Brief details of claim 1 This claim is made under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986. 2 The Claimant is the [insert office held] of [insert name of the company] (the Company). 3 The Claimant

This Practice Note deals with matters to consider when instructing counsel to undertake the advocacy at trial, including the factors you should take into account and what you need to include in the brief to counsel. When to brief counsel If you have any doubts about whether you will have the time to prepare the case adequately for trial, or whether you are competent to present it at trial or have the appropriate rights of audience, you should brief counsel to undertake the advocacy at trial. In more complex matters, counsel will have been involved in the preparation of the case or defence and may have advised on the merits of the claim or defence, approved or drafted the relevant statements of case and undertaken the advocacy at any interim hearings. Ideally, the same counsel will be undertaking the advocacy at trial. When instructing new counsel, it will be important to assess counsel’s suitability

Every director of a company owes a number of duties to the company they are appointed to. Many of those duties have been developed by the courts over hundreds of years. The main directors' duties are set out in statute in sections 171 to 177 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). This briefing is intended to give you, the directors [and the company secretary] of [insert company name] [Limited OR PLC] (the Company) an overview of the general duties set out in the CA 2006 and to provide some practical guidance to help you comply with those duties. The failure by a director to comply with any of the general duties has potentially serious consequences for that director. This briefing is not intended to give legal advice, which should be sought on any specific issues that arise in relation to directors' duties. Who owes the general duties? Every director of a company owes each of the general duties to that company. Compliance with each of the general duties is the personal responsibility of each

The Migration Observatory has updated its briefing which examines the migration of Afghan asylum seekers and refugees to the UK. The briefing outlines the contemporary landscape of Afghan migration to the UK, emphasising the interplay between resettlement schemes, asylum flows and global displacement. By June 2025, around 35,700 people had been resettled under the UK’s three dedicated Afghan humanitarian visa routes (ARAP, ACRS and the recently disclosed ARR). Of those, ARAP accounted for 53 percent, ACRS for 37 percent and ARR for 10 percent. Approximately 97 percent of beneficiaries were Afghan nationals. The ARR scheme itself had resettled around 3,400 people as of 30 June 2025, with expectations of a total 6,900 by scheme close.

The House of Commons Library has published a briefing paper on the Pension Schemes Bill 2024-25, a government bill introduced on 5 June 2025, which is listed for its second reading on Monday 7 July 2025. The briefing paper sets out the background, effect and commentary on the Bill in advance of its second reading before MPs in the House of Commons

Privileged and Confidential—not for circulation DRAFT Date [Insert date] Prepared by [Insert details of who produced

Dispute Resolution analysis: Lord Justice Briggs published his Final Report on the Civil Courts Structure Review on 27 July 2016. It was commissioned by the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in July 2015 and Briggs LJ’s Interim Report was published in January 2016. The final report recommends the creation of an Online Court, intended to be used by litigants mainly without the need for legal representation, but with minimal costs shifting where representation is used, the use of ‘case officers’ to assist judges in dealing with routine boxwork and with certain stages of the process in the Online Court, the use of a single court—the County Court—as the default court for the enforcement of all civil judgments and orders, the removal of financial limits on trust, estates and probate work carried out by the County Court, and the value threshold below which a claim cannot be issued in the High Court to be increased to £250,000 initially, then £500,000, with no distinction for personal injuries claims as at present.

Bright Blue has published a report examining how modern slavery protections operate within the UK asylum system. The report analyses trends in modern slavery and human trafficking among asylum seekers, the effectiveness of existing policies and the barriers faced by victims. It notes that referrals to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) have increased in recent years, and that more than 90% of referrals from immigration detention receive a positive reasonable grounds decision.

IP analysis: Virgin brought a claim against the Brightline for damages for alleged repudiatory breach of a trade mark licence agreement (TMLA). Brightline’s defence was that it was entitled to terminate the TMLA pursuant to a clause that allowed it to terminate if the Virgin brand had ceased to be a ‘brand of international high repute’ or the Marks ‘no longer are of high quality status and synonymous with the Purpose and Brand Values’ and if continued use of the Marks would cause material damage to Brightline’s reputation or the value of its business. As Brightline was deemed to have failed to prove that the conditions of the clause applied, Virgin was successful in claiming a repudiatory breach of the agreement. Written by Milena Velikova, trade mark attorney and Helene Whelbourn, legal director, at Lee & Thompson.

What is BYOD? Bring your own device (BYOD) refers to arrangements where an organisation allows employees to connect to its corporate IT network using their own communications devices for specific, work-related purposes. BYOD arrangements may cover a range of devices, including laptops, tablets and smartphones. This Practice Note focuses on BYOD in the employment relationship. Key risks and benefits of BYOD Item Potential benefits Potential downsides and risks Cost There is a cost saving for the organisation:—in not having to invest in procurement, replacement and management of devices for employees—depending on the arrangements for sharing costs, in relation to service charges The organisation will still need to make some investment in technical solutions, training and support to enable BYOD access by employees (which may in some cases make it more expensive).If an organisation stops buying devices for employee use under existing contracts with their communications provider (which often bundle a range of products and services together), this may impact discounts received on other product/service lines. It is important, therefore, to

This Practice Note considers issues arising when multiple defendants (or co-defendants), domiciled in England and Wales, are or may be involved in proceedings in this jurisdiction, from the perspective of the claimant and the defendants. For information on the specific issues to consider with regard to liability in tortious claims which involve more than one defendant or prospective defendant, see Practice Note: Multiple tortfeasors—liability issues. For information on joint and several liability between multiple parties to a contract or between joint tortfeasors, and guidance on who should be sued in these situations, see Practice Note: Joint, several, and joint and several liability. Considerations for the claimant Where a claimant has suffered loss or damage, they may consider that more than one party is responsible for that loss or damage and will need to decide against whom to bring proceedings. This will involve consideration of many issues, including the limitation periods that apply to each claim, the merits of the claim against each potential defendant, the means of each defendant

This Practice Note considers when a public authority will owe a common law duty of care and the courts’ approach when deciding whether a duty of care exists. It looks at the significance of the statutory backdrop, including whether a claim in negligence can be brought where the existence of a common law duty would contradict the aims of a statute. It also considers when non-delegable duties and vicarious liability may arise. When will a public authority owe a duty of care? The Supreme Court considered the duty of care owed by public authorities in the cases of Michael and Robinson. In Michael, Ms Michael made a 999 call to inform the police that her former partner had threatened to kill her. However, the call handler failed to pass on the threat to kill and as a result the 999 call was given a lower priority which caused a delay in the police response. Ms Michael was killed by her ex-partner before the police arrived. In