The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has fined the pizza company Papa John’s (GB) Ltd £10,000 for sending 168,022 nuisance marketing messages to its customers without valid consent, required by the law. This was after the ICO received 15 complaints from Papa John’s customers about the unwanted marketing, which was distributed by texts and emails. The ICO investigation concluded that Papa John was relying upon a ‘soft opt in’ exception as a form of marketing consent. However, the ICO ruled that this exemption could not be relied upon, as a privacy notice was not provided to the customers at any point, with an option to opt out.

A separate sheet containing text to be treated as inserted at a particular point in a draft deed.

ARCHIVED: This archived Checklist provides information on the form a paper bill of costs should take for a detailed assessment. It sets out the different aspects of the bill of costs, identifies the content that needs to be provided and also gives the relevant reference in CPR PD 47 as well as guidance notes. It deals with the bill of costs under CPR 47 and CPR PD 47 and paper Precedents A, B, C, D, E and F. Note that costs incurred from 6 April 2018 will need to be set out in an electronic bill of costs. It is not maintained and is for background information only. For further information, see Practice Note: Detailed assessment—bill of costs. Form Content Reference and notes Sections in the bill of costs You can use any of the following sections as appropriate:(1) title page(2) background information(3) items of costs under the heads in CPR PD 47, para 5.12(4) summary showing the total costs claims on each page of the bill(5) schedules of

NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in Papua New Guinea and throughout the world are met, see further: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Papua New Guinea merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Papua New Guinea? Papua New Guinea's (PNG) merger control regime was introduced by the Independent Consumer and Competition Commission Act 2002 (ICCC Act) which created the independent competition regulator, the Independent Consumer and Competition Commission (ICCC). With effect from 29 May 2019, amendments were made to the ICCC Act which introduced a new mandatory, pre-merger notification regime. Under this new regime, transactions need to be notified to the ICCC for clearance prior to closing when one of the alternative thresholds applies: • the value of the transaction exceeds PGK 50m (approx. €10m/US$11.6m), or • the transaction likely, or would likely, result in a market share increase of 50% or more Failure to notify the ICCC will result

The face value of a security at which it will be redeemed by the borrower at maturity

The value at which a bond is redeemed.

CPR PD 32, para 18.1(5) provides that the body of a witness statement should be in the first person and must state the process by which the witness statement has been prepared, such as face-to-face, over the telephone, and/or through an interpreter. This requirement is, as noted, reflected in the precedent generic witness statement. CPR 31.14 provides that a party can inspect documents referred to in the statement of case, a witness statement, witness summary or affidavit, see Practice Note: Disclosure—inspection in particular section Inspection of documents

Underlying concepts A general overview of the law relating to adverse possession can be found in the Practice Note: Adverse possession—overview. The trustees of a charitable land will hold the legal title to any land on trust to apply it for the charitable purposes that are generally set out in the trust’s governing document. In order to first gain status as a charity, a trust needs to have an exclusively charitable purpose. It is also important to bear in mind that the Charities

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has led to unprecedented social distancing measures and lockdowns being introduced. This in turn has had a significant impact on the ability of the courts, and court users, to carry out their normal functions. In order to deal with specific challenges relevant to insolvency proceedings, a new Temporary Insolvency Practice Direction was introduced on 6 April 2020. It expired on 1 October 2020 and has been replaced several times (all in the same form), the most recent version of which, the Temporary Insolvency Practice Direction Supporting the Insolvency Practice Direction (TIPD), has effect from 30 June 2021 and expires on 30 September 2021. For further details on the Practice Direction on Insolvency Proceedings which the TIPD supports, see Practice Note: The Temporary

Are High Court Enforcement Officers exempt from certification? The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCEA 2007) states that a person may act as enforcement agent only if they fulfil the following criteria: • if they are certified under TCEA 2007, s 64, or • they are exempt by reason of being: ◦ a constable ◦ an officer of Revenue and Customs ◦ a court officer or staff appointed under section 2(1) of the Courts Act 2003 (CoA 2003) and are acting in the course of their duty as an officer of a government department • they

Disclosure under the pre-action protocol In addition to paragraph 8.4 of the Pre-Action Protocol for Professional Negligence (the Protocol), paragraph 10 of the Protocol deals with documents in more detail. It states that the early exchange of relevant information is encouraged so that issues in dispute can be clarified or resolved. The claimant should provide ‘key documents’ with the letter of claim, as should the professional with the letter of response, and both parties should provide any other documents that are reasonably requested. Paragraph 10 of the Protocol also states that the Protocol should not be used to justify a fishing expedition by either party and that no party is obliged to disclose any document which a court could not order them to disclose under CPR 31.16. Parameters of disclosure Clearly, the document

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court considered the consequences of the filing of a notice by administrators under paragraph 84(1) of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) in circumstances where those same administrators were removed and replaced by court order before the notice was registered under IA 1986, Sch B1, para 84(4). The court held that, notwithstanding the removal and replacement of the administrators, the office of administrator and the administration of the company will come to an end when the notice is registered by the Registrar of Companies. The case illustrates the difficulty in taking action in respect of an administration under IA 1986, Sch B1 if the relevant action cannot be completed before an administrator files a notice under IA 1986, Sch B1, para 84(1) that the company has no property to permit a distribution to creditors, which upon registration will trigger the three-month countdown to dissolution. Written by Nathan Webb, barrister at Forum Chambers.