Corporate Crime analysis: Sending for trial: The Court of Appeal held that a legally represented defendant did not have to be physically present in court before magistrates could send them to the Crown Court for trial, pursuant to section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (CDA 1998). The procedure under CDA 1998, s 51 is not analogous to the plea before venue process under section 17A Magistrates Courts Act 1980 (MCA 1980), which requires a defendant's physical presence. Written by Dana Forbes, Advocate at Ampersand Advocates.

IP analysis: The IPEC has recently addressed some of the implications of the Court of Justice’s decision in Cofemel. In Response Clothing Ltd v The Edinburgh Woollen Mill Ltd [2020] EWHC 148, HHJ Hacon held that the defendant (EWM) had infringed the copyright owned by the claimant (Response) in a wave arrangement Jacquard fabric design (the wave design). The IPEC judge concluded that although this design did not fall within the definition of a ‘graphic work’ within section 4(1) (a) of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) it did constitute a ‘a work of artistic craftsmanship’ (under CDPA 1988, s 4(1)(c)). HHJ Hacon acknowledged that full compliance with the Court of Justice’s interpretation of Article 2 of EU Directive 2001/29 (the Information Society Directive) in Cofemel, would prevent the imposition of any aesthetic requirement for a work to qualify for copyright protection. However this was required by prior UK case law on what amounted to a work of artistic craftsmanship. Written by Bonita Trimmer, legal director at Browne Jacobson LLP and Jessica Johnson, trainee solicitor at Browne Jacobson LLP.

The tribunal has a mechanism, under the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (ET Rules 2024), SI 2024/1155, Rule 22, for dealing with the situation where a respondent either does not wish to contest a claim against it, or fails to put in a response to it that is valid under the rules. In such circumstances: • the tribunal must look to see whether judgment might be entered in the claim straight away, without the need for a contested hearing, and • the respondent will lose the ability as of right fully to participate in the remainder of proceedings The mechanism can also apply to a claimant that does not put in a timely reply to a respondent employer's contractual counterclaim (see Practice Note: Employer's contract claim (counterclaim) in the employment tribunal). When rule 22 procedure applies The tribunal procedure under the ET Rules 2024, SI 2024/1155, Rule 22 will apply to a respondent in relation to a claimant's claim against it in three sets of circumstances: • where, in its ET3 response,

Planning analysis: In NRS Saredon Aggregates Ltd v SoS, Mr Justice Eyre granted the claimant statutory review against the decision of an inspector to dismiss the claimant’s appeal against Worcestershire County Council’s (the Council’s) refusal of planning permission for a sand and gravel quarry. The claimant succeeded on the first ground that the inspector had erred in law as to the approach to be attached to biodiversity net gain. The case reiterates that the 10% biodiversity net gain requirement in section 98 and Schedule 14 to the Environment Act 2021 (EA 2021) does not have any retrospective effect, will only apply to new planning applications submitted after it comes into effect, and that reliance on the requirement before it comes into effect will be an error of law. Written by Christopher Moss, a barrister at 39 Essex Chambers.

Arbitration analysis: This case involved an appeal from the Singapore High Court decision in DMZ v DNA [2025] SGHC 31, in which the High Court dismissed an application to review the decision of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Registrar on the commencement date of an arbitration. The Singapore Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and set down the principles as to what ‘matters’ under Article 5 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Commercial Arbitration 1985 (Model Law) would warrant court intervention. In upholding the principle of minimal curial intervention, the Court of Appeal considered the procedural determinations of a decision-maker in an arbitral institution, which do not affect the progress or conduct of an arbitration, are not subject to court intervention. Written by Katie Chung, partner at Norton Rose Fulbright (Asia) LLP and Lukas Lim, counsel at Baker Botts (Singapore) LLP

Immigration analysis: Here for Good’s judicial review challenge of the imposition of a validity requirement for late EUSS applications has been unsuccessful. The High Court found a reasonableness test at validity stage did not breach the Withdrawal Agreement or the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Local Government analysis: The claimant’s mother applied for judicial review of the Council’s decision refusing her request to be accompanied by a solicitor at a meeting to review her son’s individual development plan (IDP) which made provision for his additional learning needs under the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018 (ALNET(W)A 2018). The Court of Appeal concluded that the Act required an authority to have regard to how to facilitate a child’s and their parent’s involvement in the review process but there was no statutory right to be accompanied by a solicitor at the review meeting. Written by Denis Edwards, barrister, Normanton Chambers.

Commercial analysis: The Court of Justice has ruled that a consumer’s right to cancel an off-premises contract under the Consumer Rights Directive (CRD) does not apply to contracts for bespoke goods, even if the trader has not yet started producing the goods.

Banking and Finance analysis: This news analysis looks at the decision in L1T FM Holdings Ltd, in which the Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court that Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR did not require full compensation to be made following a forced sale under the National Security and Investment Act 2021.

In Ainslie v Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (UK) Ltd, the High Court held that no agreement as to a tax free cash lump sum (equating to 25% of the value of part of the pension held as a protected rights fund) had been made, and that the terms of a settlement between the claimant and the defendant pensions company prevented an open market option with a third party.

Where an employer, intending to dismiss an employee, sends to her a clear and unambiguous notice of dismissal, accompanied by an offer of self-employment to commence on expiry of that notice, believing (wrongly) that she will accept the latter, (1) she is entitled simply to accept that notice and treat herself as dismissed, (2) the normal rule applies that the employer is not entitled unilaterally to retract or withdraw the notice, and (3) the so-called 'special circumstances' exception, under which some such notices have, in the past, not been allowed to take effect (eg where purported dismissal occurred in the heat of the moment), (a) is only relevant in cases where the true intention of the giver of the notice is not in tune with the words he used, which was not the case here because the employer did intend to dismiss, and (b) is not a true exception to that rule, but rather a category of cases in which the recipient of the notice (i) will be well advised to allow the giver a 'cooling off' period before acting upon it, and (ii) may choose to afford the giver of the notice the opportunity to satisfy the recipient that he never intended to give it in the first place, according to the Court of Appeal in CF Capital v Willoughby.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court refused an application for security for costs brought by three of six respondents to misfeasance proceedings in the liquidation of Triload Capital Ltd. The misfeasance application had been brought jointly by a company in liquidation and 40 individual applicants. Security for costs was sought against the company under CPR 25.13 on the grounds that it would be unable to pay the respondents’ costs if ordered, and against the company and individual applicants under CPR 3.1(5) on the basis of their failure to give full and frank disclosure in an application to serve the respondents out of the jurisdiction. The court dismissed both applications. On the application under CPR 25.13, the court found that a costs order in favour of the respondents could likely be met by the individual applicants. On the application under CPR 3.1(5), a failure of full and frank disclosure was found to be by itself insufficient to justify an order for security for costs. Written by Hossein Sharafi, barrister at 4 Stone Buildings.