Coronavirus (COVID-19): The COVID-19 Clinical Negligence Protocol (2020) (last updated in June 2021) was created to adapt clinical negligence claims handling and litigation processes during the coronavirus (COVID-19) situation. The protocol covered limitation and extensions of time, communication, service, medical examinations, exchange of evidence, interim payments, settlement meetings and mediations, BACS payments, costs budgeting and hearings (including adjournments). This Protocol was superseded with effect from 27 August 2024 by the Clinical Negligence Claims Agreement 2024 which builds on the previous Protocol with various practices now adopted into everyday claims management. The new Agreement is not contractually binding but places an emphasis on collaborative working between the parties. The limitation period Section 11 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) provides that the limitation period in personal injury and clinical negligence cases is three years from the date the cause of action accrued, or the date of knowledge (for the purposes of LA 1980, s 14) of the injured person, if later. If the claimant is a minor, the three-year

As you say, certain variations to a lease take effect as a surrender and re-grant by operation of law. These include increasing the length of the term or the extent of the demise. These variations seek to alter the legal estate

This Practice Note provides an insight into the court’s approach to whether to grant an extension of time through the use of illustrative decisions. The key decisions, that set out the principles to be applied by the courts, are set out in Practice Note: Extending time for service of the claim form—principles. For guidance on making an application to extend time, see Practice Note: Extending time for service of the claim form—making an application. Extension of time granted or upheld The following judgments provide insight into the approach of the court when granting an application to extend time for service or refusing to set aside an order granting an extension of time. Judgment Principle/facts Comment Crossroads Corporate Finance (UK) LLP v Ontario Management Ltd [2025] EWHC 1011 (Comm) The claimants had obtained three extensions to the initial period of validity of the claim form before it was served on a defendant in Germany. That defendant challenged the first and second extensions when finally served, alleging that the claimants did not provide

This Practice Note provides assistance in making an application for an extension of time to serve the claim form. It explores party agreement to an extension of time, pre-application considerations as well as how to make the application under CPR 7.6 . The Practice Note sets out the rules and authorities relevant to an application to extend time for service of the claim form. It also considers the defendant’s right to have the order set aside. The guidance in this Practice Note is specific to the claim form. As set out by the Supreme Court in Barton v Wright Hassall (2018), the purpose of serving the claim form on the defendant is to bring the contents of the claim form to the attention of the defendant such that they know the case against them. To ensure the defendant receives timely notice of the case against them, the CPR requires the claim form to be served within a specified period on the defendant. If the claimant seeks to extend that time

This Practice Note considers obtaining an extension of time for serving the claim form. It looks at preliminary considerations such as validity of the claim form (CPR 7.5 or as set out in statute). The impact of making the application during or after the claim form validity period is considered as well as the grounds on which the court will grant an extension and any imitation considerations. It is important to note that an extension of time for service of the claim form is not simply a formality. For guidance on: • making an application, see Practice Note: Extending time for service of the claim form—making an application • the different options available when encountering difficulties with serving the claim form, see Practice Note: Difficulties with service of the claim form—practical considerations For insight on previous decisions, see Practice Note: Extending time for service of the claim form—illustrative decisions. If the court in which the matter is progressing maintains a court guide, this may contain relevant guidance. For guidance, see:

If you own a leasehold flat, your property can become harder to sell, more difficult to mortgage, and less valuable overall as the term of your lease grows shorter. One of the most important steps you can take to protect and enhance the value of your property is to extend the term of your lease. This guide provides an overview of the lease extension process, from understanding why it matters, to navigating the legal procedures, understanding costs, and completing the transaction. Whether you are considering a formal statutory lease extension under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (referred to as ‘the 1993 Act’ in this guide) or exploring an informal agreement directly with your landlord, this guide will help you make informed decisions at every stage. 1 Understanding leasehold ownership 1.1 A right to occupy for a fixed term When you own a leasehold property, you own the right to occupy and use that property for a fixed period of time, known as the ‘term’ of the lease. Outright ownership—the freehold—of

A fee charged when an existing facility is extended beyond the original maturity date.

To maintain service continuity during the recruitment of a new Deputy Pensions Ombudsman, the Pensions Ombudsman has confirmed that the Minister for Pensions at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), Emma Reynolds, has approved an extension of up to three-months of Anthony Arter’s appointment as Deputy Pensions Ombudsman, effective from 16 October 2024. This extension was made in consultation with the Commissioner for Public Appointments, allowing it to proceed without a competition.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the extension of the fixed recoverable costs (FRC) regime and focuses on the costs of cases that are allocated to the fast track (FT) and new intermediate track (IT). It provides information on the four complexity bands for both tracks and covers the application of fixed costs to monetary claims and mixed claims for both monetary and non-monetary relief. It also considers the change to Part 36 in respect of a claimant being able to obtain an additional amount of 35% on their FRC where they obtain judgment that is at least as advantageous as their own Part 36 offer. Note: This Practice Note largely focuses on the new Section I of CPR 45 (general provisions), new Section VI of CPR 45 (fixed costs in the FT), new Section VII of CPR 45 (fixed costs in the IT) and new Section IX of CPR 45 (disbursements). It also notes the changes to CPR 36 and refers to allocation to

Immigration analysis: The Immigration (Restrictions on Employment and Residential Accommodation) (Prescribed Requirements and Codes of Practice) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/700) amend the Immigration (Restrictions on Employment) Order 2007 (SI 2007/3290) and two other instruments. The most significant change for employers and other businesses is the insertion of new art 5B to the Order, which sets out the prescribed right to work checking requirements for certain engagements outside a traditional contract of employment, ie contracting chains, individual sub-contractors and online matching services, giving effect to aspects of section 48 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. The instrument also replaces the existing IDVT framework with a requirement to use a registered Digital Verification Service Provider, expands the documents that can be checked digitally, introduces the use of facial recognition checks by registered providers, and brings updated statutory codes of practice into force on 1 October 2026. The new draft Code of Practice on preventing illegal working: Right to Work Scheme for employers (the ‘draft Code’) accompanies the Regulations and comes into force on the same date. It provides important practical guidance on the new requirements, including detailed provisions on scope, digital and manual checking methods, and the approach to enforcement of the extended liability provisions. Further guidance will be published in due course, in the Employer’s guide to right to work checks. This analysis looks in detail at the changes.

The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (CTJ), with the authority of the President of the Family Division, has announced a significant expansion of the Transparency reporting pilot for financial remedy proceedings. Initially launched on 29 January 2024 in Birmingham, Leeds and the Central Family Court, and subsequently extended to the Royal Courts of Justice on 11 November 2024, the pilot will apply to financial remedy proceedings taking place in all courts from 29 January 2025. The pilot has been extended for an additional year, running until 29 January 2026. In response to feedback received during the pilot, the interim  transparency order and final transparency standard order have been slightly modified.

Immigration analysis: The current right to work regime requires all employers to conduct checks on all employees to ensure that only those who are legally entitled to work in the UK are doing so. However, following the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 (BSAIA 2025) being passed and receiving Royal Assent on 2 December 2025, BSAIA 2025, s 48 seeks to extend these obligations further to cover the non-employee workforce. This was subject to a public consultation looking at how the changes should be operationalised and enforced, and how processes could be simplified to make it easier for employers to fulfil their responsibilities. The consultation closed on 10 December 2025 and the results are awaited. This article explores the effects of BSAIA 2025, s 48 in practice and considers some of the issues raised in the consultation. Written by Sajida Hussain, legal director at Addleshaw Goddard.