Introduction This Record retention schedule accompanies and is incorporated into [insert organisation’s name]’s Record management policy. It sets out the time periods that different types of (employment-related) business records must be retained for business and legal purposes. This is a relatively lengthy document listing the many types of employment-related records used by [insert organisation’s name] and the applicable retention periods for each record type. The retention periods are based on business needs and legal requirements. If you maintain any types of records that are not listed in this Schedule, and it is not clear from the existing record types in this Schedule what retention period should apply, please contact [the data protection officer OR [insert job title or department]] for guidance. Any deviation from the retention periods in this Schedule must be approved in advance by [insert, eg a company lawyer]. 1 Employment records 1.1 Personnel records Record Recommended retention period Storage format Reference Rejected job applicant records, including:• contact details • application letters or forms • CVs • references • certificates of good conduct • interview notes • assessment and psychological test results [Nine months after applicant is notified of rejection OR [Insert longer period if there is a clearly

Certain awards are subject to the right of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to recover, out of any monetary award obtained by the claimant, the costs of any jobseeker's allowance, income-related employment and support allowance, universal credit or income support the claimant has been paid prior to the conclusion of the tribunal proceedings. This Practice Note examines employment tribunal awards to which the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996, SI 1996/2349 (Recoupment Regs 1996), apply and the benefits liable to be recouped by the DWP. It also explains the machinery used by employment tribunals for recoupment of benefits and how awards subject to recoupment are calculated. Awards to which recoupment applies Monetary awards to which the Recoupment Regs 1996 apply include those made in proceedings in respect of claims for: • guarantee payments (see Practice Note: Guarantee payments) • unfair dismissal, including a compensatory award, an additional award and interim relief (see Practice Note: The unfair dismissal compensatory award) • protective awards (see Practice Note: Redundancy—protective awards), and • remuneration for a period of medical

Recoupment describes a party’s right to withhold or deduct money otherwise payable, in order to satisfy a cross‑claim arising from the same transaction or closely connected dealings. In practice, it allows a debtor to “net off” its claim against the creditor’s demand, reducing or extinguishing the sum due rather than paying in full and then suing separately.In UK and Irish legal practice, recoupment is often discussed alongside set‑off and counterclaim. Unlike set‑off, which may involve independent claims, recoupment is typically confined to defences linked to the same contract or transaction (for example, a buyer recouping damages for defective goods from the seller’s price claim).The concept is mainly developed through case law and contractual drafting rather than a single statutory definition, and it appears in a range of contexts including commercial contracts, construction, employment, tax and social security. Usage and underlying principles are broadly consistent across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, although terminology and procedural rules on asserting deductions may differ. Recoupment is practically significant because it affects litigation strategy, insolvency risk, drafting of payment and deduction clauses, and the assessment of recoverable sums in dispute resolution.

Pensions analysis: The Pensions Ombudsman has partially upheld a complaint about a return of pension paid by mistake. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.

The right to require a party to repurchase a receivable for a defined repurchase price.

Dispute Resolution: The High Court has refused an appeal by a charge-holder in long-running litigation with the result that the costs of sale and enforcement were not recoverable. The claimant had secured a number of final charging orders and orders for sale over the Defendant’s interest in two properties. The parties later entered into a pre-sale consent order in 2020 whereby a part-payment was made in relation to sums owed on both properties, and agreement was reached to remove all charges on one property. The court later held in April 2022 that the part-payment had the effect of discharging the charging orders in place. In July 2023, the Master discharged the final charging orders over the second property, staying orders for possession and sale and held that the claimant could not recover the costs of sale and enforcement. On appeal, the court declined to imply a term into the lower court’s order that the discharge was subject to payment of outstanding costs of sale which had not been otherwise provided for in previous orders or by agreement. Written by Pépin Aslett, barrister and head of the Business and Property Team, St John’s Buildings, Lucas Gregory, pupil barrister, St John’s Buildings.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In Hutson (Deceased) v Tata Steel UK Ltd (SCCO), Costs Judge Rowley considered whether the costs of obtaining a grant of probate (or letters of administration) could be recovered in litigation. Unlike Mosson v Spousal (London) Ltd, where probate costs were treated as irrecoverable damages (under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934), here the court was asked to consider whether costs of probate were recoverable as costs. Rowley J held that if probate was obtained solely for the purpose of litigation, then the reasonable costs of doing so were recoverable inter partes. Where probate was required for estate administration, however, only the nominal cost of obtaining a copy could be claimed. The decision also sets out a practical test for recoverability, lowering the evidential threshold: a simple confirmation by the personal representative would appear to suffice. This marks a notable shift in stance since Mosson, with significant implications for practitioners handling claims brought by estates. Written by Jim Hester, barrister at Parklane Plowden Chambers.

Planning appeals can be ‘recovered’ for decision by ministers. In a recovered appeal, instead of an inspector making the decision, they write a report making a recommendation on how the appeal should be determined. The inspector’s recommendation is then taken into account by the Secretary of State/Welsh Ministers when making the decision on the appeal, taking into account the inspector’s recommendation. Recovery should not be confused with ‘call-in’, where the original application decision is taken away from the local authority and made by ministers. See Practice Note: Call-in by the Secretary of State. When does recovery take place? Recovery can occur at any stage of the appeal up to the point at which the inspector issues their decision, even after the site visit, a hearing or an inquiry has taken place. What appeals can the Secretary of State/Welsh Ministers recover? The Secretary of State/Welsh Ministers have issued criteria for the type of appeals which they will consider recovering for their own determination. However, they retain a wide discretion in deciding when and whether to recover an appeal

This Practice Note summarises how defendants may be able to recover their defence costs if they are acquitted of an offence in criminal proceedings. It considers recovery of costs under a defendant’s costs order, including the limitations on recovery of defence legal costs from central funds and how amounts are determined for a defendant’s costs order under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (POA 1985). The Practice Note also sets out the power of a court to make defendants’ costs orders. Defendants' costs orders The procedure for making a defendant’s costs order (DCO) is governed by the provisions under the POA 1985. Payments for a DCO are made out of central funds. Practitioners should also refer to the Costs Practice Direction (Costs in Criminal Proceedings) 2015 which provides guidance on the principles and procedures for awarding costs to acquitted defendants in criminal proceedings. See Practice Note: Criminal Practice Directions. The jurisdiction to make a DCO is set out below. Magistrates' court A magistrates’ court may make a DCO where: • an information laid

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case centered on a dispute between Global Energy Horizons Corporation (GEHC) and their former solicitors, The Winros Partnership (formerly Rosenblatt Solicitors). The key issues were (1) where solicitors terminate a retainer by reason of the client’s repudiation, what is the correct route to recovery of their costs if the retainer was a conditional fee agreement (CFA) and no success has been achieved? (2) were charges (including a success fee) recoverable under a retrospective CFA? (3) was a deferment fee payable where there was also a sum payable in advance? It was held that the solicitors were entitled to sue for damages (to which GEHC had defences and counterclaim) rather than to claim fees; that GEHC were obliged to pay charges (but not a success fee) under a retrospective CFA; and that GEHC were not obliged to pay the unexplained postponement fee. Written by Anastasia Tropsha, associate at Hogan Lovells International LLP.

Dispute Resolution analysis: In the latest installment of this ongoing dispute between the Playboy Club Casino (the Casino) and Banca Nazional dei Lavoro (the Bank), regarding a credit reference provided by the Bank for one of the Casino's customers, the Casino applied for permission to amend its Particulars of Claim to include a claim for the costs it had incurred in its previous negligence claim. The Casino's claim in deceit against the Bank (the New Action) is now being pursued after it had brought a claim against the Bank for negligent misstatement (the Original Action). The Casino failed in the Original Action (the claim having ultimately been dismissed by the Supreme Court) but was granted permission to bring the New Action by the Court of Appeal in Playboy Club London Ltd v Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro SpA [2018] EWCA Civ 2025 in light of facts which became apparent in the hearing of the Original Action. In considering the Casino's application the court looked at whether there was a real prospect of success in the Casino claiming as a head of loss the costs of the previous related action between the same parties, albeit that the Casino had lost that claim. Written by Michael Rhode, senior associate at Trowers & Hamlins LLP.

Construction analysis: The Outer House of the Court of Session held that, under a Standard Building Contract with Quantities for use in Scotland, 2016 Edition (the Scottish SBC terms), the contractor’s entitlement to reimbursement of loss and expense caused by a Relevant Matter was conditional upon it giving notice of the Relevant Matter to the Architect/Contract Administrator.