There are three recognised professional bodies (RPBs) namely the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW), the Insolvency Practitioners’ Association (IPA) and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. With effect from 1 June 2025, upon its request, the recognition of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland as a RPB was revoked. Although these RPBs are licensing bodies which monitor, discipline and regulate their members, the Insolvency Service supervises the regulatory process with a view to ensuring that high professional standards are maintained. This Practice Note discusses the process of applying for recognition as a RPB, their regulatory objectives, their oversight, the revocation of their recognition and the future of insolvency regulation. Recognition The Secretary of State may by order declare a body to be a RPB which is capable of providing its insolvency specialist members (being members who are permitted by or under the rules of the body to act as insolvency practitioners (IPs)) with (i) full authorisation or partial authorisation, alternatively (ii) partial authorisation only if: • it regulates the practice

The general rule—no compensation unless there is a recognised psychiatric illness It is common for accident victims to suffer considerable distress as a result of their accident or injury, particularly if the accident itself was very serious or if a fatality occurred. Generally speaking, such distress will not entitle them to bring a claim for psychiatric injury as a separate head of loss unless that injury amounts to a recognised psychiatric illness. As such, whether or not a claimant has suffered a recognised psychiatric injury is a particularly important issue. There are two benefits to resolving this question quickly: • firstly, it allows the claim to proceed on the correct basis and the claimant to be compensated in full, and • secondly, it means that the rehabilitation code can be used to help a claimant who will benefit medically from psychological or psychiatric intervention to receive it as soon as possible For further information on the Rehabilitation Code, see Practice Note: Rehabilitation Code 2015. The different factual situations where a claim for psychiatric injury

ARCHIVED: This Precedent has been archived and is not maintained. From 1 September 2021, candidates can only qualify via the training contract route if they satisfy the SRA’s transitional requirements. Otherwise, they must qualify via the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE), for information on which see Practice Note: The Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE). Recognised Training Contract dated [insert date] Parties 1 [Insert name of firm] [of [insert address] OR an LLP incorporated in [England and Wales] under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at [insert address]] (the 'Firm'); and 2 [Insert name of trainee solicitor] of [insert address] (‘you’). 1 Purpose of the contract 1.1 The purpose of this contract is to set out the principal duties and responsibilities of the Firm and of you in accordance with the SRA Standards and Regulations (the ‘Standards and Regulations’)[ and the guidance for law firms published by the SRA]. This contract also contains the particulars required for a written statement under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. 1.2 In the event of any conflict between this contract and any additional terms of employment, the terms of this contract take precedence.

Is the transfer of an amount representing the accrued rights in a registered pension scheme to another registered pension scheme or recognised overseas pension scheme.

You must remain alert to the red flags and warning signs of crime potentially taking place in our organisation. While you do not have to behave like a police officer, you must make the sort of enquiries that a reasonable person (with the same qualifications, knowledge and experience as you) would make.You are protecting our firm from being used to launder funds. You need a basic understanding of the situation and to ensure there are no unexplained red flags. You should document your decisions so you can defend your position if need be. This awareness tool identifies typical red flags and warning signs that may indicate that our firm is involved in or is itself being used to commit crime (eg money laundering, terrorist financing, proliferation financing, sanctions offences, bribery, corruption, property or mortgage fraud or organised crime). These factors do not automatically mean that crime is taking place, but you should be aware of them and pay particular attention to matters where a number of factors are present. These red flags

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In an important judgment concerning the liability of emergency responders, the court examined the general rule that a person is liable for their acts but not their omissions and gave further guidance on what ‘making matters worse’ means. The court recognised for the first time the interference principle as an example of the duty not to make matters worse. This is that a person may be liable where they know or ought to have known that they have put off another person from helping a person who they know or ought to have known needs help to avoid harm. The court held that the claim should be struck out because there was no realistic prospect of proving that the police should reasonably have foreseen that they had put off another would-be rescuer. The court also considered three exceptions to the general rule and held that none of them applied. Written by Ella Davis, barrister at Deka Chambers and junior counsel for the Respondent.

Financial Services analysis: On 29 November 2023 the High Court dismissed a claim for judicial review of a decision taken by the London Metal Exchange (‘LME’) to cancel nickel trades in response to unprecedented price surges in March 2022. The aggregate value of the cancelled trades was around $12bn. Elliott Associates and Jane Street (the ‘Claimants’), an investment fund and international trader, pursued judicial review proceedings against LME and the connected clearing house, LME Clear (the ‘Defendants’). The Claimants asserted that the decision to cancel all nickel trades entered into before suspension of trading was unlawful, and had caused them to incur losses of $456m and $15m respectively. The court dismissed the challenges on all grounds, and held that the decision to cancel trades had been made lawfully. The decision was made urgently, by a person with expert knowledge and with the intention of protecting the integrity of the market and its members. A further claim for breach of the Claimants’ Article 1 Protocol rights was also rejected. The claim provides important commentary upon the powers afforded to decision makers and the approach to when a market is ‘disorderly’. Written by Lucy Tolond, partner at DWF Law LLP and Ryan Marwood, solicitor at DWF Law LLP.

This Agreement is made on [insert date] Parties 1 [Name of employer], a company incorporated in England and Wales with registered number [insert company number] whose registered office is at [insert address] (Employer) and 2 [Name of union], of [insert address] (Union) together the Parties. 1 Commencement date 1.1 This Agreement commences on [insert commencement date]. 2 Scope and purpose of the Agreement 2.1 This Agreement covers [insert description of the workers or employees in the bargaining unit] (Employees). 2.2 This Agreement provides the Union recognition in respect of collective bargaining covering pay, hours and holidays only for the Employees. 3 Objectives 3.1 Industrial relations are a joint responsibility of the Parties and require the meaningful participation of all concerned. 3.2 The Parties have a common objective in using the process of negotiation, consultation and information-sharing to achieve results that are beneficial to the Employer and its Employees. 3.3 The Parties will act in a respectful, honest and trustworthy way with each other. 3.4 The Parties may exchange information of a confidential nature subject to their respective legal obligations. The Parties agree to respect the confidentiality of any such information provided and act in accordance with Clause 12 below. They

This Practice Note provides an introduction to some of the key issues for practitioners regarding the recognition and enforcement of international arbitration awards. Unless otherwise indicated, the word ‘enforcement’ is used in a broad sense to encompass recognition and enforcement. The distinction between recognition and enforcement is discussed below. Where relevant, this Practice Note should be read in conjunction with: • Practice Note: The New York Convention—the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards—an introduction • Practice Note: Enforcement of arbitral awards in England & Wales (note: England is used as shorthand for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in this Practice Note) • International arbitration—enforcing international arbitral awards—overview, which contains links to practical guidance content on the recognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards in many jurisdictions around the world • Practice Note: State immunity and arbitration—general considerations and State immunity and arbitration—overview, which contains links to practical guidance content on state immunity and arbitration in many jurisdictions around the world • our International Comparator tool, which can be used to obtain information about enforcement

This Practice Note considers the impact of the UK having left the EU upon the application of Regulation (EU) No 606/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters (the Protection Measures Regulation), which concerns measures designed to protect individuals from risks including domestic abuse. It explains the transitional provisions that may apply where a certificate was issued in accordance with the Protection Measures Regulation before IP completion day (11pm on 31 December 2020) and the position that applies to incoming and outgoing measures respectively in circumstances where transitional provisions do not apply. When considering the possibility of cross-border recognition and enforcement of a protection measure, the key distinctions are: • if an enforcement certificate was issued before IP completion day, the Protection Measures Regulation will continue to apply to both outgoing and incoming protection measures—this is largely of historical interest as the effects of recognition are limited to a period of 12 months from the issuing of

This Practice Note sets out the application of the Lugano Convention 2007 for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The convention applies as between EU Member States and Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. It sets out the general rules for recognition of a judgment and its enforcement. The Practice Note explains the difference between a declaration of enforceability and a registration order, together with their effect. Appealing a decision to enforce a judgment is also considered. For guidance on the application of the convention to the UK, see Practice Note: Lugano Convention 2007—application to the UK post IP completion day (enforcement). For guidance on the application of the convention to third states, see Practice Note: Lugano Convention 2007—application to third states [Archived]. In this Practice Note, references to decisions of the Court of Justice include decisions on equivalent provisions in Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, Brussels I and other parallel instruments where relevant to the interpretation of the Lugano Convention 2007. Terminology and background In this Practice Note the following terms are

Types of application The most common applications under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR 2006), SI 2006/1030 include: • recognition applications (art 15) • interim relief applications (art 19) • relief applications (art 21) • applications to commence English insolvency proceedings (art 11) • applications to participate in English insolvency proceedings (art 12) • applications for access to English courts (art 9) • applications to set aside antecedent transactions (art 23) The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) apply to all proceedings under the CBIR 2006, SI 2006/1030 and they are classed as multi-track proceedings (see CBIR 2006, SI 2006/1030, Sch 2, para 30). In the case of any conflict between the CPR and CBIR 2006, SI 2006/1030, the CBIR 2006 shall prevail (see Dalnyaya Step LLC (in liquidation); Cherkasov v Nogotkov (Official Receiver of Dalnyaya Step LLC (in liquidation)). Note that CPR PD 57AC does not apply to CBIR 2006, SI 2006/1030 applications, unless the court orders otherwise. The Insolvency (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019/146 amended various