This Practice Note explains the meaning of a defendant submitting no case to answer. It is only in extremely rare cases that a defendant making a submission of no case will not be ‘put to its election’, the election being that it can make such a submission but only on the basis that it cannot call any evidence of its own if the submission fails. The evidential tests which apply whether the defendant is or is not put to its election are set out. A submission of ‘no case’ to answer At trial, a defendant may decide to make a submission of no case to answer (‘no case’) after the claimant has indicated that it has closed its case and before the defendant calls any evidence. This is sometimes referred to as the ‘half-way stage’ of the trial. Such a submission is made only where the defendant is extremely confident that the claimant has not presented the court with sufficient evidence to make out an ostensible case requiring answering by evidence.

Important note—Archived Practice Note: this Practice Note is no longer updated as it relates to the position prior to the introduction of simplified Immigration Rules and procedures at and before the end of the Brexit transition period. It has been retained in archived form for historic interest. This Practice Note outlines the evolution and scope of evidential flexibility policies in the consideration of UK immigration applications. It also covers how evidential flexibility operates when challenging refusals. What is evidential flexibility? 'Evidential flexibility' is a term that originally arose as the name of an internal policy of the former UK Border Agency (UKBA) in relation to Points-Based System (PBS) applications. Evidential flexibility provisions are now primarily found in the Immigration Rules themselves. Evidential flexibility allows Home Office decision makers to request additional information and/or documents from an applicant in certain circumstances and/or to approve an application in limited circumstances where documentation has not been submitted. However, evidential flexibility provisions will not necessarily assist an applicant who has been unable to obtain a document or who omitted

In relation to preparation for a final hearing generally, see Practice Note: Preparation for the final hearing of an application for a financial remedy. Key requirements as to evidence in family proceedings are contained in Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 22, together with the supporting Practice Direction FPR 2010, PD 22A. The procedural requirements for an application for a financial remedy are contained in FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 9, together with the supporting Practice Direction FPR 2010, PD 9A. There is also important guidance set out in the Financial remedies guide (March 2026) (the FRG). In relation to procedure in financial remedy proceedings generally, see: Financial provision—practice and procedure—overview. Powers of the court The court may control evidence by giving directions as to: • the issues on which it requires evidence • the nature of the evidence it requires to decide those issues, and • the way in which the evidence is to be placed before the court The court has

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In this case, the claimant suffered illness during a half board package holiday and subsequently tested positive for campylobacter. However, the incubation period fell partly within and partly outside the holiday, which made it difficult to establish liability. The court accepted that, whilst the burden of proof is on the claimant, the evidential shift of the burden of proof would lie with the defendant and their knowledge with regard to the disclosure of documents in respect to food hygiene standards. The court consequently preferred the evidence of the claimant and having taken into account factors specific to this claimant concluded in light of all of these factors that it was more likely than not that he had acquired his illness from food eaten at the hotel. The case highlights the importance of lay and expert evidence presented to the court, and more crucially how it is presented. Written by Sarita Sharma at Irwin Mitchell LLP. Counsel for the claimant was Sarah Prager KC at Deka Chambers.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: SQN Global Ltd (SQN) pursued claims against several individuals under section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) for fraudulent trading. Although all defendants had been debarred from defending, the High Court held that SQN was still required to prove every element of its claims, including dishonesty and each defendant’s involvement in the fraudulent conduct. The claims succeeded in part: some defendants were liable, while liability was limited or not established against others because of evidential deficiencies. The decision emphasises that office-holders and assignees pursuing serious allegations must adduce cogent evidence, preferably contemporaneous documents and direct witness evidence, notwithstanding a defendant’s debarment or non-participation. Produced in partnership with Nora Wannagat of Tanfield Chambers.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The claimant successfully appealed the first instance dismissal of this claim on the basis that the judge had erred in finding that the County Council had established the statutory defence afforded by section 58 of the Highways Act 1980 (HiA 1980). The judge should have treated an assertion in a witness statement by Mr Cooke (the highways inspector) that a walked inspection of the verge had been carried out two months before the accident as manifestly incredible, given that it was contradicted by other evidence. Judgment was entered for the claimant for damages to be assessed, subject to a deduction of 33% for contributory negligence (which was the finding the first instance judge said he would have made if he had found the County Council liable). Written by Martin Porter KC and Anastasia Karseras, barristers at 2 Temple Gardens.

What is an evidential specimen? Once a suspect has been arrested for an alcohol (or drug) related motoring offence, the police will require them to provide a specimen of either breath, blood or urine for analysis. The specimen provided is called an 'evidential specimen' because the results of analysis will be used by the prosecution to prove a specific offence, for example, that an offender was driving with excess alcohol in their body. An evidential specimen must be distinguished from a 'preliminary test'. A preliminary test, such as a roadside breath test, is administered by the police who suspect the ingestion of alcohol or drugs. The test is indicative only. To prove an offender has committed an offence such as driving with excess alcohol, an 'evidential specimen' must be obtained. Deregulation Act 2015 (DA 2015) removed the requirement for an officer to conduct a preliminary test where a portable evidential breath test device is available. In these circumstances, the officer can move directly to take

IP & IT analysis: The decision of the General Court highlights the degree of connection required between the possible meanings of a word mark and the intended use of the goods covered for the purposes of a challenge under article 7(1)(c) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation.

Background to the concept of conduct risk Conduct risk has been a corner stone of the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) regulatory approach since it took over supervision of consumer protection from the Financial Services Authority (FSA). Central conduct risk is the FCA's focus on inherent factors that produce poor choices and outcomes in financial markets. The FCA began the rhetoric of conduct risk in its Risk Outlook 2013 and has developed its thinking since then. With the FCA's strategic objective being to ensure financial markets function well, the FCA have stated that this means: • consumers get financial services and products that meet their needs from firms they can trust • markets and financial systems are sound, stable and resilient with transparent pricing information • firms compete effectively, with the interests of their customers and the integrity of markets at the heart of how they run their businesses Understanding conduct risk is central to these objectives. This regulatory concept of conduct risk has gone hand-in-hand with a new supervisory approach

Ireland—Banking & Financial Services analysis: This article, written by Katherine Quirke, Of Counsel (Debt Finance) and Sarah Thompson, Partner and Head of Environmental, Social and Governance and Financial Regulation, of Arthur Cox LLP, outlines the Central Bank of Ireland (the CBI) publication on 12 January 2026 of the outcome of its Thematic Assessment of Operational Resilience in the MiFID Investment Firm Sector. It highlights the CBI’s findings (including recommended enhancements in the identification and mapping of critical or important business services and scenario testing) and the CBI’s expectations for next steps.

Pensions analysis: On 22 November 2023 the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) published a review of the Master Trusts authorisation and supervisory regime and the wider market. The report describes ways in which the Pensions Regulator (TPR) is responding to this evolving market, and areas where the above regime may need to be updated. Tim Box, Principal at Lane, Clark and Peacock, examines these latest developments.

From an abundance of caution.