Law360, London: TATA AIG General Insurance Co Ltd is the lead insurer for hull and liability on the Air India flight that crashed just after take off in Ahmedabad, India on 12 June 2025, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the situation.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) has published an analysis of UK immigration fees and their impact on applicants. It estimates that visa, citizenship and other immigration charges generated almost £5 billion last year above the cost of processing applications. TBIJ reports that the fee for an application for indefinite leave to remain is £3,226, compared with a processing cost of £310. Applicants may also have to pay the immigration health surcharge and renewal fees before they qualify for settlement. Research cited in the article estimates that a Skilled Worker could pay more than £24,000 in charges before becoming a British citizen, while a family with one child could pay more than £40,000.

Technology and Construction Court

Dispute Resolution analysis: Luke Wygas of 4 Pump Court, counsel for the successful claimant, looks at considerations when dealing with a restitution claim within an adjudication.

Public Law analysis: This case involved a ‘late’ application for permission to re-amend an Amended Defence. The court refused permission for re-amendments that raised largely historic issues and of no direct relevance to the defendants' case. However, the court permitted re-amendments that had a real prospect of success provided that the defendants re-phrased them as a concise summary of the particular allegation. The court also clarified that proposed re-amendments comprising broad references to documents are not appropriate for concise particulars. While the court confirmed the application was late, it did not consider it a very late application (ie one that prejudiced the trial listing) as concise re-amendments of the particulars would not threaten the existing trial dates with appropriate case management. Written by Lauren Hamilton (partner) and Francesca Puig (associate) at Addleshaw Goddard LLP.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) examined and applied the principles of contract formation, considered whether defects alleged by the claimant were breaches of contract and how the losses should be calculated in relation to a dispute on an equipment repair contract.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This case involved an attempt by a company in administration to enforce an adjudicator’s decision. In keeping with established principles, the TCC refused to enforce the adjudicator’s decision because the adjudicator breached the rules of natural justice by determining the issues on the basis of a rationale in respect of which neither party had advanced in submissions, nor been invited by the adjudicator to address. The TCC went on to give important guidance regarding the circumstances in which companies in administration will be permitted to enforce an adjudicator’s decision. The judgment has implications for companies in administration and insolvency practitioners who have increasingly relied on adjudication to claim payment under construction contracts. Written by Gavin Hoccom, senior associate at Browne Jacobson.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) rejected technical challenges to an adjudicator's decision regarding payment under a construction contract. The court emphasised that payment provisions should be interpreted with business common sense, rejecting arguments about invalid interim valuation dates and attempted retrospective conversion of payment notices to pay less notices. The court also confirmed that mere tolerance of late notices will not establish estoppel by convention. The judgment demonstrates the TCC's robust approach to protecting statutory payment regimes against technical arguments that would undermine their practical operation, while reinforcing that Part 8 proceedings are unsuitable for resolving factual disputes about estoppel.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) refused an urgent pre-action application by TTSJV WLL and its parent companies (the applicants) for orders requiring BapCo Refining BSC (Closed) (the defendant) to suspend its USD484 million demand under an on-demand performance guarantee, and restraining further demands under either the performance guarantee or a retention bond, pending the appointment of and relief from an LCIA emergency arbitrator. The TCC had jurisdiction to consider the application under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 because there was a real prospect that payment would be made before an emergency arbitrator could be appointed and act effectively. However, the autonomy principle applicable to on-demand instruments meant that the applicants had to establish clearly that the underlying contract prohibited BapCo from making the call. It was insufficient merely to demonstrate seriously or strongly arguable contractual dispute. The applicants failed to meet that threshold: their arguments based on the penalty doctrine, formal non-compliance and the contention that the liquidated damages were not due and payable were rejected, and their argument concerning the retention bond wa s abandoned.

This Practice Note looks at various preliminary case management issues affecting cases proceeding in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) under CPR 60, CPR PD 60 and the Technology and Construction Court Guide. In particular, it looks at allocation to the multi-track under CPR 60.6, how proceedings can be transferred into and out of the TCC under CPR PD 60, para 5, and staying claims. As this Practice Note gives guidance on the provisions set out in CPR 60, CPR PD 60 and the TCC Guide, and these provisions are additional to the general provisions set out elsewhere in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), this Practice Note should be read in conjunction with general guidance including Practice Notes: • Transferring civil proceedings • Stay of civil proceedings—when can you apply to stay a claim? • Discontinuance of a claim For information on starting a claim in the TCC, see Practice Note: TCC—starting a claim—High Court or County Court? Note: claims issued on or after 1 October 2015 in the TCC may be suitable for and/or be subject

This Practice Note considers case management in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) under CPR 60, CPR PD 60 and the Technology and Construction Court Guide. As these provisions are additional to the general provisions set out elsewhere in the CPR, this Practice Note should be read in conjunction with general guidance on case management, including: • the court's various case management powers under CPR 3 and case management generally—see Practice Note: Case management of civil claims under the CPR and Case management—checklist • case management on the multi-track—see Practice Notes: Multi-track—case management and Multi-track—case management conference (CMC) • the relevance and importance of complying with rules, practice directions and court orders, including practical tips to assist in doing so—see Practice Note: Case management—compliance This Practice Note should also be read in conjunction with Practice Note: TCC—case management conference (CMC), which considers preparing for and attending a case management conference (CMC) in the TCC. For information on making an application in the TCC, see Practice Note: Making an application in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC). Case management—TCC approach Guidance

This Practice Note provides guidance on preparing for a case management conference (CMC) in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) and considers when the CMC will take place, the documents to be prepared before the CMC, attending the CMC and what happens after the hearing. Guidance on these matters in the TCC is provided in CPR 60, CPR PD 60 and the Technology and Construction Court Guide. As these provisions are additional to the general provisions set out elsewhere in the CPR, this Practice Note should be read in conjunction with general guidance on CMCs on the multi-track, including Practice Note: Multi-track—case management conference (CMC) and Multi-track—case management—checklist. It should also be read in conjunction with Practice Note: TCC—case management which considers general case management issues in the TCC. TCC claims are treated as being allocated to the multi-track and CPR 26 does not apply to TCC claims (CPR 60.6(1) and Technology and Construction Court Guide, para 5.1.4 (Technology and Construction Court Guide)). Save to the extent that CPR PD 60 is inconsistent with and/or they are