Company accounts on which the auditor has expressed reservations about whether they represent a true and fair view of the company’s financial condition.

See Article 25 of Retained Regulation (EU) 910/2014, the UK eIDAS Regulation. A qualified electronic signature issued in the UK shall have the equivalent legal effect of a handwritten signature and carry a presumption of authenticity. It is the most secure type of electronic signature. Qualified certificates for electronic signatures issued by a qualified TSP in the UK will not be recognised as a qualified certificate for the purposes of the EU eIDAS Regulation. Qualified certificates for electronic signatures issued by a qualified TSP in an EU Member State continue to be recognised as a qualified certificate for the purposes of the UK eIDAS Regulation (Article 24A of Retained Regulation (EU) 910/2014, the UK eIDAS Regulation). A qualified electronic signature is sometimes required by law.

In brief A public authority need not comply with a request for information made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FIA 2000) if: • the estimated cost would exceed an appropriate limit • the request is vexatious • the request is repeated, or • an exemption applies The FIA 2000 contains a number of exemptions which permit an authority to withhold the requested information. These exemptions fall broadly into the following two categories: • absolute exemptions • qualified exemptions, which are subject to a public interest test. When dealing with a request, even one where an exemption applies, an authority must still act according to the duty to provide advice and assistance so far as it would be reasonable to expect. And so, even when information is deemed exempt, an authority should not merely issue a refusal notice, but rather should also consider what further assistance to provide to the applicant. This Practice Note focuses on qualified exemptions. For further information on absolute exemptions see the Practice Note: Absolute

This Practice Note explores the key aspects of qualified investor schemes (QIS), a UK-authorised fund regime, including investment powers, eligible criteria, and potential tax implications. What is a QIS? A QIS is a UK-authorised fund introduced in 2004 to meet the fund management industry’s demand for an Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulated investment vehicle with a relatively light regulatory framework. It is designed primarily for professional, institutional and sophisticated investors, such as those in wealth management, and sits alongside the UK UCITS, non-UCITS retail schemes (NURS) and long-term asset fund (LTAF) regimes. For more information on UCITS, NURS and LTAFs, see Practice Notes: UK Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS)—essentials, Non-UCITS retail schemes (NURS) and The UK Long-Term Asset Fund (LTAF). A QIS may take the form of an authorised unit trust (AUT), an open-ended investment company (OEIC), or an authorised contractual scheme (ACS). For further information on AUTs, OEICs and ACSs, see Practice Notes: OEIC authorisation and winding-up, Authorised unit trusts (AUTs) and Taxation of authorised contractual schemes (ACSs)—overview. Since it is not a UK UCITS,

This Practice Note details the circumstances in which a qualified legal representative (QLR) may be appointed in family proceedings, registration and eligibility for appointment as a QLR and the procedure for a QLR to be appointed by the court. The duties and responsibilities of a QLR, when a QLR should attend court, the conduct of cross-examination, potential steps where no QLR is available and arrangements for payment are also set out. With effect from 21 July 2022, section 65 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (DAA 2021) inserted Part IVB of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (MFPA 1984) as to the prohibition of cross-examination in person in family proceedings (as defined). The provisions are subject to the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 3A, together with FPR 2010, PD 3AB (Prohibition of cross-examination in person in family proceedings under MFPA 1984, Pt IVB). MFPA 1984, ss 31W–31Y make provision for alternatives to cross-examination in person, including by the court appointing a QLR. Statutory guidance on the role of a QLR appointed

Qualified majority refers to the number of votes required for the Council of Minister to adopt a decision, unless the Treaty provides otherwise.

was introduced by the 2013 Jackson reforms to limit the circumstances in which costs orders can be enforced against claimants and provide for circumstances where such orders can be enforced with or without court permission.

NOTE: the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2023, SI 2023/105, amended CPR 44.14 so that defendants can enforce costs orders made against claimants up to the level of any damages or costs recovered by claimants. The amendments to qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) only apply to claims where proceedings are issued on or after 6 April 2023. What is QOCS? QOCS was introduced on 1 April 2013 as part of the Jackson costs reforms following the removal of a claimant’s right to recover additional liabilities from the defendant, ie success fees and after the event (ATE) insurance premiums. QOCS applies to claimants in personal injury and clinical negligence claims and the regime usually limits a losing claimant’s liability to pay costs. The relevant CPR provisions are CPR 44.13 to CPR 44.17 and CPR PD 44, para 12. The QOCS scheme does not prevent costs orders from being made in favour of defendants. However, it does limit the extent to which such orders can be enforced. Generally, cost orders made against a

This case tracker considers case law in relation to qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) in order to provide some guidance on how the courts are interpreting and applying the QOCS provisions in the CPR. NOTE: The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2023, SI 2023/105, introduce significant changes to the QOCS regime. Where court proceedings are issued on or after 6 April 2023, CPR 44.14 is amended to: • allow the court to order that the parties’ costs liabilities be set off against each other, and • include within CPR 44.14 deemed orders, agreements to pay damages or costs and claims concluded by way of acceptance of Part 36 offers and Tomlin Orders The above amendments reverse previous court decisions including Ho v Adelekun and Cartwright v Venduct Engineering Ltd which prevented defendants from recovering their costs in a number of common scenarios. Where court proceedings are issued on or after 6 April 2023, practitioners should be cautious when relying on case law which deals with the previous QOCS regime.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The Court of Appeal held that qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) applied to a case for misuse of private information where the primary remedy sought was damages for injury to mental health. As a personal injury claim, QOCS applied notwithstanding that at the time pre-action correspondence commenced, success fees and ATE premiums were fully recoverable against the defendant (and ATE premiums remained recoverable). It was further held that there was no abuse of process such as to trigger QOCS in any event, as the claimant’s pre-action conduct, whilst unreasonable, did not amount to more than mere negligence, Aktas v Adepta applied. Written by David Juckes, barrister at Hailsham Chambers.

A qualified witness is a person permitted by a court or tribunal to give evidence on the basis that they have the necessary competence, knowledge or expertise to assist in determining the issues in dispute. In practice this may refer to an expert witness, a professional (such as a doctor, surveyor or accountant) or any witness who meets the legal tests of competence and credibility to testify.Across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, the concept arises mainly through rules on witness competence and expert evidence (for example, the Civil Procedure Rules, Criminal Procedure Rules, court practice directions and equivalent provisions). A qualified witness must understand the duty to the court, give independent and unbiased evidence, and, in the case of experts, have relevant qualifications, experience and methodology.The term “qualified witness” is descriptive rather than a standalone statutory label, but courts routinely assess whether a proposed witness is sufficiently qualified before admitting their evidence or according it weight. Challenges to a qualified witness often concern the scope of their expertise, potential conflicts of interest, or reliability of their opinion or factual account.

This Practice Note is about the scope of qualifying expenditure for the purpose of the following two R&D relief schemes (which are subject to detailed commencement and transitional provisions): • the merged R&D expenditure credit (the merged RDEC) scheme applying for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 April 2024—see Practice Note: The merged R&D expenditure credit (post-1 April 2024), and • the enhanced relief for loss-making R&D-intensive SMEs (the ERIS) applying for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 April 2024—see Practice Note: Enhanced relief for R&D-intensive loss-making SMEs (post-1 April 2024); together these two schemes are referred to in this Practice Note as the post-1 April 2024 schemes It discusses the requirement that the expenditure must be revenue (and not capital) in nature, the specified categories of qualifying expenditure, the rules for contracted out R&D and the restrictions on relief for overseas expenditure. For information about the schemes of relief for R&D generally applying for accounting periods beginning before 1 April 2024, see Practice Notes: SME R&D relief—additional deduction (pre-1 April 2024),