This Practice Note explains solemn trial procedure in Scotland and should be read in conjunction with Scottish solemn criminal procedure—flowchart. For details of pre-trial preparation under the solemn procedure, see Practice Note: Solemn procedure in Scottish criminal proceedings. For guidance on the appeal procedures in Scotland for solemn crime, see Practice Note: Scottish criminal appeals—solemn procedure. For an introduction to the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences in Scotland, see Practice Note: The investigation and prosecution of criminal offences in Scotland. Update effective 1 December 2025: modernisation of criminal court procedure Several permanent reforms have been introduced by the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Act 2025. These reforms replace previous temporary measures introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Practitioners should ensure all procedural references in this Practice Note are read in light of these statutory changes. Electronic signatures and document transmission Under sections 303C–303F of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (CP(S)A 1995), documents in criminal proceedings may be signed electronically and transmitted by electronic means to an

ARCHIVED: The pilot scheme is set out in Practice Direction 51V (CPR PD 51V) and provides for applications to set aside default judgments, obtained under CPR 12, to take place using a video hearing. This is a separate process from that in use during the coronavirus pandemic which allows for remote hearings. For guidance, see Practice Note: Remote and hybrid hearings in civil proceedings. The pilot scheme applies in the Birmingham or Manchester Civil Justice Centres. The pilot scheme will apply unless a party objects or opts out of the pilot scheme. The 115th Update—Practice Direction amendments sets out the pilot scheme in its schedule. The pilot scheme has been extended and will now run until 31 March 2021 as provided for in the 122nd Update—Practice Direction Amendments. This Practice Notice considers the second video hearings pilot scheme. Note that both the first pilot scheme and this one have the same title and the same practice direction reference. For an explanation as to the requirement for the

This month has seen a large increase in the notification thresholds in the Philippines for a two-year period, cabinet approval of amendments to the merger control regime in Germany and the announcement by the EU’s Competition Commissioner that referrals will be accepted from Member States even where national notification thresholds are not met. Philippines—notification thresholds increased for two years The notification thresholds in the Philippines have been increased for two years – now, all transactions are exempt from the requirement to notify the PCC where the value of the transaction is less than PHP 50 billion (approx. €870.9m/US$1,026.6m) (ie target has either annual turnover in, into and from the Philippines or assets in the Philippines in excess of PHP 50 billion). In addition, for one year, the PCC’s discretionary power to review transactions under the thresholds has also been suspended. Comment: The change, which has now been ratified by the President, is in place for two years and is intended as an economic stimulus following the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. This change will drastically reduce

We have assumed that the reference to ‘TMO’ is to a traffic management order. TMOs are made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA 1984) (see Practice Note: Road traffic—traffic regulation order procedure and notices). There are a variety of procedure regulations on TMOs (see Practice Note: Road traffic—traffic regulation order procedure and notices, in particular section: Procedure regulations), however, the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (LATO(P)(EW) Regs 1996), SI 1996/2489 is a typical example, with LATO(P)(EW) Regs 1996, SI 1996/2489, reg 16 setting out the procedure for making a TMO. The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has also fuelled the creation of additional procedure regulations and guidance. For example, the Traffic Orders Procedure (Coronavirus) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020 (TOP(C)(A)(E) Regs 2020), SI 2020/536, came into force on 23 May 2020 to temporarily amend the: • Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992, (RT(TR)P Regs 1992), SI 1992/1215 • LATO(P)(EW) Regs 1996, SI 1996/2489 • Secretary of State’s Traffic Order (Procedure) (England and

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19): Many arbitral organisations have responded to the coronavirus pandemic with practical guidance and/or changes to their usual procedures and ways of working. This Practice Note considers the issues arising out of multi-party and/or multi-contract arbitration proceedings under the 2017 International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules of Arbitration (2017 ICC Rules). It also refers to the guidance in the ICC Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration under the ICC Rules of Arbitration (ICC Note). The 2017 ICC Rules apply to any ICC arbitrations commenced on or after 1 March 2017, unless the parties have agreed to submit to the rules in force on the date of their arbitration agreement. The 2017 ICC Rules include: • an expedited procedure which automatically applies where the arbitration agreement is entered into after 1 March 2017 and the amount in dispute is below US$2m. In cases above this threshold, the parties must opt-in. For guidance on the ICC

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 9 June 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline An action for annulment before the General Court of the European Commission’s decision of 26 April 2020 approving a German State-guaranteed loan in favour of German charter airline Condor for damage caused by the Covid-19 outbreak (SA.56867). Latest developments On 9 June 2021, the General Court issued its judgment in which it upheld the appeal and annulled the Commission’s decision on the grounds that it contained an inadequate statement of reasons. However, because of the economic and social context marked by the Covid-19 pandemic, the General Court suspended the annulment pending the adoption of a new decision by the Commission. Parties Applicant:• Ryanair DAC (Ryanair)Defendant:• European Commission (the Commission) Background Background Germany notified an aid measure to partly compensate Condor for damage suffered due to the cancellation or re-scheduling of its flights as a result of the imposition of travel

To a greater or lesser extent technological solutions have been employed at all stages of arbitral proceedings for decades. The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and resultant travel restrictions and lockdowns necessitated an enhanced focus on how technology can be used by lawyers and arbitrators to promote fair and efficient proceedings on a global basis. Moreover, rapid advances in technology employed both by clients and in the legal sector (including the advancement in artificial intelligence (AI) technology), paired with increased cost and ESG pressures on practitioners, are placing a prominent spotlight on the way technology is employed in arbitration. When discussing technology in arbitration, it has historically been easy to think primarily in terms of e-discovery, electronic bundling and remote/hybrid hearings. However, technological concerns should and do pervade almost every aspect of an arbitration from the arbitration agreement and consideration of the underlying laws and procedural rules, to the choice of arbitrator, to case management and presentation, and even through to enforcement of the ultimate award. In addition to efficiency

This Practice Note summarises the law relating to quorum requirements for a company’s general meeting or annual general meeting (AGM) and discusses the minimum quorum requirements under the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) and the Model Articles for private companies limited by shares and the Model Articles for public companies as set out in Schedule 1 and Schedule 3 of the Companies (Model Articles) Regulations 2008, SI 2008/3229. A general meeting (including an AGM) must satisfy the relevant quorum requirements (be quorate) for business to be validly transacted at the meeting. If the relevant quorum requirements are not satisfied (ie the meeting is inquorate), any business transacted will be void. In practice, quorum requirements are often set out in a company's articles of association. Where the articles contain no such provisions, then the relevant provisions of CA 2006 will apply. During the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, and the resulting restrictions on gatherings, many companies, in line with emergency legislation and governmental guidance, changed the way in which they planned for, and held, their general

ESG has become a key area for businesses globally. In a number of countries, reporting on ESG is now either mandatory or under active consideration. The effects of the climate change crisis, the global pandemic, heightened volatility in geopolitics and the energy crisis have revealed how significantly corporations can impact societies and the natural world. This Practice Note looks at the basics of ESG. It explains what it is and the challenges it poses for in-house lawyers, together with suggested areas to focus on to ensure you are able to address ESG issues for your organisation. What is ESG? At its most basic ESG is an umbrella term that describes a range of environmental, social and governance factors impacting: • the requirements organisations must meet • how they must operate, and • how they are measured ESG factors ESG factors are used to incorporate responsibility into business conduct. ‘E’ is for environmental. The E in ESG considers the impact on, and from, the natural environment and will take into account an organisation’s

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA 2020) was introduced as part of the government’s response to the economic impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Among other reforms, CIGA 2020 inserted new provisions into the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), that are intended to ensure the continuity of supplies to businesses which are in financial difficulties and struggling to pay the supplier, and to restrict the operation of certain contractual rights in contracts for the sale and supply of goods upon insolvency. CIGA 2020 has significant implications for the construction industry. The provisions likely to impact parties to construction contracts are the restrictions on a supplier’s right to terminate or to do ‘any other thing’ where the customer is insolvent, as provided by IA 1986, s 233B (which was introduced by CIGA 2020, s 14). In the construction context, the customer for the purposes of the CIGA 2020 provisions will be the employer under a main contract or a consultant’s appointment, or, in sub-contracts,

ARCHIVED: This Checklist has been archived and is not maintained. This Checklist was written with a view to examining some of the key areas of service level agreements and supplier performance that a customer should consider reviewing in light of the impact of coronavirus (COVID-19). It offers considerations for possible review and revision of policies, processes and contractual provisions in light of the pandemic. It may be of ongoing use to customers in case of The third column can be used to record observations or comments as the Checklist is worked through. The Checklist does not consider the handling of disputes arising as a result of performance issues. For more general information and resources in relation to coronavirus, including the implications for dispute resolution, see: • Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19) and TMT • Practice Note: Drafting for unforeseen events—commercial contracts • Coronavirus (COVID-19)—drafting TMT agreements—checklist [Archived] Checklist Further information Notes (if any) Review service provision ☐ Have any areas of weakness been exposed? For example, any failings in remote

This Agreement is made on [insert date] Parties 1 [insert name], a company incorporated in [England and Wales] whose registered number is [insert company number] and whose registered office is at [insert registered office] (‘Producer’); and 2 [insert name] of [insert address] (‘Lender’) for the services of [insert name] (‘Presenter’). The parties agree: 1 Definitions and interpretation 1.1 For the purposes of this Agreement, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: Event of Force Majeure • means Act of God, including but not limited to fire, flood, earthquake, windstorm, or other natural disaster; act of any sovereign, including but not limited to war, invasion, act of foreign enemies, hostilities (whether war be declared or not), civil war, rebellion revolution, insurrection, military or usurped power, or confiscation, nationalisation, requisition, destruction or damage to property by or under the order of any government or public or local authority, or by imposition of government law, judgment, order or decree, sanction, embargo, or similar action, blockade or labour dispute, including but not limited to strike lockout or boycott; epidemic or pandemic; interruption or failure of utility service,