Claim No. [insert claim number]. [IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [ [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY DIVISION OR KING’S BENCH DIVISION] [Insert court, list or sub-list and venue as appropriate] THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert location] [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY WORK before

Claim No. [insert claim number]. [IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [ [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY DIVISION OR KING’S BENCH DIVISION] [Insert court, list or sub-list and venue as appropriate] THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert location] [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY WORK before [The Honourable Mr Justice OR The Honourable

Claim No. [insert claim number]. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY DIVISION INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST IN [insert location] Judge [insert name] [Insert date] In the matter of [Insert name of company] And In the matter of the companies act 2006 Order Upon the application by Claim Form dated [insert date] of [insert company name] (the Company) And upon hearing Counsel for the Company And upon reading the Claim Form and the evidence It is ordered that: 1 The Company do convene [a meeting OR [insert number] meetings] of Creditors/Members (as defined in the restructuring plan proposed to be made between the Company and its creditors/members pursuant to Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006)) (the Restructuring Plan)[ as follows:] 1.1 [A meeting of Creditors/Members with [insert class of] Claims (as defined in the Restructuring Plan); and 1.2 A meeting of Creditors/Members with [insert class of ] Claims (as defined in the Restructuring Plan);] [(together the Meetings and each) [a Meeting OR the Meeting] ] to be held at [insert time] on [insert date] [at the offices of [insert location] OR virtually by telephone/webinar],

Court Reference No:[ INSERT COURT REF. NUMBER] [ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY DIVISION INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST, ROLLS BUILDING, LONDON IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY DIVISION INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST IN [INSERT LOCATION] Judge [insert name] [Insert date] In the matter of [Insert name of company] And In the matter of the companies act 2006 Order Upon the application by Claim Form dated [insert date] of [insert company name] (the Company) And upon hearing Counsel for the Company And upon reading the Claim Form and the evidence It is ordered that: 1 The Company do convene [a meeting OR [insert number] meetings] of Scheme Creditors (as defined in the scheme of arrangement proposed to be made between the Company and its Scheme Creditors pursuant to Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006 (the Scheme)[, as follows:] 1.1 [A meeting of Scheme Creditors with [insert class of] Claims (as defined in the Scheme); and 1.2 A meeting of Scheme Creditors with [insert class of ] Claims (as defined in the Scheme);] [(together the Meetings and each) [a Meeting OR the Meeting ] ]

Family analysis: Mrs Justice Arbuthnot held (on appeal from Her Honour Judge Williscroft sitting at Derby Family Court) that it is possible to use section 11(7) of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) to order a parent to contribute to the costs of contact. However, the judge went on to consider whether such an order should be made against a resident parent who has been found to be a victim of domestic abuse. The mother’s appeal was allowed and the order requiring her to contribute to contact costs was set aside. Arbuthnot J said it would be exceptional to require a proven victim of abuse to pay towards their abuser’s contact and gave specific guidance setting out the relevant factors to be considered. Jennifer Perrins, barrister at 1 King’s Bench Walk, reviews the case.

This Practice Note provides a summary of the orders that a court can make ancillary to an occupation order made under Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996) including for the discharge of rent or mortgage payments or other outgoings or in relation to the repair or maintenance of the house. It details the criteria that the court must have regard to when making an order. Where the court has made an occupation order under FLA 1996, ss 33, 35 or 36, it also has the power, either when the order is made or at any time thereafter, to impose additional obligations on either party. Additional orders can not be attached to an occupation order under FLA 1996, s 37 or 38. Ancillary orders Ancillary to an occupation order the court can: • impose on either party obligations as to: ◦ the repair and maintenance to the dwelling house, or ◦ the discharge of rent, mortgage payments or other outgoings affecting the dwelling house

Dispute Resolution analysis: The court held that a defendant that did not consent to a settlement of a claimant’s damages claim by a co-defendant and that did not pay any damages to the claimant was nevertheless still liable to pay the claimant’s costs of pursuing it. The court retained a wide discretion in making a costs order and in the absence of a determination of which party had been successful, was entitled to take into account evidence and the material before it in ordering a non-contributing defendant to pay the claimant’s costs. The parties had consented to the court adopting a summary process that was necessarily broad-brush and just because a different judge may have decided the issue differently it did not mean that this judge was wrong. Written by Jon Lord, associate, at Weightmans LLP.

This Practice Note discusses, with reference in particular to the Court of Appeal judgment in Jafri, the ways in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) can dispose of an appeal: it can dismiss the appeal, allow it and remit it (either to the same or a fresh employment tribunal), or allow it and substitute a different decision. It explains that at the remitted hearing the employment tribunal can only deal with the issues remitted to it (plus any relating to the tribunal’s jurisdiction), and that remission renders the first tribunal’s decision on those issues null and void. The EAT can dispose of an appeal by ordering that: • the appeal be dismissed • the appeal be allowed and the case remitted, either to the same employment tribunal or a fresh tribunal • the appeal be allowed and a different decision substituted by the EAT Failure by employment tribunal to make necessary findings Where an employment tribunal's judgment fails to deal with an issue at all or in part, and/or has failed to give any

This Practice Note details the requirements for an application for an order to obtain information from a judgment debtor, formerly known as an 'oral examination', including the criteria for such an order, procedure, hearing provisions and action that can be taken if the debtor fails to comply. Such an order is an aid to enforcement rather than an enforcement method. A problem for practitioners considering enforcement action can be a lack of information about the extent of a respondent's (debtor's) assets or income. One option is to apply for an order that the debtor be 'orally examined' about their income, assets and liabilities. The old terminology of ‘oral examination’ was replaced by applications for orders to obtain information from judgment debtors ('information hearings'), since the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 33.23 imported the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), SI 1998/3132, Pt 71 into family proceedings (with modifications). Note that an information hearing is only an aid to enforcement, as opposed to a method of enforcement. It may result in costs savings

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal held that it does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against an order, made under CPR 52.4(3), that the person seeking permission to appeal may not request that the decision in the permission application be reconsidered at an oral hearing. A judge may make such an order where he has refused permission to appeal without an oral hearing and considers that the application is totally without merit. The Court of Appeal held that an order under CPR 52.4(3) is an integral part of the order refusing permission to appeal, and therefore section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 (AJA 1999), (which bars any appeal from the grant or refusal of permission to appeal) bars any appeal against it to the Court of Appeal. Written by Kristina Lukacova, barrister at Monckton Chambers.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: In the trial of a bankruptcy petition presented against HRH Prince Hussam Bin Saud Bin Abdulaziz Al worth c.$1.2bn, the court held that that it did not have jurisdiction to make a bankruptcy order as (having regard to Prince Hussam’s ‘pattern of life’)the court was not satisfied that he had a place of residence in England and Wales for the purposes of section 265(2)(b)(i) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). Written by Hugh Rowan, barrister at Tanfield Chambers.

Civil justice reform: see 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. In particular, the Act of Sederunt (Electronic Signature and Electronic Transmission of Documents) 2025, SSI 2025/302 came into force on 1 December 2025, making permanent the rules on electronic signatures and electronic transmission/lodging of documents which were introduced during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. This Practice Note offers practical and procedural guidance on ordinary actions proceeding in the Court of Session. For information on: • substantive and procedural matters that should be considered before commencing a civil action in the Scottish courts, including the jurisdiction of the Court of Session, see Practice Note: Starting a civil claim in Scotland • the role of the Court of Session, how it is constituted and the binding nature of its judgments, see Practice Note: Civil court structure