Gateways meaning

Is the statement one defined by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003)?...

Brexit—R&I forms for use pre- and post-IP completion day [ARCHIVED] This Checklist is archived and is no longer being maintained. On 30 January 2019, the Insolvency (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (the Insolvency Brexit Regulations), SI 2019/146, were laid under the affirmative procedure for Brexit statutory instruments to remedy deficiencies arising from the loss of mutual application of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 (OJ L141/19), the Recast Insolvency Regulation, and to make consequential amendments across related legislation. The instrument took effect in part from 31 January 2019 and in full from IP completion day, defined as 11.00 pm on 31 December 2020. The changes to the legislative framework include revisions to the prescribed information that must be supplied under the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, on the appointment of an insolvency office-holder. In many instances, the amendments correspond to the revised jurisdictional gateways for commencing a range of insolvency proceedings...

Gilbert and another company v Broadoak Private Finance Ltd and others [2026] EWHC 153 (KB) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision underscores that the duty of fair presentation is exacting and fundamental to preserving the integrity of the court’s process. Before making a without notice application, an applicant must undertake proper enquiries and fully interrogate both the factual basis and the legal propositions on which they intend to rely. That obligation also embraces information that would have been identified had reasonable enquiries been pursued. Practitioners should approach these applications with meticulous care and balance, ensuring that relevant counterarguments are not minimised or left undeveloped. Make proper enquiries before any without notice application Fully investigate the facts and the legal arguments relied upon Include matters discoverable through reasonable enquiries Prepare in a meticulous, even-handed way, not downplaying counterarguments Here, the judge considered there was substantial merit in the respondent’s contention that the claimant had not adequately revealed...

As at 17 March 2026, our Practice Compliance forecast monitors anticipated regulatory developments affecting law firm compliance, helping you prepare for any adjustments pertinent to your organisation. It warrants a thorough and careful read, yet a few matters that deserve attention are highlighted below for planning purposes and action now. New items we’re tracking this month Call for evidence on economic crime information sharing gateways — the Home Office has issued a call for evidence inviting views on how data is presently shared to detect, prevent, investigate and disrupt economic crime in the UK, with emphasis on identifying obstacles and opportunities to enhance information sharing systems...

What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment has resulted in every claim brought by the claimants against the defendants in the English courts being stayed or dismissed. Those claims are likely to be out of time in the jurisdiction identified as the natural forum, which may prevent the claimants from advancing them at all. The ramifications are therefore considerable and far-reaching. Claimants are strongly urged not to postpone service of proceedings without solid justification. The mere possibility of a settlement is unlikely, on its own, to justify postponement. Equally, great care is needed when choosing the forum where multiple jurisdictional paths are available. That choice is often a complex legal and strategic exercise, particularly where, as here, the parties’ locations, the economic impact of the alleged claims, the governing law, and the whereabouts of witnesses and documents all point in different directions. Where there is uncertainty about the appropriate forum, claimants would be well-advised to agree standstill or comparable arrangements in respect of...

This Practice Note examines the provisions of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA 1982) that resolve questions of international jurisdiction for employment proceedings commenced on or after 1 January 2021. For a visual summary, see: Determining jurisdiction in employment disputes (1 January 2021 onwards)—flowchart. For guidance where proceedings began on or before 31 December 2020, see: Practice Note: International jurisdiction—allocating employment cases between national courts and tribunals pre-1 January 2021 [Archived] Determining jurisdiction in employment disputes (to IP completion day)—flowchart [Archived] Background Where a common law claim is brought in the courts—such as a damages claim for breach of contract or to enforce post-termination restrictions (restrictive covenants)—jurisdiction is governed by the CJJA 1982 and the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). These rules apply to proceedings instituted on or after 1 January 2021 and replace Retained Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) (commonly known as the Brussels 1a Regulation), and the Lugano Convention, which applied to proceedings started before the end of...

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: Following the Autumn Budget 2024, the government initiated an independent review into the loan charge. Launched on 23 January 2025, the review’s remit was to examine the obstacles preventing people within scope of the loan charge, who have not settled and paid their tax liabilities in full, from reaching agreement with HMRC, and to recommend measures to encourage settlement with HMRC (see News Analysis: Autumn Budget 2024—Independent review of the loan charge). To support this work, a call for evidence—directed at those still affected by the loan charge and their advisers—was issued on 28 March 2025. The Final Report, together with the government’s response, was released at Budget 2025 on 26 November 2025...

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...

Filed on behalf of the defendant Witness Statement of [ enter the initial and surname of the witness ]. Witness statement number: [ enter the number of the witness statement relating to this witness ]. Exhibit particulars: [ enter initials and the number for each exhibit referred to ]. The statement date: [ enter date ]. [ Date of translation: [ enter date ] ]. Claim number: [ enter claim number ]. ...

Filed on behalf of the claimant Witness’s Statement for [ insert initial and surname of witness ] Statement number assigned: [ insert number of witness statement in relation to the witness ] Exhibit particulars listed herein: [ insert initials and number of each exhibit referred to ] Date the statement was completed: [ insert date ] [ Translation date: [ insert date ] ] Claim number reference: [ insert claim number ] ...