Probative value is the degree to which evidence makes a fact in issue more or less likely. Evidence with high probative value materially assists the tribunal of fact; evidence with no such tendency lacks probative value. The term is a cross‑context evidential concept used in both civil and criminal practice, developed in case law and, in places, referenced in statute. Judges commonly weigh probative value against risks of unfair prejudice, misleading the jury, confusion, or undue consumption of time, affecting both admissibility and weight.In England and Wales, it features in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (for example, the hearsay “interests of justice” test in s.114(2)(a) and the bad character regime in ss.101–103) and informs exclusion under PACE 1984, s.78; in civil cases, courts assess weight under the Civil Evidence Act 1995. Northern Ireland applies equivalent principles (including PACE (NI) 1989, art.76 and parallel bad character/hearsay provisions). In Scotland, the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, s.275 requires that sexual history evidence have significant probative value outweighing prejudice; courts also assess it for hearsay and similar fact. In Ireland, courts balance probative value against unfair prejudice in areas such as similar‑fact, expert and sexual history evidence (see Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981, s.3), and when assessing fair‑trial compatibility. Note: in Scots private law, “probative” can also mean self‑proving documents.

TMT analysis: John Salmon, partner, and James Sharp, senior associate, of Hogan Lovells consider why vendor lock-in is a particular problem in contracts for AI systems. They discuss the position vendors are taking about customers owning the IP in customisation and using any separable work product or know-how with a different AI system. They also highlight the potential IP and competition law issues which may arise when assigning ownership or exclusivity when custom changes are made to an AI system and the technical feasibility challenges.

STOP PRESS: On 16 March 2026, Companies House issued a statement that on Friday 13 March, Companies House was made aware of a security issue which meant that a logged-in user of the WebFiling service could potentially access and change some elements of another company’s details without their consent after performing a specific set of actions. Companies House have stated that no existing filed documents, such as accounts or confirmation statements could have been altered. However, there is a risk that certain personal details could have been accessed and that unauthorised filings could have been made. While there is limited information available at present, this could potentially include, for example, a satisfaction of charge filing. Companies House has recommended that companies check their registered details and filing history. Lenders may want borrowers to confirm that this has been done and that everything is in order. For information on the position if there is a satisfaction of charge filing has been made erroneously, see Practice Note: Erroneous satisfaction

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court had to consider whether a failure to comply with the procedures set out in the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, SI 2016/1024 (IR 2016) for the issuing of a petition rendered the process null and void. There was further consideration of the inter-relationship between liability orders made for statutory deemed debts and the effect on the insolvency processes of potential disputes on that liability. In addition, the court had to consider the appropriateness of possible civil restraint order proceedings for unsuccessful applications. A salutary tale for those issuing petitions but also for those seeking to challenge proceedings on unpaid, deemed debts. Written by Graham McPhie, partner at Moon Beever LLP.

PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. [1] Having heard representatives for both the [ Claimant OR Claimants] and the [ Respondent OR Respondents] (the Parties) at the preliminary meeting held on [date], the Tribunal hereby orders that: 1 Applicable arbitration rules 1.1 This arbitration shall be governed by [insert applicable arbitration rules] in force as of [insert date]. 1.2 The Parties and Tribunal shall seek guidance from, but shall not be bound by, the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (the IBA Rules), subject to the Tribunal’s discretion to control the procedural conduct of the arbitration. 1.3 [[If appropriate, include a statement on the applicable law of the substantive dispute and/or the arbitration].] 2 Seat and language of the arbitration 2.1 The seat of arbitration is [insert place]. Meetings and hearings may take place at other locations if so decided by the Tribunal after consultation with the Parties. 2.2 The language of the arbitration is [insert language]. [If necessary, specify whether translation is needed and how it should be provided]. [ [[Insert timetable for applications already made]] ] 3 Procedural directions and timetable 3.1 The President of the Tribunal

This Practice Note considers the torts of: • misfeasance in public office • malicious prosecution of civil or criminal claims • the tort of abuse of process For guidance on the specific procedural process for striking out a strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP) claim, see Practice Note: Strike out—strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP) (CPR 3.4(2)(d)). For guidance on other torts, see Practice Notes: • The different torts—property, people and animals • Vicarious liability and multi-party torts For guidance on negligence claims, see Practice Note: Negligence—key elements to establish a negligence claim and related content. For practical guidance content on negligence, nuisance and breach of statutory duty claims, see: Tort and negligence claims—overview. For guidance on bringing and defending claims against professionals, see: Professional negligence claims—overview. Misfeasance in public office The tort of misfeasance in public office is generally invoked where a public officer has exercised (or failed to exercise) their power as a public officer in bad faith, knowing that the act in question would probably cause harm. The tort is potentially

Construction analysis: In Part 7 proceedings to enforce an adjudicator’s decision, the Technology and Construction Court (TCC), invited the parties to agree an appropriate order to stay the enforcement of that decision but held that it would be unfair and unsafe for the court to stage the related court proceedings in such a way as to defer the other party’s cross-claims, where this would put the other party in a worse position than if the insolvent party was solvent. The TCC also provided a summary of the principles to be taken into account in assessing the level of security for costs.

This Practice Note provides guidance on financial disclosure and the steps that may be taken where a party refuses to provide disclosure on a voluntary basis. It also deals with pre-application disclosure, including the protocol in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), by way of FPR 2010, PD 9A and post-application disclosure. It considers securing disclosure from a third-party, the caution to be exercised in relation to documents belonging to the other party or 'self-help' disclosure and best practice in accordance with Imerman v Tchenguiz. There is an ongoing duty of full and frank disclosure in financial proceedings. Such disclosure includes all material facts, documents and other information relevant to the issues in the case, together with any material changes after initial disclosure has been given. See also Practice Note: The duty of disclosure in financial proceedings. The issue of disclosure was considered by the Supreme Court in Sharland v Sharland and Gohil v Gohil, which said, inter alia, that: • a recital in a financial order that limits disclosure

Employment analysis: Where a claimant succeeds in a wrongful dismissal claim but, in the unfair dismissal claim brought in the same proceedings, the tribunal finds that the dismissal was not unfair, any breaches of the Acas Code on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, consisting of procedural failings by the employer in its investigatory and disciplinary process, remain relevant to any uplift (for an unreasonable failure to comply with the Code) to the wrongful dismissal award that is made. The breaches of the Code exist independently of whether or not the tribunal finds the dismissal was procedurally unfair, and so can still properly be taken into account when considering the uplift application. In addition, there is a distinct penal (and thus non-compensatory) element in uplift awards so that failing to make such an award because it would be a ‘windfall’ is an error, according to the EAT.

What is an error of procedure? Procedural errors may arise during the course of litigation. It is possible, in some cases, to remedy the error under CPR 3.10. CPR 3.10 gives the court power to make an order to remedy an ‘error of procedure’. A key issue therefore is what is meant by an error of procedure. The Court of Appeal in Steele v Mooney observed that errors of procedure may take many forms and are not confined to failures to comply with a rule or practice direction. In considering the phrase, the Court of Appeal held that there was 'no need to give the phrase “error of procedure” in CPR 3.10 an artificially restrictive meaning' because a narrow meaning would result in difficult questions of classification arising. This would, undesirably, lead, in turn, to uncertainty and sophisticated arguments as to how to characterise an error. A broad common sense approach is therefore to be applied. In Aquila WSA Aviation Opportunities II v Onur Air Tasimacilik, albeit in an obiter part

This Tracker provides examples of cases in which the courts have considered their power to rectify an ‘error of procedure’ under CPR 3.10 in relation to the service of documents. The illustrative cases cover both the claim form as well as other documents. In relation to the claim form, the authorities must be read with particular caution. The modern position is that CPR 3.10 will only rarely assist where the defect concerns service of the claim form, and it cannot be used to circumvent the specific code governing service, extensions of time, alternative service or dispensing with service. CPR 3.10 provides the court with a general power to rectify an ‘error of procedure’ by a party in the proceedings. When looking at whether CPR 3.10 can provide assistance, it is important to have an understanding as to what is meant by ‘error of procedure’. This is covered in Practice Note: Procedural errors and how to remedy them (CPR 3.10), specifically main section: What is an error of procedure? Claim form—CPR 3.10 applied In

This Practice Note sets out the general requirements of a fair procedure (fair process or system), in the context of an unfair dismissal claim, for the purpose of determining whether a dismissal is unfair. In looking at procedural unfairness it considers the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures (‘the Acas Code of Practice’), the meaning of disciplinary situations and grievances, whether the employer is fixed with knowledge of matters not known to the decision-taker, the circumstances in which procedural defects may be cured on appeal, and whether re-opening an already concluded disciplinary process can be procedurally fair. It also contains links to other Practice Notes that deal with the fairness of a dismissal for each of the statutory reasons. Even where an employer can establish that the reason for dismissal is potentially fair, the dismissal may be found to have been unfair where the employer has failed to follow a fair procedure. The Acas Code of Practice will also apply, except for redundancy dismissals and dismissals on expiry of a fixed-term contract. Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary