When a person is unable to make their own decisions regarding their welfare, money or property, a person can be appointed to make decisions on their behalf pursuant to a legal document called a Lasting Power of Attorney.

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: Further to the Government's response to the Ministry of Justice’s and Office of the Public Guardian (OPG)’s consultation Modernising Lasting Powers of Attorney, the Powers of Attorney Bill received Royal Assent on 18 September 2023, becoming the Powers of Attorney Act 2023 (PAA 2023). When it comes into force, PAA 2023 will introduce changes to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) to create a more modern lasting power of attorney (LPA) service. The changes will include:

The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 (LPCD(I)A 1998, or the Act) creates rights for businesses (and organisations in the public sector) to claim interest for late payment of commercial debts and recover reasonable debt recovery costs when each party is acting in the course of business. It also enables contractual terms that do not provide a substantial remedy for late payments to be challenged. The Commercial Payments Bill was introduced to Parliament in May 2026 and is likely to have a significant impact on contractual payment provisions, interest on late payments, invoice dispute mechanisms, increased reporting on payment practices and increased powers of the Small Business Commissioner. For more information, see Related initiatives below. This Practice Note covers the following: • Contracts, organisations and debts subject to the LPCD(I)A 1998 • Rights under the Act • Calculating the statutory interest • Express terms for late payment in place of statutory interest • Meaning of ‘grossly unfair’ • Challenges by representative bodies under the Act • Which version of the legislation applies? • Related

The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1999 creates a statutory entitlement to claim interest on overdue payments.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Paul Sankey, partner at Enable Law, examines the case of Holmes v West London Mental Health NHS Trust, in which the court awarded indemnity costs to a claimant where a defendant accepted a liability-only Part 36 offer late. The court disapproved of the manner in which the case had been defended, and a condition the defendant had sought to impose on its acceptance of the Part 36 offer.

Dispute Resolution analysis: In awarding indemnity costs for late acceptance (in July 2017) of a Part 36 offer made in 2014, Mann J made a number of general observations with regard to conduct in relation to settlement discussions and the consequences of a culpable failure to engage, while also sounding caution with regard to what without prejudice save as to costs material should be placed before him in the phone-hacking cases where he is the managing judge who will hear the trials of these cases.

This Practice Note should be considered in conjunction with Practice Notes: Amending a statement of case—introduction, Amending a statement of case—permission to amend, Amending a statement of case—costs recovery and Late amendments to statements of case—the court's approach. This table contains illustrative decisions regarding applications to amend statements of case under CPR 17 that are considered to be late or very late applications and the court’s approach to such applications. Examples of judicial approach to 'late' and 'very late' amendments Case details and analysis Issues considered Servicio de Salud del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social para el Bienestar v Viva Enterprises Ltd [2026] EWHC 2333 (Ch)14 September 2026 This was a ‘consequentials’ judgment following a trial judgment. The main issue raised by the defendants, and one which is likely to form the basis for an application to appeal to the Court of Appeal, the trial judge having refused permission, is that the judge had found for the claimant on the basis of an unpleaded claim. The way that it was put by the judge

This Practice Note considers when an application to amend a statement of case pursuant to CPR 17 will be considered to have been made late or very late, and the court's approach to dealing with such applications. It also considers how to respond to such an application. It should be read in conjunction with Practice Notes: Amending a statement of case—introduction, Amending a statement of case—permission to amend, Amending a statement of case—logistics of effecting an amendment, Amending a statement of case—costs recovery and Late amendments to statements of case—illustrative decisions. When is an application to amend a statement of case considered to be ‘late’? Lateness ‘is not an absolute but a relative concept’, and whether an application is late will depend on the particular facts of the case, including ‘the nature of the proposed amendment, the quality of the explanation for its timing, and a fair appreciation of its consequences in terms of work wasted and consequential work to be done’ (Hague Plant Ltd v Hague). ‘Late’ amendments may

Local Government analysis: The High Court upheld a liability order for non-payment of business rates based upon demand notices issued more than four years after the rates fell due. The appellant ratepayer Total Sprint Ltd challenged decisions of the District Judge to make the liability order on the basis that the demand notices served by rating authority demand were invalid having been sent some four years after the date of liability. The appellant alleged the late service was a breach of the duty to serve notices as soon as ‘reasonably practicable’ and where the Council had previously obtained liability orders against another former occupier ‘Sprint Courier’ for the same period, but that company had gone into liquidation. On a case stated appeal the High Court upheld both the summonses and the liability orders, dismissing claims by the appellant that the proceedings were an abuse of process. The Divisional Court ruled the reasoning of the District Judge was not to be impugned even with evidence of improper Council conduct. A plea of abuse of process could not be sustained. The requirements for the valid summonsing and making of a liability order had been satisfied with the public interest in collecting taxes outweighing defects in process. Written by Alan Murdie, LLB, barrister, Nucleus Legal Advice.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This case concerned an application by Kington Ltd to adduce expert evidence from a competition economist, in support of competition law arguments brought against a proposed plan to restructure Thames Water’s debts under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). The court rejected the application, holding that it was made too late, would be too disruptive to the procedural timetable, and that the opinions expressed in the proposed draft expert report were heavily qualified and so of limited assistance on the issues in dispute. The judgment provides guidance on the test to be applied when seeking permission to adduce expert evidence. It highlights the importance of ensuring that proposed expert evidence provides firm conclusions on the points in dispute between the parties, and that applications to admit it are made promptly, particularly in expedited proceedings. Written by Gavin Chesney, counsel at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has drawn a distinction between late applications to adduce factual evidence and late applications to rely upon expert evidence. While the former is an application for relief from sanctions, falling to be determined in accordance with the Denton principles, the latter is not and falls to be determined by reference to the overriding objective. Written by Phillip Patterson, barrister, Gatehouse Chambers.

Dispute Resolution analysis: A defendant has (despite considerable judicial hesitation) set aside a default judgment entered in respect of a claim under a guarantee. The facts of this application appear to press the boundaries both in terms of the substance of the proposed defences under CPR 13.3 and in terms of the promptness with which an application must be made. Written by Phillip Patterson, barrister at Hardwicke.