To introduce (in evidence).

This Practice Note provides guidance on the use of expert evidence in financial proceedings, including the provisions of Part 25 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010) and the linked practice directions. It also provides guidance on the requirements for permission to adduce (ie introduce in evidence) expert evidence and restrictions on expert evidence, together with considerations as to the appointment of a single joint expert or one expert for each of the parties. It also considers the expert's duty to the court and who is an expert. See Practice Note: Instructing experts in financial proceedings for practical guidance on: • steps to be taken before the formal instruction of an expert • directions that may be given by the court • the letter of instruction • supplementary instructions and directions • the form and content of the expert’s report, and • meetings and discussions between experts As part of the disclosure process, it will often be necessary to obtain expert evidence regarding the valuation of properties, businesses and other assets (for example,

Family analysis: In financial remedy proceedings, Mr Justice Mostyn considered and dismissed the husband’s application for permission to appeal on 21 grounds, together with his application to adduce fresh evidence, providing guidance, inter alia, on the test to be applied on an application by a party to introduce further evidence after the case has concluded and what degree of likelihood is needed to satisfy the criterion of ‘a real prospect of success’ for a proposed appeal. Katie Skinner, associate at Rayden Solicitors, examines the issues.

The complete or partial withdrawal of a legacy by an act of the testator during his life.

Ademption by extinction occurs where a specific gift in a will fails because the subject matter no longer exists in the testator’s estate at death. It typically arises where a testator leaves a particular asset, such as “my 100 XYZ plc shares” or “my house at 1 High Street”, and that asset has been sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of before death. In such cases, the beneficiary is usually not entitled to substitute property or cash, and the gift is treated as revoked.The concept is primarily developed in case law rather than statute across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, and applies mainly to specific legacies and specific devises, not general legacies or demonstrative gifts. Key issues include: whether the replacement asset can be identified as traceable proceeds; whether the testator had capacity and intention when disposing of the asset; and the impact of statutory powers of attorneys or deputies.While terminology and succession statutes differ slightly between jurisdictions, the practical operation of ademption by extinction is broadly consistent, making it a central consideration in will-drafting, estate planning and contentious probate or succession litigation.

Ademption by satisfaction describes the situation where a lifetime gift from a testator to a beneficiary is treated as satisfying, in whole or in part, a gift that the beneficiary would otherwise have received under the testator’s will. In practice, it commonly arises where a testator advances money, property or another benefit to a child or other intended beneficiary, intending it to count towards, or replace, that person’s testamentary provision.Across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, the concept is grounded in case law and general succession principles rather than a single statutory definition, and is closely linked to doctrines of “advancement” and “hotchpot”. Key issues are: (i) establishing the testator’s intention that the lifetime gift operate in satisfaction of the testamentary gift; (ii) determining whether the satisfaction is total or partial; and (iii) evidential requirements, including the value and timing of the gift and any written records.For private client and probate practitioners, ademption by satisfaction is significant in estate planning, will drafting and estate administration, to avoid double benefits, resolve disputes between beneficiaries and ensure that the testator’s intended distribution of assets is carried into effect.

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. 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 provisions of Part 8 and Appendix FM confirm that accommodation must be owned or occupied exclusively by the parties. Appendix FM provides that accommodation will not be regarded as adequate

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.