NOTE: The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has reviewed the pre-action protocols and its Phase Two Report (Final), published in November 2024, sets out recommendations for reform including more focus on the importance of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and encouragement for the parties to agree the relevant complexity banding for cases to which fixed recoverable costs will apply. It is the responsibility of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to consider how to take forward these recommendations. For further information, see News Analysis: Reforming the Personal Injury Pre-Action Protocols and Pre-action: general—overview. When does the protocol apply? The Pre-Action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims is primarily for cases with a personal injury element with a value less than the fast track limit. However, the spirit of the protocol, which requires a cards on the table approach from all parties, is equally applicable to higher value intermediate and multi-track cases. It is worth noting that the CJC notes that this protocol is the only protocol which covers higher value personal injury claims and it recommends

The Pre-Action Protocol for Resolution of Package Travel Claims (the Package Travel Protocol) applies to claims valued up to £25,000. A claim will be subject to fixed costs, see Fixed costs—cause of action accrued before 1 October 2023 and Fixed costs—cause of action accrues on or after 1 October 2023 below. A ‘package travel claim’ is a claim for damages for gastric illness contracted during a package holiday. ‘Gastric illness’ means any gastrointestinal illness: • arising from a breach of contract, statutory duty or common law duty • in respect of services, food and beverages provided in relation to a package holiday ‘Package holiday’ means a package which is regulated by the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992, SI 1992/3288 or Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018, SI 2018/634. For further information on the Package Travel regulations, see Practice Note: Package holiday claims. The protocol's objectives are to: • encourage early and full exchange of information about the

Background When the clinical disputes protocol was first introduced, reflecting Lord Woolf’s concern about the adversarial nature of clinical negligence litigation, the protocol included a lot of explanatory material about the aims and objectives of the reforms generally. Much of this material was subsequently considered unnecessary and so was removed in an effort to streamline the protocol and reinforce its use as a procedural framework. The clinical disputes protocol retains a strong emphasis on communication between parties, early investigation and resolution prior to the commencement of proceedings. It also reflects the unique complexities of clinical disputes, both with regard to the patient/clinician relationship and the use of experts. The protocol now makes specific reference to the duty of candour imposed on healthcare providers by the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, SI 2014/2936. It also includes consideration of an apology as a separate specific objective. See Practice Note: The duty of candour. Coronavirus (COVID-19) The Clinical Negligence Protocol (2020) (last updated in

The same set of enterprise management incentive (EMI) scheme rules can be used to grant tax-advantaged EMI share options to ‘eligible employees’ and also unapproved options to self-employed subcontractors, however this is unlikely to be the best approach from a practical perspective. As self-employed contractors are not employees, their participation in the EMI scheme is likely to cause the scheme to fall foul of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) definition of an employees’ share scheme (unless they are ex-employees or relevant family members of employees

Construction analysis: Lord Lake held that all five obligations in dispute were extinguished by prescription. The decision confirms that the Prescription (Scotland) Act 2018 (P(S)A 2018) did not alter the section 11(1) test for when loss, injury or damage occurs, and that the knowledge requirements in s 11(3A) must be applied against the existing authorities following Gordon’s Trustees. The court also reaffirmed a restrictive approach to s 6(4), holding that ordinary contractual conduct did not induce relevant error, and found that remedial works were not a relevant acknowledgement under s 10(1). For practitioners, the judgment underlines that prescription remains highly fact-sensitive and may produce different prescriptive timetables across design-and-build contractual chains. Produced in partnership with Eric Johnstone and Orla White of Brodies LLP.

A prescriptive easement is an easement the right to which has been acquired by use without force, secrecy or licence (nec vi, nec clam nec precario) for a period of at least 20 years. Such an easement can arise under the common law, under the doctrine of lost modern grant, or pursuant to the Prescription Act 1832 (PA 1832). In order to seek to establish such an easement where there is a dispute as to its existence, it will commonly be the case that a reference

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Since the introduction of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (CTSA 2015) which came into force in 2015, certain ‘specified authorities’ have been under a statutory duty, in the exercise of their functions, to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism (known as the ‘Prevent duty’). This Practice Note considers the origins of this duty in the government’s overall counter-terrorism strategy (CONTEST) and in the particular context of the Prevent strategy. It covers the statutory basis of the duty and its scope and content, before considering its application to specific sectors, namely local authorities, schools and childcare, the health sector, prisons and probation and police. Counter-terrorism strategy CONTEST, the Government’s over arching counter-terrorism strategy, was first published in 2006 by the Labour government. The fourth version was published in June 2018 and acknowledges that the threat to the UK from terrorism is higher than when CONTEST was last published in 2011 evidenced by attacks in

Public Law analysis: The current Prime Minister’s long running battle with the Seven Principles of Public Life continues to gather pace. Johnson’s actions relating to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic ‘partygate’ scandal have arguably violated each of the principles established by the Nolan Committee in 1995: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. The Prime Minister’s full house of ethical violations concerning his attendance and subsequent denials of social gatherings held in Downing Street, contrary to lockdown restrictions, have also yielded Fixed Penalty Notices from the police for him, his Chancellor, his wife, and other government officials, with the prospect of more to follow. Yet the Prime Minister remains committed to staying in post and has refused to resign. Mike Gordon, Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Liverpool, considers whether the Ministerial Code is the best reference point by which to assess the Prime Minister’s actions, and what impact its central status could have on the debate around whether the Prime Minister should resign.

The Green, Social, Sustainability, Sustainability-Linked Principles, and Climate Transition Bond Guidelines (collectively referred to as the Principles), supported by the International Capital Market Association (ICMA), have published FAQ guidance for Climate Transition Bonds, a comparison of the Green Bond Principles and the EuGBS and a publication on structural demand for sustainable bonds.

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note provides information on the EU-US Privacy Shield regime before 16 July 2020 when the mechanism was declared invalid by the Court of Justice. This Practice Note is for background information only and is not maintained. For further guidance on the implications of the regime being declared invalid, see Practice Notes: UK GDPR and EU GDPR—transfers of personal data internationally and to international organisations and The Privacy Shield—timeline [Archived]. Brexit: On 31 January 2020, the UK ceased to be an EU Member State and entered an implementation period, during which it continues to be subject to EU law. During this period, the GDPR applies in the UK and the UK generally continues to be treated as an EU (and EEA) state for EEA and UK data protection law purposes. Any references to EEA or EU states in this Practice Note should therefore be read to also include the UK until the end of the implementation period. For further guidance on that period, its duration and

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note provides information on the Privacy Shield framework for transfers of personal data to the US and reflects the position before the introduction of the EU-US Data Privacy Framework (DPF) and the UK Extension to the EU-US Data Privacy Framework (also known as the UK-US Data Bridge). It is not maintained and is for background information only. Article 44 of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (EU GDPR) prohibits the transfer of personal data to a third country outside of the EEA, or an ‘international organisation’ (an international transfer). However, in certain circumstances, an international transfer of personal data may be permitted where the transfer is: • based on an adequacy decision • subject to appropriate safeguards • in accordance with specific exceptions/derogations Under Article 45 of the EU GDPR, the European Commission, has the power to determine whether a country outside of the EEA offers an adequate level of data protection, based on its domestic legislation or the international commitments it has entered into. The

This Practice Note explains the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, SI 2003/2426 (PECR 2003), the UK regime governing privacy in electronic communications. It outlines how PECR 2003 operates alongside the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR) and Data Protection Act 2018, including where both regimes apply in practice. This Practice Note covers the key areas regulated by PECR 2003 and related topics, including: • electronic direct marketing (email, text, telephone, fax and others) • cookies and other storage and access technologies (SATs), including confidentiality of communications • the application of PECR 2003 to other scenarios such as online behavioural advertising and mobile apps, and the use of traffic and location data • security requirements and personal data breach notification obligations for service providers • the application of PECR 2003 to areas such as online behavioural advertising, mobile apps and emerging technologies • the role and enforcement powers of the Information Commission’s Office (ICO) • recent amendments under the Data (Use and Access)