ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.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. This Practice Note sets out the emergency arbitration procedure available to parties under the 2017 International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules of Arbitration (2017 ICC Rules), to enable parties to obtain emergency interim or conservatory measures before a tribunal has been constituted. The 2017 ICC Rules apply to any ICC arbitrations commenced on or after 1 March 2017, unless the parties have agreed to submit to the rules in force on the date of their arbitration agreement. The 2017 ICC Rules include: • an expedited procedure which automatically applies where the arbitration agreement is entered into after 1 March 2017 and the amount in dispute is below US$2m. In cases above this threshold, the parties must opt-in. For guidance on the ICC expedited procedure, see Practice Note: ICC Rules (2017)—expedited procedure [Archived] • amended costs provisions effective from

Background The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic led to unprecedented social distancing measures and lockdowns. This in turn had a significant impact on the ability of the courts, and court users, to carry out their normal functions. In response, the courts began operating under new protocols and procedures. See Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—Changes to the court process in insolvency proceedings [Archived]. To supplement these changes, and in order to deal with specific challenges relevant to insolvency proceedings, a Temporary Insolvency Practice Direction (TIPD) was introduced on 6 April 2020. This dealt with COVID-19 related issues such as court procedure and the ability to make virtual statutory declarations for the purposes of opening administration proceedings in light of social distancing, as well as miscellaneous issues in insolvency proceedings that were ambiguous under the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024 and subject to conflicting case law. The latter were the validity and effective time of filings made using CE-filing when appointing an administrator using the out of court procedure

On 23 March 2022, the European Commission (Commission) adopted a Temporary Crisis Framework (TCF) to enable Member States to use the flexibility foreseen under State aid rules to support the economy in the context of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, based on Article 107(3)(b) TFEU. On 9 March 2023, the Commission adopted the Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework (TCTF) to support measures in sectors which are key to accelerate the green transition and reduce fuel dependencies. The TCTF replaced the TCF. On 25 June 2025, the Commission adopted the Clean Industrial Deal State Aid Framework (CISAF) to support the Clean Industrial Deal. The CISAF replaced the TCTF. The CISAF will remain in place until 31 December 2030. This document tracks all Commission decisions issued under the TCF, TCTF, and CISAF. NOTE—For all State aid decisions issued by the Commission under the Temporary Framework adopted in the context of the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, see further—Coronavirus (COVID-19)—State aid case tracker NOTE—For all ongoing and completed Commission decisions involving State aid under the normal rules, see further,

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. This Practice Note considers the ICC Terms of Reference (TOR) under the 2017 International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules of Arbitration (2017 ICC Rules). It also refers to the guidance in the ICC Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration under the ICC Rules of Arbitration (ICC Note). References in this Practice Note to articles of and appendices to the ICC Arbitration Rules are to the 2017 ICC Rules unless otherwise indicated. The 2017 ICC Rules apply to any ICC arbitrations commenced on or after 1 March 2017, unless the parties have agreed to submit to the ICC rules in force on the date of their arbitration agreement. The 2017 ICC Rules include: • an expedited procedure which automatically applies where the arbitration agreement is entered into after 1 March 2017 and the amount

ARCHIVED: 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. The Administered Arbitration Rules of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC Rules) are widely used institutional arbitration rules administered by HKIAC in Hong Kong, but are used globally. This Checklist details the arbitration procedure under the 2013 edition of the HKIAC Rules. For guidance on the 2018 edition of the HKIAC Rules, see the ‘Related documents’. Preliminary steps • Identify claims and counterclaims available. • Consider the scope of the arbitration clause and whether the available claims and counterclaims can be dealt with by arbitration. • Identify your preferred arbitrator (whether that be for nomination as sole arbitrator or party nomination on a three-person tribunal). • Identify any potential limitation issues. • Consider if any interim remedies are required and, if so, whether either a court application or an emergency application to a tribunal is required. Commencement

When considering a claim for damages (see Practice Note: Contractual damages—general principles and related content), the court will consider the principles of causation and remoteness. A party's duty to mitigate its loss is dealt with in Practice Note: Mitigation in civil damages claims. For guidance on causation in professional negligence claims, see Practice Note: Causation and remoteness in professional negligence claims. For guidance on causation and remoteness in tort claims, see Practice Note: Causation and remoteness in tort and negligence claims. Note: issues of causation and the ‘but for’ test in the specific context of insurance policy wording are outside the scope of this Practice Note but were considered in detail in the coronavirus (COVID-19) prompted test case of The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd, with the decision illustrating the importance of focussing in on the key question in ‘but for’ causation, namely, ‘but for what’ precisely? For further details see News Analysis: Coronavirus (COVID-19) business interruption test case (post-judgment analysis) construction, composite perils and causation

This Employment case tracker is produced in collaboration with Gowling WLG. This Practice Note tracks new and upcoming cases in employment law. It displays the current status and most recent developments in relation to cases of interest to employment lawyers that are going through the courts and tribunals. The cases are grouped by topic. For a selection of significant employment judgments handed down since 2017, see: Archived—2026 Case tracker—Employment, Archived—2025 Case tracker—Employment, Archived—2024 Case tracker—Employment, Archived—2023 Case tracker—Employment, Archived—2022 Case tracker—Employment, Archived—2021 Case tracker—Employment, Archived—2020 Case tracker—Employment, Archived—2019 Case tracker—Employment, Archived—2018 Case tracker—Employment and Archived—2017 Case tracker—Employment. For comprehensive coverage of cases relating to employment taxes (including those dealing with IR35) see Tax—case tracker. For a summary of selected employment tribunal cases relating to coronavirus (COVID-19) matters, see Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19) employment cases (to June 2025) [Archived]. This Employment case tracker may contain references to case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). For guidance on whether judgments of the CJEU are binding on UK courts and tribunals, see Practice Note:

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes: analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including that of the Court of Appeal in Cuciurean v Secretary of State for Transport (injunctions), Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Azima (admissibility of evidence), Morley v RBS (duty of care and economic duress) and Begum v Maran (duty of care for third party actions); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

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

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.

The Finance Act 2020 (FA 2020) introduced measures enabling HMRC, in certain insolvency-related circumstances, to make: • directors, shadow directors and certain other individuals participating in the management of a company • participators in a company, or • members or shadow members of a limited liability partnership (LLP) personally liable for amounts of tax or certain tax penalties owed by the companies or LLPs on a joint and several basis by giving such individuals a joint and several liability notice (JSLN). These measures were originally conceived as part of measures for: ‘…tackling the small minority of taxpayers who deliberately abuse the insolvency regime in trying to avoid or evade their tax liabilities, including through the use of phoenixism.’ HMRC guidance offering an overview of the various JSLN measures echoes this statement, although it focuses on the new legislation’s role as a deterrent: ‘The aim of the legislation is to deter individuals from