The Insolvency Service has reported that restaurant owner, Illhan Kekec, fraudulently secured a £30,000 coronavirus (COVID-19) Bounce Back Loan (BBL) shortly before filing an application to dissolve his business without informing creditors. Kekec was handed a jail sentence of two-and-a-half years and disqualified as a company director for three years.

One of the requirements in order for a company to qualify to grant enterprise management incentives (EMI) options is that the company must have fewer than 250 full-time equivalent employees on the date on which the options are granted (or, in the case of a parent company, it must have less than 250 full-time equivalent employees including those of all of its qualifying subsidiaries). For these purposes, the number of full-time equivalent employees of a company is calculated by taking the full number of employees of the company and, for each employee

The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published Judge Geraint Walters’ update to his reflections on how Swansea Crown Court adapted to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. In his update, Walters J shares his experience of presiding over jury trials at the new Nightingale court in Swansea. His reflections include how the court was transformed to allow enough space to socially distance a second jury panel, the setting aside of rooms for various tasks, including a Witness waiting room and a judge’s retiring room, and the taking on and training of new staff, including ‘new security staff and several new ushers’.

An application to court for an administration order gives rise to an interim moratorium in respect of claims against the relevant company (paragraph 44 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986)), save where an administrative receiver is appointed. The interim moratorium prevents creditors from bringing insolvency proceedings or claims before the court, though permission can be granted by the court to proceed with a claim. When a company enters administration, the moratorium is permanent (IA 1986, Sch B1, paras 41–42). This has the effect of dismissing any winding up petitions that are extant and preventing the company from resolving to wind up; from enforcing securities or distraining against assets without the consent of the court or the

The Insolvency Service has announced that accountant Zeeshan Ashraf was ordered to pay £307,690 at Birmingham Crown Court on 13 October 2026, following joint confiscation proceedings with HMRC. Ashraf was jailed for three years and eight months in February 2025 after admitting five counts of fraud involving coronavirus (Covid-19) support schemes. Between April 2020 and April 2021, he fraudulently obtained £268,102 and attempted to claim a further £52,733. He used his company, A-Z Certified Accountants Limited, to obtain three £50,000 Bounce Back Loans by overstating its turnover, spending the funds on lifestyle purposes, property investments and personal loan repayments. He also submitted false or unauthorised claims under the Covid Job Retention Scheme and claimed Eat Out to Help Out payments for companies that did not exist or did not operate in the restaurant trade. The confiscation order includes an adjustment reflecting changes in the value of money and takes account of around £33,000 previously repaid. Ashraf has three months to pay or could face a further two-and-a-half years in prison while remaining liable for the full amount.

There are a number of applications that the CPR requires to be made promptly, but much of the commentary below will be relevant to any circumstances where there is a need to ensure an application is made in good time. There is a balance to be struck: A hurried application with no, or insufficient, evidence risks being dismissed on the papers pursuant to CPR 23.8(c). Too much delay while preparing the application, and it may fail irrespective of its substantive merit. See Standard Bank Plc v Agrinvest International Inc, obiter at [20] to [22]. Always bear in mind that ‘promptly’, within the context of CPR 13.3 and CPR 39.3, means with alacrity, or ‘with all reasonable celerity in the circumstances’, see Khan v Edgbaston Holdings. Note: CPR 13.3

This Practice Note is archived and not maintained. This Practice Note explains the modifications and disapplications introduced by the: • Early Years Foundation Stage (Learning and Development and Welfare Requirements) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, SI 2020/444 • Early Years Foundation Stage (Learning and Development and Welfare Requirements) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations 2020, SI 2020/939 • Early Years Foundation Stage (Learning and Development Requirements) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Order 2021, SI 2021/234 to the: • Early Years Foundation Stage (Learning and Development Requirements) Order 2007, SI 2007/1772 • Early Years Foundation Stage (Welfare Requirements) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/938 The Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) statutory framework sets the standards that all early years providers must meet to ensure that children aged 0 to 5 learn and develop well and are kept healthy and safe. As part of the national response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, local authorities undertook a wide range of essential and additional functions, while also contributing to local

The Insolvency Service has reported that the director of Bebo Construction Limited, Adebayo Talabi, has received a two-year suspended sentence, an unpaid work order and a six-year disqualification from acting as a company director. Talabi pleaded guilty to three counts of fraud by false representation at Southwark Crown Court on 24 February 2026. An investigation by the Insolvency Service found that, between August and November 2020, Talabi applied for three separate coronavirus (COVID-19) Bounce Back Loans (BBLs) totalling £150,000. He overstated the company's turnover to between £200,000 and £220,000 to obtain the maximum £50,000 from each lender, despite the company being entitled to approximately £1,300. The investigation further found that the loan funds were transferred to personal accounts rather than used for the company's economic benefit, as required under the scheme. Talabi also falsely stated in the second and third loan applications that they were the company's first and only applications.

First-Tier Tribunal General Regulatory Chamber President, Judge Alison McKenna, has made directions following an application from the Information Commissioner and in light of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and the temporary closure of the Information Commissioner’s Office. Under the directions, all proceedings under section 48 of the Data Protection Act 1998, section 162 of the Data Protection Act 2018 and section 57 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 are stayed for a period of 28 days from 1 April 2020. Parties to any proceedings of the Tribunal may apply with reasons and on notice to the Information Commissioner for the amendment, suspension or setting aside of these directions. The directions shall be reviewed after 28 days.

Prioritisation of applications The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has confirmed that it will prioritise applications for Operating Safety Cases in respect of operations related to coronavirus. Under normal circumstances only applications from the police, fire or ambulance services are prioritised, with all other applications being reviewed on a first come, first served basis. Applications for the use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for work related to coronavirus will also be prioritised, with those that have the most potential to mitigate harm from the outbreak being given the highest priority. However, there are limitations, as only applications from operators who have had their services specifically requested by one of the following organisations in relation to coronavirus will be assessed: • UK National Health Service Hospital or NHS Trust • UK Police Service • UK Fire Service • UK Ambulance Services, or • applications that have been specifically recommended/requested by a government department The CAA has also stipulated that it cannot guarantee the prioritisation of any application and that the processing times for applications relating to

Trespass is the unlawful presence of a person on land or buildings in the possession of another, including: • wrongfully setting foot on or riding or driving over it, and • taking possession of it or expelling the person in possession See Practice Note: Trespass—claims and defences. The methods of regaining possession from a trespasser which are available to a landowner include: • physical repossession • arrest of the trespasser by the police for a criminal offence • injunction (including quia timet and interim injunctions) • possession claim (including a claim for an interim possession order) In addition to the above remedies which are available for regaining possession, a landowner

Forthcoming expiry of limitation It is important to ensure that you comply with the time frames provided for under the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) (or other applicable limitation provisions), since a failure to do so can enable a defendant to have a complete defence. As a general point, LA 1980 is primary legislation, and the government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic has not included any changes to, or suspension of, the effect of that legislation. For general guidance on limitation periods under LA 1980, see Practice Note: Limitation—the principal limitation periods. In order to bring a claim within the limitation period, the court needs to receive the claim form and correct court fee in time.