In this Checklist, the following defined terms are relevant: • application programming interface (API) means an application programming interface • API Data means any data or other content on the Platform accessed by the Application or API Licensee, and/or transferred from the Platform to the Application using an API • API Licensee means a provider of an Application that accesses the Platform/API • API Licensor means the provider of a Platform/API • Application means an application of an API Licensee that accesses an API • Platform means a platform of an API Licensor that is accessed through an API An API is a source code-based interface used by applications (more particularly, software components) to communicate with each other. The API is the external facing part of the application which defines the way in which that application will interact with other software. The developer does not need to understand the complete code of an application in order to develop a compatible program. As long as the program is compatible

ASP refers to obtaining applications over the internet, such as customer relationship management software (for example, salesforce.com) or word processing (eg Google Docs). The term Software as a Service is more common.

The Criminal Procedure Rule Committee have updated the ‘application to a magistrates' court to reconsider police bail’ form on 14 August 2023.

Although the Court of Protection (the court) can make a one-off order in respect of a person who lacks capacity, this is not always the best solution. When it is not, the court can order that a deputy be appointed to deal with the issue in question or to act on an ongoing basis, particularly if the incapacity is likely to continue into the future. The power of the court to appoint a deputy is contained in section 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005). This Practice Note explains the procedure for making a first application to appoint a health and welfare deputy. For guidance on making an application to appoint a property and affairs deputy, which has followed an upfront notification procedure since January 2023, see Practice Note: Application to appoint a property and financial affairs deputy. For guidance as to whom may be appointed as deputy and the factors the court will consider in assessing an application, see Practice Note: Choosing the deputy. For guidance on removing

Although the Court of Protection (the court) can make a one-off order in respect of a person who lacks capacity, this is not always the best solution. When it is not, the court can order that a deputy be appointed to deal with the issue in question or to act on an ongoing basis, particularly if the incapacity is likely to continue into the future. The power of the court to appoint a deputy is contained in section 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005). The process for appointing a property and affairs deputy changed from January 2023. Prior to this date, applications were made on paper and were initiated by the filing of a COP1 application form and accompanying documents, which was then issued by the court and then the relevant parties were served/notified. A new upfront notification process was piloted in 2021 under which the person to whom to application relates (P) and three people who know P are notified and invited to indicate their consent

No. [insert] of [insert] In the high court of justice BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS FOR ENGLAND AND WALES INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST (ChD) Companies court In the matter of [insert company name] [LTD OR PLC] and In

Dispute Resolution analysis: Ulick Staunton, barrister at Radcliffe Chambers, discusses the case of Middlesbrough Football & Athletic Company (1986) Ltd v Earth Energy Investments LLP (in liquidation) and others concerning the criteria which the court will apply when considering whether to vary or discharge an extended civil restraint order (ECRO). In his view, the same criteria apply on an application to vary or discharge a limited civil restraint order and there is no apparent reason why the same criteria would not also apply to an application to vary or discharge a general civil restraint order, the terminology of CPR PD 3C, paragraphs 2.2(2) and 4.2(2) being the same as that of CPR PD 3C, para 3.2(2).

CLAIM NO. [insert number] [ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS PROPERTY, TRUSTS AND PROBATE LIST (ChD) ] In the estate of the late [insert name of the deceased] (Probate) [insert name] Claimant AND [insert name(s)] Defendant[s] Dated [insert date] APPLICATION NOTICE 1 [Insert name of the legal firm] 2 I am the [Claimant OR Legal Representative OR [give details]] [I represent [if legal representative, state party represented].] 3 I am asking the Court to make the

Application to dismiss Under paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (CDA 1998), a defendant may (after the date when they are served with the documents containing the evidence on which the charge(s) are based, but before the date of arraignment) apply orally or in writing to the Crown Court for the charge(s) to be dismissed. The defendant may apply to the Crown Court in question for all or any of the charges in the case to be dismissed. The procedure is governed by Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 (CrimPR 2025), SI 2025/909, r 3.20. How to make an application to dismiss If the defendant wishes to make an application to dismiss, they must apply in writing not more than 20 business days after service of the prosecution evidence and before they are arraigned. An application may be made to extend the time. The application must be served on the Crown Court officer and each other party to the proceedings. The application must: • explain why the prosecution evidence would not be sufficient

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: VTB Capital plc (VTB) entered into administration in 2022. VTB's administrators had proposed to its creditors a scheme of arrangement. The administration had already been extended by one year with the consent of creditors. VTB's administrators applied to the High Court to extend the term of the administration and their office for a further five years pending creditor approval and then court sanction of the scheme (otherwise, some alternative distribution plan). The High Court granted a five-year extension as: (1) VTB was in ‘in distribution mode’ (whether via the scheme or otherwise); (2) there may be a surplus in the administration, so it would be disadvantageous to ‘initiate liquidation’; and (3) distribution through administration or a scheme would produce a better result for creditors than liquidation. The court justified the length of the extension as the administration was particularly high value and complex with a ‘considerable number of moving parts’ such that the distribution of VTB's assets would take a significant period of time. That would also avoid a series of shorter extensions sought on a ‘piecemeal’ basis. Written by Sam Fenwick (partner) and Ari Smith (trainee solicitor), Wedlake Bell LLP.

ARCHIVED: This Precedent has been archived and is not maintained. In the County of [insert county] Petty Sessional Division of [insert] The Complaint of [insert name] of [insert address] who states that: 1 The way or bridge

An application for re-registration from private to public will be made on a Companies House form RR01.