The requirement to show that there is ‘adequate accommodation’ available for the applicant partner and any family members (including those not included in the application) applies to almost all applications for leave to enter or remain as a partner—whether made under Part 8 or Appendix FM (including minimum income applications and those relying on ‘specified benefits’). It also applies to applications made by the children of settled persons, children of those with limited leave as a partner and applications under Appendix Adult Dependent Relative. Under the Rules it also applies to dependent children applying under Appendix Victim of Domestic Abuse, but it is unclear how strictly that requirement is being applied in practice. The only family member applicants who do not need to show ‘adequate accommodation’ are those making applications in reliance on Appendix FM, para EX.1 or under the residual exceptional circumstances provisions in para GEN.3.2. See Practice Notes: Appendix FM: Section EX and Appendix FM: exceptional circumstances cases under para GEN.3. ‘Adequate accommodation’ is not itself defined in para 6 of the Immigration Rules. The relevant

For partners and children applying under Appendix FM where the sponsoring partner is receiving one or more specified benefits, there is no minimum income requirement for the five year route to settlement, and the relevant financial test is that of ‘adequate maintenance’. An adequate maintenance requirement is also the requirement for parents applying under Appendix FM, other family members applying under Appendix Adult Dependent Relative, under Appendix Child Relative (Sponsors with Protection) and children of settled parents who are applying under Part 8 of the Immigration Rules, although there are key differences in relation to the treatment of third party support and offers of employment under Part 8. It is unlikely that there will be partners or other family members applying now under Part 8 of the Immigration Rules, but it is possible advisers may come across someone who has somehow remained on that route without obtaining settlement and so may still be able to benefit from the transitional provisions. For more information on the surviving sections of Part 8 see: Finding your way around Appendix

Under the Bribery Act 2010, it is a defence for a relevant commercial organisation to prove it had in place adequate procedures designed to prevent those who perform services for it from committing bribery.

Law360, London: The Court of Appeal refused on 23 October 2025 to revive six Adidas trade marks protecting the position of its famous three-stripes logo, marking another loss for the sportswear brand in its long-running battle with fashion designer Thom Browne.

Planning analysis: In Wingfield v Canterbury CC (No 1), the Planning Court dismissed a claim for judicial review, finding that two adjacent development sites, which were in separate ownership and being promoted and developed independently of each other, did not need to be considered as a single project for the purposes of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) regime.

As part of its case management powers, the court can adjourn (ie postpone) an interim hearing and/or a trial.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This interesting and high-profile case arose out of the collapse of BHS. It considered what to do in circumstances in which an imprisoned defendant (Chappell), who had been released at the start of the trial, complained that he had been unable to properly prepare for the trial and would be unable to properly participate in it. Unusually, Chappell only sought to adjourn the trial against as against him. The court therefore had to consider whether to grant an adjournment and, if so, whether to adjourn the entire trial or sever the trial of the claims against Chappell. The court indicated that it would have granted a short adjournment only to allow Chappell to get up to speed, but for various reasons was prepared to grant a longer adjournment. Having initial strongly opposed severance, the judge also agreed to sever the trial as against Chappell, with directions to follow the end of the trial against the other defendants. Written by Jon Felce, partner at Cooke, Young & Keidan LLP.

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 below. This Practice Note provides guidance on the courts’ general approach to applications to adjourn an interim hearing. For examples of how the principles discussed below have been applied by the courts in practice, see Practice Note: Adjourning interim hearings—illustrative decisions. Power to adjourn an interim hearing The court has power to adjourn a hearing under CPR 3.1(2)(b). Note the definition of ‘hearing’ for the purposes of interim applications is found in CPR 23.1. For information on adjourning trial, see Practice Note: Adjourning trial. What factors will a court take into account on an application to adjourn an interim hearing? No guidance is given in CPR 3.1(2)(b) as to how the power to adjourn should be exercised. It is therefore governed by the overriding objective under CPR 1.1. As noted by the court in Decker v Hopcraft at

The tables below provide examples of cases in which applications to adjourn interim hearings have been considered by the courts. For ease of reference they are divided up into successful and unsuccessful applications. For guidance on the general principles that the courts apply when faced with an application to adjourn an interim hearing, see Practice Note: Adjourning interim hearings. For guidance on applications to adjourn a trial, see Practice Note: Adjourning trial. Examples of successful adjournment applications Case details and analysis Judgment date Grounds of the adjournment application Summary of decision EB Pension Fund v Froggatt [2024] EWHC 2721 (Ch)  27 June 2024 The court had failed to action a notice of change to remove solicitors from the file which meant that the claimant was unable to obtain representation. At first instance the adjournment application failed without reasons being given by the court and the decision was given without any indication in the order that she had applied for an adjournment. The claimant appealed The appeal was allowed. It was held that the facts were

This Practice Note considers the power of the court to adjourn a hearing under CPR 3.1(2)(b) and a party’s ability to apply for such an adjournment. In particular, it sets out the five specific ‘Fitzroy Robinson’ factors the court will consider when determining an application to adjourn or bring forward a hearing, together with consideration of cases in which the Fitzroy factors have been applied. It also looks at other factors the court may take into account, including the timing of the application to adjourn, and examines the ill-health of a party or witness and what medical evidence must be provided when applying to adjourn on such grounds. For examples of court judgments that provide illustrations as to the approach of the courts to applications to adjourn the trial, see Practice Note: Adjourning trial—illustrative decisions. Depending on the court in which the matter is proceeding, the relevant court guide may provide further guidance which should be complied with—see: Court specific guidance. For information on: • adjourning an interim hearing, see Practice Note: Adjourning interim hearings

This Practice Note provides illustrative decisions of cases in which applications to adjourn a trial have been considered by the court. The Practice Note is set out in the form of tables, with the first containing examples of cases in which the trial was adjourned and the second setting out those where the court refused to adjourn trial. For guidance on the general principles applied by the courts when faced with an application to adjourn a trial, see Practice Note: Adjourning trial. Trial adjourned—general Case details and analysis Grounds of the adjournment application Summary of decision Aabar Holdings S.À.R.L. v Glencore Plc [2026] EWHC 1328 (Comm) This concerned substantial overlap with a related criminal prosecution which was due to be heard after the first trial (in a split trial civil claim). The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) sought certain safeguards in relation to the conduct of ‘Trial 1’. The first defendant, Glencore, made applications for witness summons in respect of two individuals (A and B). A and B opposed the witness summons applications and sought an adjournment

The deferral or postponement of a hearing.