ARCHIVED: This Precedent is archived and is not maintained. Notice of a direction to leave this land To all occupants of vehicles on this land and to any other persons with them From [insert name of Local Authority] We hereby give you notice under section

Local Government analysis: Powell v Dacorum Borough Council concerned an appeal against a decision to refuse a tenant a stay of eviction. The defendant argued that the local authority had failed to give any consideration to the public sector equality duty (PSED) (section 149 of the Equality Act 2010) (EqA 2010) during the course of proceedings both at the possession order stage and upon enforcement of that order at the point of eviction. The appeal was rejected on the basis that it was open to the public authority to remedy any earlier non-compliance of the PSED at a later point in proceedings, and that in conducting a proportionality assessment at the eviction stage in the case, the landlord here had made good any prior breach of the duty. The case helps outline the scope of a public landlord’s duties under EqA 2010, s 149, and how far and at what stage that duty must be applied when tenants are subject to possession claims. Written by Kevin Long, solicitor at Hackney Community Law Centre.

HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has announced that it is to replace Clickshare for use in presenting multi-media evidence in court with the Evidence Presentation System (EPS), which is to be rolled out to Crown and magistrates' courts from 15 February 2020. During November 2020, the EPS technology was tested at Guildford Crown Court and has since been approved for wider introduction as a solution by the Senior Presiding Judge. EPS, which can be used with a wire or wirelessly, is to first replace Clickshare equipment in Crown Courts (due to finish by the end of April 2021), and then move on the magistrates’ courts (due to finish by the end of July 2021).

This Checklist considers some of the key issues around evidence and disclosure that parties should consider before and during judicial review proceedings. It is intended to provide a starting point and is not exhaustive. Parties should keep in mind the relevant time limits and procedural requirements throughout. See Practice Note: Judicial review—time limits and the pre-action protocol. Party Action Considerations and steps Claimant Consider exercising statutory rights to information before writing a letter before claim Before writing a letter before claim, a claimant may be able to seek information from a public authority under the UK General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the UK GDPR) (where they are the data subject), the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and/or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, SI 2004/3391 (on environmental matters). For further information, see:—Data protection regime—overview—Freedom of information—overview—Environmental information regulation—overview Claimant Seek pre-action disclosure Claimants can request information and documents at the pre-action stage provided the request is proportionate and limited to what the claimant needs to understand the decision

ARCHIVED: this archived Practice Note is not maintained and is for background information purposes only. Further, some of the links may not direct you to the provisions as at the date the guidance in this Practice Note was published. Key evidence and disclosure decisions 2016—what do you need to know? 2016 has seen, among other things, developments in relation to: • predictive coding—see below • disclosing confidential information—see below • without prejudice communications—see below • the need for the court to properly analyse evidence—see below • privilege—see below • using interim witness statements at trial—see below • concurrent expert evidence—see below Predictive coding In Pyrrho Investments v MWB Property, the court approved, for the first time, the use of predictive coding technology in the disclosure process. In doing so, it set out some of the benefits of using this technology together with some factors to be considered when deciding whether the use of this software would be appropriate in the instant case. Shortly after that decision was made, the Chancery Division

Under section 15 of the Bankruptcy Act 1914 (the predecessor to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986)), a public examination was required in every case where a debtor was adjudged bankrupt. The provisions of IA 1986 remove the necessity to hold a public examination in each case but allow the official receiver (OR) to apply to court for the bankrupt’s public examination prior to the bankrupt’s discharge. This procedure is often used where the bankrupt has failed to co-operate with the OR, for example, by not complying with his/her duty to give the OR an inventory of their estate or such other information as the OR reasonably requires, or to attend on the OR. While the public examination is not to be used as a fishing exercise, it does allow for information to be collated which will assist the OR and/or any subsequently appointed trustee in bankruptcy (trustee) with their enquiries. An application for public examination must be made by the OR (although

This Practice Note considers the general rules governing evidence in public children proceedings, including admissibility and credibility, hearsay, competence and compellability, children’s evidence, investigative interviews and reports by children’s guardians. See also Practice Note: Specific evidential issues and disclosure in public children proceedings. For further practical guidance, see also: • Practice Note: Expert evidence in public children proceedings for practical guidance on expert evidence • Practice Notes: Public children—interaction between criminal and care proceedings and The disclosure of information between family and criminal agencies and jurisdictions for cases involving related criminal proceedings • Practice Notes: Public law children procedure—Public Law Outline: overview and key principles, Public law children procedure—commencing proceedings under the Public Law Outline, Public law children procedure—case management under the Public Law Outline and Public law children procedure—extensions to the timetable and withdrawal of proceedings regarding procedure in public children proceedings generally Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 3A, together with FPR 2010, PD 3AA, makes special provision as to the participation of, and giving of evidence

The duty of insolvency office-holders to preserve information and its relationship with the Civil Procedure Rules The rights and duties of insolvency office-holders in relation to documents and the information which they contain arise as a result of, and are subject to, the provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, the Insolvency Regulations 1994 (IR 1994), SI 1994/2507, as well as the provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, SI 1998/3132. An insolvency office-holder may come to hold or generate different categories of documents during the course of the administration of the insolvent estate. It is important to distinguish the following categories of documents and information, as different issues can and do arise in relation to each such category: • papers and records of the insolvent company or bankrupt which come into the possession of and are held by the office-holder • financial papers and records of the insolvency process itself, ie records of the administration or winding-up

Produced in association with 4 Pump Court. This Practice Note looks at the types of evidence that may be used in an adjudication, including supporting documents, evidence from witnesses of fact and expert evidence. It also considers how evidence should be presented in adjudication, whether documents may be kept confidential, how disclosure requests might be permitted, and the ability to rely upon evidence or documents from previous adjudications. There are generally no strict rules as to the format or type of evidence which must be provided in an adjudication. The guidance below on the use of evidence is of general application unless contradicted by something in a particular contract or set of adjudication rules. The aim of both parties should be to present their case to the adjudicator as clearly and intelligibly as possible. Too much material can obscure the real issues. However, if too little material is provided with the Referral Notice or Response (or any other submissions), the result can be an unsatisfactory drip-feed of further information which disrupts the adjudication process. Documents It is

The Practice Note provides practical guidance on the evidence to be used in anti-dumping investigations. It covers the procedural requirements that an investigating authority must adhere to in requesting evidence, the rights of interested parties to provide the evidence and the right to defend their interests with the submission of evidence. It also addresses the obligation to protect information as confidential if it is claimed as such, the need to verify information that has been submitted and in which circumstances investigating authorities may rely in other facts to make a determination. It also addresses instances in which the investigating authority may select only certain interested parties to participate in an investigation. Initiation of investigation Prior to imposing anti-dumping duties, the Agreement on the Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1994 (‘the Anti-dumping Agreement’) Member States must conduct an investigation. The investigation is conducted after it has been initiated. This is usually preceded by an application by the domestic industry unless the investigating authority self-initiates an investigation. For practical guidance on

The evidence given by a witness for the party who called him.

The evidence given by a witness for the party who called him.