This Practice Note explains when the court can issue a warrant for arrest and the consequences of failing to surrender to court (absconding) or breaching conditions of court bail. It sets out the procedure for dealing with a defendant following their arrest for breach of bail conditions or failure to surrender, along with the duties imposed on a police custody officer and court officer when facilitating their production at court. The Practice Note: Securities, sureties and other conditions of court bail provides details of the types of bail conditions that can be imposed by the court. For information relating to police bail conditions and failing to surrender to police bail, see Practice Note: Breach of police bail. Bench warrants A defendant who is granted bail by the court must surrender to court at the date and time specified. The Bail Act 1976 (BA 1976) provides that if a defendant fails to appear at court to answer bail, the court may issue a warrant for their arrest. This is

DR analysis: In finding in favour of liquidators in respect of so-called misfeasance proceedings against the former director of the company in liquidation, the court bore in mind the dicta of Arden LJ in Re Mumtaz: that persons who have conducted the affairs of a company informally, cannot escape liability simply by saying that if the company’s books and papers had been available they would have shown the respondents not to be liable in the amount claimed by the liquidator, when it is the respondents who have, throughout, had custody of those books and papers. This was not the same thing as establishing some separate principle of policy in respect of claims against directors, but it could be borne in mind when resolving issues where the available documentary evidence before the judge was not what it should have been.

TMT analysis: The court held that the claimant, Fiona George was the subject of false allegations of fact made maliciously by her former boss, Lynn Cannell, to two third parties. However, despite this, her claims were dismissed because they were found not to be serious enough. In particular, the libel and slander claims failed on the basis that neither publication found to have been made had caused or were likely to cause serious harm to Ms George’s reputation within section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013). The malicious falsehood claim failed on a similar basis; the court did not consider that Ms George had suffered the necessary special damage (or damage within section 3(1) of the Defamation Act 1952 (DA 1952)) to found the claim. The judgment includes a number of useful findings for practitioners to consider, including interesting commentary in relation to the scope of the ‘serious harm’ test in defamation claims, the evidence that formed the basis of a rare finding of malice made against a publishee and important clarification as to the harm required to found a claim in misuse of private information. Written by Nick Grant, senior associate at Payne Hicks Beach LLP.

Pensions analysis: In the determination of Dr N, CAS-93557-F1X2, the Pensions Ombudsman has rejected a complaint about an additional tax charge caused by the payment of a pension arrears lump sum. Dr N's 2014 incapacity pension application had been initially rejected, but after a successful 2021 appeal, his pension was backdated, resulting in additional tax charges. The Pensions Ombudsman found Dr N was not too incapacitated to appeal the 2014 decision and saw no grounds to extend the three-year limitation period. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.

1 General Date of review: [Insert date of review] Name of reviewer: [Insert name of reviewer] 2 Audit Have the aims of your absence strategy been achieved? ☐ Yes☐ Some, but not all☐ No What further strategic aims should be included to ensure the absence strategy remains current and relevant to the needs of your business? [Insert details or comment regarding future strategic aims] Have the

The concept whereby an employee takes a period of absence without the employer's permission or authorisation.

Complete absence/leave form below and obtain managers approval signature. Send original copy of this completed form to HR and retain a copy for your records. 1 General Name [Insert name] Department [Insert department] Manager [Insert

There is no right at common law for A to enter B’s land to carry out repairs to A’s property. Without an express right, or B giving consent, A would be committing trespass if they did so. However, A does however have some limited rights under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992 (ANLA 1992). Under ANLA 1992, s 1(1), A can apply to the court for an access order if they wish to enter B’s land to carry out work to A’s land, and B does not consent. The court will grant an access order if, and only if, it

A term used in relation to regarding statutory child support in relation to the parent with whom a child does not primarily live, now replaced with 'paying parent'.

This Practice Note reflects the procedural code for sentencing offenders in England and Wales (Sentencing Code) that applies from 1 December 2020, as set out in Parts 2–13 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (SA 2020). For those considering whether the Sentencing Code applies to their case, see Practice Note: Sentencing Code. What is an absolute discharge? An order for absolute discharge under SA 2020, s 79 is an order discharging an offender absolutely in respect of an offence. An absolute discharge is the most lenient sentence available to the court. It may be imposed where the court is satisfied that it would be 'inexpedient' to inflict a punishment on the convicted offender, taking into account the nature of the offence and the character of the offender. An absolute discharge is usually only used where the court considers that the offender is technically guilty of an offence (and has been convicted) but is otherwise blameless. The making of an such an order does not prevent the court from imposing a disqualification or other court orders on the

Absolute and relative grounds A trade mark’s essential function is to be a badge of origin. It distinguishes the goods and services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings. Any mark may be registered as a trade mark unless a specified ground for refusal exists. The grounds for refusal are divided into two classes described as ‘absolute grounds for refusal’ (which relate to the intrinsic qualities of the mark and its ability to function as a trade mark) and ‘relative grounds for refusal’ (which relate to conflicts with earlier rights). It is possible for an application to be partially refused where the relevant ground for refusal applies only to some of the goods or services designated in the application. When a trade mark application is filed, the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) examines the application in order to determine whether or not the mark applied for falls within one of the 'absolute grounds' for refusal. For more information, see Practice Note: Application to register a UK trade mark. In

EU trade marks (EUTMs) This Practice Note sets out the basis on which trade mark validity (or invalidity) is assessed in the context of EU trade mark (EUTMs) registrations and explains the grounds on which an EUTM application may be refused registration by the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). An EUTM is a single trade mark covering all EU Member States. For more information about the EUTM regime, see Practice Note: EU trade marks (EUTMs). The law relating to the registration of EUTMs is governed by Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (the EU Trade Mark Regulation), Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/626 and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625. For more information about the legislation underpinning the EUTM regime, and cases relating to EUTMs, see Practice Notes: EU trade marks—legislation and Trade marks tracker—EU. This Practice Note focuses on the EUTM regime, rather than on the treatment of national trade marks across the EU pursuant to Directive (EU) 2015/2436 (the EU Trade Mark Directive). However, it makes reference where relevant to the EU Trade Mark Directive and to cases