THIS DEED is made on [date] Parties 1 [Name of spouse or civil partner who is a statutory beneficiary entitled on intestacy] of [address] (the [ Surviving Spouse OR Surviving Civil Partner ]); 2 [Names of deceased’s children who are statutory beneficiaries entitled on intestacy] of [addresses] (the Children); and 3 [Names of administrators] of [addresses] (the Administrators). BACKGROUND (A) [Name of deceased] (the Deceased) died intestate on [date of death] survived by the [Surviving Spouse OR Surviving Civil Partner] and Children, who are the Deceased’s [Surviving Spouse OR Surviving Civil Partner] and children, all of full age. (B) Under the provisions contained in section 46(1) of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 the [Surviving Spouse

As explained in Practice Note: The Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018, in particular section: Incident reporting obligations, the incident reporting thresholds for relevant digital service providers (RDSPs) under the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018 (NIS Regulations), SI 2018/506, are prescribed by the NIS Regulations, SI 2018/506, reg 12(7) and Articles 3 and 4 of Retained Regulation (EU) 2018/151 (the Retained DSP Regulation). An RDSP must notify the ICO about any incident (as defined in the NIS Regulations) which has a ‘substantial impact’ on the provision of any of the following digital services it provides: • online marketplaces • online search engines • cloud computing services In summary, in order for an RDSP to determine whether the impact of an incident is substantial, an RDSP must: • take into account the following parameters

THIS PRACTICE NOTE APPLIES TO SCHEMES THAT WERE CONTRACTED-OUT SALARY-RELATED (COSR) SCHEMES BEFORE 6 APRIL 2016 For a scheme to contract out on a salary-related basis (also known as DB contracting-out), the sponsoring employer had to hold a contracting-out certificate in relation to that scheme. Where the scheme was a multi-employer scheme, a certificate could, in certain circumstances, be issued to the holding company, with a schedule detailing which subsidiaries are covered by the certificate. Such a certificate was known as a holding company contracting-out certificate. For more information, see Obtaining a DB contracting-out certificate before 6 April 2016 [Archived]—Types of contracting-out certificates. Over time, it might have been necessary to vary a contracting-out certificate, eg: • to amend the details of an employer covered by the certificate or the name of the scheme • to amend the categories of employment covered by the certificate • to add or remove a subsidiary from a holding company contracting-out certificate (eg as a result of a transaction or group restructuring) This

Pensions analysis: His Honour Judge Hodge KC (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) approved the trustee’s decisions to vary a pension scheme’s buy-in assurance arrangements by reducing a termination payment to cover the costs of a replacement buy-in policy in return for the principal employer giving notice to terminate the scheme enabling the trustee to access scheme surplus to augment member benefits. While the trustee’s decisions would terminate the scheme, they were in line with the requirements of trustee decision-making and the court was satisfied that the applicable test on a blessing application, as set down in Public Trustee v Cooper, was met. Written by Dr Charlotte Elves, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers.

Family analysis: In Re C (A Child) (Schedule 1 Children Act Variation) the Family Court examined the power of a court to vary or revoke an order for the settlement of property that had already been made. Charlotte Sanders, associate at Stewarts, discusses the outcome of the case.

This Practice Note sets out key and illustrative decisions on the application of the court’s discretionary power under CPR 3.1(7) to vary or revoke a court order, providing: • Examples of when the court has varied or revoked an order under CPR 3.1(7) • Examples of when the court has refused to vary or revoke an order under CPR 3.1(7) For guidance on the principles applicable to CPR 3.1(7) and applying to vary or revoke under it, see Practice Note: Varying or revoking orders—court's general power under CPR 3.1(7). For a summary in table form showing the different CPR provisions by which court orders might be amended, see: Judgments and orders—overview. Examples of when the court has varied or revoked an order under CPR 3.1(7) Case details Key notes from the decision Stockler v The Corporation of the Hall of The Arts and Sciences 21 November 2025County Court at Central London, Senior Courts Costs Office [2025] EWHC 3080 (SCCO) In this case, part two of the defendant’s

This Practice Note considers the court’s general case management power under CPR 3.1(7) to vary, amend or revoke a court order. It also looks when the court can vary, amend or revoke a final order and provides practical insights on making such applications. The court’s power to vary or revoke and order While it is important for parties to litigation to be able to rely upon the court’s decisions, there are certain circumstances where a party may wish to apply to have an order varied, amended, revoked or corrected. Various provisions exist within the CPR in respect of those circumstances, see the table and content links in: Judgments and orders—overview. One such provision is that under CPR 3.1(7) which provides, as part of the court’s general case management powers: ‘A power of the court under these Rules to make an order includes a power to vary or revoke the order.’ This Practice Note considers the principles applied under CPR 3.1(7) to vary or revoke orders. For details of cases illustrating

Stop Press: On 24 February 2025, the main provisions of the Public Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) come into force. We are reviewing and updating our content accordingly. Note, however, that procurements begun on or after 24 February must be carried out under PA 2023, whereas those begun under the previous legislation (the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016, the Concession Regulations 2016, and the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011) must continue to be procured and managed under that legislation. For information, see Practice Note: Key Implications of the procurement Act 2023 for Construction Lawyers. Brexit impact—public procurement The UK public procurement regime derives from EU public procurement laws, and is therefore impacted by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. For general updates on the process and preparations for Brexit, see Practice Note: Brexit timeline. For further reading on the impact of Brexit on public procurement, see Practice Note: Brexit—the implications for public procurement [Archived]. Of particular relevance to the variation of public contracts are the Public Contracts Regulations (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102, which implemented

Power to vary a CVA A power to vary a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) is normally included so that, if circumstances change or minor amendments need to be made, the CVA can be amended without the need to terminate it early. This provides a less drastic option for creditors, as the CVA itself may often state that early termination will require the supervisor to petition for administration or a winding-up order. Following the introduction of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, the CVA proposal can be amended with the nominee’s agreement in writing where (a) the nominee is not the liquidator or administrator of the company and (b) the nominee’s report has not been filed with the court under section 2(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). However, there is very little statutory guidance on how a CVA can be varied once approved by creditors. A supervisor may apply to court for directions, or any creditor or any other person may apply to the court to challenge

EU Law analysis: The Advocate General’s Opinion in these three references to the Court of Justice for preliminary rulings arise out of the practices of some vehicle manufacturers to equip a vehicle’s engine with a device, known as a defeat device, which distorts the results of tests for emissions of polluting gases. The devices in these cases were sophisticated, in that they suppressed the reduction of certain emissions by reference to the outside temperature and altitude at which the vehicle was operated. The Advocate General (AG) concluded that the devices were prohibited defeat devices contrary to applicable EU law. Further, he concluded that the purchaser of a vehicle with a prohibited defeat device had a right under EU law to cancel the contract of sale because the lack of conformity with relevant vehicle standards was not a minor irregularity. Written by Denis Edwards, barrister at Normanton Chambers.

Personal Injury analysis: Philip Moser QC, joint head of Monckton Chambers, comments on the appeal judgment in Motor Insurers’ Bureau v Lewis (a protected party, by his litigation friend), which is significant both for victims of uninsured drivers in accidents on private land in the UK and in relation to the direct effect of EU directives against private law organisations that have obligations and powers delegated to them by the state are thus emanations of the state for the relevant purpose.

UK legislative framework The legislative framework for end of life vehicles in England and Wales is found in: • End-of-Life Vehicles Regulations 2003, SI 2003/2635 (ELVR 2003) • End-of-Life Vehicles (Producer Responsibility) Regulations 2005, SI 2005/263 (ELVPRR 2005), and • Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016, SI 2016/1154 (EPR 2016) The UK regulations aim to decrease the quantity of waste arising from vehicles and to increase the re-use, recycling and recovery of ELV by: • limiting the use of hazardous substances in new vehicles • encouraging the design and production of vehicles which facilitate re-use and recycling • encouraging the development of the integration of recycled materials • ensuring the collection, treatment, reuse and recovery of ELV through producer responsibility and the use of authorised treatment facilities (ATF) • setting targets for reuse, recycling and recovery of ELVs and their components Defra has published guidance on the regulation of ELVs. The producer (manufacturer or importer) is responsible for compliance. ‘Producer responsibility’ is the principle that producers of products bear financial and/or organisational responsibility for