Authorised court officer meaning

R (on the application of Rokos) v HMRC [2026] EWHC 733 (Admin) The taxpayer joined partnerships to avoid income tax by offsetting his shares of their losses against other income. He ultimately accepted he had no entitlement to loss relief in principle, yet contended HMRC could not refuse relief because it had not properly examined the partnerships’ returns and was now out of time. On that footing, he said HMRC’s amendments to his returns lacked lawful basis and were open to judicial review. Under the Taxes Management Act 1970: An HMRC officer may enquire into a partnership return by giving notice of that intention to the partner who made and delivered the return, or that partner’s successor, within 12 months of delivery where the return was on time: Section 12AC TMA 1970. When the enquiry ends, the officer issues a closure notice stating conclusions and making any necessary amendments to the partnership return: TMA 1970...

Two decades have passed since the Criminal Procedure Rules were first brought in to simplify, codify and clarify criminal procedure. In 2009, the then Senior Presiding Judge for England and Wales, Lord Justice Leveson, stressed that everyone involved in criminal cases — including Magistrates, District Judges and Justices’ Clerks — must adhere to and apply the Criminal Procedure Rules. They are not simply guidance; compliance is obligatory. The term ‘must’ in the Rules means precisely that. That remains the position today. What are the key changes? The main revisions to CrimPR 2020, SI 2020/759, made by CrimPR 2025, SI 2025/909, capture the nine subsequent sets of amendments to CrimPR 2020 and undertake wider housekeeping: removing the glossary from CrimPR 2025, updating cross references within the rules, promoting consistent wording, and renumbering earlier provisions. These steps are intended to make CrimPR 2025 more user-friendly and simpler to navigate, a welcome development given their importance in proceedings and the routine reliance parties must place upon them. What new rules...

R (on the application of Arcelormittal Kent Wire Ltd) v Medway Council [2026] EWHC 40 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling serves as a clear prompt that disputes over ‘scope creep’ in a permission typically turn on the language of the operative section of the decision notice and on whether the application is expressly incorporated. In this case, the court held that phrases such as ‘in accordance with your application’ within the operative grant import the application, so the permission is not to be construed as authorising uses that were never sought, even where the description of development is expansive. It further confirms that conditions cannot lawfully enlarge the nature or reach of the authorised development; generic references in conditions to a wider class will not be read as extending the grant. For developers and local planning authorities, this underscores the necessity of precise drafting: where a particular primary use is meant to be allowed (or excluded), it must be expressly secured through...

Destination of appeals—introduction This Practice Note offers guidance on the provisions in CPR 52 and CPR PD 52A, cross‑referencing the applicable destination of appeals order, together with the current iteration of CPR PD 52A and its accompanying tables. The regime governs appeals to the County Court, the High Court, and the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal. It also extends to applications in the High Court or the Court of Appeal seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court in contempt cases, and to applications in the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court in proceedings that are not contempt related. These provisions do not apply to: appeals in detailed assessment proceedings from decisions of an authorised court officer; appeals to the Supreme Court (save as set out above); appeals where the appeal notice was filed, or permission to appeal granted, before 1 October 2012; or cases where permission is sought to appeal a refusal to grant...

Scope of this Practice Note This Practice Note provides guidance on the provisions set out in CPR 52 and CPR PD 52C. These provisions apply to appeals made to the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal. They do not extend to the following: appeals arising from detailed assessment proceedings against a decision of an authorised court officer; appeals to the County Court, the High Court, or the Supreme Court; appeals where the notice was lodged, or permission to appeal was granted, before 1 October 2012 (unless the court has ordered otherwise); situations where permission is sought to appeal a decision refusing to grant an interim injunction under section 41 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009. For guidance on appeal bundles when appealing to the County Court or the High Court, see Practice Note: Appeals to the County Court or the High Court—the appeal bundle. For guidance on appeal bundles when appealing to the Supreme Court, see Practice...

Authorising and ordering intimate searches An intimate search means a physical examination of any of a suspect’s bodily orifices except the mouth. It is an invasive procedure, not merely a visual check. Only an arrested person held in police detention may be subjected to an intimate search. PACE 1984 Code C is engaged. Such a search may be authorised solely by an officer of inspector rank or above who has reasonable grounds to believe that: a detainee has secreted on their person: something capable of causing physical injury to themselves or others, and they might injure themselves or others whilst in police detention or court custody, or a detainee: may have Class A drugs hidden on their person, and at the time of arrest, was in possession of those drugs intending to supply or export them An officer must not...

Case Ref: [ insert ] THIS ORDER SHALL BE INVALID UNLESS THE IMPRESSED SEAL OF THE COURT OF PROTECTION APPEARS ON EVERY PAGE COURT OF PROTECTION MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 Concerning [ insert name of party ] Issued by District Judge [ insert name ] [ or authorised officer ] at [ insert address ] [ or regional court address ] on [ insert date ] ORDER UPON...

[ Insert party on whose behalf the statement is made—eg Claimant ] [ Insert name of witness—eg ‘Jane Smith’ or ‘J Smith’ ] [ Insert number of witness statement—eg FIRST ] [ [ Insert Exhibits—eg JS1–JS15 ] ] [ Date ] [ [ Date of translation ] ] Case No. [ insert number ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND & WALES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD) [ INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT (IPEC) ] BETWEEN [ insert full name of claimant—eg PINK VELVET LIMITED ] Claimant and [ insert full name of defendant ] Defendant [ FIRST ] WITNESS STATEMENT OF JANE SMITH I, JANE SMITH, of 3 Business Park, Business Town, England, state as follows: I am the Chief Executive Officer of pink velvet limited and have held that role since [ insert date ]. This is my [ first ] Witness Statement in these proceedings....