Family analysis: In A father v A mother, following factual findings that the father had been responsible for the fatal poisoning of the maternal grandfather and the non-fatal poisoning of the maternal grandmother and the respondent’s mother, the Family Court made consequential orders. In particular it ordered that the child should have no contact with his father until further order, that the father be prohibited from making further applications pursuant to section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) and that the mother be permitted to change the child's name and disclose information to the Bulgarian police. Although the court decided that the father should continue to have parental responsibility, it was directed that the mother should be entitled to take all decisions relating to the child on her own, save for permanent relocation to another country. An order was also made for the father to pay the mother’s costs. Poonam Bhari, barrister at 3PB Chambers, examines the case.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has concluded that contempt applications (whether civil or criminal) cannot be used in response to conduct which does not in itself amount to a breach of a prohibitory injunction, even where it can be alleged that the conduct breached the spirit of the injunction and/or amounted to an attempt to circumvent the restrictions imposed by the injunction. Written by Phillip Patterson, barrister, Gatehouse Chambers.

Dispute Resolution analysis: A claim by a Paddy Power betting customer to winnings paid out to him following a human error as to the sum which he was prepared to stake has failed. Written by Phillip Patterson, barrister, Gatehouse Chambers.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This analysis considers the recent High Court decision of Moorgate Capital v H.I.G. European Capital Partners LLP, which will be of interest not just to those in the corporate finance sector, but also to contract lawyers more generally. The court made clear that there is no automatic right to payment for services (even requested services) in the absence of a contract. A quantum meruit claim will not be automatically granted. If a party is found to have run the risk of not being paid, for the purposes of seeking its own advantage, then it is unlikely to succeed on a quantum meruit claim. Written by Angharad Parry, barrister at 20 Essex Street.

Mlex: Offline copies of audiovisual works provided by streaming platforms do not fall under the private copying exception of the EU's copyright law, the bloc's highest court said on 16 April 2026 following a Dutch case against HP, Dell and a Dutch foundation STOBI. The judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union would mean that device manufacturers would not be required to pay a levy to rightsholders for offering the service.

Private Client analysis: The defendants challenged a Will made by Thomas Goodwin (Tom/the 2017 Will). All but one of the defendants challenged the 2017 Will on the basis of absence of due execution, want of knowledge and approval, and undue influence. The remaining defendant gave notice to cross-examine under CPR 57.7(5). In the course of the trial, the defendants agreed to a consent order which accepted the claimant’s position. There followed a hearing to determine the costs consequences for the defendants. The court held that the defendants were liable for the claimant’s costs. Written by Adam Stewart-Wallace, barrister, at Ten Old Square.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note covers the situation at the end of the implementation period following the UK leaving the EU. During the implementation period that starts on exit day ie the day the UK leaves the EU, the provisions in the withdrawal agreement will apply. For guidance, on the implementation period and the impact of the withdrawal agreement on service, see Practice Note: Brexit implementation period—applicable law [Archived]. This Practice Note considers the effect of the UK leaving the EU without a deal on determining which law to apply when dealing with a dispute ie the applicable law (also known as governing law). The key UK regulation dealing with no deal Brexit and applicable law is The Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019/834 which amends two EU regulations dealing with applicable law so as to bring them within UK law. The two EU regulations are Regulation (EC) 593/2008, Rome I which applies when dealing

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note covers the situation where the UK and the EU do not reach an agreement for the enforcement of judgments following the UK leaving the EU. During the implementation period that starts on exit day ie the day the UK leaves the EU, the provisions in the withdrawal agreement will apply. For guidance, on the implementation period and the impact of the withdrawal agreement on enforcement, see Practice Note: Brexit implementation period—enforcement [Archived]. This Practice Note considers the effect of the UK leaving the EU without a deal when dealing with the enforcement of judgments for civil and commercial claims under the Brussels Convention, Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I, Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), the Lugano Convention 2007 and the EC-Denmark Agreement. This Practice Note considers the application of the changes made by the UK EU exit regulations and the EU guidance to the enforcement of UK judgments in EU Member States as well as contracting states of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA)

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Various jurisdictional rules determine whether a court has jurisdiction to hear a dispute. This Checklist considers the expected impact of Brexit on the application of these jurisdictional rules by various courts when seeking to establish the effect of a given jurisdiction agreement (also known as a choice of court agreement) after exit day. The rules considered are: • Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) • Lugano Convention 2007 • Brussels Convention • Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements • national laws This Checklist does not consider Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I as, given the passage of time, it is unlikely that this will be relevant for determining jurisdiction. It also does not cover specialist conventions that address issues of jurisdiction such as United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea (Hamburg rules). This Checklist considers the change (if any) on the application of these rules as a result of Brexit. This includes the impact of the saving

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note covers the situation where the UK and the EU do not reach an agreement on jurisdictional matters following the UK leaving the EU. During the implementation period that starts on exit day ie the day the UK leaves the EU, the provisions in the withdrawal agreement will apply. For guidance on the implementation period and the impact of the withdrawal agreement on jurisdiction, see Practice Note: Brexit implementation period—jurisdiction [Archived]. This Practice Note considers the effect of the UK leaving the EU without a deal when dealing with matters of jurisdiction in proceedings before EU Member State courts and in particular the implications for the application of the Brussels regime. The relevant document setting out the position of the EU in relation to jurisdiction is the EU notice to stakeholders titled: ‘Withdrawal of the United Kingdom and EU rules in the field of Civil Justice and Private International Law’ dated 18 January 2019,

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note covers the situation where the UK and the EU do not reach an agreement on jurisdictional matters following the UK leaving the EU. During the implementation period that starts on exit day ie the day the UK leaves the EU, the provisions in the withdrawal agreement will apply. For guidance on the implementation period and the impact of the withdrawal agreement on jurisdiction, see Practice Note: Brexit implementation period—jurisdiction [Archived]. This Practice Note considers the effect of the UK leaving the EU on exit day without a deal on jurisdictional matters in UK court proceedings involving EU Member States. Exit day is defined by section 20 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 as amended. This Practice Note focuses on which court has jurisdiction where one or more of the following key elements exists: • a defendant is domiciled in an EU Member State • there is a jurisdiction agreement (also known as a choice

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note has been produced in partnership with Guy Pendell, Liz Williams and Kushal Gandhi of CMS. This Practice Note covers the situation where the UK and the EU do not reach an agreement on jurisdictional matters following the UK leaving the EU. During the implementation period that starts on exit day ie the day the UK leaves the EU, the provisions in the withdrawal agreement will apply. For guidance on the implementation period and the impact of the withdrawal agreement on jurisdiction, see Practice Note: Brexit implementation period—jurisdiction [Archived]. This Practice Note considers the effect of the UK leaving the EU on exit day without a deal on jurisdictional matters in UK court proceedings involving those European Free Trade Association (EFTA) States that are signatories to the Lugano Convention 2007, ie Iceland, Norway and Switzerland—Liechtenstein, the fourth EFTA State, opted out of the convention. Exit day is defined by section 20 of the European Union