This Practice Note discusses circumstances where bringing proceedings may be an abuse of process because of how they interact with a previous set of proceedings. It considers proceedings which amount to a collateral attack on previous proceedings and what happens where the same proceedings are issued again after being struck out. It also discusses parallel proceedings. For general guidance on abuse of process, see Practice Note: Strike out for abuse of process (civil) (CPR 3.4(2)(b)). Abuse where there is a second set of proceedings Where one set of proceedings exists or has previously existed, attempts to bring additional proceedings involving the same issues and/or parties can raise a number of difficulties. There is a collection of substantive doctrines which militate against bringing back to court matters that have already been (or should have been) determined in prior proceedings, including: • res judicata and Henderson abuse—see Practice Note: Res judicata and Henderson abuse • issue estoppel—see Practice Note: Issue estoppel • cause of action estoppel—see Practice Note: Cause of action estoppel For an introduction

ARCHIVED: this Practice Note is no longer maintained as it covers the implementation of EU free movement law in the UK prior to IP completion day, on which date domestic legislation implementing EU free movement law was revoked, subject to certain savings and modifications. For further details, including of the relevant savings and the position of CJEU case law, see Practice Note: Brexit and the end of EU free movement law in the UK. The Practice Note has been retained in archived form for historical interest, because EU law as previously implemented in the UK remains relevant in certain limited situations. For historical versions of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, SI 2016/1052, including immediately prior to revocation, see Legislation.gov.uk. For the ongoing development of EU free movement law in EU Member States, see: Immigration, employment & share incentives (EU Law)—overview. In EU law, the principle of abuse serves as a residual anti-evasion doctrine to ensure fulfilment of the purposes of the

EU Law analysis: The Court of Justice has delivered a ruling in Brillen Rottler regarding the boundaries of the right of access under Article 15 of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (EU GDPR). The court clarified that an initial request for access can be deemed ‘excessive’ if the data subject acts with an ‘abusive’ intent, marking a significant shift from a quantitative to a qualitative assessment of whether a request is excessive. While the Court of Justice dogmatically clarified the scope of liability under Article 82(1) of the EU GDPR to include administrative breaches (such as the wrongful refusal of an access request without a direct processing operation) it established a ‘causality brake’ to prevent the EU GDPR from being weaponised for purely pecuniary interests. Compensation is not due where the data subject’s own provocative conduct is the ‘decisive cause’ of the damage. Here the court was specifically referring to the artificial creation of a breach to seek financial gain. This judgment provides some protection against systematic ‘data trolling’ and the degradation of the EU GDPR into a ‘penalty machine’. Written by Susan Lipeyko and Alexander Schmalenberger at Taylor Wessing.

UK in a Changing Europe has published academic analysis of the Home Secretary's November 2025 'Restoring Order and Control' policy, examining the proposed reforms. The analysis details plans to replace the current multi-layered appeals system with a single appeal process, where all grounds including asylum, humanitarian protection, human rights claims and new evidence must be raised simultaneously. A new Independent Appeals Body staffed by specially trained adjudicators will hear cases, with decisions intended to be final. The reforms will narrow Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) family-life claims to cases involving minor children or dependent parents, restrict Article 3 ECHR health-based removal challenges, and reduce weight given to late modern slavery or trafficking claims. Appeals involving accommodation or foreign-national offenders will be expedited. The analysis notes the current system costs over £5bn annually and has a backlog of 51,000 asylum appeals with 54-week average waiting times, while 48% of First-tier Tribunal appeals succeed.

The UK Constitutional Law Association blog has published an academic post by Dr Richard Brant and Lauren Butler analysing Reform UK’s proposed ‘Operation Restoring Justice’ programme. The authors question the legal feasibility and constitutional implications of proposals to repeal the Human Rights Act, leave the European Convention on Human Rights and create a new duty to remove ‘illegal migrants’, highlighting likely friction with devolution settlements, the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement and international norms.

The Academy of Experts and HKA have published 'An Expert’s Perspective', a major research paper on how expert evidence is commissioned, prepared and presented in litigation, arbitration and other dispute resolution proceedings. Based on survey responses from 456 experts and expert assistants across various jurisdictions and disciplines, it examines the process from selection and appointment through instructions, disclosure, report preparation, expert meetings, joint statements, tribunal presentations, witness conferencing, assistants and the emerging use of artificial intelligence (AI). The research identifies practical improvements including earlier appointment, clearer instructions, timely and proportionate disclosure, realistic timetables and transparent management of joint statements. It also highlights concerns around the realism of reply-report timetables in arbitration, while Professor Doug Jones AO’s companion note emphasises proactive tribunal case management of the expert process.

State school in England operating under the Academies Act 2010 (AcA 2010) and regulated by a Funding Agreement with the Department for Education.

Following the launch by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) of a new expert panel on neurodiversity in employment in January 2025, and publication by Acas of an independent research paper on Neurodiversity at work on 6 March 2025, Acas has announced the launch of a new campaign to improve understanding and support for neurodivergent workers.

Acas (the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service) is a publicly-funded independent organisation which promotes good employment relations and assists employers and employees in preventing or resolving employment disputes. Its services include conciliation, mediation and arbitration. Acas conciliation involves an independent Acas conciliation officer (also known as a conciliator) discussing the issues in dispute with both parties in order to help them reach a better understanding of each other's position. The conciliation officer tries to encourage the parties in dispute to come to an agreement between themselves so as to avoid the need for a tribunal hearing. An agreement reached following conciliation under the auspices of an Acas conciliation officer (known as a COT3 agreement) is one of the two exceptions to the 'contracting out provisions' which apply to most employment protection legislation, which impose a basic rule that any provision in an agreement that purports to prevent a person from making, or proceeding with, a claim to an employment tribunal is void to that extent. The purpose of the contracting out provisions is to protect claimants (or potential

Acas has launched a consultation on a revised statutory Code of Practice on requests for flexible working (draft Code) to reflect forthcoming changes under the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025). The new draft Code sets out how employers should approach statutory flexible working requests under the new regime, including guidance on reaching reasonable decisions, consulting employees before refusing requests, handling requests that may involve reasonable adjustments and managing multiple requests. The consultation closes on 17 December 2026. The legislative changes and draft Code are expected to come into force in autumn 2027, and employers should continue to follow the current Acas Code of Practice until then.

The Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures (Acas Code) sets out minimum standards of reasonable behaviour for dealing with disciplinary and grievance situations in the workplace, and places obligations on both employees and employers to comply with its provisions. It is a statutory code (see: Key principles of the Acas Code below) that has an impact on a broad range of employment claims, and failure to follow the Acas Code can be taken into account when it comes to determining liability, and may have an impact on the award of compensation, in relevant cases. The non-statutory Acas guide on discipline and grievances at work (Acas guide) complements the Acas Code and provides good practice advice for dealing with discipline and grievances in the workplace. In the event of uncertainty regarding the interpretation of the Code, the Acas guide may be considered by tribunals. For further information, see Guidance to the Acas Code, below. This Practice Note explains the application of the Acas Code in employment tribunal proceedings, and its impact on outcome and

This Practice Note explains the effects of non-compliance with the provisions of the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. Employers and employees are obliged to comply with the principles of fairness set out in the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. The foreword to this Code of Practice additionally encourages employers and employees to seek to resolve disciplinary and grievance issues in the workplace, before resorting to the tribunals. Because this encouragement is found in the foreword of the Code of Practice rather than in its body, it is not a statutory requirement. Acas has also produced a guide to the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. This guidance has no statutory authority, but in the event of uncertainty regarding the Code of Practice itself, may be referred to by tribunals. Key principles A failure to observe any provision of a relevant Acas Code of Practice does not, on its own, give rise to liability. However, in the case of the Code