Clinical Negligence Claims Agreement 2024 The Clinical Negligence Claims Agreement 2024 supersedes the COVID-19 Clinical Negligence Protocol (2020) (last updated in June 2021) which was initially created as an emergency measure to adapt clinical negligence claims handling and litigation processes during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The 2024 agreement builds on the previous Protocol with various practices now adopted into everyday claims management. The agreement is not contractually binding but places an emphasis on collaborative working between the parties. The agreement can be found here: Clinical Negligence Claims Agreement 2024. The claimant is required to request an extension in accordance with the provisions of this agreement in advance of the primary limitation period expiring. In respect of claims where NHSR is the indemnifying organisation and has not yet been notified of the claim, the written notification should be sent to nhsr.limitationnotification@nhs.net. Separate provisions apply, including in respect of limitation, for those not party to or able to benefit from the agreement. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Extending the limitation period in clinical negligence

Clinical Negligence Claims Agreement 2024: The Clinical Negligence Claims Agreement 2024 supersedes the COVID-19 Clinical Negligence Protocol (2020) (last updated in June 2021) which was initially created as an emergency measure to adapt clinical negligence claims handling and litigation processes during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The 2024 Agreement builds on the previous Protocol with various practices now adopted into everyday claims management. The Agreement is not contractually binding but places an emphasis on collaborative working between the parties. Introduction This Practice Note provides an overview of the claims procedure in clinical negligence cases following service of the initial statements of case. It is limited to claims allocated to the multi-track. General principles of personal injury law apply, but practitioners must also be aware of the specific considerations applicable to clinical negligence claims. Practitioners should be familiar with the Pre-Action Protocol for the Resolution of Clinical Disputes. See Practice Note: The Pre-Action Protocol for the Resolution of Clinical Disputes—6 April 2015 onwards. Clinical negligence litigation can be complex and lengthy. The court must actively

This Practice Note provides details of the annual employment tribunal (ET) and Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) statistics published by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ). It also includes links to quarterly ET statistics reports. Background The annual employment tribunal and EAT statistics are of interest to employment lawyers for assessing: • any discernible trends in employment litigation • the potential impact of the HMCTS Reform Employment Tribunal Project—see Practice Note: Employment tribunal case management—Employment tribunal reforms • the continuing impact, if any, or the legacy of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic • compensation that might be awarded to successful claimants in different case types, albeit with the need to take into account that: ◦ compensation is highly dependent on the facts and circumstances of each individual case, so compensation awarded in one case does not reflect what would necessarily be awarded in another ◦ the annual statistics do not take into account amounts of compensation agreed between parties in confidential settlements Historically, the MOJ has published: • employment tribunal and EAT statistics on a quarterly

This short guide sets out the matters to be considered, and the steps to be taken, to call and hold an effective hybrid general meeting of a company. A hybrid meeting is a shareholder meeting format offering simultaneous physical and remote electronic participation. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the holding of hybrid general meetings and annual general meetings (AGMs). This trend was initially driven by advances in remote communication technology and was then significantly furthered by necessity during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic due to restrictions on gatherings. Many companies now offer their members the ability to attend meetings via some form of remote communication technology. There is also interest in holding entirely virtual meetings (where shareholders can only attend and vote using an online platform) The Investment Association’s (IA) October 2026 guidance favours hybrid AGMs, while recognising that some members may support virtual-only meetings in limited circumstances, subject to a clear rationale and shareholder safeguards. Reasons for this include the perceived importance of members being able

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. EU and UK regulators have been monitoring the impact of coronavirus (COVID-19) on payment services and systems, with a view to ensuring that consumers can continue to make payments safely throughout the pandemic. The virus has spurred the growth of contactless payments while highlighting issues around access to cash. This Practice Note provides a summary of the impact of coronavirus on payment services and systems in the UK and EU. In the EU, on 25 March 2020, the European Banking Authority (EBA) issued a statement on payment issues in light of coronavirus. Among other things, the EBA called on payments services providers (PSPs) to contribute to measures that limit the spread of coronavirus. In the UK, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) says that it is in regular contact with the industry, the government and other regulators to understand the impact of coronavirus on the payments market. It expects firms to manage the risks to consumers and to provide support

ARCHIVED: This document is archived and is no longer maintained. This Practice Note discusses the implications of the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak for the debt capital markets (DCM) and includes practical tips for DCM lawyers. For regular updates of news and analysis on the outbreak relevant to DCM, see: Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—implications for Banking & Finance lawyers—Debt capital markets. Coronavirus (COVID-19) Lawyers across the world have been grappling with many common areas of concern in connection with the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. There are a number of areas that are particularly relevant to banking and finance lawyers. For more detail and analysis on these, see Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19) implications for Banking & Finance lawyers, which is updated regularly with news, practical guidance and analysis covering the impact of COVID-19 developments and covers subject areas such as force majeure in lending transactions and execution of documents as well as setting out the implications for different types of banking and finance lawyers. This Practice Note focuses on the implications for DCM and practical steps

This Checklist outlines the requirements for preparing for a general meeting (GM) or annual general meeting (AGM) of a company. It is suitable for use by both practitioners and company secretaries in relation to private and public limited companies, listed or unlisted companies. It covers calling a GM or AGM, including the members’ and court’s powers to call a meeting, notice requirements, practical preparatory steps and a company secretary’s checklist in relation to actions to take regarding the meeting. Holding hybrid GMs and AGMs Since the COVID-19 pandemic, many companies have made provision for remote participation at meetings, most obviously by amending their articles to accommodate remote attendance, counting in quorum and the ability to vote. For further information see Practice Note: Holding entirely virtual or hybrid general meetings and AGMs. Calling a general meeting A company GM (including an AGM) may be called by: • the company’s directors: ◦ of their own motion ◦ pursuant to a valid request of the members who hold at least 5% of the paid-up

Aggregation—background Aggregation remains a major source of dispute in the settlement of insurance and reinsurance claims. A series of judicial decisions on the common aggregation wordings in the late 1990s and early 2000s was followed by a quieter period. The last of the litigation arising from the 11 September 2001 attacks, coupled with a spate of solicitors’ and medical negligence claims, provided further insight into the modern approach to aggregation. More recently, the wealth of insurance/reinsurance litigation arising out of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic (mostly but not exclusively concerning business interruption cover) has provided fresh opportunities for the courts to review the relevant principles. What are aggregation clauses? An aggregation clause is a common feature of insurance and reinsurance contracts. It enables two or more separate losses covered by the policy to be treated as a single loss (aggregated) for the purposes of the excess or deductible or for the limit of liability. The test for whether losses fall to be aggregated is usually whether the losses are linked by a unifying factor

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 fees, advances and costs 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). References in this Practice Note to articles of and appendices to the ICC Arbitration Rules are to the 2017 ICC Rules unless otherwise indicated. 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 amended costs provisions effective from 1 January 2017, irrespective of the version of the ICC Rules that apply. The 2017 ICC Rules

This Practice Note examines the right to ‘disconnect’ (or to ‘switch off’) which, generally speaking, refers to the right of workers not to engage in work-related activities outside of their normal contracted working hours. Any right to disconnect varies between jurisdictions and, while it can cover any form of work-related task, it most commonly refers to workers receiving electronic communications (eg emails and telephone calls) outside of their normal working hours. The number of workers carrying out their duties flexibly and remotely has increased significantly in the last decade, particularly following the Covid pandemic which required many workers to shift to remote working for the first time. While this flexibility has benefited many workers, the blurring of the line between workplace and home has made it more difficult for them to properly ‘switch off’ from work. The Acas guide on health, safety and wellbeing when working from home specifically notes that staff can find it harder to switch off from work and work longer hours when

STOP PRESS: Abolition of non-dom regime and introduction of residence-based IHT regime Finance Act 2025 (FA 2025) which received Royal Assent on 20 March 2025, implements legislation to abolish the remittance basis of taxation and replace it with a residence-based regime, from 6 April 2025. FA 2025 also replaces domicile as the key factor in establishing liability to inheritance tax. Other changes include amendment of the rules determining excluded property status, the abolition of protected settlements status of offshore trusts, and changes to overseas workday relief. For information on these changes, see Practice Notes: The abolition of the remittance basis of taxation from 2025–26 and A new residence-based regime for IHT from 2025–26. See also: Finance Bill Tracking Service: Key dates (Finance Bill 2025) and Finance Act 2025. CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19): For guidance on the difficulties and practicalities of taking instructions during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, see Practice Notes: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—remote witnessing of Wills [ARCHIVED] and Coronavirus (COVID-19)—Wills [ARCHIVED]. Even though the instructions to draft a Will may appear to indicate that only

The Insolvency Act 1986, s A1 (IA 1986) provides for an process whereby directors of insolvent companies, or companies that are likely to become insolvent, can obtain a moratorium, initially for a 20 business day period (which can be extended in some circumstances). The process is supported by Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, r 1A.1. The moratorium is designed to allow viable businesses time to restructure or seek new investment free from creditor action. The legislative framework for the moratorium process was inserted into IA 1986 by provisions in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA 2020), which was enacted quickly, spurred on by the coronavirus pandemic. The moratorium is overseen by an insolvency practitioner acting as a ‘monitor’, although the directors will remain in charge of running the business on a day-to-day basis subject to certain constraints. This is sometimes known as a ‘debtor-in-possession’ process with the company being the ‘debtor’. The moratorium is free-standing, meaning it is not tied to any particular insolvency or restructuring process. This can be contrasted