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 further in the section Court specific guidance below. Preparing for application hearings in the digital age Traditionally, application hearings involved in-person attendance in a physical courtroom and the use of hard-copy documents. However, particularly since the start of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, there has been a significant shift towards more technology-based methods of disposing of applications. Remote hearings are currently the default position for shorter application hearings in a number of courts. For detailed guidance on remote hearings, see Practice Note: Remote and hybrid hearings in civil proceedings. In addition, documents for use at court are increasingly being submitted electronically, particularly in the High Court. For detailed guidance, see Practice Notes: • When and where is CE-File applicable?—from 1 October 2025 • How to use CE-File—from 1 October 2025 • Electronic bundles in civil proceedings • Electronic communication and

Pre-action investigation and protocol Who brings proceedings under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986? All proceedings under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA 1986) are brought by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade (SoS), working within the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade. In practice, the functions of the SoS are carried out by the Insolvency Service. Proceedings will either be brought in the name of the SoS or by the official receiver (OR) under the SOS’s direction (only in compulsory winding up cases). Both exercise the same functions and for ease when we refer to SoS in this Practice Note, we also include the OR. Note also that directors of dissolved companies that have not been through an insolvency process can also be disqualified under CDDA 1986, s 6 following amendments to this provision by the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act 2021, though such disqualifications fall outside the scope of this Practice Note. Against a 'director of an insolvent

Overview On 27 August 2024, a Clinical Negligence Claims Agreement (the Agreement) was signed by NHS Resolution, the Society of Clinical Injury Lawyers (SCIL) and the patient safety charity Action against Medical Accidents (AvMA). The Agreement came into effect on the day it was signed. It replaced the earlier Covid-19 Clinical Negligence Protocol 2020 (the Protocol), which enabled claims to be progressed efficiently during the coronavirus pandemic. The Agreement relates to civil claims under English domestic law (including claims under the Human Rights Act 1998) and to claims under the European Convention on Human Rights. It builds on the success of the earlier Protocol in improving working practices in clinical negligence litigation and intends to continue to encourage positive behaviours from claimant and defendant lawyers and to promote a consistent approach in practice across England. Key aspects of the Agreement include a change to the process that was in place under the earlier Protocol for suspension of limitation periods. It also outlines ways in which parties to clinical negligence litigation should work cooperatively,

This Practice Note looks at how to start and conduct an appeal in the Supreme Court (UKSC) where permission to appeal is not needed—Notice of appeal, including the requirements for the contents, form, filing and service of a notice of appeal. It covers the notice of intention to proceed following the grant of permission as well as acknowledgement of notice of appeal/notice of intention to proceed by respondent. It also deals with documents for the appeal hearing, including the agreed statement of relevant facts and issues and appendix, and fixing the substantive hearing date. Finally, it sets out the rules for the form, content, filing and service of the appellants’ and respondents’ cases for the appeal hearing. Appeals filed before 2 December 2024 This Practice Note applies only to: • appeals to the Supreme Court which were proceeding before 2 December 2024, and • applications for permission to appeal and notices of appeal which were filed before 2 December 2024 unless the court or Registrar directs that the SCR shall apply

This week's edition of Insurance & Reinsurance weekly highlights includes: lawyers question UK’s sanction muscle two years after invasion; the Association of British Insurers (ABI) produced an artificial intelligence guide; insurers warned to be alert to escalation in Middle East; insurance M&A hits ten-year low amid political uncertainty; the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) fired warning shot over city’s Consumer Duty failings; the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) published PS2/24: Review of Solvency II—adapting to the UK insurance market; cases & decisions; key dates for your diary; and other news highlights reported over the past week.

Updated in May 2026 Introduction Australia’s strong economy, skilled and multilingual workforce, competitive tax structure and stable political environment make it an ideal location for foreign investment. The Australian market also enjoys the benefits of relatively low set-up costs, easy access to the Asia-Pacific region, a vibrant financial services sector and a time zone which accesses both the close of business in the United States and trading opening in Europe. Prior to the onset of the global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, Australia was among the fastest-growing economies in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Compared to other OECD countries, Australia navigated the immediate health and economic impacts of COVID-19 well. Like other OECD countries, however, the short-term impacts of domestic and global stimulus during the COVID-19 pandemic years (as well as overseas factors such as the war in Ukraine and domestic factors such as COVID-19 related backlogs in the construction sector) have resulted in more significant inflationary pressures in Australia and a phase of stringent monetary policy tightening by the Reserve Bank of

This Practice Note summarises the relevant rules and guidance on arrears, default and recovery in the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)’s Consumer Credit sourcebook (CONC). It also outlines separate requirements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974) that must be satisfied before a lender can enforce an agreement, including service of notice of sums in arrears (NOSIA) and a default notice. Background Firms carrying on a consumer credit-related activity must comply with Chapter 7 of CONC that contains the relevant rules and guidance on arrears, default and recovery. Broadly, these rules set out the requirements with which firms must comply when collecting debts and managing borrowers in arrears and forbearance, including how they communicate and how they propose to assist borrowers in difficulty. During the coronavirus pandemic the FCA introduced its Tailored Support Guidance (TSG) for Consumer Credit, Mortgages and Overdrafts, clarifying how firms could support customers in financial difficulty, taking account of their individual circumstances. Although developed during a time of crisis, the FCA sought to retain elements of the

Why harmonisation is needed The divergence between various countries’ insolvency laws has an impact on: • the recovery rates of creditors in different jurisdictions • investment decisions, and • the restructuring of groups of companies A more coherent approach should not only improve returns to creditors and the flow of cross-border investment, but also have a positive impact on entrepreneurship, employment and innovation. The World Bank has in the past produced substantial reports to show improved insolvency laws promote greater investment in that country (see Practice Note: Table of advantages and disadvantages of restructuring in various jurisdictions worldwide and News Analysis: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—A nucleus for significant reform), and discrepancies between national frameworks lead to increased costs and uncertainties in assessing the risks of investing in another country (as noted by the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB); see: LNB News 12/05/2025 17). The Regulation (EU) 2015/848 (OJ L141 5.6.2015 p 19), Recast Regulation on Insolvency [EU Recast Regulation on Insolvency] (which applied to England in

This Resource Note highlights relevant commentary, analysis and resources to assist with the interpretation of, and provide practical guidance on the application of, Chapter 2 of the Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules (DTR 2) Materials covered in this Resource Note include, where relevant: • the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Handbook • FCA guidance in its Knowledge Base—Procedural notes and Technical notes (which constitute formal guidance and are binding on the FCA) • FCA consultation papers, discussion papers, policy statements, feedback statements and warnings • Primary Market Bulletins and other FCA publications • former UKLA technical and procedural notes and the UKLA's newsletter List!, where still relevant to the interpretation or application of a provision • assimilated EU legislation • EU Directives and EU Regulations, where relevant to interpretation of a provision • Lexis+® UK analysis and resources Setting the scene • What it covers: DTR 2 sets out the requirements relating to the disclosure and control of inside information by an issuer to promote prompt and fair disclosure

This week’s edition of PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights includes a Court of Appeal decision which confirms the primacy of the ‘but-for’ test of causation. We also consider upcoming changes to whiplash tariff amounts, a Court of Appeal judgment which provides guidance on causation in low-dose asbestos claims and we take a look at recent developments in military deafness claims including a test case which is due to be heard later this year. In addition, we have our usual round-up of other news, cases and New Law Journal articles of interest and we have included a free webinar.

ARCHIVED: This content was published in 2021 and is not maintained. The Market Standards trend report provides in-depth analysis of the 22 firm offers, 24 possible offers and two formal sale processes and/or strategic reviews, which were announced by Main Market and AIM companies subject to the Takeover Code (Code) in H1 2021. It includes insight into public M&A trends and what we and our contributors expect to see in H2 2021 and beyond. What does the Market Standards trend report cover? Topics covered include: • outlook for H2 2021 • deal value and volume • deal structure • hostile, competing and mandatory offers • P2P transactions • UK and international bidder activity • industry focus • post-offer statements of intention (POI statements) and coronavirus (COVID-19) • shareholder engagement on takeovers • legal and regulatory developments The report includes analysis of high profile transactions, including the £3.5bn offer for Signature Aviation by a consortium comprising Blackstone, Global Infrastructure Partners and Bill Gates’s, Cascade Investments, and shareholder engagement on the Morrisons, St Modwen Properties

Key provisions of the Act On 25 June 2020, after less than 40 days in Parliament, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA 2020) received Royal Assent. This Act, which contains reforms to UK insolvency law, mostly came into force on 26 June 2020. CIGA 2020 is designed to help companies and other entities stay afloat where they find themselves in financial difficulties as a result of the coronavirus crisis. Among other things, CIGA 2020 includes the following provisions: • introduction of a company moratorium—directors of insolvent companies or companies that are likely to become insolvent can obtain a 20 business day moratorium period to allow viable businesses time to restructure or seek new investment free from creditor action (ie to give the company some breathing space). The moratorium period may also be extended. The moratorium is overseen by an insolvency practitioner acting as a ‘monitor’ although the directors remain in charge of running the business on a day-to-day basis (known as a ‘debtor-in-possession’ process with the company being the ‘debtor’). The