Note: This Precedent should be used in conjunction with an application notice template that complies with the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, SI 2016/1024—see: • (Form IAA) IR 2016, r 1.35 VAR Insolvency Act Application Notice application notice *Full name of company or debtor/bankrupt Company number:N/A In the [Name of Court] [Name of Court in which the original Bankruptcy Order was made or Name of Court if case has been transferred] For court use only Court case number: *Type of insolvency proceeding:Bankruptcy Between

INSOLVENCY ACT APPLICATION NOTICE Form IAA Rule 1.35 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 Court Reference No. [number] [IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY DIVISION INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST [ROLLS BUILDING, LONDON OR IN [location]] OR IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [location]] IN THE MATTER OF [company name] AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT 1986 Between [name]        Applicant and [name]        Respondent 1 This application is made under [ [section [number] of AND/OR paragraph [number] of Schedule [number] to] the Insolvency Act 1986

INSOLVENCY ACT APPLICATION NOTICE CASE NO: [insert case number] [ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY DIVISION INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST, ROLLS BUILDING, LONDON OR IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY DIVISION INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST IN [insert location] OR IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert location] BUSINESS AND PROPERTY WORK ] IN THE MATTER OF [insert company’s name] AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT 1986 BETWEEN [Insert name(s) of the Applicant(s)] Applicant(s) AND [Insert name(s) of the Respondent(s)] Respondent(s) This application is made under section 127 of the Insolvency Act 1986 The Applicant(s) is/are [insert name(s) and address(es)

INSOLVENCY ACT APPLICATION NOTICE CASE NO: [insert case number] [ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY DIVISION INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST, ROLLS BUILDING, LONDON OR IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY DIVISION INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST IN [insert location] OR IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert location] BUSINESS AND PROPERTY WORK ] IN THE MATTER OF [insert bankrupt’s name] IN BANKRUPTCY AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT 1986 BETWEEN [Insert name(s) of the Applicant(s)] Applicant(s) AND [Insert name(s) of the Respondent(s)] Respondent(s) This

INSOLVENCY ACT APPLICATION NOTICE CASE NO: [insert case number] [ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY DIVISION INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST, ROLLS BUILDING, LONDON OR IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY DIVISION INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST IN [insert location] OR IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert location] BUSINESS AND PROPERTY WORK ] [ IN THE MATTER OF [insert company’s name] OR IN THE MATTER OF [insert bankrupt’s name] ] IN BANKRUPTCY AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT 1986 BETWEEN [Insert name(s) of the Applicant(s)]        Applicant(s) AND [Insert name(s) of the Respondent(s)]        Respondent(s) This application is made under section [insert relevant

Dispute Resolution analysis: This judgment provides an insight into the court’s application of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) in relation to: (i) retrospective permission to effect alternative service of documents other than the claim form relying on a process of service clause, (ii) permission to make an application for summary judgment, notwithstanding the failure of the defendants to file an acknowledgment of service; and (iii) summary judgment. The claim involved creditors under a series of loan agreements issuing proceedings against the debtors and a guarantor. Written by Andrew Butler QC, barrister, at Tanfield Chambers.

Private Client analysis: The recent decision in Kelly v Brennan is significant in that the court held that it was able to rectify a Will by applying the domestic law of rectification to a Will that was made in the Republic of Ireland. Although the court may apply domestic law to a foreign Will where it is concerned with issues of formal validity, material validity and interpretation and where the testator was domiciled within the jurisdiction, this was the first occasion on which the court was called upon to decide if the domestic law of rectification should be applied in the same way. Written by Michael Bowmer, barrister, at 4 New Square Chambers.

Personal Injury analysis: The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 apply in cases where a business is sold, activities are outsourced, brought in-house or transferred and where a contract for services is moved from one provider to another. Sophie Houghton, professional support lawyer at BLM, looks at how the Regulations apply to claims for accidents at work, and whether a claim can be pursued against new employers when a breach occurs pre-transfer.

This Practice Note contains a table with some specific examples of where legal professional privilege (LPP) and privileged circumstances are likely to apply and where a suspicious activity report (SAR) to the National Crime Agency (NCA) is permitted or required. For either LPP or privileged circumstances to apply the communication must satisfy all the relevant qualifying requirements. For further information, see Practice Note: Privilege, money laundering and terrorist financing. There is no established list of communications or documents that benefit from LPP or privileged circumstances. This table contains a summary of current thinking and court findings. Given the difficulty in interpretation, it is important to record your decision-making process to rebut any allegation of a failure to make a disclosure under section 330 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002). POCA 2002, s 330(6) states that you will not commit a failure to disclose offence where: • you have a reasonable excuse for not making the required disclosure, or • the information came to you in privileged circumstances It

TMT analysis: In this judgment, the High Court granted an application for two orders declining jurisdiction to hear and dismissing English defamation proceedings as a result of Norwegian proceedings which it held involved the same cause of action pursuant to Article 27 of the Lugano Convention 2007 (known as the lis pendens doctrine). In reaching its conclusion, the court confirmed that the lis pendens doctrine applies to tortious claims and it also considered what is the correct test for determining whether two sets of proceedings involve ‘the same cause of action’ in these circumstances.

FORTHCOMING CHANGES: At Budget 2025 on 26 November 2025, the government announced that it would make minor corrective amendments to the residence-based tax regime introduced in Finance Act 2025. Key points include: • qualifying new residents for the foreign income and gains (FIG) regime must be at least 10 years old at the beginning of the tax year • ensuring that claims for relief under the FIG regime can be deducted only from the foreign income, foreign employment income or foreign gains to which they relate • alignment of the qualifying asset holding company (QAHC) rules so that carried-interest-style returns connected with services to a QAHC qualify for relief under the FIG regime • correction to the capital gains tax (CGT) residence test for personal representatives to ensure that they are not UK resident where the deceased was UK non-resident but was a long-term UK resident for inheritance tax purposes • the requirement that an individual must file a tax return where they are not entitled

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court (Chancery Division) held that Joint Special Administrators of Argentex LLP would not incur liability (to be treated as an administration expense) either by not performing Trading Book contracts or by closing out customer contracts. Applying the Lundy Granite principle, mere non-performance of contracts does not create administration expenses without positive conduct showing election. The court's objective analysis found no benefit to the administration estate from closing out contracts. The judgment provides essential guidance on when liabilities become administration expenses, particularly clarifying that administrative convenience alone does not constitute sufficient benefit to the estate. Practical implications written by Aziz Abdul and Paddy Bird of Addleshaw Goddard.