This Practice Note sets out the procedure for making an ‘additional claim’ under CPR 20 and CPR PD 20 by way of a claim for a contribution, indemnity or some other remedy (which is not a counterclaim), who a contribution or indemnity claim can be brought against and when and how to apply for permission to bring an additional claim. It also considers making an additional claim following settlement, the title of proceedings for additional claims, responding to an additional claim and the impact of additional claims on case management. This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions—for further information, see: Court specific guidance. CPR 20 and CPR PD 20 set out the process whereby a party can bring an ‘additional claim’. An ‘additional claim’ includes a claim for contribution

Civil justice reform: see our Practice Note: Civil justice reform in Scotland—virtual hearings and electronic submission of documents for guidance on the current rules and practice in the Scottish civil courts in relation to virtual hearings and the electronic signing, transmission and lodging of documents. This Practice Note considers how to make and/or respond to a judicial tender where the action is between one pursuer and one defender in Scotland. For guidance on: • other aspects relating to judicial tenders in Scotland, see Practice Notes: Tenders in Scottish civil litigation—nature, purpose and expenses implications and Tenders in multi-party Scottish civil litigation and Scotland civil disputes: negotiating and drafting a settlement agreement—checklist • other extra-judicial settlement options in Scottish civil proceedings, see Practice Notes: Alternative dispute resolution in Scotland and Pursuers’ offers in Scottish civil proceedings • the closest equivalent in civil proceedings in England and Wales, see: Settlement and settling disputes—overview, which, as well as giving an overview of this topic, links through to more detailed guidance on various settlement

A performer has the right to prevent the making available of the performer's work.

Stage Questions Case study Create a sense of urgency How will the employees know there is a need for the change?How will they understand how important it is?How will they see the long-term and short-term benefits? Explain:—how much potential new business is being lost—the impact that is now having and is likely to have in the future—how the increased business will improve things for secretaries/fee earners—the possible consequences if changes aren’t made Form a powerful guiding coalition Who will be the leader?Who will publicly commit to making it happen?Who will ensure the resources are available?Who will be in the main group driving the change?Who will be responsible for making sure they work together as a team?Will the coalition be effective in all parts of the firm? JB (partner)

For a variety of reasons, a claimant or respondent may wish or need to: • make amendments to the contents of their ET1 claim form or ET3 response form or reply (to an employer’s counterclaim) after the initial lodging of the original version of the document with the tribunal, and/or • provide information additional to that already contained in the claim or response or reply (each commonly known as a ‘pleading’) so as to elaborate upon the pleading (sometimes referred to in litigation generally as providing 'further and better particulars') In the broadest of terms, when an employment tribunal is deciding whether or not to allow an application to amend a pleading, it should generally: • identify the amendment or amendments sought, which should be in writing, and • in express terms, balance the injustice and/or hardship of allowing or refusing the amendment or amendments, taking account of all the relevant factors, including, to the extent appropriate, those referred to in the case of Selkent (as described

Ways to change a DCO Development consent orders (DCOs) grant consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008). Once a DCO has been made, the DCO or underlying project can be changed by way of a: • correction order • non-material change order • material change order • new application Different procedures apply to applications for each type of change. The government has published guidance on the powers and procedures for making a change to a DCO. Separately, there is scope to make changes to an application for a DCO, after it has been accepted for examination but before it is determined. The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) has published separate advice notes on the process for managing changes at the pre-examination and examination stage. Changes to an application for a DCO before close of examination If the Examining Authority (EA) considers that the effect of the proposed change would be so substantial as to constitute a materially different project, the applicant will need to decide whether to: • withdraw the

This Practice Note considers the practicalities of appointing an arbitrator; in particular, what the arbitrator will need to be told in order to assess whether they can accept a nomination or appointment. Appointing an arbitrator The process for appointment of an arbitrator will depend on: • any provision made in the relevant arbitration agreement • any provision in the applicable arbitration rules/laws • any other agreement made by the parties It is always important to understand the relevant appointment process before contacting a potential arbitrator. If the arbitration agreement provides for a third party to make the appointment, including by incorporation of arbitration rules which specify that an institution will do this (for example the rules of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA)), then the parties will only be able to nominate an arbitrator or arbitrators to that third party for the appointment. The third party will then make the appointment subject to any objections, the applicable rules and its discretion. For guidance on appointing arbitrators generally, see Practice Notes:

Settlements Under section 18(1)(h) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005), the court has jurisdiction to approve ‘settlement of any of P’s property, whether for P’s benefit or for the benefit of others. As with the approval of statutory Wills, the approval of a settlement on behalf of P is a decision reserved specifically to the court and will never fall within the deputy's general authority to manage P's property and affairs; it will always require a separate application for specific authority. When considering such an application, the court must be satisfied that P’s financial position will not be compromised in any way as a consequence of making the settlement. The court will consider P’s income and capital needs and will allow a generous contingency margin before deciding whether the proposed settlement is in P’s best interests. The court may consider a settlement to be preferable in a number of circumstances: • where P is a beneficiary under an existing Will, but may not require an absolute interest

The making of patented product is an infringing act.

Overview of the current plan-making system As is set out in detail in Practice Note: Plan-making in England under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023—principles and key steps, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA 2023) amended Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (PCPA 2004) from 25 March 2026 to effect significant changes to the plan-making system. Accompanying secondary legislation, particularly the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2026 (Local Planning Regulations), SI 2026/186, which also came into force on 25 March 2026, imposes detailed procedural requirements governing the process. The plan-making system under PCPA 2004, including the changes introduced by LURA 2023, is referred to as the Current Plan-Making System, distinguishing it from the Legacy Plan-Making system (the system under PCPA 2004, excluding the changes introduced by LURA 2023). The Current Plan-Making System aims to ensure local planning authorities (LPAs) prepare and adopt local plans within 30 months and begin preparing a new plan at least every five years following adoption of

Local Government analysis: The court held that the local authority had acted irrationally by removing provision from Section F of a child’s EHC Plan without a proper evidential basis. Further it held that the local authority had failed to consult properly with the academy trust and to take notice to its objections to being named in Section I of the Plan. Finally it held that s 33 of the Children and Families Act 2014 did not give a parent an absolute right to a particular mainstream school for their child. Written by Hannah Lynch, barrister at St Pauls Chambers.

Property