Filing meaning

This Checklist sets out the principal procedural steps and considerations for parties preparing or answering a request to extend time in judicial review claims before the Administrative Court. It should be read alongside Practice Note: Judicial review time limits—extensions and urgent cases. Time limits for bringing claims and the requirement to act 'promptly' Where proceedings are started in the High Court, the claim form must be lodged promptly and, in any case, no later than three months from the date the grounds first arose, subject to the shorter periods below: challenges to planning decisions must be issued within six weeks of the date the grounds to bring the claim first arose challenges to procurement decisions under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 must be brought within 30 days of the date the grounds to bring the claim first arose...

REMEMBER: The 42-day appeal deadline finishes at 4pm on the 42nd day. It is YOUR duty to ensure ALL required papers are submitted within that period. DO NOT LEAVE IT UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE. If your appeal is missing documents or pages, it is classed as ‘not properly instituted’, meaning it has not been correctly lodged. The Checklist Read sections 1 to 3 of the EAT Practice Direction 2024 and the T440 Guidance. Notice of Appeal: have you completed every section of the Notice of Appeal from decision of Employment Tribunal (Form T444)?...

Use this Checklist when filing charges at Companies House where a UK company or a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) created the charge on or after 6 April 2013, and also read it alongside Practice Notes: How to register security at Companies House and Registering security at Companies House. For the purposes of Part 25 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) on Company Charges, a 'charge' also covers a mortgage. Accordingly, references to a 'charge' in this Checklist should be understood to include a mortgage. Checklist The fourth column can be used to record observations or comments while progressing through the Checklist, capturing any points as the Checklist is worked through...

Flowchart This flowchart summarises the UK trade mark application journey. Initially, it addresses pre-application actions, such as conducting clearance searches and assessing potential obstacles to registration. It then describes the pathway, starting with filing a trade mark application at the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) and concluding with the registration of the trade mark as the culmination...

Flowchart This Flowchart depicts general regulatory and contractual issues that arise when building or operating a website...

Opposed business lease renewal—flowchart This flowchart outlines the process for an opposed renewal of a business lease under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954). It covers timing for service of an opposed section 25 notice, or a section 26 request counter-notice identifying the ground(s) of opposition under LTA 1954, s 30(1), the commencement of opposed proceedings, filing statements of case, and the court’s ultimate order—termination or grant of a new lease, or discontinuance or dismissal of the claim If the tenant remains in occupation for business purposes after the contractual term ends, the lease continues automatically, provided the conditions in LTA 1954, s 23 are met Either party may end the statutory protection under the existing lease by serving a termination notice: landlord’s section 25 notice; tenant’s section 26 request; section 27 notice. This flowchart addresses opposed renewals only. For the unopposed renewal route, see: Unopposed lease renewal procedure—flowchart. Note 1: Diarise a date at least 12–18...

Mergers The Commission received a filing concerning BCI/Brookfield/CGM Grosvenor/Shepherds Flat Wind (M.11965), using the simplified merger route. Note—For ongoing merger enquiries before the Commission, please see the EU mergers—ongoing cases tracker. Upcoming dates For forthcoming EU competition developments, please see the EU Competition calendar...

In this issue Key DR developments Claims and remedies Costs and funding Litigation Applications—general Evidence and disclosure Appeals New content Dates for your diary Useful information Daily and weekly news alerts Key DR developments CPR Committee minutes Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—6 June 2025: The Civil Procedure Rule Committee met on 6 June 2025 in a hybrid session at The Rolls Building (Royal Courts of Justice) and via video conference. The minutes confirm a forthcoming CPR 51 pilot enabling non-parties to obtain court documents, arising from the Supreme Court ruling in Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring [2019] UKSC 38. They also record approved amendments to the e‑working pilot, progressing towards a permanent electronic filing system as part of ongoing court modernisation. Further topics included summary assessment of costs, arbitration updates, disclosure, civil restraint orders, closed material procedures, judicial review reforms for infrastructure projects, whiplash reforms, digital services and other procedural...

In this issue: Companies House Corporate governance Equity capital markets Accounts and reports Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Companies House Companies House announces fee changes from February 2026 Companies House has confirmed a revised fees schedule from 1 February 2026, following its annual assessment to align charges with the cost of providing services. Notably, the digital incorporation filing fee will rise to £100, and the digital confirmation statement fee will increase to £50. These adjustments are set out in the Registrar of Companies (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 (SI 2025/1137), which were laid before Parliament on 30 October 2025 and take effect on 1 February 2026. The accompanying explanatory memorandum states that the updated fees are intended to recover increased costs linked to implementing the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA 2023) and the Economic...

Over the course of the past month, annual adjustments have been made to merger control thresholds in Canada, Italy and the Philippines, while Montenegro has revamped its regime, introducing swifter timetables and more adaptable filing provisions. Canada—thresholds remain the same in 2026 On 2 March 2026, the Canadian Competition Bureau (CCB) confirmed, after its yearly review, that Canadian merger notification thresholds will stay exactly as they are for 2026. The thresholds remain (in brief): size of transaction test: the target must be, or control, an operating business in Canada with more than CDN$93m (approximately €58.9m/US$66.6m) in Canadian assets (book value) or gross revenue produced by those assets from sales in, from or into Canada (ie domestic plus export sales), and size of parties test: all parties and their affiliates (in aggregate) must together hold over CDN$400m (approximately €253.4m/US$286.3m) in Canadian assets or gross revenues derived from sales in, from or into Canada (ie domestic sales, exports and imports) (this threshold is unchanged and...

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. It is provided for background information only. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is an independent regulatory organisation supervising the US securities market. As part of its remit, FINRA runs the securities industry’s largest dispute resolution forum. It addresses financial and commercial disagreements between investors, brokerage firms and individual brokers, as well as disputes within and between brokerage firms and brokers. Matters are resolved through FINRA’s own arbitration process. FINRA maintains two Codes of Arbitration Procedure: the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (the Customer Code or Section 12000 of the FINRA Rules), which governs arbitrations between investors and industry participants, and the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes (the Industry Code or Section 13000 of the FINRA Rules), which governs arbitrations between industry parties This note relates to costs under both Codes. Filing fees Any party bringing a claim—including a counterclaim, a cross-claim or a...

People with significant control (PSC) regime The architecture of the people with significant control (PSC) regime, which first commenced on 6 April 2016, is contained in Part 21A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). Its purpose is to tackle worries about the lack of transparency in corporate ownership, where historically the register captured only the legal holder of shares, not always the beneficial owner. By requiring a PSC register, more precise and up‑to‑date details are available about who ultimately owns and directs companies and other bodies, and this information is made public via the central register at Companies House and remains accessible to the public. It assists prospective investors in their decision‑making. It likewise aids law enforcement bodies with money laundering enquiries. LLPs formed under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 must keep a record of persons with significant control over the LLP under the Limited Liability Partnerships (Register of People with Significant Control) Regulations 2016, SI 2016/340 (the LLP Regulations), as amended by the Information about People...

Company number: [ insert number ] [ insert company name ] LIMITED Minutes of the board of directors’ meeting (the Meeting) of [ insert full name of company ] (the Company). Convened at [ insert place of meeting ] on [ insert day, month and year of meeting ] at [ insert time of meeting ] [ am OR pm ]. Present: [ Insert names of the director(s) physically present ] [ Insert names of any directors present by telephone as permitted by the Company’s articles of association ] (by telephone) [ Insert names of any directors present by other means permitted by the Company’s articles of association ] (by [ insert other means ]) In attendance: [ Insert name of anyone in attendance, who does not count towards the quorum for the Meeting (eg the company secretary, any legal advisers) ] Apologies: [ Insert names of any directors...

Precedent trade mark filing sheet This Precedent trade mark filing sheet exists to offer a streamlined way for a business to outline clear directions on the format and extent of any fresh trade mark applications it intends to submit. It captures key particulars of the mark for filing, the goods, relevant classes, proprietor and country, together with any priority claim and any applicable seniorities. The sheet is downloadable, and its second column will automatically expand to accommodate all entries provided. Use it in conjunction with Practice Note: Managing a trade mark portfolio. Mark to file Goods Classes Proprietor Country Priority claim Seniorities (EUTM) ...

To: Singapore International Arbitration Centre28 Maxwell Road, 03–01 Maxwell Chambers SuitesBY [ SPECIFY MODE OF DELIVERY ]Singapore 069115 Attn: The Registrar With copy, including all attachments, to: [ Insert name and address of all Respondents ]BY [ SPECIFY MODE OF DELIVERY ] Dear [ Registrar of SIAC ], We enclose a Notice of Arbitration, now lodged with the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) in accordance with rule 3 of the SIAC Rules of Arbitration, 6th Edition, 2016 (SIAC Rules). A copy is being served on the Respondent(s) by the service method(s) indicated above. The service date is [ insert anticipated date of delivery ]. [ Pursuant to rule 3.1(k) of the SIAC Rules, we attach a local cheque for [ insert amount ], payable to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, covering the required filing fee. OR Pursuant to rule 3.1(k) of the SIAC Rules, the sum of [ insert amount ], being the requisite filing fees, was remitted on [ insert date ]...

Response to appeal Under the Employment Appeal Rules 1993 (EAT Rules), SI 1993/2854, rule 6(2) provides that a respondent who intends to oppose an appeal must lodge with the Appeal Tribunal a written answer in accordance with, or broadly following, Form 3 contained in the Schedule to these Rules, setting out the grounds on which they rely. Nevertheless, where the respondent seeks to rely on any ground that mirrors a ground adopted by the employment tribunal when making the judgment, decision, declaration or order under appeal, it is sufficient simply to say so in the answer, and it shall be sufficient to state that fact in response. For further details, see Practice Note: Responding to an appeal...

This Q&A This Q&A explores the steps administrators should take to contest a landlord’s attempt to forfeit a lease by peaceable re-entry, carried out unaware of an interim moratorium triggered by lodging a notice of intention to appoint administrators (NOI). An NOI is to be lodged by the directors or the company in advance of making an out of court appointment pursuant to Schedule B1, paragraph 22, of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). This Q&A does not address a case where no NOI has been lodged. Where a company or its directors intend to appoint an administrator via the out of court route, they begin by filing an NOI, which imposes an interim moratorium under IA 1986, Sch B1, paras 44(2), 44(4). After the NOI is placed before the court, notice must also be served on the ‘prescribed persons’, including any party known to have levied distress against the company or its assets (Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, SI 2016/1024, r 3.23(4); IA 1986, Sch B1, para...

CPR 31.10 contains provisions for the disclosure of documents by way of a list. Obligations to disclose continue until the case is concluded. If additional documents are discovered after a list has been served, a supplementary list must be provided (CPR PD 31A, para 3.3). For broader guidance on disclosure, see Practice Notes: Disclosure under CPR 31—introduction and Disclosure—standard disclosure and the reasonable search. When issuing directions, the court will fix the deadline by which the list must be served on the other party. CPR 31.21: a party cannot rely on a document it has not disclosed unless the court grants permission. CPR 32.10 (witness statements) and CPR 35.13 (experts’ reports) are framed so that, upon default, court permission is required to adduce or rely on that evidence. This points to an application for permission, rather than an application for relief from sanctions, being the more suitable course where these kinds of breaches arise...