The 190th Practice Direction update comes into force at 11am on 16 September 2025. This update introduces changes to amend CPR PD 51R (the Online Civil Money Claims Pilot) and CPR PD 51ZB (the Damages Claims Pilot). The changes to CPR PD 51R expand the case progression and general applications features to all County Courts. The update also makes minor tidying up amendments to CPR PD 51R and CPR PD 51ZB.

The 191st Practice Direction update will come into force on 1 January 2026. It introduces the ‘Access to public domain documents pilot’ (in Practice Direction 51ZH) for a two-year period (with an initial six-month review) in the Commercial Court, the London Circuit Commercial Court and the Financial List, to improve public access to documents that enter the public domain through their use in open court proceedings. Prompted by the Supreme Court’s decision in Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring [2019] UKSC 38 and Lady Hale’s call for greater transparency, the pilot seeks to advance the principle of open justice by shifting from an application-based regime to a default position of proactive disclosure via CE-File. It applies to key categories of documents—such as skeleton arguments, written submissions, witness statements and expert reports—while preserving the court’s discretion to restrict access through confidentiality or anonymity orders. The pilot only applies to documents which enter the public domain via a hearing which takes place in public.

The Master of the Rolls and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice have approved the 193rd Practice Direction (PD) update to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

The 194th Practice Direction update comes into force on 12 May 2026. This update introduces changes to amend CPR PD 51R (the Online Civil Money Claims Pilot (OCMC)) and CPR PD 51ZB (the Damages Claims Pilot (DCP)) to ensure alignment between the rules and operational procedures. The update addresses two categories of applications that cannot be processed within the digital services and must instead be made on paper. The first relates to applications for the determination of costs and disbursements under CPR 45.64, while the second covers applications for default judgment where a mental health crisis moratorium is in place. The amendments to CPR PD 51R and CPR PD 51ZB provide that where such applications are made, claims must be sent out of OCMC or transferred out of the DCP. The update also makes a minor clarificatory amendment to CPR PD 51R, para 14.4(1).

The Master of the Rolls and the Minister of State for Justice have signed the 195th Practice Direction (PD) Update, which broadens the scope of the Damages Claim Portal (DCP) under CPR PD 51ZB to enable certain non-monetary claims, referred to as ‘Other Remedy Claims’, to be issued digitally in connection with a main damages claim where both parties are represented. It also brings claims involving unfair relationships under the Consumer Credit Act 2006 into scope. The change moves claims currently handled on paper into a digital process, with the aim of improving efficiency. The update comes into force on 27 May 2026.

Issue Details Title Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy (Paris Convention) Parties 16 parties Revisions 1963 Convention Supplementary to the Paris Convention (Brussels Supplementary Convention—entered into force on 4 December 1974)1964 Protocol—entered into force on 1 April 19681982 Protocol—entered into force on 7 October 19882004 Protocol—1 January 2022 Location Paris Adopted 29 July 1960 Came into force 1 April 1968 Subject Nuclear liability What is the international liability regime for nuclear damage? Civil liability for nuclear damage is governed by three major conventions: • 1960 Paris Convention Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy (Paris Convention), • 1963 Brussels Convention Supplementary to the Paris Convention Third Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy (Brussels Supplementary Convention), • 1963 Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (Vienna Convention), and • the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) The conventions share similar core principles: • liability for ‘nuclear damage’ lies exclusively with the operator of the nuclear installation.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Title Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (Vienna Convention) Parties 43 parties Revisions 1997 Protocol (see Practice Note: 1997 Protocol to the 1963 Vienna Convention—snapshot) Location Vienna, Austria Adopted 21 May 1963 Came into force 12 November 1977 Subject Nuclear liability International liability regime for nuclear damage Civil liability for nuclear damage is governed by two major conventions: • 1960 Paris Convention Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy (Paris Convention) • 1963 Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (Vienna Convention) The conventions share similar core principles: • liability lies exclusively with the operator of the nuclear installation—this removes the need for other parties to take out insurance, such as those involved with the construction and operation of a nuclear installation • the operator's liability is strict, ie the operator is held liable irrespective of fault or negligence, except in limited circumstances (such as armed conflict,

The 196th Civil Procedure Practice Direction Update has been published. This confirms that from 1 October 2026, Practice Direction 54D will be updated, following Lord Banner KC’s independent review, to shorten target timescales for NSIP judicial reviews.

The Master of the Rolls and the Minister of State have approved the 196th Practice Direction update to the Civil Procedure Rules. The update principally implements the reorganisation of the High Court under the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2026, SI 2026/817, including the replacement of the Chancery Division with the Business and Property Division and the movement of the Commercial Court, Admiralty Court, Circuit Commercial Courts and Technology and Construction Court into the new divisional structure. It also introduces changes concerning nationally significant infrastructure project challenges, arbitration appeals, disclosure, online claims pilots, respect orders and traffic enforcement.

The Master of the Rolls and the Minister of State have approved the 197th Practice Direction update to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR). It amends CPR Practice Direction (PD) 51ZB—the Damages Claims Pilot—and corrects a number of provisions in the 196th Practice Direction update.

Title Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM) Parties 165 (as of October 2026) Revisions 2005 Amendment (entered into force 8 May 2016) Location Vienna, Austria Adopted 26 October 1979 Came into force 8 February 1987 Subject Nuclear safety and transport What is the purpose of the CPPNM? The CPPNM aims to ensure the safe storage and transport of nuclear materials. It establishes measures to prevent, detect, and punish offences relating to nuclear material. The CPPNM is the only internationally legally binding undertaking relating to the physical protection of nuclear material used for peaceful purposes. What nuclear material is covered under the CPPNM? The CPPNM applies to nuclear materials: • used for peaceful purposes while in international nuclear transport, and • to a limited extent (excluding arts 3 and 4) to domestic use, storage and transport of nuclear materials for peaceful purposes 'Nuclear material' is fully defined in Article 1(a) of CPPNM. Essentially, it covers plutonium and uranium. 'International

Family analysis: The Supreme Court held that a child’s views may be relevant when determining whether return would expose that child to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or an intolerable situation under article 13(b) of the 1980 Hague Convention. The weight given to those views depends on matters including the child’s age, maturity and whether the views are genuinely their own; they cannot displace an objectively established risk of serious harm. The judgment also confirms that even a relatively low risk of very serious psychological harm may satisfy the grave risk threshold. Practitioners should analyse each alleged risk separately, scrutinise evidence of parental influence and distinguish the article 13(b) determination from the subsequent discretionary decision whether to order return. Written by Carolina Marin Pedreno, partner at Dawson Cornwell and Tadhgh Barwell O’Connor, barrister at 1 King’s Bench Walk.