Property Disputes analysis: Corvan (Properties) Ltd v Abel-Mahmoud involved ordinary principles of construction being applied to a management agreement between a landlord and a management company in deciding whether it was a ‘qualifying long-term agreement’ under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985). The contract was a qualifying long-term agreement and there was no basis to imply additional words as sought by the landlord. Brie Stevens-Hoare QC of Hardwicke Chambers comments on the ruling, which also confirmed that the deciding factor was the minimum length of commitment, not the maximum.

This Checklist provides an overview of the questions to be asked when determining: • which system of law is applicable to a contract of employment or employment relationship (applicable law) • whose courts and/or tribunals should decide an employment case (jurisdiction), and • how the courts and employment tribunals decide what statutory rights, if any, are held by an employee who works abroad and/or has a foreign employer (territorial application or scope of statutory employment rights) Brexit impact From exit day (31 January 2020) the UK ceased to be an EU Member State but, in accordance with the transitional arrangements provided in the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK was in an implementation period (IP) until 11pm on 31 December 2020, known as ‘IP completion day’. During this period, the UK continued to be treated by the EU as a Member State for many purposes. While it could not participate in the political institutions and governance structures of the EU, the UK had to

This Flowchart provides an overview of the questions to be asked when determining the applicable law in employment cases, ie which system of law is applicable to a contract of employment or employment relationship. This is an area of law where Brexit does not have any significant practical impact. This is because Article 66 of the Withdrawal Agreement provided that the existing scheme in Rome I and Rome II will continue to apply even after IP completion day (11 pm on 31 December 2020). This has been given effect in domestic law by the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019/479, in force on IP completion day. For further guidance on the impact of IP completion day, see Practice Note:

Public Law analysis: In R (C3) v SSFCDO, a British national alleged to have travelled to Syria in order to align with ISIL was refused consular assistance for her and her three children on national security grounds. She sought judicial review of the relevant decisions, as well as the higher level of disclosure described in Home Secretary v AF (No.3). This required the court to consider whether the claimant’s ‘civil rights had been affected such that Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was engaged. The court held that they had not. A decision concerning the provision of consular assistance falls within the ‘categories of public authority prerogatives’, which in turn fall outside the scope of Article 6 ECHR. It followed that she had no right to AF (No.3) disclosure. Written by James Berry KC, a barrister at Serjeants’ Inn Chambers.

Family analysis: In a landmark judgment, the Court of Appeal determined the relevant date for establishing habitual residence and how to determine jurisdiction in public law proceedings following the departure of the UK from the EU. The court first had to address the question of the date by reference to which the court ought to determine habitual residence, and therefore jurisdiction, pursuant to the provisions of Article 5 of the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (the 1996 Hague Convention) ie whether it should be the date of the hearing or the date on which the proceedings were issued. The Court of Appeal found that the correct approach was that ‘jurisdiction must first be determined at the date of the commencement of the proceedings but also must be present during the proceedings’. The court subsequently had to determine whether it could make orders under Part IV of the Children Act 1989, where a child is habitually resident elsewhere (whether in a contracting state or not) but present in England and Wales. The court found that it ‘will likely have jurisdiction to make interim orders under Part IV under Article 11 and will also have substantive jurisdiction based on a child’s presence here when the child is habitually resident in a non-Contracting State’. Charlotte Image-Flower, senior associate, and Floriane Laruelle, associate, at Dawson Cornwell LLP examine the issues.

This Checklist provides an overview of jurisdiction in Scotland in terms of considering whether the dispute should be dealt with in Scotland. For guidance on: • which specific court an action should be raised in, see Practice Note: Starting a civil claim in Scotland and Civil court structure in Scotland • other aspects of Scottish civil litigation, see: Scottish DR: courts and civil procedure—overview, Scottish DR: prescription and limitation—overview, Scottish DR: starting a claim—overview, Scottish DR: case management and evidence—overview, Scottish DR: expenses and funding—overview, Scottish DR: civil appeals and judicial review—overview, Scottish DR: claims and remedies—overview, Scottish DR: enforcement—overview, and Scottish DR: settlement and ADR—overview which, in turn, link through to detailed guidance on specific aspects of dispute resolution in Scotland • the position in England and Wales, see Practice Note: Jurisdiction—a guide for dispute resolution practitioners which, as well as giving an overview of this topic, links through to more detailed guidance on various aspects of jurisdiction This Checklist should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Jurisdiction

This Flowchart provides an overview of the questions to be asked when determining international jurisdiction in employment cases in the High Court and other courts that are not the employment tribunal, ie where proceedings can be brought, or which courts and/or tribunals should decide the case. It considers the position where the proceedings were instituted from 1 January 2021 onwards. For further information on jurisdiction in employment cases from 1 January 2021 onwards, see Practice Note: International jurisdiction—the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982

ARCHIVED: This archived Flowchart provides an overview of the questions to be asked when determining international jurisdiction in employment cases, ie where proceedings can be brought, or which courts and/or tribunals should decide the case, where the proceedings were instituted on or before IP completion day (11pm on 31 December 2020). For further guidance on the impact of IP completion day, see Practice Note: International jurisdiction—allocating employment cases between national courts and tribunals pre-1 January 2021 [Archived]—Brexit impact. For information on determining jurisdiction generally, see Practice Note: International jurisdiction—allocating employment cases between national courts and tribunals pre-1 January 2021 [Archived]. For a Flowchart: • for determining the applicable law, ie which system

This Practice Note sets out the disclosure obligations of legal practitioners when involved in civil proceedings. For general guidance on disclosure, see: Disclosure—overview. Note: this Practice Note does not intend to cover the claims that are subject to the Disclosure Scheme in the Business and Property Courts. For further guidance on this, see: Disclosure Scheme (Business & Property Courts)—overview. For guidance on disclosure duties for parties, see Practice Note: Determining parties’ disclosure duties. Disclosure rules and obligations Disclosure rules can vary according to the track to which a claim is allocated. For general guidance on allocations, see: Allocating and transferring proceedings—overview. For general guidance on disclosure in: • small claims track—see Practice Note: Disclosure in the small claims track • fast-track claims—see Practice Note: Disclosure in fast track cases • intermediate track claims—see Practice Note: Disclosure in intermediate track cases • multi track claims—see Practice Note: Disclosure in multi track cases Disclosure obligations for legal practitioners Throughout the disclosure process, legal practitioners have obligations

The court officer in criminal cases (only) who first assesses the costs payable to a defendant out of Central Funds or payable by the LSC to solicitors and counsel under criminal legal aid orders.

This Practice Note sets out the disclosure obligations of parties that are involved in civil proceedings. For general guidance on disclosure, see: Disclosure—overview. This Practice Note does not intend to cover the claims that are subject to the Disclosure Scheme in the Business and Property Courts. For further guidance, see: Disclosure Scheme (Business & Property Courts)—overview. For further guidance on the disclosure duties for legal practitioners, see Practice Note: Determining legal practitioners’ disclosure duties. Parties’ duties CPR 1.3 requires parties to assist the court to further the overriding objective. In practice, this means that a litigant must act in a co-operative, proportionate and reasonable manner during the litigation process with a view to minimising costs. A litigant has specific duties to: • preserve documents, ensuring that no potentially relevant document has been altered, deleted, lost or destroyed once litigation is reasonably in prospect—for further guidance, see Practice Note: Electronic disclosure—CPR Practice Direction 31B • make a reasonable search for documents when giving standard disclosure (CPR 31.7(1) and CPR PD 31A,

Role of material considerations in planning decisions When considering an application for planning permission or permission in principle, section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) states that the decision-maker must have regard to: • the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application • a post-examination draft neighbourhood development plan, so far as material to the application • from a date to be appointed, in England, any national development management policies, so far as material to the application • any considerations relating to the use of the Welsh language, so far as material to the application • any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application • any other material considerations Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (PCPA 2004) provides: ‘If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.’ From