Since A-day, such refunds will only be automatically given to members who leave a scheme with fewer than three months' pensionable service.

This Practice Note does not cover refunds of contributions paid on the death of a member. For further information on these, see Practice Notes: Death benefits—final salary schemes and Death benefits—money purchase schemes. In this Practice Note, a reference to 'trustees' is also a reference to the manager of a registered pension scheme. In what circumstances can a refund of member contributions be made? A scheme may permit refunds of member contributions in any number of circumstances. For instance, if a defined benefit (DB) member has less than three months' pensionable service, then under current legislation, that member has no right to have their pension benefits preserved within a DB occupational pension scheme. It is usual for the scheme to offer that member a refund of their member contributions in such circumstances. For further information see Requirements for a short service refund lump sum, below Authorised member payments Significantly, there are only two circumstances where a refund of member contributions will be an authorised member payment: • where it qualifies as a short service refund lump sum—for further

The Insolvency Service is endeavouring to refund individuals who made payments towards a DRO but did not submit their application. Before April 2024, a fee of £90 was payable prior to making a DRO application. This fee was scrapped in April 2024, a measure implemented to improve access to debt relief. The Insolvency Service has written to over 5,000 individuals who are due a refund, with around 1,000 responding and £65,000 being reimbursed since March 2025. However, around 4,000 responses remain outstanding, potentially due to incorrect or outdated contact details, and refunds worth a total of £500,000 are still available for cases going back to 2016. Another letter is due to be sent out shortly. If an individual feels they are due a refund after making a payment but not submitting a DRO application, they should contact dro.preorder@insolvency.gov.uk.

Environment analysis: The High Court (King's Bench Division, Administrative Court) has refused an application for permission to apply for a judicial review of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (the ‘Defendant’)'s adoption of the Food Strategy for England on 13 June 2022. The application was renewed following its previous refusal by High Court judge, Sir Ross Cranston, in October 2022. Global Feedback Ltd (the ‘Claimant’) applied for permission based on three grounds relating to the Defendant’s failure to take account of advice and recommendations made in a review commissioned by the government regarding the greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts of methane emissions arising from meat production. The application failed on all grounds. Written by Alex Ibrahim (of counsel) and Megan Hancock (associate) of CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP.

Family analysis: The High Court in Confidential Prospective Adopters v BM and others refused a birth mother’s application for disclosure of the full Annex A report in advance of her application under section 47(5) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002) to oppose an adoption order. Ms Justice Harris held that, although disclosure may exceptionally be ordered, confidentiality under the statutory adoption framework and the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010) remained the starting point. Relevance alone was insufficient to justify disclosure; the court was required to balance competing Article 6 and Article 8 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, the welfare of the child, and the risks posed to placement security and anonymity. The decision provides important guidance confirming that confidentiality will generally prevail over transparency in contested adoption proceedings. Produced in partnership with Emily Lennon, barrister at 1 Hare Court.

Information Law analysis: This was a hearing of an appeal against the refusal of an application for an interim injunction to restrict NGN from publishing further photographs of the claimants, Mr and Mrs Stoute. That application was made during the early stages of the claimant’s claim for misuse of private information against NGN. The Court of Appeal considered whether the first instance judge had erred in the law or in principle in his analysis of whether Mr and Mrs Stoute were likely to succeed in establishing that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the publication of the photographs. The court upheld the first instance decision. The judgment sets out the current state of privacy law regarding whether a claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to photographs taken in public places. It also comments on the effect of prior publication in determining whether the risk of injustice favours the grant of an injunction. Written by Rebecca Toman, partner at Carter-Ruck and Caitlin Harris, trainee solicitor at Carter-Ruck.

Dispute Resolution analysis: In this case, the court examined the basis upon which it should exercise its discretion to join parties to proceedings under CPR 19. Unusually, permission was sought to join parties to enable them, potentially, to bring claims against third parties. The court observed that there was no existing authority in which parties had been joined to enable them to make contingent claims against other parties. It concluded that for a variety of reasons, it was not appropriate to permit the joinder of the additional parties. In considering the application, the court provided a helpful analysis of the breadth of the scope of CPR 19 and the basis upon which the court will address the important question of whether or not it is ‘desirable to add a new party’. Written by Harriet Campbell, professional support lawyer at Stephenson Harwood LLP.

Public Law analysis: The appellant, who had acquired legal recognition of their non-binary gender in California, challenged the UK’s Gender Recognition Panel’s decision that they were not permitted to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate recording their gender as non-binary. The Court of Appeal held that, correctly-interpreted, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 did not permit recognition of non-binary gender; nothing in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) compels the UK to recognise non-binary gender status, and Parliament had not done so, therefore, it was lawful to refuse to issue a non-binary gender recognition certificate. Written by Harini Iyengar, barrister at 11KBW.

Employment analysis: On 18 December 2019, the employment tribunal delivered its judgment in Forstater v CGD, concluding that the claimant’s views, as expressed on social media, including her refusal to accept that trans women are women, were not protected under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). Employment Judge Tayler found that the claimant’s views, in their absolutist nature, were incompatible with human dignity and the fundamental rights of others. It was a core component of her belief that she would refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violated their dignity and/or created a hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. That approach, said the judge, was not worthy of respect in a democratic society. Written by Jane Russell, barrister at Essex Court Chambers and counsel for the respondent.

Planning analysis: This case involved an application by a local community interest company (the claimant) to have a longstanding sports field listed as an asset of community value (ACV). After a refusal by the local authority (in a redetermination following a quashing order by consent in a previous set of proceedings), the claimant applied for judicial review. The claim was successful and court has quashed the refusal, meaning the local authority will need to redetermine the ACV application for a third time. The judge gave helpful guidance on how the Localism Act 2011 (LA 2011), in particular the statutory test set out in LA 2011, s 88(1)(b), should be interpreted in the context of ACV listing decisions. Written by Léa Lehouck, paralegal at Leigh Day Solicitors.

Where an employment tribunal decides to refuse a request to postpone or adjourn a hearing, that exercise of discretion may only be overturned on appeal if there is an error of legal principle in the tribunal's approach (which may involve failing to take account of a relevant matter or taking account of an irrelevant one) or perversity in the outcome (ie no reasonable tribunal could have concluded that it was fair in all the circumstances to refuse the request). Caselaw from the ordinary civil courts, that suggests that an appeal court should form its own view of whether the refusal has imperilled the fairness of the proceedings as a whole and, if so, overturn the decision, should not be followed in appeals from employment tribunals. Court of Appeal: Transport for London v O'Cathail.

There are a number of circumstances in which shares in a company may be transferred, the most common of which is on a sale of the shares. Other circumstances include a transfer of shares upon the granting or enforcement of security or by way of gift. It is also possible for a company to buy back its own shares or for its shares to be transmitted by operation of law (eg where the death or bankruptcy of a shareholder has occurred). This Practice Note focuses on the power of a company’s directors to refuse to register a transfer of certificated shares. Legal title to shares and equitable interests It is possible for one or more people to hold an equitable interest in shares, while the title to those shares (generally referred to as the legal title) is held by one or more others. If a transferee takes an equitable interest in shares before taking the legal title to those shares, this is sometimes characterised as a transfer of the equitable title/beneficial title to