This flowchart sets out the steps to be taken on an application for a reporting restriction order under the Family Procedure Rules 2010, PD 12I (Applications for reporting restriction orders) and the Practice Note (Official Solicitor: Deputy Director of Legal Services: Cafcass: Applications for reporting restriction orders), also known as

The European Commission has announced that applications for the second round of the European Blockchain Sandbox have opened with calls for innovative use cases involving Distributed Ledger Technologies. The Sandbox provides a confidential platform for the use cases, gives them a chance to be at the forefront of blockchain dialogue, and allows them to engage in discussions with regulators and authorities at national and EU level. Applications can be submitted until 25 March 2024 and selected use cases will be matched with national and EU regulators.

Any informal request or formal application for the return of property seized by an investigating authority during a criminal investigation will depend on the authority under which the property was seized and whether the investigation is ongoing or proceedings have concluded. In the first instance, an informal approach should be made to the investigating authority for the return of the seized property. This will usually be the officer in the case who, if they agree to the request, will inform the police property centre that has possession of the items to arrange for them to be returned to their owner. If such a request is refused it may be necessary to proceed with a formal application for the return of property. Before making a decision regarding such an application there are statutory retention periods to consider for convicted offenders. If the investigation has concluded and the accused is convicted of an offence, all material that may be relevant to the criminal investigation must be retained at least until a person

Dispute Resolution analysis: The court held that the provisions in CPR 46.8, relating to wasted costs orders, did not constitute a self-contained code on dealing with applications for wasted costs. While not provided for in the rule, it was held that the court has jurisdiction under CPR 32.7 to require attendance at a hearing of the person against whom the wasted costs order is sought. Written by Claire Winn, costs lawyer at Paragon Costs Solutions.

Great care should be taken when dealing with an application to preserve assets. An ill-conceived, badly prepared application or one that does not carefully follow procedure may result in an adverse order for costs (including wasted costs), see: Practical considerations. In UL v BK (Freezing Orders: Safeguards: Standard Examples), Mostyn J said of the case before him: 'This is not a wholly exceptional case. Things have gone seriously wrong. It is therefore necessary for me to set out once again the elementary principles, derived from legion authorities, in the hope that the approach adopted here never again recurs.' Mostyn J went on to re-emphasise guidance on: • the law to be applied in relation to freezing orders, see: Securing assets • practice and procedure, see: Service and the status of third parties and Types of order that can be made • applications made without notice, see: Form of application, and • illegitimately obtained documents (per Imerman v Tchenguiz), see Practice Note: Procedural aspects of disclosure in financial proceedings—Disclosure of documents belonging

This Practice Note details the jurisdiction and procedure regarding applications under section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) (or the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004) equivalent) to set aside a financial transaction to a third party in family proceedings where the applicant believes the transaction was made so as to defeat their financial claim. Setting aside Where a party considers that the other party has disposed of assets to a third party so as to defeat their claims in financial proceedings within divorce or civil partnership dissolution proceedings, or where, following the making of an order, a disposition has been made which impedes enforcement, an application can be made under MCA 1973, s 37 or CPA 2004 equivalent. Such a disposition is termed 'reviewable' and the court may be asked to review the disposition and, if justified, set it aside. Such an application may be made before or after an order has been made by the court in the main financial proceedings. The third party to whom the disposition

Dispute Resolution analysis: In Jones v Persons Unknown, the Circuit Commercial Court heard an application, pursuant to CPR 40.9, for the setting aside of a judgment by an innocent non-party whose assets had been deployed by a judgment debtor in satisfaction of a debt owed to the claimant. The judgment summarises the law applicable to applications under CPR 40.9 and, in particular, the potentially narrow interpretation of the requirement for a party to be ‘directly affected’ by the order of which the setting aside is sought. In this case, where the impact on the applicant was directly attributable not to the judgment in question, but to the actions of a judgment debtor in seeking to satisfy the judgment, the application failed. Had it not failed on that limb of the applicable test, the court found that it would have failed on discretionary grounds, there being issues both with the merits of the applicant’s argument and with the applicant’s failure to pursue it promptly. Written by Emily Lodge, senior associate at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP.

The scope of CPR Part 64 CPR Part 64 concerns: • claims relating to the administration of estates of deceased persons and trusts, together with • charity proceedings (in a separate section) This Practice Note is concerned with the first part. It applies to claims for the court to determine any question arising: • in the administration of the estate of a deceased person or for the execution of a trust • for an order for the administration of the estate of a deceased person, or for the execution of a trust, to be carried out under the directions of the court (‘an administration order’) • for a claim for the variation of a trust under the Variation of Trusts Act 1958 (VTA 1958), or • for a claim under section 48 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (AJA 1985). The application to claims for the determination of any question arising in the administration of an estate, or the execution of a trust is very wide

This Practice Note provides a practical table of common applications made during investigations and proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002). It sets out the name of the application, the relevant legislation, and includes links to the applicable forms and further resources. It is designed as a quick-access tool to help practitioners efficiently identify the necessary application, legal basis, and supporting materials when dealing with matters under POCA 2002. Note that where there is no prescribed form, applications must still comply with the relevant procedure set out under the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 (CrimPR 2025), SI 2025/909 (or under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), where applicable). Investigations under POCA 2002 Investigations under POCA 2002, Pt 8 allow law enforcement to track, freeze, and confiscate assets derived from criminal conduct. Key powers, granted to accredited officers, include, among others, obtaining production orders, search and seizure warrants, account monitoring orders, and unexplained wealth orders. These investigations cover confiscation, civil recovery, detained cash or property, cryptoassets and money laundering. Below is a table of the types of applications

This flowchart sets out the steps to be taken in applications under Part 18 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 which sets out the procedure where a party wishes to make an application within existing family proceedings, a party wishes to start proceedings where

This flowchart sets out the steps to be taken on an application under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) for either capital or maintenance provision for a child. It considers the procedure under the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), who can apply, the fast track and standard

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The administrators of MBI Clifton Moor Limited were granted an order under para 71 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) permitting the sale of land subject to security (other than a floating charge) as if it were not subject to the security. Written by Lisa Feng, barrister, at Exchange Chambers.