ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is for use when applying for evidence to be taken in the courts of England and Wales for use in an EU Member State where the transitional provisions for taking of evidence set out Article 68(b) of the Withdrawal Agreement have been met prior to IP completion day (31 December 2020). For guidance on the transitional provisions to determine whether they have been met, see Practice Note: Brexit post implementation period—considerations for dispute resolution practitioners including, in particular, main section: Taking of evidence. Where the transitional provisions apply, the rules and practice direction in force immediately before implementation day (ie 30 December 2020 at 11 pm) will continue to be applied. In this Practice Note these are referred to as old Part 34 and old practice direction 34A. For guidance, see Practice Note: Brexit post implementation period—CPR changes [Archived], in particular, main section: Part 34—Witnesses, depositions and evidence for foreign courts. Copies of the old rule and practice direction are available

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note explains the key changes made to the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020, SI 2020/759 (CrimPR) by the Criminal Procedure (Amendment No 2) Rules 2021, SI 2021/849. The CrimPR govern the practice and procedure to be followed in all criminal courts in England and Wales. These amendments include changes to the procedures which apply in the following areas: case management in the magistrates’ court, indications of sentence in the magistrates’ court, case information held by the court and disclosed to lawyers and members of the public, sending of cases to the Crown Court in the defendant’s absence, service of applications to vary restraining orders, time limit for appealing against conviction to the Crown Court, witness and expert evidence and applications for search warrants. These amendments took effect on 4 October 2021. For further analysis, see News Analysis: Changes to the CrimPR this autumn—Criminal Procedure (Amendment No 2) Rules 2021. Indication of sentence in the magistrates’ court Following the Court of Appeal

This edition of Employment weekly highlights includes: (1) a report from the High Pay Centre analysing the pay of FTSE 100 executives in 2023, (2) an EAT judgment upholding an employment tribunal’s rejection of dismissal claims despite a previous tribunal finding that there had been failures to make reasonable adjustments in an earlier period, (3) the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report to the UN Committee on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, (4) the US Department of Justice’s Criminal Division Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, (5) an award of £115,000 to a Personal Assistant who was asked to unnecessarily go against coronavirus (COVID-19) restrictions by working from her employers’ homes, (6) an EAT decision about the irrelevance of an employee’s failure to appeal the outcome of their grievance when deciding whether or not the employer was in repudiatory breach of contract, (7) analysis of an EAT judgment on the need for an adjournment when there were real concerns about the capacity of a witness to give evidence, (8) publication by the European Commission of FAQs about the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, (9) details of a review to be carried out by the Migration Advisory Committee on information technology and telecommunications professionals and engineering professions, (10) a new precedent policy on tips, gratuities and service charges, (11) the IRLR Highlights for September 2024, (12) dates for your diary, (13) updates to our legislation tracker and horizon scanner, and (14) new Q&As.

The Department of Health guidance: Maintaining high professional standards in the modern NHS (MHPS) is now archived, and available on The National Archives website. The NHS Resolution website refers to interim guidance: Maintaining high professional standards in the modern NHS for NHS organisations managing concerns during the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. The MHPS guidance is outside the scope of Lexis®+ UK Employment. However, you may find useful the ‘Key changes’ section of the MHPS guidance, which states that ‘the distinction between personal and professional

This edition of Employment weekly highlights includes: (1) the Spring Budget 2024, (2) a reminder to employers from the Pensions Regulator to comply with their enrolment duty, (3) the Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veterans Relief) Regulations 2024, (4) analysis by Declan O’Dempsey, barrister at Cloisters, of the judgment in Ali v Green Party of England and Wales which looks at issues of discrimination, belief and fundamental political party rights, (5) the Maternity Leave, Adoption Leave and Shared Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2024, (6) the Carer’s Leave Regulations 2024, (7) the Carer’s Leave (Consequential Amendments to Subordinate Legislation) Regulations 2024, (8) guidance from the ICO on information sharing in a mental health emergency at work, (9) the Code of Practice (Picketing) Order 2024, (10) an EAT decision that an employment tribunal failed to properly consider a worker’s claim of automatic unfair dismissal based on health and safety concerns about coronavirus, (11) an EAT judgment that agency worker cannot rely on regulation 5 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 for equal treatment between assignments, (12) dates for your diary, (13) updates to our legislation tracker and horizon scanner, and (14) new Q&As.

This week's edition of Public Law weekly highlights includes a case which found that the government’s climate plan was unlawful, the announcement that the FDA Trade Union has submitted a judicial review application against the Safety of Rwanda Act 2024 and the adoption of two directives to strengthen the role of equality bodies across the EU by the Council of the European Union. Additionally featured are selected Brexit headlines, including the publication of the agenda for the 13th Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee meeting, a weekly round-up of EU-UK TCA Specialised Committees’ publications and the latest Brexit SIs. This edition further includes updates on coronavirus (COVID-19), constitutional and administrative law, judicial review, equality and human rights, information law, subsidy control and State aid, public procurement, management and strategic planning and other Public Law updates. Case analysis this week includes examination of a case where Optima Health challenged the decision by the Department for Work and Pensions to exclude its bid from a mini-competition procedure.

This week's edition of Life Sciences weekly highlights includes news analysis by Pinsent Masons LLP on the finding that the Pfizer/BioNTech coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine infringed a valid Moderna mRNA patent, and by Debevoise & Plimpton LLP on the Court of Justice ruling in Illumina v Grail regarding below-threshold referrals under Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation. Also included is news that the EMA and HMA published their draft joint EU network strategy to 2028 for consultation, the MHRA published its business plan for 2024–25, the European Commission launched a consultation on the draft implementing regulation for joint scientific consultations on medicinal products under the new Health Technology Assessment Regulation, the British pharmaceutical industry expressed concerns in a report about the effect of the Windsor Agreement for drug approval from 1 January 2025, the EU pharmaceutical industry voiced criticisms and recommendations regarding Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (the EU Taxonomy Regulation) and its Technical Screening Criteria (TSC), the British health tech industry body (ABHI) welcomed the UK government’s launch of a Regulatory Innovation Office (RIO) dedicated to speed up public access to new technologies, the Office for Life Sciences published its report on the potential of UK HealthTech and news that the MDCG published EU guidance for the qualification of in vitro diagnostic medical devices as well as guidance and templates on corrective and preventive action (CAPA) plans, among other stories.

Coronavirus (COVID-19): The COVID-19 Clinical Negligence Protocol (2020) (last updated in June 2021) was created to adapt clinical negligence claims handling and litigation processes during the coronavirus (COVID-19) situation. The protocol covered limitation and extensions of time, communication, service, medical examinations, exchange of evidence, interim payments, settlement meetings and mediations, BACS payments, costs budgeting and hearings (including adjournments). This Protocol was superseded with effect from 27 August 2024 by the Clinical Negligence Claims Agreement 2024 which builds on the previous Protocol with various practices now adopted into everyday claims management. The new Agreement is not contractually binding but places an emphasis on collaborative working between the parties. The limitation period Section 11 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) provides that the limitation period in personal injury and clinical negligence cases is three years from the date the cause of action accrued, or the date of knowledge (for the purposes of LA 1980, s 14) of the injured person, if later. If the claimant is a minor, the three-year

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19): Many arbitral organisations have responded to the coronavirus pandemic with practical guidance and/or changes to their usual procedures and ways of working. Parties using arbitration may designate an arbitral institution, such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), to administer the arbitration according to its rules, or proceed ad hoc outside an institutional framework. In ad hoc proceedings, the parties may agree that the ICC act as appointing authority which may include appointing any arbitrator in default of agreement by the parties. It should also be noted that parties may opt for an appointing authority even where the arbitration is proceeding under separate institutional rules. The ICC has specific rules (in force from 1 January 2018) regarding its role as an appointing authority in United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and other arbitration proceedings, including other institutional proceedings (2018 ICC Appointing Authority Rules). Where the ICC is to act as appointing authority in these circumstances,

This Checklist has been archived and is not maintained. CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19): Many arbitral organisations have responded to the coronavirus pandemic with practical guidance and/or changes to their usual procedures and ways of working. For links to guidance on the 2021 ICC Rules (in force 1 January 2021) and the 2012 ICC Rules, see: ICC arbitration—overview. Pre-arbitration Day 0 Day 30 Day 60 If commencing arbitration, the claimant should consider:• the arbitration agreement• any limitation issues• alternative dispute resolution (ADR) provisions A party requiring urgent relief may commence emergency arbitrator proceedings (ICC, App V, art 29), see Practice Note: ICC (2017)—emergency arbitrator proceedings [Archived]A copy of the ICC Arbitration Rules 2017 are available here The claimant’s Request for Arbitration (the Request) will be received by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Secretariat (with filing fee) (ICC, art 4(3))—see Practice Note: ICC (2017)—fees, advances and costs [Archived] The respondent will file the Answer to the Request and any counterclaims within 30 days of notice of Request from

Background and approach ARCHIVED: This review looks at legal and regulatory developments in the sphere of equity capital markets (ECM) in 2019 and forms part of our annual trend report which aims to provide insight into the current dynamics of ECM activity in the UK. The other parts of our 2019 trend report comprise: • IPOs in 2019—Main Market and AIM [Archived] • Secondary Offers in 2019—Main Market and AIM [Archived] • Standard listings in 2019 [Archived] • Risk factor disclosure in 2019 IPOs [Archived] Brexit The UK entered an implementation period on 31 January 2020 during which existing EU laws continue to apply to the UK. The listing, prospectus and transparency regimes that apply in the UK (and are largely derived from EU law) continue to apply in the implementation period in the same way as before Brexit. However, UK representatives will no longer be permitted to participate in EU institutions and other bodies. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is therefore no longer a member of any of

The Pay As You Earn (PAYE) system relies on an array of reporting requirements, forms and compliance. Employers are required to report employee remuneration on both a monthly and an annual basis. In addition there are various in-year reporting requirements, such as for joiners, leavers and the provision of certain benefits. Real time information (RTI) has applied to all employers and pension providers since October 2013. It replaced many of the previous rules associated with PAYE reporting and compliance. This Practice Note provides an overview of the main compliance requirements associated with PAYE, and explains how these have been affected by RTI. RTI reporting Historically, the PAYE system posed a problem (for HMRC, and potentially for taxpayers too) in that HMRC did not know how much should have been collected from employees under PAYE until after the end of the relevant tax year. This was because employers only had to tell HMRC once per year (on form P35) how much they had paid to employees through their payroll. This form was submitted to HMRC after the year was