Setting aside a transaction on the basis that it was an extortionate credit transaction under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) is difficult. A bargain may be hard or even unreasonable, but that does not make it extortionate. The jurisdiction seems to envisage a substantial difference in bargaining power of which one party has taken advantage. For this reason, successful challenges are few and far between. Who may apply? • a liquidator or administrator of a company may apply to the court to set aside an extortionate credit transaction • a trustee in bankruptcy may make a similar application in a bankruptcy Relevant time period • in company cases, the court can only review a transaction which was entered into in the period of three years ending on the day on which the company

The Crown Commercial Service (CCS) has announced additional funding for the Contract Management Pioneer Programme (CMPP) to continue supporting local government contract management capability through April 2026. Launched in November 2021 as a partnership between CCS and local partnerships, the CMPP has engaged commercial colleagues from over 80 councils across England. As of March 2025, 92% of participating councils have demonstrated improved contract management practices, and 144 learners have achieved full accreditation.

Database right in a database can be infringed where, without the consent of the owner of the right, all or a substantial part of the contents of the database are extracted.

To extradite is to surrender a person, usually a criminal suspect or convicted offender, by one state to another state so that they can be prosecuted or made to serve a sentence there. In legal practice it describes the process by which courts and governments cooperate across borders to return fugitives.In the UK, extradition is principally governed by the Extradition Act 2003, which sets out the legal tests, procedures, and safeguards for extradition from England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, including requests from EU and non‑EU states. In Ireland, extradition is mainly regulated by the Extradition Act 1965 (as amended) and EU instruments on surrender of persons.Key features include: the requirement of a valid extradition request; dual criminality (the conduct is an offence in both jurisdictions, subject to exceptions); speciality (the person may usually be tried only for the offences for which extradition was granted); and human rights protections (for example, under the ECHR and constitutional standards).Usage of “extradite” is broadly consistent across these jurisdictions, referring both to the act of surrender and to the court process leading to surrender.

Extradition is the formal surrender by one country to another, based on reciprocal laws, treaties or arrangements partly judicial and partly administrative, of an individual accused or convicted of a serious criminal offence committed outside the territory of the extraditing state and within the jurisdiction of the requesting state which, being competent by its own law to try and punish him, requests the individual's surrender.

What is extradition? Extradition is the formal legal process by which one territory asks another to return an individual wanted by them in order for that individual to stand trial or serve a sentence imposed by the requesting territory. The UK’s statutory framework The UK’s extradition regime is governed by the Extradition Act 2003 (EA 2003). The UK has extradition arrangements under multilateral conventions and bilateral extradition treaties with more than 120 territories. These territories are designated as either Part 1 or Part 2 under the EA 2003. Part 1 territories are set out in the Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 1 Territories) Order 2003, SI 2003/3333, as amended. See further below: Part 1 territories. Despite the UK’s decision to leave the EU, this list of Part 1 territories includes the remaining 27 EU Member States. Part 2 territories are set out in the Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003, SI 2003/3334, as amended. See further below: Part 2 territories. Territories which do not appear

This Practice Note provides an overview of the appeal procedure for UK extradition cases under the Extradition Act 2003 (EA 2003). For further reading around extradition proceedings, see Practice Notes: • Extradition and the statutory framework—an introductory guide • Extradition—arrest and initial procedure • Arrest without a warrant under Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 • Secretary of State’s function in extradition • Extradition hearings • Statutory bars to extradition • Non-statutory bars to extradition For information about the implications of Brexit on extradition arrangements between the UK and EU, see Practice Note: Extradition and the statutory framework—an introductory guide—Extradition to the EU post-Brexit. The procedural requirements for the conduct of extradition appeals are to be found in section 3 of Part 50 of the CrimPR 2025, SI 2025/909, rr 50.17–50.31. Part 50 is supplemented by the Criminal Practice Directions (CPD) at paras 12.3–12.7. Right to appeal All extradition cases are initially heard at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. Appeals in extradition proceedings are to the High Court and

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note is being retained for historical interest and to provide practitioners with a quick overview of developments in case law during 2017. This Practice Note tracked extradition appeal cases by month in 2017. Where you know the date of the judgment you are interested in, you can navigate to the relevant table using the list below. Alternatively, please search this Practice Note using [CTRL]+[F] for the case name, citation or a relevant search term. Cases by month: • December 2017 • November 2017 • October 2017 • September 2017 • August 2017 • July 2017 • June 2017 • May 2017 • April 2017 • March 2017 • February 2017 • January 2017 December 2017 Case name Abstract/Summary Search terms Fox v Public Prosecutor's Office of Frankfurt am Main [2017] EWHC 3396 (Admin), [2018] All ER (D) 10 (Jan) Extradition—Extradition order. The judge had been correct to find that there had been no reasonable grounds to believe that the competent authorities in Germany had not

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note is being retained for historical interest and to provide practitioners with a quick overview of developments in case law during 2018. This Practice Note tracked extradition appeal cases by month in 2018. For details of key cases from 2017, see Practice Note: Extradition appeals tracker—2017 decisions [Archived]. Where you know the date of the judgment you are interested in, you can navigate to the relevant table using the list below or the links on the left-hand side of the screen. Alternatively, please search this Practice Note using [CTL]+[F] for the case name, citation or a relevant search term. Cases by month: • January 2018 • February 2018 • March 2018 • April 2018 • May 2018 • June 2018 • July 2018 • August 2018 • September 2018 • October 2018 • November 2018 • December 2018 December 2018 Case name Abstract/Summary Search terms Scerbatchi v First District Court of Bucharest, Romania [2018] EWHC 3612 (Admin), [2019] All ER (D) 79 (Jan) Extradition—Prohibition on torture.

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note is not being maintained. It is being retained for historical interest and to provide practitioners with a quick overview of developments in extradition case law during 2019. This Practice Note tracks extradition appeal cases by month, commencing January 2019. For details of key cases from 2018, see Practice Note: Extradition appeals tracker—2018 decisions [Archived]. Where you know the date of the judgment you are interested in, you can navigate to the relevant table using the list below or the links on the left-hand side of the screen. Alternatively, please search this Practice Note using [CTL]+[F] for the case name, citation or a relevant search term. Extradition appeal cases by month: • January 2019 • February 2019 • March 2019 • April 2019 • May 2019 • June 2019 • July 2019 • August 2019 • September 2019 • October 2019 • November 2019 • December 2019 December 2019 Case Abstract/summary Search terms Asenov v Local Court of Arad Romania [2019] EWHC 3489 (Admin), [2019] All ER (D) 142 (Dec). Extradition—Proportionality. It was not

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not being maintained. It is being retained for historical interest and to provide practitioners with a quick overview of developments in extradition case law during 2020. This tracker includes details of extradition appeals judgments which were given during the UK's Brexit implementation period between 31 January 2020 and 31 December 2020 (IP completion), when the UK continued to be treated as a Member State for the purposes of extradition arrangements with the remaining 27 Member States of the European Union (EU27) and therefore when extradition appeals in respect of these states were dealt with under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 (EA 2003). Section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (EU(W)A 2018) (as amended) provides that retained EU law which has not been modified on or after IP completion day (and questions as to its validity, meaning or effect) is to be interpreted according to retained case law and retained general principles of EU law so far as it is relevant to any matter

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not being maintained. It is being retained for historical interest and to provide practitioners with a quick overview of developments in extradition case law during 2021. Practitioners should note that the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 (EU(FR)A 2020) provides for the domestic implementation of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). In particular, EU(FR)A 2020, s 29 provides that domestic law has effect with such modifications as are required for the purposes of implementing the TCA. This statutory provision has the potential to apply to any domestic law. Section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (EU(W)A 2018) (as amended) provides that retained EU law which has not been modified on or after IP completion day (and questions as to its validity, meaning or effect) is to be interpreted according to retained case law and retained general principles of EU law so far as it is relevant to any matter before the court or tribunal. After IP completion day, a UK court or tribunal