False in a material particular meaning

This timetable sets out the key procedural steps for disclosure under the Disclosure Scheme operating in the Business and Property Courts It outlines the required process, spanning document preservation duties, Initial Disclosure, completion of the Disclosure Review Document (DRD), Extended Disclosure, and the actions to be taken at and following the case management conference (CMC). Document preservation obligations Initial Disclosure Disclosure Review Document (DRD) Extended Disclosure Steps at and after the CMC For these purposes, it is assumed the parties are legally represented. Note: this timetable does not cover disclosure under CPR 31. For additional guidance on CPR 31 disclosure, see: Disclosure-overview. The Disclosure Scheme is mandatory for most claims in the Business and Property Courts under CPR PD 57AD (in force from 1 October 2022). To assess whether the Scheme applies to a particular claim, see: Which disclosure rules apply to my claim-flowchart? and the Practice Notes: Disclosure Scheme-definitions, principles and duties; Disclosure Scheme-when and where it...

This Checklist is intended to help practitioners adopt a structured method for resisting a without‑notice application for an interim injunction. It should be read in conjunction with the detailed guidance contained in the following Practice Notes: Interim injunctions—without notice applications Interim injunctions—the American Cyanamid guidelines Interim injunctions—drafting the order Although this Checklist concentrates on without‑notice applications, there is inevitably some cross‑over with matters that arise on on‑notice applications. Practitioners should therefore also familiarise themselves with the detailed guidance contained in: Opposing an on notice interim injunction application—checklist as well. 6 April 2025 changes With effect from 6 April 2025, the CPR provisions governing interim injunctive relief were amended. In particular, CPR 25 underwent extensive revision, and the related Practice Directions were revoked. This revocation covered the example draft orders found in Annex A and Annex B to Practice Direction 25A. In addition, three new ‘model orders’ came into force on 6 April 2025. The reforms were not intended to...

Legal due diligence (LDD) checklist Set out below is a legal due diligence (LDD) checklist highlighting key matters to assess when undertaking an oil and gas transaction. This schedule serves as guidance only and therefore should not be treated as a complete list. Each LDD review ought to be carefully customised to the specific target and the relevant acquisition contract (including, in particular, consideration of the breadth of any warranties and indemnities granted therein, which will influence both the nature and the breadth of the LDD that is required). For additional practical guidance on the financing of energy, power and resources projects across various sectors, including those addressed in this checklist, see also the textbook entitled Energy and Resources Financing: A Practical Handbook...

Original news Middleton and another v Person Unknown or Persons Unknown [2016] EWHC 2354 (QB) What should IP & IT lawyers take note of? This decision exemplifies a section 12 matter, which generally provokes little dispute. Section 12 was first examined in Cream Holdings Ltd and others v Banerjee and another [2003] EWCA Civ 103, [2003] 2 All ER 318. In Cream, the court affirmed the ‘more likely than not’ test, while preserving a discretion to grant an injunction where declining an interim order pending a full hearing would inflict substantial injustice on a claimant. Practitioners should ensure compliance with HRA 1998, s 12(4). HRA 1998, s 12(4) states: ‘The court must have particular regard to the importance of the…right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent [to an application for an interlocutory injunction] claims, or’...

In this issue: Intellectual property Pharmaceutical—regulatory framework Research and development Competition in life sciences Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Intellectual property Haemophilia gene therapy patent valid and infringed (Pfizer v uniQure) The Patents Court rejected Pfizer’s attempt to revoke uniQure’s EP(UK) 3,581,650 (EP 650), which claims a “Factor IX polypeptide mutant and a method for its production” and underpins uniQure’s haemophilia therapy, Hemgenix. As a consequence, Pfizer cannot, for now, introduce its gene therapy Beqvez—approved by the EMA on 24 July 2024—in the UK, although it has indicated it will appeal. Pfizer accepted that, if EP 650 stood, it would infringe, but maintained the patent was invalid, alleging the particular amino acid substitution was obvious and devoid of inventive step in light of a single prior art reference. The court placed considerable reliance on secondary evidence reflecting what research groups were actually doing...

Just Trays Ltd v Emu Products Ltd [2024] EWHC 29 (Ch), [2024] All ER (D) 55 (Jan) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment underscores that carefully marshalled evidence, directly engaging with the questions the court must resolve, is essential to showing a triable issue with real prospects of success. The judge remarked that JTL’s evidence was precise and comprehensive, notably in explaining the computation of particular sums, and it also relied on EPL’s own papers. The court contrasted this with EPL’s material, which did not adopt the same structured approach to revealing how its figures had been put together. The decision further reiterates the governing test for an injunction restraining presentation, and it offers a useful point of comparison with Bridger & Co Ltd v Specialist Lending Ltd (t/a Duologi) [2023] EWHC 2562 (Ch), [2023] All ER (D) 89 (Oct) (see also News Analysis: Winding up petitions—application to restrain advertisement ( Bridger & Co Ltd v Specialist Lending Ltd )), another recent decision on...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment of 7 December 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission’s readopted infringement decision of 17 December 2020, which imposed a reduced fine amounting to €9.4m (AT.39563). Latest development On 7 December 2022, the General Court delivered its judgment and dismissed the appeal in full. In particular, it found that: (i) CCPL grasped the Commission’s reasoning, and the material presented by CCPL was insufficient to overturn the presumption applied by the Commission that CCPL exercised decisive influence over entities within the CCPL group; and (iii) the Commission did not err in concluding that a fine reduction can only be warranted by the aim of preventing the undertaking’s economic viability from being irreparably endangered and its assets stripped of value, so the applicant’s intention to develop operating companies of the CCPL group cannot, in principle, justify such...

This Practice Note examines the jurisdictional service gateways, or bases for service, in CPR PD 6B, paras 3.1(21)–3.1(23), which address claims concerning breach of confidence and misuse of information. It outlines the gateways and offers observations on how the courts have interpreted, or may interpret, them. This Practice Note should be read alongside Practice Note: Cross-border service—jurisdictional gateways (principles). For guidance on the substantive claim to safeguard confidential material, see: Protecting confidential information—overview. Where the requirements of gateway 21 are satisfied and an additional claim is pursued against the same defendant arising from the same, or closely connected, facts, that additional claim may come within gateway 4B. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Cross-border service—jurisdictional gateways 1, 1A, 2, 4 and 4A (general grounds), in particular the main section: Gateway 4A—further claim arises out of the same or closely related facts... Claims for breach of confidence or misuse of private information—gateway 21 Gateway 21 (CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(21)) provides: ‘Claims for breach of confidence or misuse of...

This Practice Note outlines that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) presumes adults have capacity to make informed choices unless proven otherwise. It summarises the principles that steer capacity assessments and a person’s ability to reason through a decision under the MCA 2005, and refers to the Code of Practice for people working with, or caring for, individuals who lack capacity. It addresses the MCA 2005 definition of a person’s best interests where capacity is absent and the protections available to those responsible for their care. It clarifies that the ability to decide is both time‑specific and decision‑specific, and the considerations when evaluating capacity to choose where to live and what care to receive. It further explains that assessments must relate to the specific decision at the material time, rather than a broad, overall competence. Presumption of capacity for adults MCA 2005, s 1(2) establishes a presumption that adults possess capacity. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a person is taken to retain capacity to...

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 ] Between [ insert full name of claimant ] (the Claimant) and [ insert full name of defendant ] (the Defendant) PARTICULARS OF CLAIM The Claimant The Claimant has, at all material times, been and remains [ insert details of claimant ]. The Claimant’s principal business activity is [ insert type of business carried out ]. In particular, the Claimant [ insert brief description of claimant’s business relating to the copyright work or works ]. The Claimant has, throughout all material times, owned and continues to own the copyright in the [ insert details of relevant work ] (the Work). Pursuant to section 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, copyright subsists in the Work as a [ insert type of copyright work, for example...

Note: This Practice Note supplies specific, practical direction for matters proceeding in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) governed by CPR 60, CPR PD 60 and the TCC Guide. As these provisions operate in addition to the CPR’s broader rules, it should be read alongside the general guidance on preparing for and attending trial, including Trial—overview, which in turn links through to detailed material on particular aspects of trial preparation and attendance. Shorter and flexible trials schemes—TCC claims issued on or after 1 October 2015 may qualify for, or be subject to, one or both schemes under CPR PD 57AB: the shorter trials scheme and/or the flexible trials scheme. For further details, see Practice Notes: Business and Property Courts—shorter trials scheme and Business and Property Courts—flexible trials scheme. Electronic working—for guidance on electronic working in the TCC, see Practice Note: TCC—starting a claim—High Court or County Court?—Electronic working and filing of documents. Multi-track—all TCC claims are treated as allocated to the multi-track (CPR 60.6(1))......

Note: This Practice Note offers targeted guidance for cases in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) governed by CPR 60, CPR PD 60 and the TCC Guide. As these sit alongside the general CPR, it should be read with the broader guidance on preparing for and attending trial, including Trial—overview, which in turn signposts detailed material on particular aspects of trial preparation and attendance Shorter and flexible trials schemes—TCC claims issued on or after 1 October 2015 may qualify for, or fall within, one or both schemes under CPR PD 57AB: the shorter trials scheme and the flexible trials scheme. For more detail on these schemes, see Practice Notes: Business and Property Courts—shorter trials scheme and Business and Property Courts—flexible trials scheme Electronic working—for guidance on electronic working in the TCC, refer to Practice Note: TCC—starting a claim—High Court or County Court?—Electronic working and filing of documents Multi-track—all TCC proceedings are treated as allocated to the multi-track (CPR 60.6(1))...

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FIA 2000) and the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998) are distinct regimes, save for the overlap raised here. They otherwise operate separately from one another as a rule. FIA 2000 contains various exemptions. Those exemptions mean the kind, character or even the presence of the information need not be revealed under FIA 2000. For this scenario, the pertinent carve-out is in FIA 2000, s 40, in particular FIA 2000, ss 40(1) and 40(5)(a). Where the material amounts to personal data and the data subject seeks disclosure via FIA 2000, the exemption applies in absolute terms...

No particular claim form applies to proceedings that include a request for final injunctive relief. The standard factors for selecting the suitable claim form, as described in CPR 8.1, still apply. The principal question is usually whether the court will need to resolve a material factual dispute in order to determine the claim. While the Part 8 route may look simpler, opting for it can be tempting but, in practice, often results in increased costs and delay where the Part 7 procedure is more appropriate...