The Insolvency Service has published the Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA) Protocol 2025, effective from 1 April 2025. The protocol introduces significant changes including removal of family homes from IVAs and an increased equity threshold from £5,000 to £10,000. The new protocol will run parallel with the 2021 version until 30 June 2025, after which it becomes mandatory for all new IVAs. Key changes include a mandatory 'Key facts' document for consumers, extended IVA durations based on home equity levels (60 or 72 months), enhanced Supervisor discretion for payment holidays, and a 28-day deadline for completion certificates. The protocol also introduces requirements for debt advice signposting upon IVA termination.

The Insolvency Service has published issue 170 of its Dear IP newsletter. The issue includes updates to the IP Complaints Gateway guidance, a consultation on proposed amendments to Statement of Insolvency Practice (SIP) 2, guidance on protecting employee and consumer creditor information when filing statements of affairs at Companies House, and confirmation that the UK Sanctions List is now the sole authoritative source for UK sanctions designations. It also provides guidance on the use of approved spreadsheet templates for submissions to the Insolvency Service, outlines proposals in the Government’s Corporate Civil Enforcement Reforms Consultation, and updates insolvency practitioners on procedures for dealing with businesses operating from Facility Security Clearance sites.

The Insolvency Service has published issue 171 of its Dear IP newsletter. The special edition announces amendments to the declaration completed by insolvency practitioners when submitting RP14 forms to the Redundancy Payments Service (RPS), requiring office holders to confirm that submitted amounts represent unpaid employee debts and that appropriate checks have been carried out to verify employment and entitlement. The issue also highlights the Insolvency (England and Wales) (Amendment) Rules 2026, SI 2026/56, which come into force on 22 June 2026 and make a number of minor and technical amendments to the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, SI 2016/1024, including changes relating to electronic communications, electronic filing, bankruptcy petitions, trustee release notices and fee estimate approvals.

Arbitration analysis: This case unfolds another chapter in the ongoing saga of the Yukos arbitrations. The English High Court recently tackled preliminary issues in the enforcement proceedings of arbitral awards against the Russian Federation (RF). In a first, the court considered the nuanced realm of issue estoppel against a foreign state arising from a foreign judgment (that of the Dutch Supreme Court dated 5 November 2022). In determining the RF’s jurisdiction application, the High Court held that the conditions for issue estoppel were met, which precluded the RF from re-arguing the question of validity of its submission to arbitration. The court therefore rejected the RF’s assertion of immunity under Section 1 of the State Immunity Act 1978 (SIA 1978). Written by Tomas Vail, principal at Vail Dispute Resolution.

Issue estoppel is a sub-species of the res judicata doctrine (see Practice Note: The doctrine of res judicata). In addition to the general key requirements for establishing a res judicata (see Practice Note: Key requirements to establish a res judicata), this Practice Note considers the specific requirements when seeking to establish an issue estoppel. For guidance on cause of action estoppel, see Practice Note: Cause of action estoppel. What is issue estoppel? Issue estoppel arises where a particular issue(s), forming a necessary ingredient in a cause of action, has been litigated and decided in a first action and, in subsequent proceedings between the same parties involving a different cause of action to which the same issue is relevant, one of the parties seeks to reopen that particular issue(s). The doctrine operates to prevent that issue being re-litigated in the subsequent proceedings. As per the Supreme Court in its 2026 decision in the SKAT litigation (Skatteforvaltningen v MCML (previously known as ED&F Man Capital Markets)):

Arbitration analysis: Mr Justice Butcher, in the Commercial Court, refused to set aside orders of Mr Justice Knowles recognising and enforcing an Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) arbitral award. In doing so, he considered the application of issue estoppel and abuse of process to the enforcement of arbitration awards and, in particular, the different weight to be given to decisions of the curial court compared with other enforcing courts. Written by Mubarak Waseem, barrister, Essex Court Chambers.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal held that interim invoices which had been submitted under a ‘discounted conditional fee agreement’ were not final or complete since they did not include the additional fees, success fees and uplift fees which depended upon the outcome of the litigation. The court determined that the invoices were requests for payments on account and, since they did not constitute statute bills, the time limits applicable for challenging bills under section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (SA 1974) did not apply. Written by Shilpa Shah, barrister at Ropewalk Chambers.

Planning analysis: The Planning Court held that the six-year limitation period for an action to be brought to recover any sum recoverable by virtue of an enactment contained in section 9(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 does not apply to the issue by a collecting authority of a CIL stop notice under regulation 90 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (‘the CIL Regulations’). The issuing of a CIL stop notice is an administrative action carried out by an authority in the exercise of its statutory powers, but is not an ‘action’ within the meaning of the Limitation Act 1980, which word was interpreted as bearing its ordinary legal meaning in the context of that legislation, namely a form of legal proceedings in a court of law. Consequently, although the authority was out of time to apply to the magistrates’ court for a liability order to enforce unpaid CIL, which was time barred under the CIL Regulations after six years from when the amount became due, the authority could still take enforcement action by way of issuing a stop notice in circumstances where the development to which the CIL related had not been completed. Written by Ruth Stockley KC, barrister at Kings Chambers.

A limited company having a share capital may issue redeemable shares. Redeemable shares are a statutory concept contained in the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), which includes detailed provisions relating to the terms, manner, financing and timing of their redemption. A redemption of shares by a limited company having a share capital will be void unless it is carried out in accordance with CA 2006, Pt 18 (CA 2006, ss 658–737), which sets out the statutory framework within which a limited company is permitted to acquire its own shares. In addition, if such a company purports to redeem shares without complying with CA 2006, Pt 18, an offence is committed by the company and every one of its officers in default. A person guilty of such an offence is liable: • on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both), or • on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both The

(a) references (however expressed) to an issue of shares in any company are to such of the shares in the company as are of the same class and issued on the same day, and (b) references (however expressed) to an issue of shares in any company to an individual are to such of the shares in the company as are of the same class and are issued to the individual in one capacity on the same day.

Employment analysis: The need to consider the issue of time limits in the context of applications to amend should not be applied in a rigid and inflexible way so as to create a mandatory rule that all out of time issues must be decided before permission to amend can be considered. Sometimes it may be necessary to hear a significant amount of evidence so it is not possible or sensible to deal with the issue of time limits at a preliminary hearing and decisions may need to be postponed until all the evidence has been heard. In such cases: (1) permission to amend can precede decisions as to whether any new claim raised by the amendment is out of time, or (2) a decision on whether to grant permission to amend can be postponed, according to the EAT.

These are drawings which are issued by the client prior to the relevant works being carried out—they are at the stage where the design can be relied upon for the purposes of construction. Generally, IFC drawings will have been reviewed and approved by relevant authorities and client team members ('approved for construction'). These may not reflect the final, as built product.