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 no longer maintained. It is provided purely for historical reference, as it describes Part 36 of the CPR as it stood before 6 April 2015. If you have received, or are putting forward, a Part 36 offer on or after 6 April 2015, you should consult the CPR 36 currently in force together with our Practice Notes and Precedents that address this, see: Part 36 offers—overview. Where you have made, or are in receipt of, a Part 36 offer that predates 6 April 2015, the version of the Part 36 rules in force before that date will apply. A copy of the pre‑6 April 2015 Part 36 rules can be accessed here: If you have made, or hold, a Part 36 offer predating 6 April 2015, but a trial of any part of the claim, or any...
ARCHIVED: This Practice Note relies on provisions that were revoked on 1 April 2013 and is retained solely for historical reference purposes only. Making an offer When acting for the receiving party, it can be prudent to commence settlement talks with the paying party once the overall costs figure is finalised, with a view to saving the time and significant expense of detailed assessment proceedings. CPR 47.19 sets out a process allowing either the paying or receiving party to make a written proposal to resolve the costs of the proceedings that gave rise to the assessment, expressly stated to be 'without prejudice save as to the costs of the detailed assessment proceedings'......
ARCHIVED This retired Practice Note is no longer updated and exists solely for background information purposes...
ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note is no longer updated and exists solely for background information...
ARCHIVED This archived Practice Note is not updated and is provided for background only. In addition, some links may no longer lead to the provisions as they were at the time this guidance was published. For information on earlier and/or later changes to the CPR, see: CPR updates—overview and Procedure Rule Committee minutes—overview. Several amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules took effect between 14 December 2011 and 6 April 2012, including the following. Amendments effective 1 January 2012— Dilapidations Protocol From 1 January 2012, a new pre-action protocol for dilapidations claims came into force, prompting a change to the Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct to refer to it. The Dilapidations Protocol applies to commercial property in England and Wales and concerns dilapidations claims against tenants at the end of a tenancy. Annex A sets out a timetable for exchanging schedules of...
ARCHIVED This preserved Practice Note is no longer updated and is for background information purposes...
ARCHIVED : This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note offers a comparative overview, in tabular form, of the updated CPR 36 that came into force on 6 April 2015, set against the previous Part 36 regime (in effect before 6 April 2015). Note: although the new CPR 36 applies in full only to Part 36 offers made on or after 6 April 2015, from that date certain provisions also apply to offers made earlier where the trial (of the whole claim or any part/issue) is due to begin on or after 6 April 2015, including: CPR 36.3: definitions CPR 36.11: acceptance of a Part 36 offer CPR 36.12: acceptance of a Part 36 offer in a split trial case CPR 36.16: restriction on disclosure of a Part 36 offer See Practice Note:...
ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived, is no longer maintained, and is supplied for background information only. In addition, some links may not take you to the provisions as they stood on the date this Practice Note’s guidance was issued. For details of earlier and/or later amendments to the CPR, see: CPR updates—overview and Procedure Rule Committee minutes—overview. This Practice Note provides a synopsis of forthcoming CPR amendments. The new measures commence on 5 and 6 April 2015. The principal reform is the replacement Part 36 and the consequential revisions to the costs rules. Further alterations concern children and protected parties, transfer of proceedings, judicial review and fixed costs. The amendments also give effect to sections 84 and 87 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 in relation to judicial review. The changes are contained in SI 2014/3299 and its making document, and in SI...
ARCHIVED This archived Practice Note is not maintained and is provided for background reference only. In addition, some links may not lead to the provisions as they stood on the date this guidance was issued. For details of earlier and/or later CPR amendments, see: CPR updates—overview and Procedure Rule Committee minutes—overview. This Practice Note has been updated to reflect SI 2014/867, published on 2 April 2014. Throughout April 2014, various changes to the CPR and practice directions take effect on different dates. Below we give a brief outline and, for ease, list the CPR changes in a table so the effective dates are clear. Unless otherwise indicated, the amendments are made under SI 2014/407. The SIs coming into force Currently, four SIs are bringing changes to the CPR into effect. It is expected that a further SI will address the new 28‑day extension of time by...
When will the court allow an appeal against a finding of fact? The appeal court will permit an appeal only where the lower court’s decision was: wrong; or unjust due to a serious procedural or other irregularity in the lower court proceedings ( CPR 52.21(3)). For more information, see Practice Note: Grounds for appealing and preliminary considerations. Where an appeal seeks to overturn a trial judge’s primary findings of fact, intervention is exceptional. An appellate court will not disturb a first instance judge’s factual conclusion simply because it would have reached a different view ( Stocker v Stocker). The higher courts have repeatedly cautioned against interfering with a trial judge’s factual findings unless compelled to do so. That restraint extends not only to findings of primary fact, but also to the assessment of those facts and the inferences properly drawn from them, as...
This Practice Note addresses appealing a ruling on the proper forum for resolving a dispute. Considerations before making an appeal When a forum contest arises, the court’s central inquiry is: which venue is the natural and suitable place to try the case? In answering that, the judge considers the totality of evidence presented. For those advising on a potential appeal against a forum decision, that assessment matters because appellate courts seldom entertain challenges that ask them to revisit the evidential evaluation made at first instance. The point is illustrated by the House of Lords in Spiliada Maritime v Cansulex (1986), which stressed that weighing the comparative advantages of a trial in England versus abroad is quintessentially for the trial judge, reflecting the considerable expertise of Commercial Court judges in such issues, and that appeals should be exceptional, indeed, with appellate...
This Practice Note This Practice Note explains how to establish liability where an animal that is not a dangerous species causes injury or damage. The claimant must show that the defendant was the keeper of the animal responsible for the harm. All animals other than those belonging to a dangerous species (ie all non-dangerous animals) are governed by the same rules. Strict liability may arise for injuries caused by non-dangerous animals only if particular statutory conditions are satisfied, though those conditions are often difficult to construe. This Note sets out those conditions and includes links to the principal judgments and the relevant provisions of the Animals Act 1971 ( AA 1971). An animal does not belong to a dangerous species if it is commonly domesticated. Most animals—such as cats, dogs, cows, sheep and horses—are treated as non-dangerous because they are frequently tamed or kept under human...
This Practice Note outlines a keeper’s responsibility for injuries inflicted by animals of a dangerous species. An animal falls within a dangerous species where it is not ordinarily domesticated in the British Isles and, when mature, is liable to inflict serious harm unless controlled. For animals in this category, liability is strict in law. The Note also clarifies who qualifies as a keeper and considers liability where animals are abandoned. In this Practice Note, the Animals Act 1971 is abbreviated to AA 1971. Strict liability Under AA 1971, s 2(1), a keeper of an animal of a dangerous species is strictly liable for any damage it causes. The claimant need only establish that the defendant was the animal’s keeper and that the animal caused the injury. Because the liability is strict, there is no need to prove fault. This places the focus on keeper status and...
Note: This Practice Note is now mainly of historical interest. In January 2010, Lord Justice Jackson released his Review of Civil litigation Costs: Final Report; see Practice Note: Jackson final costs report [ Archived]. Although he stopped short of proposing compulsory Alternative Dispute Resolution ( ADR), the report carries implications for all involved in litigation, who should, at each stage, give thought to ADR. Accordingly, parties should keep ADR in view throughout. Need for and purpose of April 2013 reforms to ADR The terms of reference for Lord Justice Jackson’s review required him to determine the impact that case management procedures have on costs, and to consider whether alterations in process and/or procedure could secure more proportionate expenditure. He highlighted ADR as one of several areas in which the expense of litigation could, potentially, be substantially reduced......
This Tracker outlines key developments for dispute resolution lawyers on the integration of alternative dispute resolution ( ADR) into the civil litigation system in England and Wales. For wider tracking of dispute resolution issues, see Practice Note: Tracker—legislation, consultations and other developments— Dispute Resolution. The development of compulsory ADR Since the Court of Appeal’s decision in Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust, discussion has persisted about whether a court may require or order parties to attempt settlement via ADR, and whether cost sanctions can be applied to those who unreasonably refuse to engage with ADR. In Halsey, the Court of Appeal considered it inappropriate for the court to compel parties to refer their dispute to ADR against their wishes, as doing so would ‘impose an unacceptable obstruction on their right of access to the court’. In July 2021, the Civil Justice Council ( CJC)...
Clinical Negligence Claims Agreement 2024 The Clinical Negligence Claims Agreement 2024 replaces the COVID-19 Clinical Negligence Protocol (2020) (last revised June 2021), which was brought in as an urgent response to modify clinical negligence claims handling and litigation arrangements during the coronavirus ( COVID-19) outbreak. This 2024 arrangement develops the earlier Protocol, with a number of practices now embedded within routine claims management. Although not legally binding, the agreement stresses cooperative engagement between the parties. The agreement can be found here: Clinical Negligence Claims Agreement 2024. A claimant must seek an extension under the terms of this agreement before the primary limitation period comes to an end. Where NHSR is the indemnifying organisation and has not yet received notice of the claim, written notification should be emailed to...
This Practice Note sets out guidance on putting forward fresh evidence when challenging a court’s decision under CPR 52. It explains when the appellate court may accept new material, how the Ladd v Marshall criteria apply when deciding whether to admit evidence on appeal, and the court’s discretion under CPR 52.21(2), including whether the material could have been secured for trial, whether it would have had a significant bearing, and its reliability. A note on CPR 52.21 and older cases The rules on admitting fresh evidence on appeal are found in CPR 52.21(1)–(2). Until October 2016, the equivalent provisions were in former CPR rule 52.11. Some judgments still cite the old rule, but the same principles apply to CPR 52.21 because the wording is identical. For further detail, see Practice Note: Amendments to Part 52 on 3 October 2016—table of...
This Practice Note offers examples of decisions where the court has considered applications to adjourn a trial. It is presented as tables: the first provides instances in which an adjournment was granted, and the second records matters where the court declined to adjourn. For an outline of the principles applied by the courts when dealing with an adjournment request, see Practice Note: Adjourning trial... Trial adjourned—general Case details and analysis: R (on the application of Fiona Ford) v Coventry Magistrates’ Court [2025] EWHC 843 ( Admin). This was an appeal from an unsuccessful bid to adjourn magistrates’ court proceedings seeking a premises closure order... Grounds of the adjournment application: Additional time to obtain legal aid funding... Summary of decision: The court confirmed that the governing test is fairness. It should not be presumed that fairness dictates a single answer; in a given case,...
Prepared in collaboration with Landmark Chambers. The reason for special costs protection measures in environmental law The rationale for special costs protection in environmental law lies in internationally agreed principles. Such measures in environmental matters stem from international environmental law, for example Principle 10 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. The Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision- Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, concluded at Aarhus, Denmark, on 25 June 1998 (the Aarhus Convention), sets out in Article 1 that its purpose is to help safeguard the right of every person, both now and in the future, to live in an environment sufficient for his or her health and well-being. To that end, each Party must guarantee the rights of access to information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice in...
This Practice Note introduces disclosure under the Civil Procedure Rules, highlighting the principal CPR provisions that regulate disclosure under CPR 31. It clarifies what constitutes a document for CPR purposes and supplies practical guidance for conducting a disclosure exercise. Note: this Practice Note does not cover claims within the Business & Property Courts Disclosure Scheme. For further detail, see: Disclosure Scheme ( Business & Property Courts)—overview. For assistance determining which disclosure regime applies to your matter, see: Which disclosure rules apply to my claim—flowchart? This Practice Note should be read together with: Disclosure—overview Inspection—overview Privilege and without prejudice communications—overview At the pre-action stage, be aware that certain pre-action protocols impose disclosure duties before proceedings commence. For more information, see: Pre-action disclosure and Norwich Pharmacal—overview. CPR provisions governing the disclosure process The CPR and case law form the legal framework governing...
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
