ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note discusses a number of the key decisions taken regarding the Disclosure Scheme in the Business and Property Courts (B&PCs) in the first six years of its operation (up to 31 December 2024), from a pilot scheme introduced on 1 January 2019 through to it becoming a permanent practice direction, as CPR PD 57AD, on 1 October 2022. It is not maintained and is for background information only. For simplicity, all paragraph references below refer to the applicable paragraph in CPR PD 57AD rather than its equivalent pilot scheme referencing (if different) unless otherwise stated. A change of approach to disclosure One of the main drivers behind the introduction in the Business and Property Courts of the then disclosure pilot scheme was to allow those courts an enhanced opportunity to control disclosure in most claims issued before them; and to keep the extent and process of giving disclosure in such cases proportionate to the value and complexities of the case. This required greater thought to be

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. UPDATE: This Pilot scheme came to an end on 13 January 2021. However, note that any cases proceeding within the pilot scheme as at 13 January 2021 remain subject to the procedure set out in the pilot scheme after that date. This Practice Note considers the Business and Property Courts—Capped Costs List pilot scheme (a form of fixed costs) which is set out in Practice Direction 51W (CPR PD 51W). CPR PD 51W contains a bespoke, streamlined procedural code in order to give effect to the principle that there should be a streamlined court procedure, that takes precedence over any other rules or Practice Directions where a conflict arises (CPR PD 51W, para 1.3). This Practice Note explains which claims will fall within the Capped Costs List pilot scheme, how a case comes into the Capped Costs List, when a case will stay within the Capped Costs List, and the procedural rules which apply under the pilot

This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions—see: Court specific guidance. CPR PD 57AB deals with both the shorter and flexible trials schemes and came into effect on 1 October 2018, following a successful pilot scheme which operated under CPR PD 51N in the Rolls Building only. It applies to claims issued on or after 1 October 2015 in the Business and Property Courts. This Practice Note only considers the flexible trials scheme. For guidance on the shorter trials scheme, see Practice Note: Business and Property Courts—shorter trials scheme. For guidance on the operation of the Business and Property Courts generally, see Practice Note: Business and Property Courts. Purpose of the flexible trials scheme The flexible trials scheme is intended to reduce the time required for trial thereby reducing costs and enabling earlier trial dates to be obtained. This is to be achieved through

This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions—see: Court specific guidance. CPR PD 57AB deals with both the shorter and flexible trials schemes and came into effect on 1 October 2018, following a successful pilot scheme which operated under CPR PD 51N in the Rolls Building only. It applies to claims issued on or after 1 October 2015 in the Business and Property Courts. This Practice Note only considers the shorter trials scheme (STS). For guidance on the flexible trials scheme, see Practice Note: Business and Property Courts—flexible trials scheme. For guidance on the operation of the Business and Property Courts generally, see Practice Note: Business and Property Courts. Purpose of the shorter trials scheme The STS is intended to effect resolution of commercial disputes within commercial time frames through streamlining and controlling various case management procedures, including the pre-action procedure, statements of case,

The Business and Trade Committee (BTC) has published its sixteenth Report of Session 2024–26, reviewing progress on compensation schemes and setting out further recommendations to the government. The BTC notes that over 11,300 claimants have received payments and that approximately £1.44bn has been distributed; however, a significant number remain without full and final redress, and it recommends that all outstanding payments be completed in 2026 with appropriate resourcing. In relation to the Horizon Shortfall Scheme (HSS), the BTC highlights continuing delays in fully assessed claims and recommends that remaining complex cases be transferred to the Department for Business and Trade (DBT), with funded legal advice made available earlier in the process. For the Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme (HCRS), it recommends that the full £600,000 fixed-sum entitlement be paid upfront to eligible claimants rather than in stages. The BTC further recommends that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) establish a formal independent appeals mechanism for decisions under the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024 and undertake a renewed review of historical records to reduce the risk of eligible individuals being overlooked. The report also calls on the government to seek an interim payment from Fujitsu towards redress costs and to publish details of public sector contracts awarded to the company and recommends legislation to quash convictions linked to the pre-Horizon ‘Capture’ system and an investigation into the potential scale of related cases. Chair of the BTC, Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP, states that serious structural failings persist and that thousands remain without full redress. He adds that Fujitsu has yet to contribute to the £2bn redress bill and that emerging evidence relating to the Capture system may represent ‘the tip of another iceberg’.

The House of Commons Business and Trade Committee has launched an inquiry into artificial intelligence (AI) to examine its opportunities and risks for businesses and the workforce. The inquiry will consider the potential impact of AI adoption on productivity, employment and skills demand, and will inform recommendations on government policy priorities. Written evidence must be submitted by 3 April 2026 in accordance with the committee’s published guidance.

The Business and Trade Committee (BTC) has published its third Report of Session 2023–2024, with recommendations to the government on ‘fast and fair’ redress for Post Office Horizon scandal sub-postmasters. In the report, the BTC makes three recommendations to the government. Firstly, it recommends that the Post Office must be immediately removed from any redress programmes and that the government should set up a properly resourced independent intermediary to assist sub-postmasters. Secondly, it recommends that the government include in its forthcoming legislation, binding legal timeframes to deliver redress to sub-postmasters. Finally, it recommends that the government must require full disclosure by the Post Office, publish a standardised tariff of damages, remove the legal expenses cap for sub-postmasters, allow already settled claims to be revisited and introduce an independent appeals mechanism. The BTC’s report concludes that the Post Office has ‘failed to facilitate redress’ and ‘is not fit for purpose to administer any of the schemes of redress required to make amends for one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in British history.’ The government has two months to respond to this report.

The Business and Trade Committee (BTC) has published HC 129, its fifth Report of Session 2026–27, which incorporates the government's response to its March 2026 report on Post Office Horizon scandal redress (HC 1589). The BTC welcomed the government's acceptance of 11 of its 14 recommendations but raised 3 outstanding concerns. First, the BTC expressed regret that Horizon Shortfall Scheme (HSS) claims may not all settle by the end of 2026, rejecting complexity as a valid excuse for delay and urging Post Office Ltd to prioritise all outstanding claims. Second, the BTC criticised the government's refusal to make an upfront £600,000 payment to all claimants eligible under the Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme (HCRS) regardless of whether they pursue full assessment, cautioning that this could discourage sub-postmasters from claiming their full entitlement. Third, the BTC noted that no timetable or interim payment amount has been set for Fujitsu's contribution to the redress bill, publicly urging Fujitsu to act immediately.

The House of Commons Business and Trade Committee (BTC) has published its report titled ‘UK-EU relations a decade on’, assessing progress made by the government and the European Commission since the launch of the UK-EU ‘Reset’ at the May 2025 summit. The Committee found that delivery has been limited, with only one of the six core commitments in the Common Understanding—UK association to the Erasmus+ programme—completed. Negotiations on sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures, emissions trading scheme (ETS) linkage and a youth mobility scheme remain ongoing, negotiations on UK participation in the EU’s SAFE defence procurement programme have been unsuccessful, and discussions on electricity trading arrangements have yet to begin. The report also notes lack of progress on wider UK objectives relating to touring artists, business mobility and mutual recognition of professional qualifications. It notes that, of the Committee’s 21 recommendations issued before the 2025 summit, four have been completed, 11 are in progress and six have seen no progress.

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: Further to the Government's response to the Ministry of Justice’s and Office of the Public Guardian (OPG)’s consultation Modernising Lasting Powers of Attorney, the Powers of Attorney Bill received Royal Assent on 18 September 2023, becoming the Powers of Attorney Act 2023 (PAA 2023). When it comes into force, PAA 2023 will introduce changes to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) to create a more modern lasting power of attorney (LPA) service. The changes will include: (i) introducing regulations to allow those involved in making an LPA to select whether to sign the LPA digitally or on paper; (ii) removing the ability for attorneys to register an LPA so that only the donor will be permitted to register; (iii) introducing regulations governing identification verification requirements in relation to registration applications; (iv) providing for a single route for registration objections to the OPG and widening the group of people who can lodge an objection to include third parties and not just those named in the LPA; and (v) making the notification of named

Public Law analysis: Globally, a trend is taking shape towards legislation that asks more from businesses than the reporting obligations of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, in the area of business and human rights. The EU is consulting currently around the contours of a proposed mandatory due diligence human rights law to be enacted in 2021. These proposals are similar to the kinds that were passed in France in 2017 and only very narrowly defeated in a 2020 Swiss referendum. Calls for the UK to follow suit are mounting, and will in due course be difficult to ignore, given the global direction of travel in business and human rights regulation. How could a compulsory UK human rights due diligence (HRDD) law improve the enforcement and legal landscape for victims of cross-border human rights abuses? And what support and powers would a regulator need to be effective? These questions were asked by a group of inspirational UK civil society organisations—led by the Traidcraft Exchange in 2020. They commissioned research on the topic, conducted during the summer 2020 by Dr Rachel Chambers, at the Human Rights Institute, University of Connecticut, and Katherine Tyler and Sophie Kemp, partners at Kingsley Napley LLP. In this article, Nick De Mulder, associate at Kingsley Napley LLP, summarises the key findings of the paper.

What are the UNGPs? In June 2011, the UN Human Rights Council unanimously endorsed the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). The UN Human Rights Council asked the UN special representative Professor John Ruggie to ‘operationalize’ the ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework’ that was previously published, following three years of research and consultations. He was asked to do this by providing concrete and practical recommendations for its implementation. These UNGPs form the third and final report and are the result of extensive discussions undertaken with stakeholder groups, including governments, business enterprises and associations, individuals and communities directly affected by the activities of enterprises in various parts of the world, civil society and experts in many areas of law and policy that the UNGPs touch on. The extensive consultation was designed to establish a global platform for action. What is the core responsibility for business under the UNGPs? The core responsibility for business under the UNGPs is to respect human rights. It applies to all business. There are no exceptions. It