Legal Practice Notes

This Practice Note addresses challenges to orders arising in directors’ disqualification proceedings within England and Wales... Coronavirus ( COVID-19) This material includes guidance on areas affected by the Coronavirus Act 2020 and consequent alterations to court procedures and processes due to the Coronavirus ( COVID-19) pandemic. For more detail, see Practice Note: Coronavirus ( COVID-19)— Changes to the court process in insolvency proceedings. For related news, guidance and other tools to support practitioners handling restructuring and insolvency work, see: Coronavirus ( COVID-19)— Restructuring & Insolvency—overview... Statutory provisions and rules of court Appeals and reviews of orders under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 ( CDDA 1986) are not subject to a single procedural code and may proceed under the Civil Procedure Rules ( CPR) or the Insolvency ( England and Wales) Rules 2016 ( IR 2016), SI 2016/1024. Paragraph 32 of the Practice Direction: Directors...

Refer to our Practice Note: Pensions Ombudsman determination tracker for the key determinations by the Pensions Ombudsman we’ve covered...

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...

The Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 ( RESA 2008) RESA 2008 gave regulators the ability to address offences through civil sanctions rather than prosecution. In 2010, the Environment Agency ( EA) and Natural England ( NE) received these powers for a range of environmental offences. From 2015, the regime broadened as the EA could accept enforcement undertakings for environmental permitting breaches. The Environmental Civil Sanctions ( England) Order 2010, SI 2010/1157 applies in England, while the Environmental Civil Sanctions ( Wales) Order 2010, SI 2010/1821 applies in Wales. Schedule 5 in each sets out the sanctions available for particular offences. The EA began exercising its powers in 2011, with NE following in 2012. Since 2013, the Natural Resources Body for Wales ( NRW) has been responsible for enforcing environmental civil sanctions in Wales. Civil sanctions are intended to make...

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 now mirrors the changes made to the Arbitration Act 1996 by the Arbitration Act 2025 ( AA 2025). References to the AA 1996 are to the statute in its amended form. For further information see: Arbitration Act 2025 commencement and transitional provisions. This Practice Note considers anti-suit injunctions (or ASI(s)) granted by the courts of England and Wales ( England and English are used as shorthand) in support of ongoing arbitration proceedings, and explains how and when they might be invoked to restrain breaches of an arbitration agreement. Restraining breach of an arbitration agreement As a private, consensual process, disputes agreed to be subject to arbitration are to be decided by an appointed arbitral tribunal, not national courts. Nevertheless, when confronted with an arbitration (or the possibility of one), a party, for various reasons, may seek to commence litigation in national courts in order to...

This Practice Note reviews the former bar, while the UK was an EU member, on awarding anti-suit injunctions over proceedings in another EU Member State, and sets out the post- Brexit position, now that the UK is a third state to the EU. Please note that the Court of Justice of the European Union is referred to as the Court of Justice. Definitions anti-suit injunctions — orders made by a court preventing a party from commencing or continuing proceedings in another country. For detailed guidance on the meaning of an anti-suit injunction, see Practice Note: Anti-suit injunctions—principles Brussels I (recast) — Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012 Withdrawal Agreement — has the meaning in section 39(1) of the European Union ( Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020: the agreement between the UK and the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union setting out the...

This Practice Note explores matters concerning arbitral tribunal jurisdiction under Russian law. Note: the Russian court judgments cited in this Practice Note are not reported by Lexis Nexis®. Determining tribunal jurisdiction under Russian law Russian law recognises the kompetenz-kompetenz principle, enabling arbitral tribunals to decide for themselves whether they have authority to hear a dispute. This principle is reflected in paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Law of 7 July 1993 No. 5338- I On International Commercial Arbitration (as amended) (the Law on ICA), which, in translation, states that an arbitral tribunal may determine its own jurisdiction and address objections regarding the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement, and that an arbitration clause within a contract is to be treated as an independent provision......

Anti-suit injunctions under Brazilian law Anti-suit injunctions are a device to curb court and/or arbitral proceedings. In international arbitration, the label typically denotes an application seeking to stop a party from pursuing court litigation contrary to an arbitration agreement. For example, where a recalcitrant party tries to place a dispute falling within an arbitration pact before a domestic bench, the counterparty may ask a court or an arbitral tribunal to issue an anti-suit injunction preventing the filing or continuation of that claim, so as to safeguard the effectiveness of the arbitration agreement. Though common across numerous legal systems, it is widely understood that this particular remedy is unavailable under Brazilian law, especially in view of the constitutional guarantee of access to justice in the Brazilian Federal Constitution (art 5, XXXV). On this basis, an anti-suit order in Brazil aimed at stopping a party from...

This table provides an overview of all finalised probes by Ukraine’s competition regulator (the Anti‑ Monopoly Committee of Ukraine—the AMCU) into suspected cartels, anti‑competitive arrangements and abuse of dominance from 2019 onwards. Note: only cases that have been publicly disclosed are included in this table. 2025 Investigations under Article 6 of the Law of Ukraine on Protection of Economic Competition 2001 Medical facility repairs: Absolut- Klimat LLC; Engineeringbud LTD LLC — Restrictive practices—bid‑rigging — Infringement found on 23/12/2025; aggregate fines of UAH 10,614,362. Construction: Perspektyva “ Misto Bud” LLC; Construction Alliance Montazhproekt LLC — Restrictive practices—bid‑rigging — Infringement found on 23/12/2025; total penalties of UAH 453,332. Medical equipment for rehabilitation systems: Promed Technologies LLC; Kinnet Group LLC — Restrictive practices—bid‑rigging — Infringement found on 23/12/2025; total fines of UAH 9,274,314. Electricity meters: Romants Logistics LLC; Albat LLC —...

This Practice Note offers practical guidance on the WTO and the UK’s approach to a particular market situation in anti-dumping investigations. It outlines the legal provisions, supplemented by case law and recent practices of the United Kingdom’s Trade Remedies Authority. Introduction The World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ( Anti-dumping Agreement) provides that, when assessing whether dumping has occurred, the investigating authority must compare the export price with a comparable normal value. Likewise, the Taxation ( Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 ( T( CT) A 2018) reflects this by stating that normal value is the comparable price in the ordinary course of trade, or another price determined in accordance with regulations. Investigating authorities therefore have a duty to employ a comparable normal value. The preferred route is to rely on the domestic...

Introduction This Practice Note sets out guidance on the stages in a typical anti-dumping investigation. It covers all phases from application through to final determination. Anti-dumping inquiries involve many steps; a flow chart appears below, followed by practice notes on each stage. Application for investigation Generally, investigating authorities open an anti-dumping duty case only when the affected domestic industry has filed an application. For guidance on this, see Practice Notes: An introduction to anti-dumping duties and How to apply for an anti-dumping investigation. However, an authority may commence an investigation without a written application from the domestic industry, though this tends to occur only in special circumstances. To justify self-initiation, the authority must hold sufficient information on dumping, injury, and the causal link between them. Specifically, the authority must have information on: prices at which the product concerned is sold in the exporting Member State’s...

This Practice Note sets out clear, practical direction on the verification visit that may arise during an anti-dumping investigation. It explains the types of information likely to be examined, as well as the material that will in fact be reviewed. Introduction In the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on the Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the ‘ Anti-dumping Agreement’), investigating bodies must, in essence, assure themselves of the accuracy of data supplied by interested parties. Article 6.7 describes one means by which authorities can effectively confirm the reliability of such submissions. Under Article 6.7, an investigating authority, if it so chooses, may carry out a verification visit. For guidance on the legality of verification visits and the procedures involved, see Practice Note: Evidence in anti-dumping...

This Practice Note explores the anti-deprivation principle ( ADP), the pari passu principle ( PPP) and how these principles diverge. The anti-deprivation principle The ADP is a rule designed to stop parties contracting out of the statutory framework for the collection, realisation and distribution of an insolvent estate. It bars the removal of assets that ought to sit within that estate. In this way, it safeguards the estate’s value against attempts to bypass insolvency laws and works to ensure an insolvent estate is not deprived of property that would otherwise be available for its creditors. History The ADP has its origins in the old common law rules of bankruptcy. Although it was once labelled a fraud on the bankruptcy laws, it is now known as the ‘anti-deprivation principle’. Case law Having fallen into relative obscurity, the ADP re-emerged in a number of significant judgments. It has been examined and...

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: This Practice Note sets out the law as it presently stands, though some aspects will be affected by the Digital Omnibus proposals issued on 19 November 2025 under the EU Commission’s ‘simplification’ programme. For more detail, see Practice Note: EU Digital Omnibus—tracker. It explores legal and practical issues around anonymisation, pseudonymisation and privacy enhancing technologies ( PETs). It outlines what is required for robust anonymisation and pseudonymisation and summarises core techniques available. It further introduces the family of tools referred to as PETs. The analysis is framed by the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation ( EU) 2016/679 ( EU GDPR), alongside relevant guidance. Anonymisation and pseudonymisation Under the EU GDPR, duties apply to the processing of ‘personal data’, meaning information about a living person who is identified or can be identified. While the EU GDPR provides no explicit definition of...

Prior to 6 April 2015, individuals entitled to money purchase benefits (also referred to as defined contribution ( DC) benefits) faced a narrow set of retirement choices: receiving a scheme pension drawdown purchasing a lifetime annuity Buying a lifetime annuity was the route most frequently taken, chiefly because the other two options were only accessible: if the member’s scheme allowed them (which was uncommon in practice) for drawdown, if the member met certain conditions On 6 April 2015, pension freedoms were introduced to broaden the retirement pathways open to DC members and those with other ‘flexible benefits’ (e.g. cash balance benefits). Drawdown not only became far more widely available, but members with flexible benefits could also take their pension pot as one or more lump sums, called ‘uncrystallised pension fund lump sums’. For more detail, see Practice Notes: Pension...

What is the annual tax on enveloped dwellings? The annual tax on enveloped dwellings ( ATED) was brought in as part of a wider set of rules intended to reduce the appeal of holding high-value UK homes indirectly, for example through a company, so as to avoid or lessen liabilities such as stamp duty land tax ( SDLT) on a later disposal of the property, and thereby discourage such arrangements. It forms part of an anti-avoidance package. Further measures within this anti-avoidance suite for high-value UK residential property, introduced alongside ATED, include: the single higher SDLT rate on purchases of high-value UK residential property by non-natural persons ( NNPs) (for further details, see Practice Notes: Rates of SDLT and Single higher rate of SDLT for high-value residential property transactions), and prior to 6 April 2019, a capital gains tax ( CGT) charge on...

The core ATED charge is outlined in Practice Note: ATED—the basics. That Practice Note summarises how ATED is administered and the actions taxpayers must take in relation to paying ATED. It uses terminology and concepts drawn from the ATED legislation, with fuller explanations given in Practice Note: ATED—the basics— General defined terms. ATED is a self‑assessed tax, placing responsibility on the chargeable person (as defined for ATED) to decide whether a property interest is in scope and to file the appropriate returns, together with payment of any ATED due to HMRC, within the relevant time limits. What returns need to be submitted to HMRC? ATED return Where the ATED conditions are met, the chargeable person must submit an ATED return to HMRC. For guidance on completing an ATED return, see below: Completing an ATED return. HMRC has no statutory duty to issue a notice to a...

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...