for judicial review • Although it is more of a concern for the claimant, note that the need to comply with the pre-action protocol does not affect the obligation to bring a claim promptly and within three months of the grounds arising (unless an alternative time limit applies). • See Practice Note: Judicial review—time limits and the pre-action protocol under the headings Time limits and Interplay

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: In Ciddy v Natalia Insolvency and Companies Court (ICC) Judge Agnello KC dismissed a bankruptcy petition brought against a borrower in respect of a loan which had been advanced to her and her husband. The petition was dismissed because there was a substantial dispute as to whether default interest which had been charged was an unenforceable penalty and also as to whether the relationship between the creditor and the borrower was unfair within the meaning of sections 140A-140C of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974). Written by Ella Vacani, barrister at Enterprise Chambers.

Immigration analysis: The Home Secretary’s action against international students and other migrants who had relied on the allegedly fraudulent Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) certificates in their applications for leave to remain was ruled unlawful. Zane Malik of 12 Old Square Chambers, who appeared for one of the successful appellants, examines the issues raised in SM and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department.

This guide provides general information about defending a claim in the employment tribunal in England and Wales, including the formalities that must be complied with for presenting a valid defence, an outline of the procedure involved and important information about steps for you to take now. Your employment lawyer will be able to provide specific advice based on your circumstances. Initial considerations—overview The party bringing a claim in the employment tribunal is referred to as ‘the claimant’ and the party defending a claim is referred to as ‘the respondent’. Claimants and respondents can choose to represent themselves at the tribunal, or to be represented by someone else, such as a lawyer or, in the case of claimants a representative from their trade union or other representative of their choice. Unlike the civil courts, no fees are payable for bringing a claim in the employment tribunal. All claims must be submitted to the tribunal on a claim form known as an ET1. Your response to the claim If a claim, or part of it, is accepted, the tribunal will send each respondent named in the ET1

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and is not maintained. The implementation of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO 2012), which came into force on 1 October 2012, brought radical changes to the ability of an acquitted defendant, who was privately paying, to recover the costs of defending themselves. This caused consternation from solicitors who viewed the move as unjust and unnecessary. The Law Society published a practice note, Defence Costs Orders, setting out the duty to inform clients of this change to defence costs. What has changed? Following implementation of LASPO 2012, Sch 7, the Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985 (POA 1985) was amended. The effect of the amendments is that legal costs, which includes fees, charges and expert witness costs, can no longer be included in a defendant's costs order (DCO) other than in the limited circumstances specified in the amended POA 1985. These circumstances are: • where the charge against an individual is not proceeded with in the magistrates' court, or in a summary trial where

This Practice Note explains the issues which must be considered when both prosecuting and defending victims of trafficking. It sets out the defences provided under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (MSA 2015) for victims of trafficking who have been charged with a criminal offence. It also considers the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance for prosecutors on how to deal with suspects who may have been trafficked which covers the common law defence of duress, as well as the defence under MSA 2015, s 45. It covers prosecutors’ charging decisions under the guidance as well as the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) procedure for reviewing the status of trafficked individuals, as well as what happens if a person becomes a victim after prosecution proceedings have commenced or claims to be a victim of trafficking post-conviction. The Practice Note also considers staying proceedings as an abuse of process on the grounds that they involve a victim of trafficking. It also covers challenging the findings of the Competent Authority regarding a person’s trafficked status. Statutory

An investment strategy is ‘defensive’ if it is designed to have a low level of risk (and probably will therefore also have a low expected return).

A stock which is expected to be relatively insensitive to market or economic downturn, for example a food manufacturer.

This Deed is made the [insert day] day of [insert month] 20[insert year] Parties: 1 [●] a limited company incorporated and existing under the laws of England and Wales (registered in England and Wales No. [●]) whose registered office is at [●] (Deferred Employer); and 2 [ [●] a limited company incorporated and existing under the laws of England and Wales (registered in England and Wales No. [●]) whose registered office is at [●] (Principal Employer)]; 3 [●] a limited company incorporated and existing under the laws of England and Wales (registered in England and Wales No. [●]) whose registered office is at [●] (Trustees). Background (A) [●] (Scheme) was established by a[n] [interim OR definitive] trust deed dated [●]. (B) The Scheme is currently governed by a trust deed dated [●], as amended by the deeds executed after it[, details of which are set out in the Schedule to this Deed] (Trust Deed). The rules of the Scheme (Rules) are set out in Schedule [●]

Introduction A DPA allows a local authority to recover care home costs from the value of a person’s property later, rather than requiring an immediate sale. They are offered to those who have assets and savings of less than £23,250 (excluding their home) who have been assessed as needing permanent residential or nursing care. The person must own their own home which must not be subject to a disregard. Deferred Payment Agreements (DPAs) are governed by: • Care Act 2014 (CA 2014), ss 34–35 • Care and Support (Deferred Payment) Regulations 2014 (CS(DP)R 2014), SI 2014/2671 • Care and Support Statutory Guidance (Annex B) Legal nature of a DPA A DPA operates in substance as a secured loan arrangement. The local authority meets the individual’s care home costs, which accrue as a debt owed to the authority. That debt is secured by way of a legal charge over the individual’s property (CA 2014, s 34(1); CS(DP)R 2014, SI 2014/2671). The debt, together with any accrued interest and administrative charges, is ordinarily repayable upon: • the

Corporate Crime analysis: The statutory scheme governing Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPA) provides that DPAs must contain an expiry date, that any breach application must be brought ‘when a DPA is in force’ and that if a DPA persists until its expiry date, the proceedings ‘are to be discontinued’. The terms of the DPA in this case stated that it would be effective for a period ‘ending on or before 22 October 2024, when the financial terms set out in paragraphs 13–14 below have been fully satisfied’. The question for the court was whether the DPA was still in force on 21 November 2024, when the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) made an application to find it had been breached. The court ruled that the expiry date in this case was contingent on the terms of the DPA being met and that the SFO could therefore proceed with the breach application. Written by Rosa Bennathan, barrister at Three Raymond Buildings.

An asset held on the balance sheet under IFRS accounts representing the amount of acquisition expenses which have not been taken through the income statement and is accrued on the expectation that it will be paid out of future margins earned from the business.