The determination of the costs, reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount, that are proportionate to the matters in issue, with any doubt as to these matters being resolved in favour of the paying party.

This Practice Note explains the process following service of an application for a nullity of marriage order or nullity order where the proceedings are issued on or after 6 April 2022, ie after the coming into force of the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (DDSA 2020). It sets out what the respondent must do on receipt of the application and the time within which the acknowledgment of service must be returned. It also covers the procedure for an applicant to apply for a conditional order (formerly known as a decree nisi). It explains the procedure for applying for a final order (formerly decree absolute) and when a respondent may make that application. DDSA 2020 made fundamental amendments to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) and the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004) in relation to divorce, civil partnership and (judicial) separation proceedings issued on or after 6 April 2022. See Practice Note: Introduction to the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020. DDSA 2020 did not make any substantive changes to the law in relation

When advising on the competition law implications of a corporate transaction, it is important to consider how any competition law issues should be reflected in the sale and purchase agreement and how responsibilities and risks are allocated between the parties. In particular, where any merger control filings are required, the implications of those need to be properly addressed in the conditions precedent and covenants (to determine whether there are any merger control filings required, see further, MJ merger grid—jurisdiction). In addition, parties should consider whether the transaction triggers any other mandatory pre-completion notification or reporting regimes, including notification under Regulation (EU) 2022/2560 on foreign subsidies distorting the internal market (Foreign Subsidy Regulation—FSR) and mandatory reporting obligations under Part 1 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA 2024). Following on from the due diligence, it will also be necessary to consider what warranties may be necessary to address any competition law issues (for more detail on competition law due diligence, see further, Competition law due diligence—checklist). Finally, the competition

This Flowchart reflects the methodology set out by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) for determining whether you can make an international transfer of personal data under the EU General Data Protection Regime (GDPR) on the basis of standard contractual clauses (SCCs) or binding corporate rules (BCRs). You can only rely on these transfer mechanisms where the protections, enforceable rights and legal remedies provided to individuals in the recipient country are essentially equivalent to those guaranteed under the EU GDPR. UK organisations may be caught by the EU GDPR when exporting (from the UK) information that includes personal data of individuals located in the EU. The ‘essentially equivalent’ test was laid down in the case of Facebook Ireland and Schrems (Schrems II), which was decided under the EU GDPR. This is different to the data protection test that applies under the UK GDPR, which requires that the standard of protection for data subjects is not materially lower than in the UK. For guidance on international data transfers under the UK GDPR, see Practice

ARCHIVED: This Precedent has been archived and is not maintained. It is for background information only. It links to international data transfer templates originally valid under the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR) which have now been replaced. These templates ceased to be valid international transfer mechanisms for contracts concluded after 21 September 2022 and for all contracts, regardless of when they were concluded, from 21 March 2024. For information on up-to-date international data transfer mechanisms valid under the UK GDPR, see Practice Note: UK GDPR—transfers of personal data internationally and to international organisations. In brief This Precedent links to: • a template created by the UK Information Commission’s Office (ICO) of the ‘Set II’ or ‘2004’ EU Standard Contractual Clauses (also known as the Model Clauses or SCCs) originally introduced by Commission Decision 2004/915/EC of 27 December 2004 and previously used for the transfer of personal data from data controllers established in the EEA to a data controller established outside

ARCHIVED: This Precedent has been archived and is not maintained. It is for background information only. It links to international data transfer templates originally valid under the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR) which have now been replaced. These templates ceased to be valid international transfer mechanisms for contracts concluded after 21 September 2022 and for all contracts, regardless of when they were concluded, from 21 March 2024. For information on up-to-date international data transfer mechanisms valid under the UK GDPR, see Practice Note: UK GDPR—transfers of personal data internationally and to international organisations. In brief This Precedent links to: • a template created by the UK Information Commission’s Office (ICO) of the ‘2010’ EU Standard Contractual Clauses (also known as Model Clauses or SCCs) originally introduced by Commission Decision 2010/87/EU of 5 February 2010 and previously used for the transfer of personal data from data controllers established in the EEA to a data processor established outside the EEA under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: This was a successful appeal by the claimant against a decision limiting costs to fixed ‘Portal’ costs. The claimant was successful at a fast track trial in which liability, causation and quantum were in dispute. The claimant was awarded significantly below the upper fast track limit (£25,000). His claim had been started by way of letter of claim due to anticipated value. At first instance, the judge found this assessment unreasonable and consequently that the claim should have commenced on the Portal. The judge continued to find that he was therefore required by CPR 45.24 to restrict the claimant to Portal costs pursuant to CPR 45.18 and 45.19. On appeal, the court found that the judge was wrong to apply CPR 45.24, in principle and without exercising his discretion. The costs ought to have been assessed on the standard basis but limited to fixed costs assessed under Section IIIA in the exercise of discretion. Written by Jennifer Dickinson, barrister at Cobden House Chambers.

A measure of risk. The typical spread of outcomes, particularly of investment returns.

This Practice Note sets out the directions to be complied with after the issue of an application in Form A (Notice of [intention to proceed with] a financial application to which the standard procedure applies) in proceedings for a financial remedy that are subject to the standard procedure under Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 9, Ch 4 (SI 2010/2955, 9.12–9.17). This includes the document filing requirements, the preparation of a questionnaire and Form G (Notice of response to first appointment). It also explains the implications of failing to comply with the standard directions as well as the requirements of the Financial remedies guide (March 2026) (the FRG). For practical guidance as to the procedure on the issue of an application for a financial remedy in Form A, see Practice Note: Issuing financial proceedings in Form A (standard procedure). For practical guidance on the conduct of the first appointment itself, see Practice Note: The first appointment. In relation to the requirements to attend a mediation information and assessment meeting

This is a legal term which sets out the normal scope of disclosure which requires a party to disclose documents which support or adversely affect its case and/or support or adversely affect another party's case.

This Practice Note addresses the role played by standard essential patents (SEPs) and fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing in patent litigation before the Courts of England and Wales (the English Courts). In particular, this Practice Note considers the legal landscape that has applied since the UK Supreme Court decision handed down on 26 August 2020 in the conjoined Unwired Planet and Conversant appeals and the practical implications of this decision, as well as subsequent developments. Since that decision, the English Courts have continued to be a significant forum for SEP/FRAND disputes. In addition to the FRAND rate determination summarised below, notable developments include: • claims by implementers seeking the determination of FRAND terms, including, following the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Tesla v InterDigital, in relation to licensing platforms • the development of interim licence declarations and, more recently, consideration

Law360: Pension provider, Standard Life, issued a press release on 29 August 2024 confirming that it had been appointed as a ‘safe haven’ pension provider by independent trustee firm Dalriada and that it has established a master trust for members receiving compensation from the Fraud Compensation Fund (FCF).