Interference describes unlawful or unauthorised meddling with a person’s rights, property or contractual or economic relations. It is a descriptive concept used across multiple areas of law in the UK and Ireland, with its precise meaning depending on context and, in some cases, specific statutory or case law definitions.In tort and delict, interference commonly refers to wrongful interference with goods (including conversion and trespass to goods), interference with land (trespass or nuisance), and interference with contractual or economic relations (such as inducing breach of contract or causing loss by unlawful means). In criminal law, interference can appear in defined offences (for example, interference with vehicles or witnesses).In public and human rights law, the term is used to describe state interference with protected rights (for example, interference with respect for private and family life under Article 8 ECHR), assessed for legality, necessity and proportionality.Usage is broadly consistent across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, though terminology (tort/delict) and specific statutory frameworks differ. Legal practitioners should identify the particular right affected and the relevant statutory or common law cause of action or offence.

Application to insolvency Following an appointment, an office-holder will need to establish what goods are in their possession and the ownership status of such goods. Goods that belong to the company or individual in respect of which the office-holder has been appointed may be sold by the office-holder and the proceeds distributed to creditors. There may be goods that do not belong to the company or individual to which the office-holder has been appointed but which the office-holder must deal with. Commonly, there will be goods which are the subject of retention of title clauses. The obligation is on the office-holder to allow a creditor access to a premises to establish a retention of title claim. For further information, see Practice Note: Dealing with suppliers, customers and ROT claims. A less well-known but useful tool is the ability of the office-holder to dispose of goods in their possession belonging to a third party using the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 (T(IG)A 1977). Such goods might, for example, be items or equipment belonging

Property Disputes analysis: It is perhaps unsurprising that an injunction was refused in Cooper v Ludgate House where the level of harm caused by loss of light was not at the higher end of the scale and the damage done to the defendant developer and to the public interest (which both parties accepted should be taken into account) would be entirely disproportionate. The High Court confirmed that negotiating damages remained available for the loss of the rights to enforce an easement after the case of One Step (Support) Ltd v Morris-Garner and awarded £500,000 and £350,000 to the claimants respectively. This was very considerably less than the £3-£3.7m that was sought by the claimants, and considerably more than the diminution in value of each property at around £60,000 and £20,000. Consequentials are being addressed in October 2025 and it will be interesting to see the decision on costs and whether either party wishes to appeal. Written by Tiffany Scott KC, barrister at Wilberforce Chambers.

The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) has published its updated statement of policy (SoP): Operating the Interim Capital Regime (ICR); the SoP follows the publication of policy statement PS19/24 – Strong and Simple Framework: The definition of an ICR firm. From 29 November 2024, banks and building societies that meet the PRA’s Small Domestic Deposit Taker (SDDT) criteria and CRR consolidation entities that meet the SDDT consolidation entity criteria, can become an ICR firm by taking up the PRA’s offer of a modification by consent (MbC). These ICR MbCs, in addition to accompanying directions have also been published. The PRA will assume any firm that has not consented to the ICR MbC, or at least contacted the PRA to indicate it wishes to do so, will implement Basel 3.1 on 1 January 2026.

A temporary board of governors which is imposed upon a maintained school which has become eligible for intervention by the local authority.

The interim Independent Chief Inspector for Borders and Immigration (ICIBI), David Bolt, has provided an update about his priorities and has outlined his plans for new inspection topics. The ICIBI notes that his priorities are completing work on the annua report, Contingency Asylum Accommodation (CAA) inspection, the inspection of the Immigration Enforcement Competent Authority and two country of origin reports (Rwanda and Georgia). The new inspection topics include fee waivers, age assessments, contact management with a focus on reporting, general maritime and clandestine entry to the UK.

A store where spent fuel cools until it is suitable for disposal or where such fuel is stored pending disposal.

This Practice Note considers the availability of interim and/or emergency measures in, and in support of, arbitration proceedings under the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA, Saudi or Saudi Arabia). The relevant legal framework • the Saudi Arbitration Law issued through Royal Decree No. M/34 on 16 April 2012 (the Arbitration Law) based on the UNICTRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. The Arbitration Law applies to arbitration proceedings taking place in Saudi Arabia and to arbitration proceedings held outside Saudi Arabia when the parties agree to the Arbitration Law being the governing law of the proceedings (Arbitration Law, Article 2) • the Implementing Regulations of the Arbitration Law issued by Cabinet of Ministers’ decision number 541 on 22 May 2017 (the Implementing Regulations of the Arbitration Law) • the Enforcement Law issued by the Royal Decree No. M/53 dated 30 July 2012 (the Enforcement Law) • the Implementing Regulations of the Enforcement Law issued by Cabinet of Ministers decision number 526 on 9 November

Issuing interim and emergency (urgent) measures are important ways in which national courts and arbitral tribunals can support the arbitration process. The term 'interim and emergency' covers a wide range of measures including injunctions and preservation orders which, largely, ensure that the arbitral process is not undermined by rendering an award impossible to perform or futile. The measures or relief available to parties from the tribunal will be determined in part by the arbitration rules (if any) which they have agreed to use, and those seeking such measures should be clear on the powers of the relevant tribunal. The law of the seat is also likely to be relevant in determining the scope of the powers available to the tribunal. Parties may, and should, also look to courts that have jurisdiction in respect of their arbitration (ie the courts of the seat of the arbitration) to assist in addition to or instead of the tribunal. The choice between applying to the court or tribunal (or both) is outside

This Practice Note considers the availability of interim relief from arbitral tribunals and the Cayman courts under the law of the Cayman Islands. For a short introduction to the arbitration regime in the Cayman Islands, including the Arbitration Act 2012 (the Arbitration Act 2012), see Practice Note: Stay of court proceedings and anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration in the Cayman Islands—an introduction to the Cayman Islands arbitration regime. Supervision and assistance by the Cayman court in arbitration proceedings The Grand Court can provide supervision and assistance in the arbitration process where appropriate, however it will only do so where and when it is absolutely necessary in order to protect the integrity of the arbitral process or to further the ‘fundamental principles’ of arbitration.  In the first reasoned judgment of the Grand Court decided under the Arbitration Act 2012, Appalachian Reinsurance (Bermuda) Ltd v Greenlight Reinsurance, Ltd 5 February 2014 (Appalachian) (not reported by LexisNexis®), the Grand Court explicitly

Dispute Resolution analysis: An interim anti-suit injunction, obtained in breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure has been largely set aside, albeit not as a result of that breach. On a substantive review of the merits, the court found a want of ostensible authority binding the parties to letters of engagement signed by another group company which contained the exclusive jurisdiction clauses on which the anti-suit injunctions had been sought. Written by Phillip Patterson, barrister, Gatehouse Chambers.

This Practice Note identifies the key issues to be considered when determining whether, and to what extent, interim application costs will be recoverable. It considers the different types of costs orders that are made following an interim application hearing, and the position where an interim application is compromised. It also considers applications subject to the fixed costs regime and non-payment of interim costs orders. Right to costs recovery following an interim application There is no right for the successful party to recover their costs of either bringing or defending an interim application. Whether such costs are recoverable is subject to the court’s discretion. If the court decides to exercise its discretion to award a party their costs, a provision for these costs will need to be included in the court order. If the court order does not have any provision for costs, it will be deemed that no costs are payable to either party even if one (or more) of the parties had been successful in respect of the application. The Court of Appeal decision in Dos