This Practice Note examines the question and answer procedure in equality claims, ie discrimination claims, harassment claims, victimisation claims and equal pay claims. It covers the various Acas Guidance on asking and responding to questions of discrimination in the workplace, data protection considerations under Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679, UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), the admissibility of questions and answers, drawing inferences and the statutory mechanisms for requesting a written statement of reasons for less favourable treatment in relation to part-time workers and fixed-term employees. Impact of the removal of the statutory question and answer procedure Prior to 6 April 2014, section 138 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) provided a statutory mechanism (known as the discrimination questionnaire procedure) for an individual to seek information from a person they thought may have: • discriminated against, harassed or victimised that individual, or • failed, in relation to that individual's contractual terms, to abide by the equality of terms protections in EqA 2010 From 6 April 2014, EqA 2010, s 138 was repealed, except for the

Service out of the jurisdiction—the general position In many cases, the permission of the court may be required to serve insolvency proceedings out of the jurisdiction of England and Wales. For further reading, see Practice Note: Service of insolvency proceedings out of the jurisdiction. Applications seeking the court's permission to serve insolvency proceedings out of the jurisdiction are dealt with by Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, Sch 4, para 1(8), certain aspects of CPR 6 and the Practice Direction on Insolvency Proceedings (PDIP). When is permission to serve out of the jurisdiction required? The permission of the court will normally be required for documents in connection with insolvency proceedings (including applications, supporting evidence and orders) to be validly served on another party that is located out of the jurisdiction. IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, Sch 4, para 1(8) provides that CPR 6 applies to the service of documents out of the jurisdiction, with such modifications as the court may approve or direct. For further reading,

During the fixed term the LA can recover possession of the property by serving a notice of seeking possession and by proving a ground for possession. The grounds are the same as for obtaining possession of a secure tenancy. There are 18 grounds for possession and they fall into three categories: • Grounds 1-8 • Grounds 9-11 • Grounds 12-16 Grounds 1–8 These are discretionary grounds and the court must be satisfied that it is reasonable to make the possession order. Grounds 9–11 These are mandatory grounds and the court must be satisfied that suitable alternative accommodation is available for the tenant. Grounds 12–16 These are discretionary grounds and the court must be satisfied that it is reasonable to make the possession order and that suitable alternative accommodation is available. Ground 15A In Newport City Council v Charles, the son of a deceased tenant concealed the death for three years. The council could not obtain possession under Ground 16 and move the son to alternative accommodation because the time limit

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. During the fixed term the LA can recover possession of the property by serving a notice of seeking possession and by proving a ground for possession. The grounds are the same as for obtaining possession of a secure tenancy. There are 18 grounds for possession and they fall into three categories: • Grounds 1–8 • Grounds 9–11 • Grounds 12–16 Grounds 1–8 These are discretionary grounds and the court must be satisfied that it is reasonable to make the possession order. Grounds 9–11 These are mandatory grounds and the court must be satisfied that suitable alternative accommodation is available for the tenant. Grounds 12–16 These are discretionary grounds and the court must be satisfied that it is reasonable to make the possession order and that suitable alternative accommodation is available. Ground 15A In Newport City Council v Charles, the son of a deceased tenant concealed the death for three years. The council could not obtain possession

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note explains that under the Housing Act 1985 (HA 1985) a landlord seeking to obtain possession of a property let on a secure tenancy must obtain a court order, and that the method differs depending on whether the tenancy is fixed-term, periodic or flexible. It sets out the rules relating to the Notice of Seeking Possession that must be served on the tenant and the grounds for possession. For guidance in respect of how a secure tenancy arises, see Practice Note: The tenancy condition. Note that, as of 1 December 2022, tenancies and licences of dwellings in Wales are governed by the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 (RH(W)A 2016) (subject to certain exceptions). Secure tenancies may no longer be created and existing secure tenancies will convert automatically into occupation contracts. The terms of existing and new tenancies must be considered in the context of RH(W)A 2016 in order to establish whether or not they are occupation contracts for the

Obtaining services dishonestly It is an offence for a defendant to obtain, by any dishonest act, services for which payment is required, with intent to avoid payment for those services under the Fraud Act 2006 (FrA 2006). The elements of the offence are that the defendant: • obtains for themselves or another • services • dishonestly • knowing the services are made available on the basis that payment has been, or is being, or will be made for or in respect of them or that they might be, and • intends to avoid payment in full or in part The defendant must know that the services are made available on the basis that they are chargeable, or that they might be chargeable. Services which are offered for free would not be caught by this offence. The offence of obtaining services dishonestly may be committed in circumstances that otherwise could be charged as an offence contrary to FrA 2006, s 1 or may be more connected to the offence of making off without

Is there a Will? The first step will be for the deceased’s close family or otherwise the personal representatives (if not the same people) to search the deceased’s house and papers for either an original last Will, a copy or correspondence referring to the existence of a Will. This may be contained in electronic correspondence so a search of the deceased’s inbox and computer documents files is also sensible, where access is possible. It is estimated that over half of UK adults do not have a Will. If this remains the case at their death, then their estate is intestate. Even if there is a Will, if not all of the estate is validly disposed of, there may still be a partial intestacy. While obtaining a grant to the estate in an intestacy situation is not usually complex, the existence of a Will can simplify matters and confirms the entitlements of the deceased’s family and/or friends. Therefore practitioners should consider carefully if there may be a Will that has been mislaid. There are a number of practical courses

If the whereabouts of a respondent (debtor) are unknown, this can cause difficulties with enforcement. If no information of use is known and there is no forwarding address, it is possible to seek information from government departments. This Practice Note sets out when information from government departments may be obtained to ascertain the address of a debtor/respondent, the procedure for making an application, the relevant provisions of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, in particular FPR 2010, PD 6C and FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 18, and lists the information required by government departments. This Practice Note details the procedure in relation to applications issued on or after 6 April 2022—for the previous version of the Practice Direction applicable to applications issued by the court prior to 6 April 2022, see here. Application The court, on the application of an applicant, may request the disclosure by government departments of the address of the debtor who cannot be traced. The provisions are contained in FPR 2010. FPR 2010, PD 6C was substituted from 18

This Practice Note explains how third-party material can be identified and obtained. It covers the investigators duties under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA 1996) and the accompanying Code of Practice to pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry and the disclosure obligations of Crown servants. It explains how to obtain disclosure from a third party directly and how to apply for a witness summons for production of material under the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 (CrimPR 2025), SI 2025/909. The prosecution’s duty of disclosure in criminal proceedings is governed by the CPIA 1996, which provides a duty of primary, secondary and ongoing disclosure in respect of material which might ‘reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against the accused or of assisting the case for the accused’. There also exists a duty of disclosure under common law. For more information, see Practice Note: Obtaining disclosure of unused evidence. Third party material is material held by a person, organisation or government department other than the investigator

Process for making confiscation orders in joint enterprise cases There is a three-staged approach to calculating a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002): • the first stage is to ask whether a defendant has benefitted from the relevant criminal conduct • the second stage concerns the value, or quantification, of that benefit, and • the third stage is to consider what sum is recoverable from the defendant See Practice Note: Confiscation under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. This Practice Note explains the approach of the court in determining benefit in confiscation proceedings in joint enterprise cases. For detailed guidance on determining benefit generally, see Practice Notes: Confiscation step 1: Does the defendant have a criminal lifestyle?,Confiscation step 2: Has the defendant benefited from relevant criminal conduct? and Determining the recoverable amount under POCA 2002. The leading authority on joint enterprise cases is the Supreme Court’s judgment in R v Ahmad; R v Fields, discussed in News Analysis: Confiscation orders and joint benefit. Benefit

To obey a decree or order of a court.

IP analysis: The Court of Appeal has rejected two appeals (heard together) made by Teva and Sandoz (the ‘Appellants’) against the order of Mr Justice Meade at first instance dismissing their claim for revocation of EP(UK) 1 559 427 (the ‘Patent’) covering the use of Mirabegron for the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB), and SPC/GB13/035 and granting the patentee Astellas (the ‘Respondent’) relief for patent infringement. The Appellants submitted that the judge had not correctly applied the case law as set out in Conor Medsystems v Angiotech Pharmaceuticals and Pozzoli v BDMO, and Koninklijke Philips v Asustek Computer. The appeal was dismissed on the basis that there was no error of approach in the first instance decision and that there was no basis for the Court of Appeal to interfere with the judge’s ruling. Written by Geoff Hussey, partner & Fergus Brown, associate at AA Thornton IP LLP.