Where a bankrupt's automatic discharge from bankruptcy has been suspended by an order made pursuant to section 279(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), it is possible for the bankrupt to apply to lift that suspension. This is a summary checklist and timeline relating to applications to lift a bankrupt's suspension from discharge, and shows each stage from drafting the application for issue through to the making of the order lifting the suspension, and matters that need to be dealt with after the making of the order. For further reading on a bankrupt's discharge from bankruptcy, and any suspension of that discharge, see: • Practice Note: Discharge from bankruptcy • Practice Note: Applying to lift an order suspending discharge from bankruptcy • Summary checklist and timeline for a suspension of automatic discharge from bankruptcy application Step/action Time (days) Section/rule 1. The bankrupt files the application to lift the suspension from discharge (application notice and witness statement in support) at court, together with

The name given to criminal procedure used for lesser crimes.

Where an employer dismisses an employee instantly and without allowing the employee the opportunity of a formal hearing.

Previously, a summarised version of a company’s full statutory accounts. For financial years ending on or after 30 September 2013, companies no longer have the option to send a SFS. Instead, companies may send out a copy of the strategic report and the supplementary materials required by CA 2006, s 426A to shareholders and others who have agreed to receive them instead of the full version of the accounts and reports.

Summary funding statement is a document setting out the funding position of the scheme at the last valuation together with any changes since then. Members of schemes subject to the statutory funding objective should be issued with a summary funding statement annually.

THIS CHECKLIST APPLIES TO DEFINED BENEFIT SCHEMES ONLY Schemes which require a summary funding statement Trustees of a defined benefit scheme are required to prepare and issue a summary funding statement to members and beneficiaries of the scheme if the scheme: • is an occupational pension scheme which satisfies the conditions of Schedule 1 para 1 of the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/2734 (the Disclosure Regs 2013). For more information, see Disclosure requirements applicable to occupational and personal pension schemes after 5 April 2014—Scope of the 2013 Disclosure Regulations, and • is a scheme to which the Pensions Act 2004, Pt 3 applies. These schemes are described in section 221 of the Pensions Act 2004 and reg 17 of the Occupational Pension Schemes (Scheme Funding) Regulations 2005, SI 2005/3377 (the Scheme Funding Regs) Frequency of statement • For schemes with more than 100 members, the statement must be issued either before, on, or a reasonable time after each actuarial valuation and actuarial report • Schemes with less than 100 members at

[Insert case number] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE KINGS BENCH DIVISION ADMINSTRATIVE COURT In the matter of an application for permission to apply for judicial review. Parties 1 THE KING on the application of [INSERT NAME OF CLAIMANT] Claimant -and- 2 [INSERT DETAILS] [1st ] Defendant [-and-]

A procedure by which a court may decide a claim or a particular issue without a trial, if it considers that one or other party has no real prospect of succeeding on or successfully defending the claim or issue and there is no other compelling reason why the claim or issue should proceed to a trial.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The hearing involved applications for summary judgment (for the petitioner against the third respondent) and security for costs (in favour of the fourth respondent) in the context of an unfair prejudice petition. The application for summary judgment was dismissed—even assuming all the allegations were made out, there were compelling reasons why the case should be disposed of at trial, including that the trial was only a matter of weeks away and that summary judgment was only sought against two of the four respondents. The court did order security for costs in favour of the fourth respondent, the case against him was not strong enough to warrant dismissing the application, and while he had delayed in applying for security, that delay only justified a reduction in the amount of security awarded and not refusing the application entirely. The case gives a helpful example of the court applying the second limb of the test for summary judgment at CPR 24.2. It also provides a useful reminder to practitioners of the need to apply for security for costs at the earliest opportunity. Written by James Kane, barrister at XXIV Old Buildings.

Summary judgment Summary judgment decides a claim or issue in a claim without a trial. A summary judgment application may be based on a point of law, a question of fact or a combination. The court may give summary judgment against: • a claimant in any type of proceedings • a defendant in any type of proceedings except for certain proceedings for possession of residential premises The court may give summary judgment on the whole of a claim or on a particular issue if: • it considers that: ◦ the claimant has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or issue, or ◦ the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim or issue, and • there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial A claimant may not apply for summary judgment until the defendant against whom the application is made has filed an acknowledgment of service or a defence unless: • the court gives permission, or

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. The general principles applicable in applications for summary judgment or to strike out a claim/part of a claim are fairly well established, see eg, Practice Notes: Summary judgment—general principles and Strike out applications—what, who and when and related content in this subtopic. Many of the decisions in such applications are more concerned with the factual issues of the particular dispute than with generic principles. Some, however, serve as useful illustrations and we list these below. We do not include every decision but only those from which interesting points of application arise. The decisions are listed below with full links to the judgment (and, where available, our News Analysis of the judgment). The decisions listed are those dating from 1 November 2017 onwards (earlier key decisions are included elsewhere within the guidance in this subtopic). References to CPR Part 24 and CPR PD 24 before 1 October 2023—Practitioners should note that the CPR provisions relevant to summary judgment were amended with effect from

Summary judgment and strike out, while distinct applications, are often applied for together. This Practice Note provides guidance on some of the tactical considerations involved when a combined application is proposed and how to respond to summary judgment and strike out applications. For general guidance on strike out and summary judgment, see Practice Notes: • Summary judgment applications—what, who and when • Strike out applications—what, who and when Amendments to CPR Part 24 and CPR PD 24—1 October 2023 Practitioners should note that the CPR provisions relevant to summary judgment were amended with effect from 1 October 2023. CPR Part 24 was substituted and CPR PD 24 was revoked. The changes were intended to simplify the rules, and do not materially alter the substantive law or practice. The numbering and location of some provisions is changed. Accordingly, authorities which pre-date the 1 October 2023 amendments may include reference to the previous provisions and numbering. References in this Practice Note are to the wording of CPR Part 24 in force from 1 October 2023. For tables