Featured documents
This Practice Note outlines the law concerning criminal recklessness. The subjective test for recklessness Certain statutory and common law offences allow the prosecution to prove mens rea through ‘recklessness’. Put simply, recklessness is where the accused takes an unjustified risk that results in unlawful harm or damage. The House of Lords in R v G reaffirmed the subjective approach to recklessness. Before R v G, two distinct tests were used, depending on the offence charged: Subjective recklessness from R v Cunningham: the prosecution had to establish that the accused personally foresaw the risk. Objective recklessness from R v Caldwell: the prosecution only needed to show that the risk would have been obvious to a reasonable person, without proving the accused themselves foresaw it. In R v G, the House of Lords concluded that the objective test could operate unfairly where a defendant did not foresee the
This Practice Note examines the remedy of rescission, explaining when and in what manner a contract can be unwound (at common law, in equity and under statute) and thereby terminated and brought to an end. It covers the consequences and effects of rescission, the principal grounds for setting aside an agreement (misrepresentation, mistake, undue influence, duress, non‑disclosure, fiduciary misdealing and bribery) and the main obstacles to claiming rescission—affirmation, the intervention of third‑party rights and the impossibility of restitution. For further guidance on rescission in the context of misrepresentation, see Practice Note: Misrepresentation—rescission as a remedy. There are many ways in which a contract may reach its end; see: Terminating contracts—how and when a contract ends—overview for a brief and accessible summary, with links to the related further practical guidance, including Practice Note: Termination and expiry of contracts. For a table
What is a res judicata? A res judicata is a determination by a court or tribunal with jurisdiction over the cause of action and the parties, which finally disposes of the issues decided so they cannot be litigated again by those bound, save on appeal. Final judgments entered by default or by consent fall within this concept, whereas rulings on purely procedural points and any decision lacking finality do not. The doctrine’s aim is to bring litigation to an end and shield parties from being harassed by the same dispute twice. in personam—binds the parties and their privies in rem—binds all persons, privy or otherwise (ie a judgment binding the whole world) A party may rely on res judicata: as an estoppel to defeat an opponent’s claim or defence; and/or as the basis of their own claim or
The offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent can be tried solely in the Crown Court on indictment. Elements of the offence Under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (OATPA 1861), the prosecution must establish that the defendant unlawfully and maliciously: wounded with the intention of causing GBH, or caused GBH with that intention, or wounded intending to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of any person, or caused GBH intending to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of any person ‘Unlawfully’ and ‘maliciously’ Unlawfully The wounding or causing of GBH must be unlawful. Such conduct may be lawful if used: in self-defence in defence of another in defence of property for the prevention of crime where the victim gave express or implied consent For further information on these defences, see below:
Most recent Practice notes
ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Note examines the concepts of tort, quasi delict and delict in Article 5(3) of Regulation ( EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. It explains how Article 5(3) should be construed, with a central emphasis on identifying the place where the harmful event leading to the damage occurred. It also outlines where that event is situated for particular categories of claim, including: economic loss damaged and defective goods intellectual property claims actions for inducing reach of contract personal injury claims In addition, the Note addresses claims involving co-defendants and considers applications seeking a declaration that a party has no liability in tort or delict. Note: from 10 January 2015, Regulation ( EC) 44/2001, Brussels I was repealed in full and replaced by Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast)....
ARCHIVED This Practice Note is archived and no longer maintained. It examines, in detail, the rules governing contract claims under Council Regulation ( EC) 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters ( Brussels I). It reviews the necessary connecting factors, the nature of contractual obligations, and identifies the place of performance and the place of delivery. It further differentiates between contracts for the sale of goods and those for the supply of services. For further guidance on tort and maintenance claims within Brussels I, see Practice Note: Brussels I—non contract claims (art 5) [ Archived]. Note: as of 10 January 2015, Regulation ( EC) 44/2001, Brussels I was repealed in full and superseded by Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). However, transitional arrangements exist and apply. For details of those...
ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and no longer updated or maintained. It sets out and outlines the meaning and scope of ‘related proceedings’ under article 28 of Regulation ( EC) 44/2001, commonly known as Brussels I. It also examines the factors a court may weigh and assess when deciding whether to stay an action in its discretion. Note: from 10 January 2015, Regulation ( EC) 44/2001, Brussels I was repealed in full and in its entirety and superseded by Brussels I (recast). Nonetheless, transitional measures mean Brussels I still governs in certain specified situations and circumstances. For further details of those transitional arrangements, see Practice Note: Guide to Brussels I (recast) [ Archived]— Transitional arrangements. What is the relevant provision in Brussels I? Brussels I refers to Regulation ( EC) No. 44/2001 of the European Parliament and Council concerning...
ARCHIVED : This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained This Practice Note reviews Article 22 of Regulation ( EC) 44/2001 ( Brussels I), which assigns exclusive jurisdiction to a court irrespective of the defendant’s domicile or any conflicting agreement between the parties. The provisions may engage where claims relate to: immovable property companies’ constitution and the validity of acts entries in public registers intellectual property rights all proceedings for enforcing judgments Note : since 10 January 2015 Regulation ( EC) 44/2001, Brussels I has been repealed in full and superseded by Brussels I (recast). Transitional arrangements are in place. For details of those arrangements, and whether Brussels I still governs the issue you are handling, see Practice Note: E& W Brussels I (recast)—application and...
FORTHCOMING CHANGE: This Practice Note sets out the law as it currently stands, though elements could be affected by the Digital Omnibus proposals released on 19 November 2025 under the European Commission’s ‘simplification’ agenda. For details, see Practice Note: EU Digital Omnibus—tracker. It introduces the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation ( EU) 2016/679 ( EU GDPR), and the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation ( EU) 2016/679 ( UK GDPR). The UK data protection law collection and the EU data protection law collection compile further core guidance on these regimes and are recommended starting points for research. In brief, data protection law across the EEA (the EU together with Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein) and the UK aims to ensure that information about living individuals (‘personal data’) is treated fairly and responsibly. To that end, both EEA and UK data protection laws impose...
This Practice Note examines estoppel by representation and estoppel by convention (often regarded as a sub-species of estoppel by representation). For overarching guidance on what estoppel is and when it may be pleaded, see Practice Note: Estoppel—what, when and how to plead. For guidance on other forms of estoppel, see Practice Notes: Contractual estoppel Promissory estoppel Proprietary estoppel Estoppel by representation—what is it? Estoppel by representation arises where one party ( A) makes, through words or behaviour, a unilateral assertion of fact or law to another ( B), intending B to rely on it (or in circumstances where A’s conduct would lead a reasonable person to understand it was meant to be acted upon), and B does rely on it to their detriment. In that situation, A is prevented from later resiling from the original representation. A representation of fact may be made by positive conduct (eg, by words or...
Scope of Practice Note This Practice Note sets out, in table format, notable case law and decisions from England and Wales that bear upon the ESG (environmental, social and governance) landscape. As outlined in Practice Note: How to understand ESG civil litigation risk, ESG-related actions may concern what an organisation: does, or neglects to do, to meet its ESG obligations states it is doing to fulfil those ESG obligations In both instances, the obligations may arise from statute, regulation, or be voluntarily adopted. Consequently, key decisions regarded as pertinent to ESG to date include matters relating to: climate change (duties, breaches, environmental harm) greenwashing (misleading claims about environmental credentials or deceptive practices) alleged forced and abusive labour conditions corporate governance failings, i.e. breaches of legislative and regulatory requirements, such as under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ( FSMA 2000) or the...
ARCHIVED: this Practice Note is archived, is not kept up to date, and is provided for background only. In addition, some links may no longer lead to the provisions as they stood on the publication date of the guidance... Key contract cases for 2016—what do you need to know? During 2016, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court addressed a series of significant contract issues. In this round-up, we consider: the end of anti-oral variation clauses? ( Globe Motors, Rock Advertising)—see below creating contracts by conduct ( Reveille v Anotech)—see below when contracts must come to an end ( MSC Mediterranean v Cottonex)—see below limiting and excluding liability ( Transocean Drilling, Star Polaris, Impact Funding, Nobahar- Cookson)—see below when are Wrotham Park damages available? ( One Step v Morris- Garner)—see below damages for deceit ( OMV Petrom v...
This Practice Note reviews jurisdictional gateway 16 concerning restitution claims, as contained in CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(16). It should be considered alongside Practice Note: Cross-border service—jurisdictional gateways (principles). The gateway was effectively repealed in October 2015 and replaced with new terms. This is relevant when consulting older authorities analysing the gateway. The former wording indicated that a restitution claim could be made where the defendant’s purported liability arose from acts within the jurisdiction. Restitution claims—gateway 16 The current form provides that a claim for restitution is made where: (a) the defendant’s alleged liability stems from acts carried out within the jurisdiction; or (b) the enrichment is obtained within the jurisdiction; or (c) the claim is governed by the law of England and Wales. For those handling restitution matters, meeting any single limb of gateway 16 is sufficient: gateway 16(a)—wide in scope, as it centres on the...
ARCHIVED : This Practice Note has been archived as it pre-dates 1 April 2013 and is retained solely to aid understanding of the consultation on reforming conditional fee agreements and other elements of funding and costs in civil litigation. It covers: the Government’s response CFAs After the Event ( ATE) insurance Damages-based agreements ( DBAs/contingency fees) CPR 36 assessment of costs, including the new proportionality test increased hourly rates for litigants in person The consultation Following Lord Justice Jackson’s report on costs, the Ministry of Justice announced a consultation on reforming conditional fee agreements and other aspects of funding and costs in civil litigation. The consultation closed on Monday 14 February 2011. For further details, see: Reform of civil litigation funding: consultation launched ( News, 16 November 2010). The Government's response The Ministry of Justice issued its response in May 2011. In broad...
ARCHIVED : This Practice Note applies to applications to obtain evidence in the courts of England and Wales for use in an EU Member State, where the transitional arrangements on the taking of evidence in Article 68(b) of the Withdrawal Agreement were satisfied before IP completion day (31 December 2020). For guidance on whether those transitional provisions are met, see Practice Note: Brexit post implementation period—considerations for dispute resolution practitioners, in particular the main section: Taking of evidence. Where the transitional provisions apply, the rules and practice direction in force immediately before implementation day (ie 30 December 2020 at 11 pm) continue to govern. In this Practice Note, these are described as old Part 34 and old practice direction 34A. For guidance, see Practice Note: Brexit post implementation period— CPR changes [ Archived], especially the main section: Part 34— Witnesses,...
ARCHIVED : Practice Direction 51V ( CPR PD 51V) establishes a pilot under which applications to set aside default judgments made pursuant to CPR 12 are heard by video. This mechanism is distinct from the coronavirus pandemic arrangements that facilitated remote hearings. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Remote and hybrid hearings in civil proceedings. The pilot operates in the Birmingham or Manchester Civil Justice Centres and applies automatically unless a party objects or chooses to opt out. The scheme is described in the schedule to the 115th Update— Practice Direction amendments. It has been extended, with the 122nd Update— Practice Direction Amendments confirming it will continue until 31 March 2021. This Practice Notice addresses the second video hearings pilot scheme. Note that both the original pilot and this successor bear the same title and share the same practice direction reference. For the rationale behind...
ARCHIVED : Warning: this is for historical purposes only. This pilot scheme has now ended. Where and when did it apply? The Automatic Pilot Scheme (the Scheme) applied to all claims started on or after 1 October 2009 and continued until 30 September 2012. What was it? Under the Scheme, if a party defaulted by failing to file key documents during the proceedings, their claim was automatically struck out without any further order from the court. In addition, where parties wished to obtain a stay of proceedings to explore settlement, there was no automatic strike out; instead, an automatic order was made granting a stay. It was therefore important to recognise the situations in which the Scheme operated, namely: all parties requested a stay of the proceedings for a one‑month period any party failed to file an allocation...
E& W Brussels I (recast)—appearance by the defendant (arts 26 and 28) [ Archived] ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note reviews the provisions in Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) on when a defendant submits to the court’s jurisdiction. Articles 26 and 28 prescribe how to determine whether a defendant has accepted the court’s authority. The central requirement is the entry of an ‘appearance’. The Note examines what constitutes an appearance and the associated practicalities. Where no appearance is entered, submission may not be established and the court may stay the proceedings. Alongside this, it addresses the practical question of whether the defendant has been given adequate information to make an informed decision to appear, as reflected in Article 28 of Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). In particular, an appearance is the...
E& W Brussels I (recast)—parallel proceedings (art 29) [ Archived] ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and is not maintained. It examines the terms of Article 29 of Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), which governs multiple proceedings, namely parallel proceedings that concern the same cause of action and the same parties. The Note outlines how courts address these matters and supplies examples showing their practical handling. Accordingly, the Note addresses both the procedural framework and its operation in day-to-day practice. The same subject-matter was formerly set out in Article 27 of Regulation ( EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. Although Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) makes certain alterations to what appeared in Regulation ( EC) 44/2001, Brussels I, the body of case law on Article 27 of Regulation ( EC) 44/2001, Brussels I remains relevant and will continue to shape the...
E& W Brussels I (recast)—domicile ( Arts 4 and 63) [ Archived] ARCHIVED : This Practice Note is archived and no longer being maintained. It reviews the default rule in Article 4 of Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), addressing how a defendant’s domicile bears on the court’s jurisdiction. It identifies circumstances in which that principle is displaced and includes pathways to in-depth analysis of particular rules. It further outlines the approach under English law to assessing domicile for natural persons and corporate entities. Impact of UK’s departure from the EU After exit day (ie 31 January 2020), the UK assumed third-state status for the purposes of Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). However, by virtue of the Withdrawal Agreement’s transitional terms between the UK and the EU, Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) continued to apply to the UK...
E& W Brussels I (recast)—third parties, counterclaims and rights in rem (art 8) [ Archived] ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and no longer maintained. It examines departures from the general rule that a claimant must issue proceedings in the courts of the defendant’s domicile under Article 8 of Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). The Note addresses third parties, counterclaims, and rights in rem. It does not address the provisions in Article 8(1) concerning multiple defendants; that subject is dealt with in Practice Note: E& W Brussels I (recast)—multiple defendants (art 8) [ Archived]. Impact of UK’s departure from the EU Following exit day (ie 31 January 2020), the UK became a third state for the purposes of Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). Under the transitional provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU, the UK continued to be...
E& W Brussels I (recast)—requirements for an effective choice of court agreement (art 25) [ Archived] ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note examines Article 25 of Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), and the criteria for demonstrating to the court that the parties have a valid choice of court agreement. It sets out the position previously adopted by the Court of Justice of the European Union ( CJEU) on such agreements, identifies the changes introduced by the regulation, and considers what those developments may entail in practice. Equivalent wording to Article 25 of Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), appears in earlier instruments— Article 17 of the Brussels Convention and Article 23 of Regulation ( EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. Accordingly, the cases cited in this Practice Note include decisions under that Convention and Regulation, as they assist in...
This Practice Note sets out information on schemes overseen or sanctioned by the court that support or encourage parties to resolve disputes through alternative dispute resolution ( ADR), such as mediation. It further lists other ADR organisations that users may find helpful and relevant for their needs. Under the overriding objective in CPR 1, the court holds a range of powers to direct or prompt parties to contemplate ADR as a means of resolving their case when appropriate. For further information on this, refer to Practice Note: Court powers to order or encourage ADR in civil proceedings. To advance that aim, several court-run or court-endorsed ADR schemes exist which parties may, and in some circumstances must, use, including those described here for parties. For additional updates on ADR, see Practice Note: Tracker— ADR...
Timeline of key events Date Event Minutes of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee ( CPRC) meeting of 5 December 2025 The CPRC reviewed part one of the Law Commission’s contempt of court report. It rejected the Commission’s call for a single, overarching code or unified rules. The committee confirmed that contempt provisions for the civil courts should stay in CPR 81, which already functions as a full procedural code. The CPRC favoured, where workable, harmonising contempt rules with those in other courts and tribunals, noting that civil and family jurisdictions are already aligned. That said, it saw a weaker rationale for alignment with the criminal courts and tribunals given differences in drafting style, and so on. The committee judged it premature to revise the contempt rules until the Commission issues part two of its report. It was...
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
