Public law analysis: The Supreme Court considered two important questions about the interpretation and operation of the test for detention under the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and the Mental Health Act 1983 (MeHA 1983). First, whether differences in wording between the 1986 Order and MeHA 1983 support a conclusion that a lower threshold for compulsory detention applies under MeHA 1983? It answered this question in the negative, finding the test for compulsory detention to be the same in both pieces of legislation. Second, whether the grant of a leave of absence is inconsistent with a conclusion that a patient still satisfies the test for detention in a hospital for medical treatment? It also answered this question in the negative, finding that a leave of absence does not necessarily mean that the patient’s mental disorder no longer warrants detention in hospital for treatment. Written by Denise Kiley KC, a barrister in the Bar Library, Belfast.

This Practice Note covers the law relating to temporary admission and bail which applied as of 24 November 2016, prior to the commencement of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, SI 2016/1052. This Practice Note examines the powers of the Home Office to detain individuals when exercising immigration control, as well as the forms of release that are relevant to persons who are liable to detention, ie temporary admission/temporary release, restriction orders and bail. The note is primarily intended to provide a summary of the key principles involved, as a detailed treatment of these topics is currently outside the scope of Lexis®PSL Immigration. For more detailed commentary on these topics, including on challenging detention, please see Chapter 18 of Macdonald's Immigration Law and Practice (for which a relevant subscription to Lexis®Library is required). For a critical overview of the situation in relation to immigration detention in practice, please see the joint report of the All-party Parliamentary Groups on Refugees and Migrants into the use of immigration detention in the UK, published

Determinable describes an estate, interest or right that will automatically end on the occurrence (or non‑occurrence) of a specified event, without any need for further action such as forfeiture or termination notice. In UK and Irish property law, a determinable fee simple or determinable lease continues “until” or “while” a condition is satisfied, and then comes to an end automatically when that condition fails. The term is not usually defined in statute, but is well established in case law and legal commentary across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, with broadly consistent usage. It is commonly contrasted with a condition subsequent, which gives a right to terminate but does not end the interest automatically. Determinable interests arise in drafting of freehold titles, leases, trusts, security interests and commercial contracts, where parties want an interest or right to persist only while a specified state of affairs continues. Practitioners must distinguish determinable provisions from void repugnant conditions and from unenforceable restraints on alienation, and consider registration, reverter or resulting trust consequences when a determinable interest ends.

A determinate sentence is a custodial sentence for a fixed term, imposed by a criminal court, with a known maximum expiry date at the point of sentencing. It contrasts with indeterminate sentences (such as life sentences), where release depends on risk assessment and parole decisions rather than a fixed end date.In England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the term is widely used in criminal practice, sentencing guidelines and statute (for example, provisions on release, licence and recall), although not always through a single exhaustive definition. In Ireland, the concept is equivalent and commonly referred to simply as a “fixed-term” or “finite” custodial sentence.Key features include: a specified length (e.g. four years’ imprisonment); statutory rules on automatic or conditional release (often at the halfway or two‑thirds point); licence or post‑release supervision until sentence expiry; and limited judicial power to vary the sentence after it is passed. Determinate sentences are central to sentencing practice, parole eligibility, calculation of time served (including remand credit), and advising clients on likely release dates and licence conditions.

A decision by the Pensions Ombudsman is known as a determination and is final and binding on all parties.

1 Disputes 1.1 In the event of any dispute arising out of or in relation to this agreement such dispute shall be referred by either party, first, to [insert role] for resolution. 1.2 If any dispute cannot be resolved by [insert role] within a maximum of 14 days after it has been referred under [insert clause number (eg to clause 1.1)], that dispute shall be referred to [the Programme Executives OR a director of each party OR [insert role]] for resolution. 1.3 If

This Practice Note provides practical guidance on the WTO and UK’s approach to a particular market situation in anti-dumping investigation. It sets out the legal provisions which is supplemented by case law as well as practices by the United Kingdom’s Trade Remedies Authority. Introduction The World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Anti-dumping Agreement) states that when determining if dumping has occurred, the investigating authority needs to compare the export price with the comparable normal value. Equally the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 (T(CT)A 2018) echoes the Anti-dumping Agreement in that the normal value would be the comparable, in the ordinary course of trade or such other price as may be determined in accordance with regulations. The investigating authorities thus have an obligation to use a comparable normal value. The first prize is for the investigating authority to utilise the domestic price, being the price at which the like product is sold, in the ordinary course of trade, on the exporting Member

This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions—see further in the section Court specific guidance below. This Practice Note provides guidance on hearings to determine applications. It discusses the conduct of the hearing generally, including the courts’ approach to evidence at an application hearing, keeping a note of the hearing and the removal of hearing bundles. It also explains the courts’ approach where a party does not attend a hearing, including when the court will proceed in a party’s absence and applications to re-list hearings on the basis of non-attendance. The matters set out in this Practice Note are of relevance both to in-person and remote hearings. However, there are additional considerations where the hearing proceeds remotely—for further guidance, see Practice Notes: Remote and hybrid hearings in civil proceedings and Electronic bundles in civil proceedings as well as Checklist for remote and hybrid hearings

This Practice Note discusses the determination of applications where the court has decided that it is appropriate to dispose of the application without a hearing (also known as determination on the papers). For guidance on which types of application are suitable for determination on the papers and how to request a paper determination, see Practice Note: Applications without a hearing (paper applications). For general guidance on making applications, see Practice Note: How to make an application for a court order (CPR 23). Rule change as of 1 October 2023 The determination of applications on the papers, and in particular the setting aside of applications determined without a hearing, was previously governed by CPR 23.8 in conjunction with CPR PD 23A, para 11.2 and there is a substantial body of caselaw dealing with how to approach the interpretation of these rules. With effect from 1 October 2023 CPR PD 23A, para 11.2 is deleted and CPR 23.8 is replaced with a new, self-contained set of rules governing applications on the papers. As such the existing caselaw must

Applications in the King’s Bench Division If your matter is proceeding in the King’s Bench Division (KBD) the provisions of the King’s Bench Guide will apply to any application you make. This Practice Note provides guidance on applications in the KBD with reference to the relevant provisions of the King’s Bench Guide. This Practice Note is focused on how the courts determine applications in the KBD, whether at a hearing or on the papers, rather than the process of making an application or preparing for an application hearing. For guidance on other aspects of applications procedure in the KBD, see the following Practice Notes: • Making an application in the King’s Bench Division (KBD) • Preparing for an application hearing in the King’s Bench Division (KBD) The following general points should be noted: • the King’s Bench Guide provides practical information about proceedings in the KBD but it is not a substitute for the CPR and must be read alongside those rules (King’s Bench Guide, para 1.2). The structure of this Practice

The Determinations Panel is an independent panel of the Pensions Regulator, established under statute to carry out powers of the Pensions Regulator eg power to suspend a trustee, issue a freezing order, contribution notice or financial support direction.

Private Client analysis: Mr Riddle appealed against DJ MacCuish’s refusal of Mr Riddle’s application for costs following his application, which failed, to be appointed to act as Deputy for NA’s property and financial affairs. Mr Riddle’s appeal was allowed by Mr Justice Harris, who went on to reconsider the decision on costs de novo, and concluded that, on the facts, Mr Riddle was not entitled to his costs from NA. The court reiterated and clarified the test to be applied in determining costs applications in the Court of Protection (COP), considering the Court of Protection Rules 2017, Rules 19.2 and 19.5. Written by Lucy Taylor, barrister, at Coram Chambers.