ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.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

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

The adjournment at short notice of court hearings is a source of extreme frustration and usually financial hardship for litigants. Where a case is vacated at the last minute, which has become increasingly frequent due to the shortage of district and deputy district judges and the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, a litigant will have spent significant sums to engage counsel and for the preparation of the hearing. This is particularly problematic in family proceedings where the general outcome is that each party bears their own costs. HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) does not offer compensation in circumstances where a case is vacated at short notice, and there is no formal application process for such compensation.

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.

A nominated adviser (nomad) is a firm or company that: • has been approved by the London Stock Exchange (LSE) as a nomad, and • is included on the current register of nomads maintained by the LSE The definitive register of nomads is kept by the LSE, a copy of which is available for public inspection on the LSE's website. The LSE does not itself assess whether a company applying for admission to AIM is appropriate or not; rather it relies on the nomad that has been retained by the company to assess whether such company is appropriate for admission to AIM. Requirement for a nomad The nomad is important; a company seeking to apply for admission to trading on AIM or that is already admitted to trading on AIM must have a nomad at all times. Without a nomad a company will: • not be eligible for AIM, and • where such company is already admitted to trading on AIM, have trading in its securities suspended and if such company fails to appoint

ARCHIVED: The Tier 1 (Investor) visa was for high net worth individuals who could make a substantial investment in the UK. The route was closed without prior notice on 17 February 2022, meaning it cannot be accessed by new applicants. Those who have already been granted a visa in this route can continue to live and work in the UK on that basis. The facility for those who have held a Tier 1 Investor visa within the past 12 months to apply for entry clearance in this category from overseas still remains. Tier 1 Investor visa extension applications must be submitted before 17 February 2026 and settlement applications must be submitted before 17 February 2028. For further information, see: LNB News 17/02/2022 76. This Practice Note has been retained in archived form for historical interest. The rules for this visa category are contained in paragraphs 245E–245EF of Part 6A of the Immigration Rules and paragraphs 54–65SD of Appendix A of the Immigration Rules.

Dynamic Purchasing Systems A Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) allows a contracting authority to purchase goods, services and works for which they have a regular need, without having to carry out a full public procurement process for each individual purchase. A DPS is intended for procurement of common use items that are generally available on the market and meet the contracting authority’s requirements. For background reading, see: • Practice Notes: Introduction to public contracts procurement—pre PA 2023 [Archived] and Introduction to framework agreements and dynamic purchasing systems—pre-PA 2023 [Archived] • Crown Commercial Service (CCS): Dynamic purchasing system guidance Under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102, a contracting authority establishing a DPS must comply with the rules specified and cross-referred under PCR 2015, SI 2015/102, reg 34.

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

ARCHIVED: This Precedent has been archived (on the basis it is not required in respect of winding-up petitions presented from 1 April 2022) and is not maintained. WARNING • THIS NOTICE IS GIVEN PURSUANT TO SCHEDULE 10 TO THE CORPORATE INSOLVENCY AND GOVERNANCE ACT 2020 AS IT APPLIES FROM 1 OCTOBER 2021 • SHOULD YOU FAIL TO PAY THE SUM DEMANDED IN THIS NOTICE OR PROVIDE PROPOSALS FOR PAYMENT OF THE SUM DEMANDED WHICH ARE TO THE CREDITOR’S SATISFACTION, THE CREDITOR MAY, NOT EARLIER THAN 21 DAYS FROM

The Insolvency Service has published its Individual Voluntary Arrangements (IVA) outcomes and providers for 2023. The Insolvency Service found that, in England and Wales, one in 18 IVAs (5.6%) registered with the Insolvency Service in 2022 terminated within one year of being approved. This was higher than the record-low one-year termination rate in 2020, which coincided with temporary support measures in response to the coronavirus pandemic. The data further shows that the two-year termination rate for IVAs registered in 2021 was 14.4%, which was higher than for IVAs registered in the two preceding years.

The House of Commons Justice Committee has published a report, examining the state of the County Court in England and Wales. The Committee found the County Court to be in a state of dysfunction, describing it as the neglected ‘Cinderella service’ of the justice system. The report identifies that average waiting times for small claims cases now exceed 50 weeks, a trend that predates the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and has been exacerbated by increased demand, staffing challenges, and a rise in litigants-in-person. These delays stem from long-standing issues that the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) have failed to resolve.

The Insolvency Service has announced that Mehmet Akyuz, a Sussex cafe owner, has received a 20-month suspended prison sentence for fraudulently obtaining £150,000 in bounce back loans (BBL). Akyuz secured three £50,000 coronavirus loans for Green and Hove Limited and Leathers Wear Limited, both dormant companies at the time of application. Akyuz had attempted to strike off one company to avoid loan repayment. The court disqualified him as a company director for five years and ordered 300 hours of unpaid work. The Insolvency Service is pursuing recovery of funds under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.