Dispute Resolution analysis: The minutes of the Online Procedure Rule Committee (OPRC) meeting of 27 April 2026 (held via Microsoft Teams) cover a number of issues including approval of the draft Core Online Procedure Rules statutory instrument, agreed drafting changes to the draft rules, accessibility and non-digital routes, publishing technical standards, and further work on user understanding of online procedure.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The minutes of the Online Procedure Rule Committee (OPRC) meeting of 9 June 2025 (conducted in a hybrid format at The Rolls Building, Royal Courts of Justice, and via video conference) cover a number of issues including event planning, consultation documents, development of the pre-action model, and drafting of rules relating to property and possession.

The minutes of the Online Procedure Rule Committee (OPRC) meeting of 17 March 2025 (conducted in a hybrid format at The Rolls Building (Royal Courts of Justice) and via video conference) cover a number of issues including the statutory instrument giving the OPRC its rule making powers, the Property and Possession working group and updates on various workstreams.

ARCHIVED: this archived Practice Note is not maintained and is for background information purposes only. Further, some of the links may not direct you to the provisions as at the date the guidance in this Practice Note was published. For further information on previous and/or subsequent amendments to the CPR, see: CPR updates—overview

registration number: OC: [insert registration number] [insert name] LLP acting in its capacity as the general partner of [insert name of limited partnership] L.p. Minutes of a meeting of the members (the Meeting) of [insert name] LLP (the LLP) Held at [insert place of meeting] Held on [insert day, month and year of meeting] at [insert time of meeting] [am OR pm] Present: [insert name of member to be the chair] (Chair)[insert names of members who are physically present][[insert names of any members present by telephone as permitted by the limited liability partnership agreement] (by telephone)] [[insert names of any members present by other means permitted by the limited liability partnership agreement]

In Spooner v British Telecommunications, the High Court held that the promise of mirror-image benefits in a pension scheme were to apply not voluntary in reference to involuntary redundancies.

Wills made in similar terms, for example between husband and wife.

Introduction Prior to September 2008, numerous small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) entered into interest rate hedging products (IRHPs) to support borrowing with major financial institutions. In the wake of the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the ensuing financial crisis, they found themselves paying for either swaps which they did not need or paying far more than was originally envisaged to terminate the products. Typically, the purpose of IRHPs was to protect against fluctuations in interest rates. These can be broken down into: • swaps—which fix interest at an agreed rate • caps—which create a limit on any interest rate rises • collars—which limit interest rate movements within a specified range, and • structured collars—which limit interest rate movements within a specified range, but also involve arrangements where, if the reference interest rate falls below the bottom of the range, the interest rate payable by the customer may increase above the bottom of the range Banks commonly made the purchase of IRHPs a condition to lending

A miscarriage of justice is generally considered to be when an individual is tried, convicted and punished for a crime they did not commit.

The mischief rule is the oldest of the rules of interpretation. In the case of ambiguity in the wording of a statute, it becomes more difficult to use either the literal or golden rules. In that situation, it is open to the courts to apply the mischief rule. Formulated in 1584, this rule enables the court to look to the rationale of the legislation to interpret the ambiguity.

Financial Services analysis: Mishcon de Reya‘s Financial Services and White Collar Crime & Investigations teams, examines the latest developments in enforcement, analysing: the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) fines against Monzo Bank for anti-money laundering (AML) failures and Barclays Bank for financial crime control failings involving WealthTek and Stunt & Co; the Upper Tribunal judgments in the cases of Lopez Gonzalez, Sheth and Urra, Donaldson and Arden, and Jes Staley; and the FCA’s prohibition and £1m fine against H2O’s former deputy CEO, Jean-Noel Alba, for misleading the regulator. The edition also highlights the FCA’s prosecution of Daniel Pugh for a £1.3m Ponzi scheme, and its confiscation of nearly £300,000 from convicted fraudsters. Further analysis explores the FCA’s focus on non-financial misconduct and workplace relationships ahead of the 2026 COCON rule changes, alongside insights from the FCA’s latest Market Cleanliness Report revealing an increase in suspicious pre-takeover trading activity.

The term to describe an act of misconduct by the employee.