Construction analysis: On 26 March 2026, the UK government opened a consultation on improving proportionality and building safety outcomes in building control through changes to the categorisation of higher-risk building works in England. The consultation closes on 28 May 2026. This News Analysis outlines the proposed changes and suggests possible issues and advantages that may ensue if the proposals are brought into law.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision in R v Waya, section 6(5) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) was amended so as to add the words: ‘Paragraph (b) applies only if, or to the extent that, it would not be disproportionate to require the defendant to pay the recoverable amount.’ This gave statutory footing to the principle that confiscation orders must be proportionate. The prosecutor has no obligation to institute confiscation proceedings but instead has a discretion to do so. If the prosecutor does not ask the court to proceed to confiscation, the court also retains a discretion whether or not to embark upon confiscation proceedings (providing all the other statutory conditions have been met). It is clear from the judgment in R v Andrewes that prosecutors, at least, should factor an assessment of proportionality into their decision on whether or not to ask the court to proceed to confiscation. See News Analysis: Ensuring proportionality in confiscation proceedings (R v Andrewes). There are no statutory

Family analysis: The High Court allowed in part a father's appeal against an order under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989), which had prevented both parents from making applications about their children under ChA 1989, s 8 without the court's leave for a period of three years. The court found that while the judge had been entitled to make a section 91(14) order given the harmful effects of prolonged litigation on the children, the three-year blanket restriction was disproportionate. The court found that the three-year restriction on applications for ‘lives with’ orders was proportionate, however, the restriction on ‘spend time with’ applications should be limited to 12 months (extended to 15 months due to appeal time), while restrictions on applications for other orders under ChA 1989, s 8 were discharged. The court noted that this had not been a case where the father had abused the court process through repeated applications or engaged in ‘lawfare’, and that the family had been let down by systemic failures in the management of the case. Poonam Bhari, barrister at 3PB Barristers, considers the decision.

Proportionality is a general principle of Union law according to which Union measures must not be more restrictive than what is necessary to achieve the Union objectives.

The general rule and proportionate costs orders—CPR provisions The general rule under CPR 44.2 is that the court will order the unsuccessful party to pay the successful party's costs. However, the court can depart from the general rule and therefore has the discretion to make a different costs order. For more information, see Practice Notes: Costs orders—the general rule and Costs orders—the court’s discretion. The court has the discretion to make a costs order for one party to pay a proportion of the other party's costs (referred to in this Practice Note as a proportionate costs order), which could result in the successful party being ordered to pay a proportion of the unsuccessful party’s costs which is therefore a departure from the general rule. The power of the court to make a proportionate costs order is set out in CPR 44.2(6)(a). When making such an order, the court is required to have regard to all the circumstances of the case, to include the conduct of all parties (CPR 44.2(4)(a)) and whether a party succeeded on part of its

This Practice Note provides examples of cases in which proportionate costs orders have been considered with the most recent judgment being listed first. Note, the cases below are for guidance purposes only because each case is fact-specific with the judge having a wide range of discretion as to costs. Judgment Issue Comment Kallakis v AIB Group [2020] EWHC 3867 (Comm) Percentage of proportionate costs order The judge had regard to the fact that the application had resulted in a substantial narrowing of the claims and was of the view that this should be reflected in the costs order. Taking that into account along with the time spent on witness evidence, the judge considered it appropriate to award the claimant a proportion of its costs, being 65% of its costs of the summary judgment application. Holyhead Marina Ltd v Farrer [2020] EWHC 1750 (Admlty) at para [88] Percentage of proportionate costs order The provisional view of the judge was that the claimant should get two-thirds of their costs as they had succeeded on two of

Construction analysis: In a claim for fire safety defects brought under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) refused to require the claimant to produce a comprehensive Scott schedule identifying every defect, its location, the associated remedial work and its cost. It considered that, although defendants must receive sufficient particulars to understand and answer the case, construction claims need not be pleaded to the ‘nth degree’. In this case, while certain allegations probably required further detail, the proportionate course was to seek that information through targeted requests under CPR Part 18.

Submitting a high-quality proposal document requires a combination of effective and efficient processes, committed capable people, careful attention to detail and tight adherence to what the request for proposal (RFP)/invitation to tender (ITT) is asking for. In addition, it has to be well written and presented. Every firm has a range of writing skill levels in their legal and BD teams but the best writers may not always be available. Consequently, it is important to have a checking procedure to ensure the quality of the proposal document is as high as possible. This Practice Note contains quality control questions for some of the most common problems and weaknesses in proposal documents along with suggestions on how to overcome these. For further assistance with checking all aspects of your proposal prior to submission, see Precedent: Tender document checks. Additional guidance around creating proposal documents is also available—see Practice Note: Creating a persuasive proposal document. Proposal quality control checks Have you answered all the questions properly? The most common reason for not winning a

Each member of the procurement project team should complete this form in respect of each proposal. Ensure that you refer back to the [ITT OR RFP] when marking and commenting on each Proposal. [Insert date] [Insert name of Tenderer here] 1 General presentation Category Comments/Observations Score Total Overall ITT impact [Insert any comments or observations, eg Impressive presentation of Proposal but lacks attention to detail] [Insert mark between 1 and 10 where 1 is poor and 10 is excellent] [Insert total mark] Quality of information [Insert any comments or observations, eg The Proposal includes a good level of information about the Tenderer’s structure. Needs more detail on how risks will be managed] [Insert mark between 1 and 10 where 1 is poor and 10 is excellent] [Insert total mark] Evidence of innovation [Insert any comments or observations, eg Good detail on added value services and good use of regional offices] [Insert mark between 1 and 10 where 1 is poor and 10 is excellent] [Insert total mark] Pricing/value for money [Insert any comments or observations, eg Good spread of capped and fixed fees. More detail needed on fee earners responsible] [Insert mark between 1 and 10 where 1 is poor

Each member of the procurement project team should complete this form in respect of each Tenderer’s proposal. Ensure that you refer back to the [ITT OR RFP] when scoring and commenting on each proposal. [Insert date] [Insert name of Tenderer] 1 General presentation Category Comments/Observations score Overall impact of Proposal [Insert any comments or observations, eg Impressive presentation of Proposal but lacks attention to detail] [Insert score: low, medium or high] Strategic and

IN THE MATTER OF [company name] (in administration) PURSUANT TO SECTION 1 OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT 1986 AND THE INSOLVENCY (ENGLAND AND WALES) RULES 2016 Summary Following heavy trading losses and the appointment by the High Court on [date] of [name] and [name] both of [name of firm], Chartered Accountants of [address] as joint administrators, [name] Ltd (the Company) needs to implement the refinancing proposals set out in the statement of proposals below failing which the administrators must report the position to the Court and a winding up order may be made. The Proposals include: 1 [A placing to raise £[number] (before expenses)]. 2 [A strengthened management team]. 3 [The closure and sale of the Company’s factory at [address]]. Creditors and shareholders are strongly urged to vote in favour of the proposals in the course of the qualifying decision making procedure which [nominees] of [address] are required as nominees to commence pursuant to the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016. [Name] and [name] Joint administrators [Name] Ltd Statement of proposals made by the administrators Definitions The following definitions apply throughout these proposals unless the context otherwise requires:

The application form required to be completed and signed by the applicant containing all the data required by the life company including any necessary health questions and declarations.