This Practice Note provides practical guidance on extending the timetable for public law children proceedings under the Public Law Outline (PLO) and the withdrawal of proceedings. It covers the statutory framework and procedure for extending the 26-week timetable, together with the principles governing applications by a local authority to withdraw proceedings. For further practical guidance on procedure in public law children proceedings, see Practice Notes: • Public law children procedure—Public Law Outline: overview and key principles • Public law children procedure—commencing proceedings under the Public Law Outline • Public law children procedure—case management under the Public Law Outline • Case management in public children proceedings • Public law fact-finding and split hearings, and • Online public law children proceedings See also Procedural Guide: Procedural guide—Public Law Outline. Extensions to the timetable The general approach of the courts to an extension to the standard 26–week timetable is as follows: The court is required to draw up a timetable for proceedings with a view to disposing of the application

The court may, in appropriate cases, dispense with service of care proceedings on the father. In Re X (Care: Notice of Proceedings), the mother was a young, unmarried Bangladeshi girl. The father of the child was unaware of the birth and the court determined that the effect of serving notice of the proceedings on the father would have been ‘catastrophic’ for the mother who would have been ostracised from her community. The court determined that the rules for service gave flexibility to dispense with service. It considered that this was not a decision concerning the upbringing of a child, and therefore the child’s future welfare was an important consideration but not the

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: HMRC sought the winding up of a company on grounds of public interest under section 85 of the Finance Act 2022 (FA 2022). The petition was listed for trial. The company had, after presentation of the petition, made a judicial review application challenging HMRC’s decision to present the petition. It then applied for a stay of the winding up proceedings. This was on the basis that it could not rely on public law defences at the trial of the petition, since those could only properly be dealt with by the Administrative Court. It was held that petitions under FA 2022, s 85 should be treated similarly to public interest petitions under section 124 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), and that there was no restriction on what defences the company could advance. Therefore, it was not appropriate to grant a stay. Written by Nora Wannagat, barrister at Tanfield Chambers.

A fact-finding hearing is the first of two parts of a ‘split hearing’. At the first stage, the court makes findings of fact on issues identified by the court and set out in the court order listing the fact finding hearing. This Practice Note is concerned with the public law context. As noted by MacDonald J in Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v NM: ‘...the decision whether or not to hold a fact-finding hearing is one of the most important case management decisions to be taken in the course of proceedings under Part IV of the Children Act and that the decision is not always a straightforward one.’ On 22 April 2014, the Public Law Outline (PLO) for care, supervision and other proceedings under Part IV of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) came into effect under the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010) as FPR 2010, PD 12A. See Practice Note: Public law children procedure—Public Law Outline: overview and key principles for practical guidance on the PLO and the provisions

Artificial intelligence (AI) and automated decision-making (ADM) increasingly support or replace human decision-makers in UK public administration. Examples include live facial‑recognition cameras used by police, automated calculations of social‑security benefits, predictive environmental models and algorithms recommending planning or licensing decisions. UK government guidance treats ADM broadly, covering both solely automated decisions and those assisting human judgment. Consequently, the legal principles described in this Note apply even when a human nominally makes the final decision but heavily relies on an AI‑generated score or recommendation. These systems promise efficiency but can have legal or similarly significant effects on individuals. The UK General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR), the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018), the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) and the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) set rules to ensure that automated decisions are lawful, fair and transparent. Public bodies are also bound by common‑law administrative duties, including the need for lawful authority, procedural fairness and rationality, and freedom of information law. This Practice Note summarises the law

All the standard forms of building contract make specific provision for the liabilities which are at the contractor or employer's risk and which party is to insure those risks. See, for example, Practice Notes: JCT contracts—insurance, NEC contracts—insurance, FIDIC contracts (pre-2017 editions)—insurance and FIDIC contracts 2017—insurance. However, if the building contract is oral, or if the written terms are silent, then the common law provisions will prevail. What are the contractor's potential liabilities? The contractor's liabilities are: • liability in tort to third parties for injury, death or damage to property caused by the contractor's negligence (see Practice Note: Negligence in construction), and • liability to the employer in respect of damage to the works caused by the contractor’s own negligence or for breach of contract (see: Contract law for construction lawyers—overview) The contractor is not liable to the employer if the works are damaged by any cause other than the contractor’s own negligence or breach of contract. For example, damage caused by fire, flood, theft, etc or damage that was an inevitable

Public liability insurance Public liability insurance is a form of liability insurance that indemnifies and protects a policyholder’s liability in respect of a claim for death of, injury to, or damage to the property of, a third party. Public liability insurance will usually cover risks arising from ownership/management of premises and also the acts of employees/agents. A public liability insurance policy will typically cover the cost of any legal fees (both the third party’s and defence costs), the cost of compensation claims, and the cost of repairing or replacing damaged property. Public liability insurance is often sold in conjunction with employer’s liability insurance, which provides cover in respect of a claim for injury suffered by employees, as opposed to third parties. Unlike employer’s liability insurance, there is no general legal requirement to carry public liability insurance, but it is good business practice, particularly for businesses which come into regular contact with members of the public, and it may also be required by local government or council contracts, some trading associations, and/or other organisations in connection with new and existing business

A private limited company under the Companies Act 2006 has the characteristics of a limited company and public company combined.

Public necessity describes situations where the state, public authorities or, occasionally, private individuals interfere with property or other rights to avert a grave and imminent danger to the community, such as fire, flood, epidemic or serious disorder. It commonly arises as a defence or justification in tort, delict, criminal law and emergency powers. In England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the concept is largely developed in case law rather than by a single statutory definition, and overlaps with powers under civil contingencies, public health, policing and planning legislation. Examples include destruction of property to stop the spread of fire or disease, or emergency entry onto land in the public interest. Similar principles are recognised in Ireland, informed by case law and constitutional considerations of the common good and proportionality. Key legal features include: (i) a genuine public, not merely private, danger; (ii) urgency; and (iii) a proportionate response reasonably believed necessary to address the threat. Public necessity may limit or exclude liability, affect compensation, and inform judicial review of emergency decision-making across the UK and Ireland.

Public nuisance refers to unlawful acts or omissions that endanger the life, health, property, comfort or convenience of the public, or of a class of the public, rather than a single individual. It commonly arises in relation to obstruction of highways, pollution, noisy or dangerous activities, or interference with public rights.In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, public nuisance is a common law offence and also a civil wrong, shaped largely by case law. It can be prosecuted by the state or form the basis of civil proceedings where a claimant suffers “special damage” over and above the general public. It also underpins statutory nuisance regimes in environmental and local government legislation.In Scotland, similar conduct is generally addressed through the common law crime of public indecency or breach of the peace, and through statutory environmental and antisocial behaviour provisions, rather than a freestanding tort of public nuisance.In Ireland, public nuisance similarly exists as a common law offence and civil wrong, supplemented by statutory nuisance provisions. Across all jurisdictions, it is a key tool for regulators and affected parties to restrain and remedy widespread interferences with public rights.

Public nuisance The common law offence of public nuisance was abolished by section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (PCSCA 2022) and replaced by the statutory offence of intentionally or recklessly causing serious harm to the public. However, the common law offence of public nuisance technically continues to apply to offences committed prior to PCSCA 2022, s 78 coming into force, or which began before the coming into force of PCSCA 2022, s 78 and continue after the coming into force of PCSCA 2022, s 78. It is however very unlikely that the common law offence will be used to prosecute an offence. See: Public nuisance under common law. Common law public nuisance remains a tort in civil law and PCSCA 2022, s 78(8) notes that the statutory offence does not affect liability under that tort. Statutory offence of intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance Although PCSCA 2022 does not, within its text, expressly refer to ‘public nuisance’, it nevertheless places the offence of public nuisance into statute. The sub-heading for the

In the context of the UK Prospectus Regulation, an offer of transferable securities to the public in the UK which will require the issuer to publish a prospectus unless there is an applicable exemption. For the full definition see Article 2(d) of the UK Prospectus Regulation.