Final hearing meaning

STOP PRESS: The Financial Remedies Guide 2026 Published on 13 March 2026 by Mr Justice Peel and His Honour Judge Hess, and approved by the President of the Family Division, the Guide replaces and supersedes: efficiency statement for High Court judge cases (1 February 2016) efficiency statement below High Court judge level (11 January 2022) Financial Remedies Court Primary Principles (11 January 2022) Notice: electronic bundles (19 April 2022) Allocation of financial remedies cases to High Court judge level (21 May 2024) This document is being updated accordingly. The flowchart maps the steps when the accelerated first appointment procedure is available in the Financial Remedies Court within the Family Court. For practical guidance—including overviews, Practice Notes, precedents, guides, legislation, forms and further reading—see Financial provision—practice and procedure—overview or the related documents on the right-hand side of the flowchart; for all Lexis+ UK family flowcharts see Index of family flowcharts; for the accelerated route, see Accelerated first appointment...

Procedural Guide: Applications for Child Arrangements Orders under section 8 Children Act 1989 This Procedural Guide outlines the procedural steps for applying under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) for a child arrangements order (CAO). It covers eligibility to apply, pre-action obligations including attendance at a mediation information and assessment meeting (MIAM), the court’s guiding principles, and provisions for non-court dispute resolution (NCDR). It also addresses service requirements and the criteria for without notice (ex parte) applications. Allocation, gatekeeping and safeguarding processes are explained, together with what may occur at the first hearing dispute resolution appointment (FHDRA) and the dispute resolution appointment (DRA), as well as the approach to fact-finding hearings, vulnerable witnesses and the final hearing. A CAO is one of the orders available to the court under ChA 1989, s 8. It is an order concerning: with whom a child is to live, spend time or otherwise have contact, and when a child is to live, spend time or...

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...

Stage 1—preparing to bring a claim and pre-action matters Guidance on UK trade mark infringement, offences, passing off, interim injunctions, running IP disputes, privilege, dispute resolution (mediation and arbitration), and the Disclosure Scheme; plus checklists and forms (injunction, application, hearing) Stage 2—Letter before action alleging infringement Notes on infringement, passing off, unjustified threats and drafting; includes a trade mark letter of claim precedent Stage 3—commencing proceedings Procedure, defences and exceptions, IPEC flowchart, pleadings and initial disclosure precedents, and CPR/Part 36 forms Stage 4—case management Procedure and Disclosure Scheme notes, court guides (Chancery, Patents Court, IPEC and Small Claims), and case management questionnaires, Disclosure Review Document, Certificate of Compliance, budgets and directions Stage 5—disclosure and evidence Surveys and witness evidence (PD 57AC), privilege, disclosure (including electronic) and flexible trials; witness statement and Extended Disclosure precedents; affidavits, applications and certificates Stage 6—trial...

In this issue: New technologies Internet Media Advertising, marketing and sponsorship LexTalk®TMT: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q&As Useful information New technologies Getty Images drops Stability AI copyright infringement claims from UK trial MLex reports that on 25 June 2025 Getty Images abandoned its direct copyright infringement claims against image generator Stability AI during the first day of closing submissions in a landmark three‑week High Court hearing in London. It is still pursuing allegations of trade mark infringement, passing off, secondary copyright infringement and issues around licensing, yet the move is a setback for the UK’s creative sector, which had sought clear precedent to provide broad copyright protection in the UK against AI models’ web scraping. See: Getty Images drops Stability AI copyright infringement claims from UK trial. IAB Tech Lab proposes framework for AI content usage compensation...

Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2024] EWHC 902 (Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This notable judgment examines when it is right to direct a trial of a preliminary issue before the main hearing. The court emphasised that limitation issues are often apt for early determination, and warned that if such questions are left to be decided only at the final trial, the policy basis of limitation law would be weakened. It also confirms that the governing approach to ordering a preliminary issue trial lies in the ten factors identified by Neuberger J in Steele v Steele [2001] CP Rep 106 (not reported by LexisNexis®UK). In brief, while limitation is frequently suitable for preliminary resolution, the court must still apply those factors when deciding whether a discrete issue should be tried first...

In this issue: Copyright & associated rights Trade marks/passing off Patents IP and technology General IP LexTalk®IP: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Copyright & associated rights Injunction granted against Craig Wright (Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright; Wright v BTC Core) In High Court proceedings brought by Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) against Craig Steven Wright, the court found squarely and decisively against Dr Wright’s assertions that he created Bitcoin as ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’. On the final day of the hearing earlier this year, Mr Justice Mellor stated the evidence was overwhelming and unequivocal: Dr Wright is not the author of the Bitcoin White Paper, did not act under the name Satoshi Nakamoto between 2008 and 2011, did not devise the Bitcoin system, and did not write the early iterations of the Bitcoin software at all. The recently issued...

This Practice Note This Practice Note sets out how the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) conducts its formal administrative procedures under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000), with particular emphasis on Part XXVI (Notices), alongside the PRA’s statements of policy and procedure for reaching decisions... Outcomes may involve supervisory steps—such as varying or imposing requirements—or formal enforcement, including a public censure or a financial penalty, directed at PRA‑authorised firms or individuals... It explains the PRA’s decision‑making routes for issuing statutory notices under FSMA 2000, namely: Supervisory Notices Warning Notices Decision Notices Final Notices Notices of Discontinuance The Note also sets out how subjects can make representations, including orally, at a hearing before PRA decision‑making bodies such as the Supervision, Risk and Policy Committee (SRPC) or the Enforcement Decision Making Committee (EDMC)... The Securitisation Regulation 2024 (SI 2024/102) broadened the PRA’s enforcement remit to cover firms engaged in securitisation that are not PRA‑authorised. Under the...

Part 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 (CASWA 2017) created Social Work England (SWE) as the regulator for social workers in England, replacing the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC). The regulation of social workers was formally transferred to SWE from the Health and Social Care Professions Council in December 2019. SWE operates under the auspices and oversight of the Professional Standards Authority. As a result, the Professional Standards Agency is, in specified circumstances, able to refer a case to the High Court. See Practice Note: Professional Standards Authority. SWE was established to deliver a new and different approach to regulation. Accordingly, some variation can reasonably be expected between the approach of more established regulators and that of SWE. SWE aims to set the tone as a collaborative regulator, emphasising that it shares and reflects the values of those it regulates. On a practical level, for the fitness to practise process this translates into there being multiple opportunities for Registrants to engage at an early stage, together...

The Financial Services Enforcement Database The Financial Services Enforcement Database brings together comprehensive details on substantive Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) Final Notices and, where obtainable, Decision Notices, covering 2014 onwards. The Database can be searched and refined by fields including rule/legislation breach, keyword, sector, date, financial penalty, facets of financial penalty analysis, outcomes such as redress and prohibition orders, and further actions like referrals to the Upper Tribunal. This Practice Note sets out the law and process for making a reference to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) following a disciplinary or non-disciplinary decision of the FCA or the PRA; including decisions on restrictions, financial penalties and prohibition orders under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000), and the FCA’s registration of cryptoasset firms under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, SI 2017/692 (MLRs). It addresses the Upper Tribunal’s role and scope of its powers when determining references in financial services matters....

[ To be typed on the employer’s headed notepaper ] [ Insert date ] Dear [ insert name of employee ], Re: [ insert name of employer ] (the Company) I write to [ inform you of OR confirm ] the Company’s decision reached following the disciplinary hearing on [ insert date ] [ , at which you were accompanied by [ insert name ], ]. As you know, on [ insert date ] you were notified in writing that a final written warning had been issued in line with the Company’s [ dismissal and disciplinary procedure ]. That correspondence explained that any further misconduct [ within [ 12 ] [ months OR weeks ] ] was likely to lead to dismissal. As outlined during the disciplinary hearing, the Company considers your conduct to remain unsatisfactory and has decided that you will be dismissed in accordance with the Company’s [ dismissal and disciplinary procedure ]...

[ insert name of beneficiary ] [ insert address of beneficiary ] [ insert date ] The late [ name of deceased ] Dear [ insert name of beneficiary ], Further to my correspondence dated [ date of last letter ], I am pleased to advise that the personal representatives have now obtained the grant of [ probate OR letters of administration ] in respect of [ name of deceased ]’s estate. Please find enclosed a copy of the interim accounts for your reference. Once we are in receipt of all liquidated assets and the final accounts have been approved, we can proceed with the final distributions and bring the estate administration to a close. If you have any queries, please do get in touch. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely,...

Dear [ insert name of employee ], Re: [ insert name of employer ] (the Company) Following the disciplinary hearing on [ insert date ] [ , where you were accompanied by [ insert name ] ], I write to [ inform you of OR confirm ] a [ final ] written warning under the company’s [ dismissal and disciplinary procedure ]. This warning will be kept on file and will expire [ insert number ] months from this letter, on [ insert date ], subject to satisfactory conduct [ and no further disciplinary issues in that period ]. Review: [ insert date ]. Conduct of concern: [ insert details ]. Required improvement[s]/timescale: [ insert details ]. Further misconduct may lead to [ a final written warning OR dismissal OR [ insert other possible outcome ] ]. Appeals under [ dismissal and disciplinary procedure ] must be in writing, state your grounds, and sent to [ insert name and...

It is commonplace in financial remedy proceedings for a third party to be added to the case, either to advance a claim to a beneficial interest in a property or other asset, or to permit making of an order for sale in relation to that property. In TL v ML, Mostyn J articulated the procedural principles to be applied to such matters...

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...