TMT analysis: The High Court has found that articles published in The Times and on The MailOnline held the meaning that the claimant barrister, Barbara Hewson was guilty of repeated acts of harassment and online bullying. Applying the repetition rule, the court found the articles, which baldly repeated allegations about the claimant, carried no lesser meaning than the allegations themselves.

Injury caused by repetitive manual tasks.

This Practice Note is an introduction to the group of injuries which are caused or aggravated by forceful, repetitive and awkward movements with insufficient rest or recovery time. The disorders, which can be known by many collective terms, are commonly referred to as repetitive strain injuries (RSI), work-related upper limb disorders or musculoskeletal disorders. This Practice Note considers the best approach when preparing or defending a claim for these types of injuries. RSI usually refers to pain or injury arising from repetitive movements. Most commonly, the repeated movements cause chronic forearm pain or disability. The term has become synonymous with occupational arm pain. There are both specific diagnosable conditions within this category and non-specific pain and fatigue. The main specifically identifiable conditions are set out below. For guidance on the relevant statutory regulations and the key case law including the impact of section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERRA 2013), whether the claimant's symptoms are actionable and the leading case on limitation in such claims, see Practice

On 26 September 2024, the Home Office amended various guidance documents to reflect the withdrawal of the replacement Biometric Residence Permit (BRP) service on that day, as part of the ongoing move to fully digital immigration status from 1 January 2025. There was no separate announcement to this effect. Details of this development, and of the separate email sent to stakeholders on the same day, are below.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The claimants’ solicitors impermissibly interfered with their structural engineering expert’s preparation of a CPR 35.12(3) joint statement. This interference was conceded by the claimants who sought permission to appoint a replacement expert. The respondent resisted the grant of permission and submitted that any permission should be conditional on further extensive disclosure. Mr Simon Lofthouse KC, sitting as a judge of the High Court, granted permission for the claimants to appoint a replacement expert. Given the claimants had already waived privilege over a ‘significant’ amount of material, the judge declined to order further disclosure. In addition, the claimants were ordered to pay the respondent’s costs. This included costs thrown away, and 30% of the costs of considering the joint statement and expert report of the claimants’ new expert, both on an indemnity basis. Written by Christopher Humby, barrister at Nexus Chambers.

Replacement property describes an asset acquired to take the place of another asset that has been sold, compulsorily purchased, damaged or destroyed, often to preserve a party’s legal or tax position. Across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, the term is mainly a descriptive expression used in property, commercial and tax practice, rather than a standalone defined concept, though specific statutes and HMRC/Revenue guidance may define it for particular reliefs. In real estate and compulsory purchase, it commonly refers to land or buildings acquired to replace compulsorily acquired premises, relevant to disturbance compensation and reinstatement. In tax (for example, rollover or replacement of business assets reliefs), it denotes the new asset into which disposal proceeds are reinvested, with strict conditions on timing, use and ownership. In insurance and landlord and tenant contexts, it may refer to property acquired or works undertaken to reinstate damaged premises, affecting indemnity, reinstatement obligations and lease covenants. Usage and core concepts are broadly consistent across the UK and Ireland, but practitioners must check the precise statutory or contractual definition of “replacement property” in the specific regime or document being interpreted.

The tenant's remedy for recovery of his goods where the landlord has levied distress.

An optional statement of case in which a claimant may allege facts in response to the defence which were not included in the particulars of claim.

Claim No. [insert claim number] [IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [ [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY DIVISION OR KING’S BENCH DIVISION] ] [Insert court, list or sub-list and venue as appropriate] OR THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert location] [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY WORK] ] BETWEEN [insert name]        Claimant and [insert name]        Defendant _________________________________________ [DRAFT] REPLY _________________________________________

Case No. [insert claim number] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY DIVISION [INSERT COURT/LIST/SUB-LIST] BETWEEN: [insert full name of claimant]        Claimant and [insert full name of defendant]        Defendant ______________________________________________ REPLY ______________________________________________ REPLY 1 In this Reply, unless otherwise stated, references to paragraph numbers are to the paragraphs in the [Particulars of Claim OR Defence]. 2 Save insofar as the Defence of the Defendant (the Defence) comprises admissions of matters alleged in the Particulars of Claim, or as otherwise

Case No. [insert claim number] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY DIVISION [INSERT COURT/LIST/SUB-LIST] BETWEEN: [insert full name of claimant]        Claimant and [insert full name of defendant]        Defendant ___________________ REPLY ___________________ 1 In this Reply, unless otherwise stated, references to paragraph numbers are to the paragraphs in the Defence. 2 Save insofar

Claim No.: HQ [insert claim number] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE KING’S BENCH DIVISION ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST PARTIES: (1) [Insert full name of claimant/first claimant] (2) [[Insert full name of second claimant]]        [Claimant OR Claimants] and [Insert full name of defendant]        Defendant _____________________________________ REPLY _____________________________________ 1 The [Claimant joins OR Claimants join] issue with the Defendant on his Defence save for the admissions it contains and those averments therein which are expressly admitted below. Paragraph references are to the Defence. 2 The [Claimant denies OR Claimants deny OR that the words complained of in the meanings set out at paragraph 8.1 of the Defence are true. Without limitation to the generality of this denial as to the particulars of truth advanced to support those imputations, the [Claimant pleads OR Claimants plead] as follows: 2.1 [set out the claimant’s/claimants’ response to the Particulars of Truth set out by the defendant in his defence, admitting or denying as appropriate]. 3 It is denied that the words complained of were honest expressions of opinion as alleged at paragraph 9 of the Defence: 3.1 [The Article did not convey the opinion set out at paragraph 9 of the Defence and is