Case stated meaning

General comments This Checklist addresses a range of points that may surface when preparing a costs budget, also called Precedent H. It is presented as a series of questions and answers. When producing a costs budget, bear in mind that the costs in any case will vary with the particular circumstances of that matter, so the issues highlighted below are, accordingly, generic. A link is also supplied to a fully interactive Precedent H. When must a costs budget be filed and exchanged? A costs budget must be prepared, filed with the court and served on the other parties unless the proceedings are excluded from the costs budgeting rules. Where an exclusion applies, a budget is not required unless the court directs otherwise, eg the claim value is equal to or exceeds £10m. For information, see Practice Note: Costs management and costs budgeting—general principles. Is there a deadline for filing the costs budget? Yes, there are time limits by which the parties must file and exchange...

STOP PRESS: This document is being refreshed to align with the implementation of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA 2025), which updates the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. For more detailed guidance on the compliance impact of DUAA 2025, see Practice Note: Data (Use and Access) Act 2025—compliance implications. The UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) grants data subjects a range of rights, including the right to erasure of personal data, often referred to as the right to be forgotten. Individuals may ask an organisation to erase their personal data ‘without undue delay’ where there is no compelling justification for ongoing processing. This is not an unrestricted right; deletion applies only in particular circumstances. There are strict timeframes for responding to such requests. See Practice Notes: Rights of data subjects How to handle data subject requests This flowchart sets out a process for assessing erasure requests that your organisation receives under the UK GDPR...

In this issue: Horizon scanning Directors Status and worker categories Cross-border, international and jurisdictional issues Recruitment Protected characteristics Prohibited Conduct (discrimination etc) Diversity and gender pay gap Maternity, parents and carers Financial services and banking: employment issues Data protection and employee information Bribery, modern slavery, tax evasion and fraud Employment Tribunals Scotland Ireland LexTalk®Employment: a Lexis®Nexis community Dates for your diary Trackers New Q&As Employment resources on Lexis+® Daily and weekly news alerts Horizon scanning BTC launches call for evidence on Employment Rights Bill The Business and Trade Committee (BTC) has opened its first request for evidence for a new inquiry into the Employment Rights Bill (ERB). The inquiry will collect written and oral submissions to steer the Bill’s subsequent passage through Parliament and to gauge whether it is set to meet its stated aims. Written evidence should be submitted by Friday...

In this issue: Investigating criminal conduct Criminal procedure and evidence Proceeds of crime Bribery, corruption, sanctions and export controls Consumer protection and cartels Environmental offences Financial services and pensions offences Food safety and hygiene offences Fraud, forgery, tax and theft offences Health and safety and corporate manslaughter offences International Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Investigating criminal conduct Home Office issues guidance on Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act The Home Office has released guidance on the information-sharing measures in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA 2023). It outlines provisions to help ensure businesses comply with the new measures, together with practical points for organisations, including arrangements for cross-sector sharing, obligations for law enforcement reporting, UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) compliance, and customer redress. See: LNB News 04/10/2024 39. Criminal procedure and evidence...

Tribunal chair Andrew Lenon KC stated the claimants have a credible chance of showing that Apple’s alleged excessive commissions charged to UK-based app developers for transactions completed on non‑UK storefronts constituted conduct carried out in the UK. In January 2024, Apple sought to have the tribunal strike out the action, which is brought on behalf of more than 1,500 UK‑based app developers over purportedly unfair App Store fees. The company contended that the majority of developers lack a UK claim because most distribution charges arose from purchases made in other countries, relating to the placement and sale of apps. The tech giant’s legal team further submitted that the lawsuit, spearheaded by Norwich Business School professor Sean Ennis, attempts to impose English competition law on charges incurred overseas and on commerce taking place outside the UK...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED –this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the abandonment of the transaction on 13 June 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline UK merger review of Clariant’s intended purchase of the Kilfrost Group’s European aircraft de-icing fluid and rail de-icing fluid business. The deal presented a horizontal overlap in the supply of aircraft de-/anti-icing fluids. Latest developments On 13 June 2016, the CMA stated the investigation was cancelled after the parties chose to abandon the deal. On 10 June 2016, the parties had announced their decision to withdraw following the CMA’s provisional findings and the expectation that the transaction would have been prohibited. Parties Clariant AG: a Swiss-based speciality chemicals company, headquartered near Basle, operating in 150 countries worldwide. Kilfrost plc: a UK-based firm in Newcastle specialising in heating and cooling products. The target business is Kilfrost’s European aircraft de-icing fluid and rail de-icing fluid operations. Kilfrost’s...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the date of the decision on 16 September 2015 to close the investigation; it is no longer being maintained or updated. For further detail, please see the timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline CMA Article 101 TFEU/Chapter I inquiry into the hotel online booking sector. The matter was reopened following the CAT’s judgment in the Skyscanner v CMA case. Latest developments On 20 August 2020, the CMA provided an update on its project tracking pricing behaviour by online travel agents, following the lapse of the 2015 commitments by Booking.com and Expedia not to apply ‘wide’ parity clauses in online hotel booking agreements. In summary, after the formal commitments expired on 1 July 2020, both companies stated they would continue to operate in line with those commitments going forward. Both companies have also confirmed that their commitments remain in force in the UK. The CMA will carry on working closely...

This Practice Note explores the scope of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) to seek court-ordered restitution under section 382 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000). It further addresses the FCA’s ability to obtain a court restitution order for market abuse under section 383. It also reviews the administrative powers of the FCA, PRA and the Bank of England in relation to financial market infrastructures (FMIs) to compel restitution on their own initiative under section 384. The Note explains how these powers are used in practice, offers examples, and summarises relevant case law. It reflects updates to the FCA’s Enforcement Guide (ENFG), which replaced the former Enforcement Guide (EG) for investigations opened on or after 3 June 2025, and cross-refers to legacy guidance in EG 11 for earlier investigations. Unless otherwise stated, statutory references to sections are to FSMA 2000. Key points The FCA’s enforcement strategy prioritises delivering redress to consumers who have suffered loss; in 2024/2025...

Case No. [ insert claim number ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND & WALES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD) [ INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT ] BETWEEN: [ insert full name of claimant ] Claimant and [ insert full name of defendant ] Defendant REPLY 1 Save where stated otherwise, paragraph number references in this Reply refer solely to those within the Defence...

Case No: [ insert claim number ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEBUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND and WALESINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)[ INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT (IPEC) ] BETWEEN:[ insert full name of Claimant ] Claimantand[ insert full name of Defendant ] Defendant DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM DEFENCE Unless otherwise stated, paragraph references are to the Particulars of Claim. The Defendant responds to the material allegations set out below. Any matter not expressly addressed in this Defence is required to be strictly proved by the Claimant. The Claimant Paragraphs 1–5 are admitted [ save that: ] 3.1 [ it is not admitted that the Claimant’s undertaking extends to, or includes, the provision of [ insert description of the scope of the claimant’s business that the claimant has pleaded but which the defendant does not admit the claimant is involved in ] ] ; AND/OR 3.2 it is not accepted that...

Standard case management directions The Claimant must supply the Respondent with a schedule of loss by 4:00pm on [ insert date ] [ along with any materials pertinent to mitigation of loss and any papers that substantiate the amounts stated in the schedule ]. The Claimant must revise the schedule of loss a fortnight before the substantive hearing. [ A list of issues to be settled on or before 4:00pm on [ insert date ]. OR The Claimant to deliver a draft list of issues to the Respondent on or before 4:00pm on [ insert date ], and the Respondent to return any revisions on or before 4:00pm on [ insert date ]. ] The Respondent must serve a counter-schedule of loss on or before 4:00pm on [ insert date ], identifying which parts of the schedule of loss are challenged and the reasons, together with any alternative figures and computations advanced...

Under WTR 1998, workers get 5.6 weeks’ annual leave each year: a basic entitlement of four weeks’ leave (20 days for a standard full‑time worker) implementing article 7 of the Working Time Directive (WTD) an additional 1.6 weeks’ leave (eight days for a standard full‑time worker) created by domestic law only Understanding this distinction is important because: European Court of Justice case law concerns the WTD alone, so it applies only to the basic four weeks’ paid leave holiday pay is calculated differently for: the basic four weeks, and the additional 1.6 weeks The general rules as to the right to carry forward accrued holiday entitlement are that: the basic four weeks must be taken in the leave year earned and cannot be carried over (though an employer may choose to allow it) a relevant agreement may allow the additional 1.6...

Case study A one-year fixed term assured shorthold tenancy (AST) was initially granted, ending in February 2015. With the fixed term concluded, a statutory periodic tenancy has commenced. The landlord fears they might have failed to comply with duty to supply prescribed information; can they issue a section 21 notice to bring the statutory periodic tenancy to a close? Since the term expired, the tenancy continues on a statutory periodic footing. How to rent checklist The obligation to provide the publication ‘How to rent: the checklist for renting in England’, issued by the Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government, arose under Deregulation Act 2015 (DA 2015). However, amendments introduced by that Act do not extend to fixed term ASTs granted before 1 October 2015, even where agreements roll into a statutory periodic tenancy after 1 October 2015. This remains the stated position throughout...

The best way to approach this issue The most effective starting point is to identify what the court will need to be persuaded of, namely: that the care order can, and ought to, be brought to an end; and that a special guardianship order may properly be substituted in its place. Whether the care order can and should be discharged turns on how far the difficulty that arose four years ago still persists. If, in truth, the threshold criteria under section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 are no longer met, the care order can fall away. See Practice Notes: Public children—threshold criteria and Termination, discharge and variation of care and supervision orders...