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
This Practice Note outlines the main considerations when making an application to contest the court’s jurisdiction under CPR 11, and addresses the consequences of both successful and unsuccessful applications. It should be read alongside Practice Note: Challenging court jurisdiction—general principles, particularly on whether an application is necessary. The provisions of CPR 11 can be difficult to construe. As the Privy Council remarked in Texan Management Ltd v Pacific Electric Wire and Cable Company Ltd (2009), CPR 11(1) is ‘inelegantly and inconsistently drafted’ as to what it is meant to encompass. Authorities that have examined the interpretation of CPR 11 offer useful insight into the stance the courts are likely to adopt when determining applications under Part 11. For guidance on other facets of challenging court jurisdiction, see the following Practice Notes: Challenging court...
Practice Note and IA 1986 This Practice Note uses the Insolvency Act 1986, abbreviated as IA 1986. The table outlines the main corporate insolvency procedures from a dispute resolution perspective. Administration A short-term measure for a company facing financial distress. The purpose is to give the administrator time to attempt a rescue, pursue a restructuring, or deliver a better return for creditors than an immediate winding up. Appointment: effected out of court by a qualifying floating charge holder, the company’s directors or the company itself, or by court order (an administration order). Combination: administration can operate alongside a company voluntary arrangement ( CVA) or a scheme of arrangement. Effect on proceedings: entry into administration imposes a broad moratorium on court proceedings and legal processes, covering proceedings, execution and distress. It applies to both existing and new proceedings, which may only continue or be...
This Practice Note examines the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, commonly known as the Singapore Convention. It sets out the framework for enforcing international settlement agreements achieved through mediation. The Note reviews the countries that have signed, their obligations under the Convention, and any reservations they may enter. It analyses the application and scope of the Convention, clarifies defined terms, and explains the requirements for enforcement or reliance on settlement agreements, as well as the grounds to refuse relief and to adjourn decisions on relief. It also addresses other matters and practical considerations. What is the Singapore Convention? The Singapore Convention was signed in Singapore on 7 August 2019. It can be accessed on the UNCITRAL website— United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation. Its primary aims are to facilitate international trade and to promote the use of...
This Practice Note explains how to complete Precedent H (costs budget), the prescribed form for setting out a party’s budgeted costs under CPR 3 and CPR PD 3D. Except in exceptional circumstances, parties are expected to submit only Precedent H and the budget discussion report ( Precedent R). Where the claim is worth less than £50,000, or the costs sought are under £25,000, only the first page of Precedent H must be completed. It should be read alongside Practice Note: Cost budgets—form, content and practical considerations. This Note provides assistance with completing Precedent H, the court form that records a costs budget... Which CPR provisions apply? CPR 3 and CPR PD 3D apply... What is Precedent H? Precedent H is the court form setting out a costs budget. Unless the court orders otherwise......
This Practice Note on economic torts This note summarises, at a high level, the key differences when pursuing claims for lawful means conspiracy, unlawful means conspiracy, the tort of unlawful interference, and procuring a breach of contract. Practice Notes: Civil conspiracy claims (economic tort) Lawful means conspiracy (civil action) Unlawful means conspiracy (civil action) Economic tort of unlawful interference The tort of procuring a breach of contract Closely connected to procuring a breach of contract is the so‑called ‘ Marex tort’, a cause of action founded on an alleged deliberate infringement by the defendant of the claimant’s rights in a judgment debt; see Practice Note: The Marex tort (interference with a judgment debt). These claims may (though need not) involve a fiduciary or agent, including company directors. For further guidance, see: Claims against directors—key...
This Practice Note outlines what a statutory demand is and what it is intended to achieve in corporate and personal insolvency, assuming the debtor is located in England and Wales. The statutory demand—the general position A statutory demand (in both corporate and personal contexts) is a formal request for a debt—either immediately payable or due at a specified future time—served on the debtor by one or more of their creditors. Across both regimes, if the debtor, within 21 days of service, does not pay the sum, does not satisfy it or provide security to the creditor’s satisfaction, or does not take the proper steps to stop the creditor acting further upon it, a presumption of insolvency arises on an inability to pay basis in respect of the debtor. Where the debtor is an individual, an unanswered statutory demand supplies a creditor with one of only two bases on which a...
This Practice Note explores the incorporation of a charterparty jurisdiction clause into a bill of lading. It concentrates on: the distinctive English-law rules on importing charterparty terms into bills of lading recent authorities concerning jurisdiction and dispute resolution wording in bills of lading practical issues stemming from standard terms used in carriage contracts and bills of lading the stance of consignees and holders when incorporated bill terms are invoked It serves as an introductory guide for lawyers handling shipping and aviation work. It should be read alongside Practice Note: Jurisdiction agreements by incorporation—principles, which addresses the broader principles governing incorporation of jurisdiction clauses, particularly by reference to standard terms and conditions. Key takeaways in bills of lading, the issue is one of construction, yet English law adopts a rigorous approach to incorporation general wording will ordinarily import only terms germane to...
Practice Note—illustrative decisions in negligence and professional negligence (from 1 January 2025) Although every case must be analysed on its own merits and distinctive factual and legal matrix, it is helpful to observe how the core principles play out in real scenarios. Accordingly, this Practice Note gathers some of the most instructive decisions concerning negligence and professional negligence claims. The matters set out below cover judgments handed down on or after 1 January 2025. For earlier illustrative decisions from 2020–2024, see Practice Note: Negligence claims—illustrative decisions (2020–2024) [ Archived]. We do not attempt an exhaustive catalogue; we include only cases that offer points of particular interest. Each entry provides a direct link to the judgment and, where available, our News Analysis of that decision. For the overarching principles on the existence and standard of the duty of care, breach, causation and loss, refer to the...
This Practice Note offers direction on how to file, issue and serve an application for permission to appeal, as well as how to amend it. It also addresses the respondent’s subsequent steps, such as filing a notice of intention to participate, raising objections to applications, and pursuing cross-appeals. Read this Note alongside Practice Note: Supreme Court—permission to appeal—on or after 2 December 2024. For advice on non-compliance with the SCR and applicable deadlines, see Practice Note: Supreme Court—role, structure and powers—on or after 2 December 2024. Appeals before 2 December 2024 This Note applies to Supreme Court appeals in which an application for permission to appeal, or a notice of appeal, was lodged on or after 2 December 2024, the commencement date of the SCR ( SCR 1). The SCR 2009 (termed the ‘old SCR’ in this Note) are revoked from that date ( SCR...
This Practice Note examines the jurisdictional service gateway, or basis for service, in CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(20), which concerns claims under various enactments. It identifies the gateway and offers commentary on the manner in which the courts have interpreted it... This Practice Note should be read alongside Practice Note: Cross border service—jurisdictional gateways (principles)... What criteria will need to be met? Gateway 20 ( CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(20)) provides that a claim is made: (a) under an enactment that permits proceedings to be issued, where those proceedings are not encompassed by any other ground in this paragraph; or (b) under the Directive of the Council of the European Communities dated 15 March 1976 No. 76/308/ EEC, where service is to be effected in a Member State of the European Union. It should be observed that the second limb was removed with effect from 1...
Note: With effect from 6 April 2023, the provisions in CPR 19 were renumbered and amended pursuant to the Civil Procedure ( Amendment) Rules 2023, SI 2023/105—see LNB News 02/02/2023 98— Amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules in force on 6 April 2023— The Civil Procedure ( Amendment) Rules 2023. Further, modest amendments were made to CPR PD 19B by the 153rd practice direction update to the CPR—see LNB News 07/02/2023 72—153rd Practice Direction update—changes in force 31 January 2023 and 6 April 2023. The provisions addressing group litigation orders ( GLOs) are now contained in CPR 19.21 to CPR 19.26 (renumbered from CPR 19.10 to CPR 19.15) and CPR PD 19B. However, note that many of the cases referenced below (decided before 6 April 2023) still cite the old numbering. Where the context of the provision has changed since the case was...
This Practice Note considers the standard of proof in civil claims based on the defendant’s alleged fraud. It addresses the test for dishonesty (per Ivey v Genting) and identifies when a court may draw an inference of dishonesty (and therefore fraud) from facts it finds proved. This discussion is separate, albeit connected, to the issues of pleading fraud and dishonesty—see Practice Note: Civil fraud—pleading fraud and dishonesty. This Practice Note considers: the standard of proof in civil fraud cases dishonesty in a civil context whether recklessness equates to dishonesty, and the concepts of ‘targeted suspicion’ and ‘blind-eye knowledge’ evidencing and proving dishonesty in civil claims, including: the general approach to evidence in fraud cases, whether the alleged fraud ought to have been obvious, the witnesses (their credibility or their absence) and the position of third parties whether...
ARCHIVED : This Practice Note explains the position if the UK and the EU reach no agreement on taking evidence after the UK leaves the EU. During the implementation period beginning on exit day (ie the day the UK departs the EU), the withdrawal agreement’s provisions apply. For guidance on that period and its effect on evidence-taking, see Practice Note: Brexit implementation period—taking of evidence [ Archived]. It considers the consequences of a no-deal exit for securing evidence in civil and commercial cases. Two principal UK regulations address a no-deal Brexit and the taking of evidence: The Service of Documents and Taking of Evidence in Civil and Commercial Matters ( Revocation and Saving Provisions) ( EU Exit) Regulations 2018, SI 2018/1257, which revokes the key EU instrument in this area, namely Regulation ( EC) 1206/2001 ( Taking of Evidence...
This Practice Note explores the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and how it operates when enforcing a court judgment or a judicial settlement. It addresses what counts as a judgment and a judicial settlement, the criteria for recognition and enforcement of a court judgment, including severability, together with enforcement of non-monetary orders and judicial settlements. The Practice Note also outlines the steps for recognition and enforcement, the supporting documents needed, and points specific to England and Wales. Finally, it considers the bases for refusing recognition or enforcement under the convention. For practitioners using the Convention, an explanatory report by Trevor Hartley and Masato Dogauchi offers detailed commentary on each article. It further signposts severability within judgments and the treatment of non-monetary relief and settlements under the convention. Does the Convention...
ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note is no longer updated and is supplied solely for background reference and context. Additionally, certain links may not lead you to the provisions as they stood when the guidance in this Practice Note was issued and published. For details of earlier and/or later changes to the CPR, refer to: CPR Updates—overview and Procedure Rule Committee minutes—overview. This Practice Note describes the amendments to Practice Directions in the 101st Making Document, dated 7 November 2018. Those amendments introduce a video hearing pilot under CPR PD 51V, applying to applications to set aside default judgments entered under CPR 12 by the County Court for a specified sum of money......
This Practice Note explores following and tracing and addresses several of the more challenging facets of the exercise, including tracing through chains of transactions, the idea of ‘backwards tracing’, cherry-picking in tracing (mixed substitutions), and tracing in relation to digital assets. ‘ Following’ and ‘tracing’ are not causes of action in themselves, but evidential techniques for locating and identifying assets against which a claim might be brought. See Practice Note: Proprietary remedies—following and tracing. While following and tracing can sometimes be relatively simple, there are circumstances when they are especially difficult both conceptually and evidentially. A number of these issues are set out below. Tracing and chains of transactions (inference in tracing gaps) Where funds are pursued through multiple bank accounts across separate transactions, problems can arise in proving that the money that left one account is the same money ultimately sitting in a...
This Practice Note reviews certain judicial decisions that demonstrate how Part III of the Private International Law ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 ( PIL( MP) A 1995) operates in tort matters. Judgment and citation Facts Decision Walter Hugh Merricks CBE v Mastercard Inc [2024] EWCA Civ 759 at para [146] The proceedings involved follow-on competition claims. The Court of Appeal regarded this as an exceptional instance where the section 11 rule should yield to section 12. Its reasoning was markedly shaped by the Commission’s decision and the collective redress setting. The logic was that section 11 would otherwise lead to applying the laws of the countries in which the anti-competitive restriction occurred. Yet here, the European Commission had already determined the restriction of competition and the court was dealing with a follow-on action. It was judged ‘substantially more appropriate’ for the questions in the...
This Practice Note summarises the disclosure requirements for claims allocated to the small claims track. For general guidance on disclosure, see: Disclosure—overview. Note: this Practice Note does not cover claims subject to the Disclosure Scheme in the Business & Property Courts. For guidance on that Scheme, see: Disclosure Scheme ( Business & Property Courts)—overview. For general guidance on disclosure in other tracks, see the following Practice Notes: Disclosure in fast track cases Disclosure in intermediate track cases Disclosure in multi-track cases The scope of a claim in the small claims track Claims on the small claims track are described as ‘small claims’. This track is intended for claims worth under £10,000. For further guidance on cases allocated to and progressing on the small claims track, see Practice Note: Small claims track—case management. Proceedings in the small claims track are governed by CPR 27 and CPR PD...
Practice Note This Practice Note distils illustrative rulings handed down after October 2025 that bear on the determination of limitation periods under the Limitation Act 1980 ( LA 1980). Its purpose is to outline the breadth of issues that may arise and potential judicial approaches, concentrating on decisions most likely to interest a dispute resolution practitioner. For summaries of decisions relevant to the LA 1980 issued before October 2025, see the following Practice Notes: Limitation and extensions of time—key and illustrative decisions [ Archived] Limitation and amendments—illustrative decisions (pre- May 2025) [ Archived] For further information on the LA 1980, and links to practical content addressing limitation periods for claims most likely to be relevant to a dispute resolution practitioner, see: Limitation—overview. Case details and analysis Chancery Division ( Business List) — Sculfor v MGN Ltd [2026] EWHC 597 ( Ch) Judgment date: 16 March 2026 Case summary: Arising from a...
Foundational principles governing contractual dispute matters—spanning formation, construction and remedies for breach—are largely settled; see: Forming enforceable contracts—overview Contract interpretation—overview Terminating contracts—how and when a contract ends—overview Contractual breach damages and remedies—overview Transferring contracts and rights of third parties—overview Whilst each case must be examined on its own merits and its distinctive matrix of facts and law, it is helpful to grasp how the key legal principles operate in context. Accordingly, this Practice Note highlights some of the more illustrative decisions in contractual disputes. The cases set out below are those from 1 January 2026 onwards (earlier important decisions appear elsewhere in the guidance under the above subtopics, including Practice Notes: Contract disputes—key and illustrative decisions (2020–2023) [ Archived] and Contract disputes—illustrative decisions (2024–2025) [ Archived]). We do not include every judgment, only those that yield points of...
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
