This Checklist has been archived and is not maintained. The Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 The Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024 were laid before Parliament on 25 October 2016 and are in force from 6 April 2017. They are intended to consolidate the Insolvency Rules 1986 (IR 1986), SI 1986/1925 and all statutory instruments amending the IR 1986, SI 1986/1925 (which are all repealed), modernise and simplify the language used, and incorporate changes made in the law. The IR 2016, SI 2016/1024 are accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum (prepared by the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy in conjunction with the Insolvency Service) which, although not forming part of the IR 2016, SI 2016/1024 (and not approved by Parliament), may assist in understanding the IR 2016, SI 2016/1024. Being the single largest change to insolvency law in a generation, we have produced a series of Practice Notes describing most of the individual Parts of the IR 2016, SI 2016/1024

Retention and destruction of fingerprints and samples under PACE 1984 The procedure for taking, retaining and destroying fingerprints, footwear impressions, DNA samples and the profiles derived from those samples is set out in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984). DNA samples can be taken from anyone charged with, reported for summons for, cautioned for or convicted of a recordable offence. Profiles obtained from such samples can be retained and speculatively searched against other profiles obtained from victims or scenes of crimes. The police are unable to take or retain fingerprints or DNA of a person involved in a non-recordable offence. A recordable offence is defined in PACE 1984, s 118. All offences which are punishable with imprisonment are recordable offences. At least a further 50 non-imprisonable offences are specified as recordable offences in regulations made by the Secretary of State under PACE 1984, s 27. The regime for taking, retaining and destroying fingerprints and DNA has developed over the years. The power to take and retain DNA samples and profiles was

MedTech Europe has published a 100-page report on the administrative burdens imposed by the new medical device regulations, Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (Medical Devices Regulation (MDR)) and Regulation (EU) 2017/746 (In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation (IVDR)). The report is part of its response to the European Commission’s consultation on the MDR/IVDR that ended on 21 March 2025. The trade group published the report alongside documents on other aspects of device regulations. The files cover the European Health Data Space (EHDS), the EUDAMED database, the digitalisation of technical documentation and the submission of vigilance reports to Notified Bodies. The report highlights the main areas where the regulations impose burdens 'that are unnecessary or inefficient in achieving compliance' and proposed short-, mid- and long-term solutions. For example, it cites an increase in the number of post-market and clinical reports that manufacturers have to maintain as a burden. MedTech Europe suggests as a short-term solution to 'leave it at the discretion of the manufacturer to clearly identify one document as a main source for the basic information.'

The procedure by which a court assesses the costs to be paid by one party to another under a costs order already made.

This Practice Note considers the relationship between costs budgeting and detailed assessment and in particular the provisions in CPR 3.18, which set out what the court will do when assessing costs on a standard basis in cases in which a Costs Management Order (CMO) has been made and where one has not been made. In respect of cases where a CMO has been made, this Practice Note notes three key considerations being the relevance of the last approved or agreed costs budget, whether there is ‘a good reason’ to depart from the amount approved at the costs management hearing and the relevance of court comments about incurred costs. What is costs budgeting and detailed assessment Detailed assessment was a pre-existing procedure when costs budgeting was introduced. No specific guidance was given as to the relationship between the two processes and there were conflicting authorities. Care should therefore be taken when referring to earlier cases. For a recap of the two processes, they can be summarised as follows: • costs budgeting—in cases in which costs budgeting applies,

The procedure by which the amount of costs is decided in accordance with the rules'>Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), SI 1998/3132, Pt 47.

Dispute Resolution analysis: A default costs certificate was set aside because the receiving party had served the documents required to commence detailed assessment proceedings on a piecemeal basis. The Master concluded this meant that service had not been properly effected. Consequently, the receiving party had not been entitled to the default costs certificate. Written by Alex Bagnall, technical manager at Total Legal Solutions.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is based on provisions revoked on 1 April 2013. It is therefore for historical purposes only. It only contains guidance on appealing the decision of an authorised court officer in detailed assessment proceedings. It does not cover appealing a detailed assessment decision made by a costs judge). Appeals from an authorised court officer in detailed assessment proceedings The procedure for appealing against a decision made by an authorised court officer in detailed assessment proceedings is set out in r 47.20–47.23 and CPR PD 47.1–48.4. Note: Part 52 does not apply in relation to an appeal of a detailed assessment hearing from an authorised costs officer. The appeal is to a costs judge or a district judge of the High Court (r 47.21 and CPR PD 47, para 48.2). There is no requirement to obtain permission to appeal or to seek written reasons (CPR PD 47, para 47.2). Any party to detailed assessment proceedings may appeal against a decision of an authorised costs officer. However,

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is based on provisions revoked on 1 April 2013. It is therefore for historical purposes only. How to commence detailed assessment proceedings Proceedings are commenced by the receiving party serving on the paying party: • a notice of commencement in the relevant practice form (N252) • a copy bill of costs Importantly, at this stage, the procedure does not involve the court. There is no need to file the notice of commencement or copy of the bill of costs at court. These documents must also be served on any other ‘relevant persons’. Upon service, the relevant person becomes a party to the proceedings. The procedure for commencing proceedings is set out in the Practice Direction and should be referred to in detail. Precedents Precedents

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is based on provisions revoked on 1 April 2013. It is therefore for historical purposes only. When to apply for a certificate A default costs certificate contains an order to pay costs. It can be applied if the period for serving points of dispute has expired and the receiving party has not been served with any points of dispute. Procedure to obtain a certificate The procedure for obtaining a default costs certificate is set out at in the Costs Practice Direction. The receiving party obtains a default costs certificate by filing a request in the relevant practice form. The receiving party must completes Form N254 and file it at the appropriate office together with a copy of the document giving the right to detailed assessment (as identified in the Costs Practice Direction section 40.4) and the appropriate court fee. For information on court fees, see Practice Note: Court fees in civil proceedings. The court will consider the request. If it is successful, the bill will

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is based on provisions revoked on 1 April 2013. It is therefore for historical purposes only. Since the introduction of the Supreme Court the Supreme Court Costs Office is now known as the Senior Courts Costs Office. The accompanying guide has yet to be reissued and so is still known as the Supreme Court Costs Office Guide. Applicable rules Generally, parties should ensure they are aware of the contents of CPR 47.14 and the relevant parts of the Costs Practice Direction (practice direction 47, Section 40) and of the Supreme Courts Costs Office Guide, (SCCO Guide). This note does not contain all of the detail of the SCCO Guide. How to apply for the detailed assessment hearing For information on how to apply for a detailed assessment hearing see Detailed assessment: how to apply for a hearing (prior to April 2013) [Archived]. What happens if the request for detailed assessment is not filed in time? If the Request is not filed on time, the paying party

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is based on provisions revoked on 1 April 2013. It is therefore for historical purposes only. Since the introduction of the Supreme Court the Supreme Court Costs Office is now known as the Senior Courts Costs Office. The accompanying guide has yet to be reissued and so is still known as the Supreme Court Costs Office Guide. Who applies for the hearing? It is the receiving party's responsibility to apply for the detailed assessment hearing. The receiving party may do so by filing a request for a detailed assessment hearing once the points of dispute have been served. The receiving party must file the request within 3 months of the expiry of the period for commencing detailed assessment proceedings (which will be specified in the table at r 47.7 or by the court). How are the proceedings allocated? The Request should be in Form N258 (general form). For inter partes costs assessment (ie not legal aid assessment), the proceedings will be allocated