The Civil Justice Council (CJC) is conducting a detailed review of some technical aspects of the Damages-based Agreements Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/609) (DBA Regulations), which came into force on 1 April 2013. As a result of a number of difficulties and uncertainties with the DBA Regulations, very few DBAs have been entered into to date.

The working group reviewing the DBA Regulations is chaired by Professor Rachael Mulheron (who is also a member of the Practical Law Dispute Resolution consultation board). The issues that the working group are considering include:

Unfortunately, the government has ruled out "hybrid DBAs" as it considers such arrangements could encourage litigation behaviour based on a low risk/high returns approach. This is likely to mean that DBAs will be much less widely used than would otherwise have been the case.

For further information, see Practice note, Damages-based agreements in civil litigation (other than employment tribunal matters): overview.

We understand that there is to be a pilot scheme in South West England of a new training course for judges on costs management. If this is successful, it is likely to be rolled out to the rest of the country's judges. This is encouraging news. Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker has expressed the need for better training in costs management for judges (see Legal update, Speech by the new Senior Costs Judge at CLAN event on 1 October 2014).

A working group of costs professionals and others, headed by Alex Hutton QC, has been working on developing a new bill of costs which sets out work done by reference to phases, tasks and activities. This follows initial work by the Association of Costs Lawyers. A new format for bills of costs for detailed assessment was one of Jackson LJ's recommendations following his review of civil litigation costs. See Practice note, Jackson LJ's Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report: Detailed assessment and Thirteenth Jackson implementation lecture on IT developments, given by Jackson LJ.

The working group has already created a new set of standard Uniform Task-Based Management System (UTBMS) time-recording codes for litigation (which they have called J-Codes). The intention is that bills of costs can be generated automatically from the J-Codes information, or prepared manually by practitioners who do not have compatible (or any) time-recording software (see Legal update, J-Codes: an update from the Jackson Steering Committee).

We understand that the new bill will be piloted once it has been approved by the judiciary. However, practitioners are encouraged to start using the J-codes now. There has to be a period before the new bill is introduced when the new codes are allowed to "bed in", so that the codes and bill can work together.

The long-term aim (which may take a few years in total) is to harmonise the procedures and systems that will be used for costs budgeting, costs management, summary assessment and detailed assessment.

We will monitor and provide more information on this in 2015.

It has been proposed that qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) be extended to defamation and privacy claims and, that, when that form of costs protection is introduced, recoverability of success fees and after-the-event (ATE) insurance premiums in such cases should cease (see Justice, Civil Justice Reforms: Main changes: Exceptions to the CFA and ATE reforms in Part 2 of the LASPO Act). However, the expected dates for this (October 2013, then April 2014) were not met and we are not able to confirm whether there will be any developments in 2015.

The consultation on costs protection in defamation and privacy claims closed on 8 November 2013 and no response from the government has been published yet. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has told us that the government is considering the way forward but, for the time being, defamation and privacy cases are not affected by the no-win no-fee reforms in Part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO 2012).

The CJC has set up a working group, chaired by Alistair Kinley, to address outstanding issues arising from implementation of the Jackson reforms. The group met for the first time in June 2014. Its terms of reference are:

Work continues on these initiatives. The CJC has agreed to let us know when there are developments to report.

From 10 January 2015, the Brussels Regulation will be largely superseded by Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil commercial matters (Recast Brussels Regulation). (See Brussels Regulation reforms.)

Amendments to CPR 6 (service of documents) and CPR 74 (enforcement of judgments), together with Practice Direction 74A, will also come into force on 10 January 2015 to reflect the changes brought about by the Recast Brussels Regulation.

In particular, changes to CPR 6.33 will have the effect that, where the Recast Brussels Regulation applies, the permission of the court to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction will no longer be required where:

Other amendments are:

For more information, see Legal updates, The Civil Procedure (Amendment No 7) Rules 2014 (76th CPR Update) taking effect on 10 January 2015 and CPR Practice Direction changes coming into force on 1 December 2014 and 10 January 2015.

A subcommittee of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) is considering the responses to the recent consultation on the draft Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. Among the substantive issues raised were concerns about the volume of material the claimant was required to provide and the disproportionate costs that might thereby be incurred.

A report following the consultation on the draft Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review is also expected in due course. For background, see Legal update, CPRC seeks views on amendments to Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review.

The minutes of the CPRC meeting on 4 July 2014 suggest that:

Changes to the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents will be reflected in amendments to CPR 45 (Fixed costs), coming into force on 6 April 2015.

A completely revised Part 36 will come into force on 6 April 2015 as part of the 78th update to the CPR, contained in the Civil Procedure (Amendment No 8) Rules 2014 (SI 2014/3299 ). The changes to Part 36 aim to reflect the extensive case law on the application of the rules and to simplify the rules as far as possible. They include:

We will be publishing a more detailed article on the changes to Part 36, and revising all of our Part 36 materials to reflect the changes.

Changes to CPR 21 will come into force on 6 April 2015 (Legal update, 78th CPR update: Civil Procedure (Amendment No 8) Rules 2014 and Practice Direction making document published). This follows the work of a CPRC subcommittee set up to address the issue of the growing number of applications for payments out of damages to meet success fees in claims involving children and protected parties. The changes provide that:

The current guideline hourly rates for assessment of costs may be reviewed in 2015. Speaking at a Commercial Litigation Association (CLAN) event in October 2014, Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker referred to the fact that the 2010 guideline hourly rates remain in force, due to the poor response to the survey undertaken by the CJC in 2014 (see Legal update, Speech by the new Senior Costs Judge at CLAN event on 1 October 2014). He noted the difficulty of obtaining relevant information and indicated that the Master of the Rolls would be meeting with the MoJ and the Law Society to discuss the best way forward. We understand from the CJC that the meeting has now taken place but no further details are available yet. We will report when there are developments.

Amendments to CPR 52 to reflect changes in the route of appeal against interim multi-track decisions were on the CPRC draft work plan for October-December 2014 (see the minutes of 10 October 2014 CPRC meeting). However, this topic does not appear to have been discussed at the 7 November CPRC meeting (see the minutes of 7 November 2014 meeting) and no related changes formed part of the 77th or 78th CPR updates (see Legal update CPR Practice Direction amendments: 77th update and Legal update 78th CPR update: Civil Procedure (Amendment No 8) Rules 2014 and Practice Direction making document published.

The CPRC has been working on transferring existing rules on habeas corpus from the Rules of the Supreme Court Order 54 into a new section in the CPR. The changes will take effect on 6 April 2015, with the introduction of a new CPR 87 dealing with applications for writ of habeas corpus. Full details can be seen in the Statutory Instrument for the 78th update to the CPR (see Legal update, 78th CPR update: Civil Procedure (Amendment No 8) Rules 2014 and Practice Direction making document published).

From 6 April 2015, subject to one exception, all applications for writs of habeas corpus will be assigned to the Queen's Bench Division pursuant to the High Court (Distribution of Business) Order 2014 (SI 3257/2014), which was made on 8 December 2014. The exception is for writs of habeas corpus relating to minors, which will be assigned to the Family Division given the Family Division judges' expertise in dealing with such matters.

The Consumer Rights Bill is expected to come into force on 1 October 2015. The Bill includes the reform of consumer collective actions for breaches of competition law and the introduction of the possibility of an opt-out system, as well as an opt-in system, for such collective actions. The Bill has had its third reading in the House of Lords and has been returned to the House of Commons.

For an overview of the contents of the Bill and its current status, see Practice note, Consumer Rights Bill: overview.

Asplin J is continuing her work on coordinating the judicial approach to litigants in person (LIPs) in court. This includes looking at the role of McKenzie friends (paid and unpaid), judicial training, and considering the guidance for the professions on their role when faced by an opposing LIP in court. She is also following up on work following the third CJC forum on LIPs on 21 November 2014.

The exemption afforded to claims by liquidators, administrators and trustees in bankruptcy concerning the abolition of the recoverability of success fees and insurance premiums as a result of LASPO 2012 is set to expire in April 2015. We understand that lobbying to maintain or extend the exemption is continuing (for example, see R3: Jackson reforms: the impact of changes to insolvency litigation on HMRC and business).

For more detail, see Legal update, Insolvency exemption on recoverability of success fees and insurance premiums set to expire in 2015 and Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO): tracker.

One impact of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERRA 2013) is a new out-of-court process to replace the current ability of a debtor to petition for his own bankruptcy in England and Wales (section 71 and Schedule 18, ERRA 2013). See Legal update, Amendments to legislation published: reforms to process for debtor bankruptcy petitions.

The relevant provisions are expected to come into force in 2015 or 2016 (Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013: Commencement: Provisions within the Act - Indicative timetable: Table 2). For updates on progress, see Restructuring and insolvency legislation tracker.

Reforms to the judicial review procedure are proposed in Part 4 of the draft Criminal Justice and Courts Bill 2013-14 to 2014-15 (see Legal update, Criminal Justice and Courts Bill 2013-14 and government response to judicial review reform consultation published). The Bill has been progressing through Parliament as both Houses try and agree on the exact wording, in a process known as "ping pong". Most recently, the House of Lords proposed further amendments for consideration by the House of Commons at a date yet to be announced.

The key provisions that are yet to be finally agreed relate to:

The introduction of electronic working in the courts located in the Rolls Building in London is expected in Autumn 2015. There will be a pilot scheme in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC), starting in April 2015.

During 2014, the electronic working system (CE-File) was introduced for storing case files in the Chancery Division and TCC located in the Rolls Building. For details of the relevant procedural practice notes, see Legal updates, New practice note on Chancery masters' and judges' orders in force from 2 January 2015 and Electronic filing in the TCC introduced.

Separately, the mandatory electronic bundle pilot scheme in the Supreme Court and the Privy Council is expected to run until the end of March 2015 (see Legal update, Supreme Court and Privy Council commence electronic bundle pilot scheme on 1 October 2014).

We are monitoring developments in Electronic working in the UK courts: tracker.

Last year, we reported on steps by the MoJ to implement proposals for reform of court fees, arising out of its consultation published on 3 December 2013 (see Article, Practical Law Dispute Resolution: What to expect in the second half of 2014: MoJ consultation on proposals for reform of court fees). The consultation addressed two issues:

A response to the enhanced charging proposals set out in part two of the consultation is yet to be published. HMCTS has been unable to confirm precise details, but, on 10 December 2014, informed us that the government expects to publish its response to the consultation on enhanced court fees shortly.

The Supreme Court adjourned the respondents' appeal, in which they contended that an order to pay 60% of the appellants' costs, including a success fee and the ATE insurance premium, infringed their Article 6 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Giving the lead judgment, Lord Neuberger said that it would be wrong for the Supreme Court to decide whether the costs regime under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, as amended by the Access to Justice Act 1999 (AJA 1999), infringed the ECHR, without the government having the opportunity to address the court. A finding that the AJA 1999 does infringe the ECHR would have "such serious consequences for the government".

The adjourned hearing has been listed on 9-11 February 2015. We will report on the resulting judgment. For more detail, see Legal update, Supreme Court adjourns appeal so government can address them on whether old costs regime infringed ECHR and Article, The costs of complexity: A practical view from the Bar.

The Court of Appeal overturned an order granting the defendants a second application for relief from sanctions, under CPR 3.9, following their failure to comply with an unless order, with the result that they were debarred from defending the claim. It held that, when considering a second application for relief from sanctions which involves varying or revoking the order refusing relief, the court should apply CPR 3.1(7) and exercise its discretion in accordance with the principles established in Tibbles v SIG plc [2012] EWCA Civ 518. This decision reinforced the strict approach to compliance adopted in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537, and predated the decision in Denton v White and other appeals [2014] EWCA Civ 906. For more detail, see Legal update, Relationship between CPR 3.9 and CPR 3.1(7) (Court of Appeal).

The Supreme Court granted permission to appeal on 10 November 2014 (see Legal update, Supreme Court to hear appeal of relief from sanctions decision). It is interesting that permission to appeal has been granted as the Supreme Court is generally reluctant to consider case management decisions.

For an overview of the authorities on relief from sanctions since Mitchell, see Practice note, Relief from sanctions post-Mitchell and post-Denton: case analysis.

This is the appeal against the Court of Appeal's finding that certain terms of a share purchase agreement were unenforceable penalties. The court found that, taken in the context of the agreement as a whole, the relevant clauses:

For more detail, see Legal update, Share purchase agreement: penalty and forfeiture clauses (Court of Appeal).

For guidance on the current law regarding liquidated damages and penalty clauses, see Practice note, Remedies: damages and agreed remedies: Agreed remedies.

The issue for the Supreme Court on this appeal is whether it is arguable that the police were liable in respect of a woman's death following their alleged delayed response to her 999 call. The Court of Appeal granted summary judgment to the defendant police forces in respect of claims for damages in negligence by the woman's family. It held that any police action in the course of investigating or suppressing crime could not generally be made the subject of a negligence action. Therefore, it was unnecessary for the factual issues to be determined at trial.

However, the merits of the family's claims under Article 2 of European Convention on Human Rights would have to be determined at trial. See Michael and others v South Wales Police and another [2012] EWCA Civ 981. Although the hearing took place in July 2014, judgment is not yet available (Supreme Court: case details).

This decision relates to the scope of the disclosure obligations in a freezing order and, in particular, the extent they extend to trusts of which the respondent is a discretionary beneficiary.

The claimant bank (and its liquidator) obtained a worldwide freezing order (WFO) against P. The WFO included a disclosure order that extended to information regarding trusts of which P was a discretionary beneficiary. The trustees of trusts applied to discharge or vary the disclosure order. The court refused the application on the basis that there was sufficient "privity of interest" between P and the trusts as to justify disclosure. For the full judgment, see JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank and another v Pugachev and others [2014] EWHC 3547 (Ch).

P has been granted permission to appeal against the WFO, but it appears that the appeal is focussed mainly on the disclosure obligations in relation to the trusts.

The claimant bank brought an action in England against a borrower, its guarantor, and other Russian entities alleging a conspiracy to engineer a default and render the borrower and guarantor insolvent. The Commercial Court held that England was the appropriate forum for the determination of the claims against the third and fifth defendants. These claims would be litigated in England against other defendants in any event, and, if the claims were litigated in Russia, the Russian courts would apply the wrong governing law. Nevertheless, there was no cogent evidence of a real risk that the bank would not receive justice in the Russian courts. See Legal update, High Court rejects challenge to jurisdiction over conspiracy claims against Russian defendants.

The Court of Appeal reserved judgment on 27 November 2014.

The Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal of the decision in Blankley v Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust [2014] EWHC 168 (QB) which held that, if a client loses mental capacity during the course of proceedings, the retainer will not be frustrated or otherwise terminated. The client's incapacity may remove the solicitors' authority to act on his behalf, but that authority can be restored when a deputy is appointed or if the client regains capacity. The effect of the decision is that recoverability of a success fee will still apply where a client who has entered into a pre-1 April 2013 CFA loses mental capacity and a deputy takes over conduct of the claim. See Legal update, Effect of client's loss of mental capacity on retainer with solicitor (High Court).

We understand that the Court of Appeal will hand down its written reasons in due course and we will report on the decision once the judgment is available.

The Insolvency Service published a working draft of the Insolvency Rules 2015 (IR 2015) as part of a consultation which closed on 24 January 2014. The results of the consultation have not yet been published. For details of the Insolvency Service's proposals, see Practice note, A guide to the Insolvency Service's proposals for the Insolvency Rules 2015. See also Practice note, Table of origins for the draft Insolvency Rules 2015.

The Insolvency Service has informed us that it is aiming for the IR 2015 to commence in April 2016, and for the finalised rules to be published in autumn 2015. Progress will be reported in Insolvency Rules 2015 legislation tracker.

The English Law Commission has drafted the Insurance Bill which was introduced to the House of Lords on 17 July 2014. A Special Public Bill Committee was convened in November 2014 to scrutinise the Bill. Once this process is completed (expected some time in January 2015), the Bill will be transferred to the House of Commons. It is not known whether it will be passed before the general election in May 2015.

It is noteworthy that the draft Bill before the House of Lords does not include the English and Scottish Law Commissions' recommendations relating to insurers' liability for late payment of claims, or the original draft clause 11 which dealt with breach of terms, including warranties, of the insurance contract which are irrelevant to the actual loss. This provision was not included as there were some concerns that it was uncertain (in particular, that it might be interpreted to apply to terms that described the risk as a whole).

The Law Commission has, therefore, produced a revised draft clause 11 which applies to terms which could affect the risk of a specific type of loss occurring, or the risk that a particular type of loss would be more extensive. The clause does not apply to terms which reduce the risk profile as a whole, for example, the geographical limits of a policy. The clause also provides that the insurer should only have to pay if the insured can show that the breach was totally irrelevant and could not have affected the actual loss suffered. The Law Commission hopes that the revised draft clause may be agreed in time for it to be included in the Insurance Bill currently before the House of Lords.

For further information on the reforms see Practice note, Reforming insurance contract law.

Although the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (TPRIA 2010) received Royal Assent on 25 March 2010, it is not yet in force.

The TPRIA 2010 will come into force after the Insurance Bill is passed and comes into force (see Law Commissions' insurance law reforms). The Insurance Bill includes certain insolvency-related amendments to the TPRIA 2010 to bring into its scope a number of insolvency situations. The amendments are explained in an explanatory note published by the Law Commission. For further information see, Legal update, Insurance Bill: Law Commission produces revised draft warranty clause.

The Law Commission hopes that regulations adding certain insolvency events will be made within the life of the current Parliament, allowing the TPRIA 2010 to be brought into force in October 2015.

Certain changes to the law of negligence are expected to be introduced by the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill (SARAH Bill) during 2015. When deciding a negligence claim, judges will be required to take into account the context of the incident that caused the claim to be brought, in particular:

See Legal updates, MoJ proposes changes to legislation governing negligence cases and Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Referral Fees) Regulations 2013 published.

The changes are designed to protect volunteers and small businesses from negligence claims, and are part of the MoJ's continuing attempts to prevent the growth of a compensation culture, which has already included the banning of referral fees in personal injury cases. The changes have, however, been criticised by some cross-benchers and former Supreme Court judges, among others, who claim that they serve no useful purpose, as the mischief at which they are aimed is already covered by existing law. See, for example, Litigation Futures: “Very much maligned” SARAH bill wins over sceptical peers.

The SARAH Bill completed the report stage in the House of Lords on 15 December 2014. Final amendments were made to the Bill during the third reading on 6 January 2015. The Bill will now go to the Commons for consideration of the Lords' amendments (Parliament: news).

The Criminal Justice and Courts Bill has been going through Parliament and is likely to be brought into force in 2015. We understand that the bill includes a provision requiring the court to inform approved regulators of a wasted costs order, when such an order has been made against one of the regulators' members (see Legal update, Lawyers subjected to wasted costs orders to be reported to regulators).

The UK government proposes to take forward in 2015 the proposals recommended by the Commission on Devolution in Wales (the Silk Commission) in Part 2 of its report, which was published on 1 July 2014, including moving to a reserved powers model for Wales. While the proposals contained in Part 1 of the Silk Commission's report formed the basis of the Wales Act 2014 (which received Royal Assent on 17 December 2014), there was insufficient time to address the proposals contained in Part 2 of the Silk Commission's report in the Wales Act 2014.

Accordingly, the government intends to seek cross-party consensus on the devolution proposals. It intends to announce, by 1 March 2015, a set of commitments, agreed by the four main political parties in Wales, on the way forward for Welsh devolution (see the Commons Library Standard Note, Wales: current devolution proposals 2014, of 18 December 2014). For further background, see:

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) (Recast Brussels Regulation) will apply from 10 January 2015 (with the exception of Articles 75 and 76, which have applied since 10 January 2014).

The Recast Brussels Regulation will apply to:

It will repeal the 2001 Brussels Regulation, save that the 2001 Brussels Regulation will continue to apply to judgments given in proceedings instituted before 10 January 2015 (Article 66(2)).

The Recast Brussels Regulation introduces some important changes to the rules governing jurisdiction over civil and commercial disputes and to the enforcement of judgments in such cases as between EU member states.

For further information, see:

The European Commission's Work Programme for 2015 was published on 16 December 2015. (For further information, see Legal update, European Commission Work Programme: European Commission publishes its 2015 Work Programme.)

This year, the Commission is committing to adopt only 23 new initiatives (compared to over 130 in each of the previous five years) (see MEMO 14/2704). Although Annex I includes two initiatives aimed at combating tax evasion and fraud, the initiatives do not appear to be relevant to dispute resolution with the exception of the Recast Brussels Regulation (which is mentioned in Brussels Regulation reforms).

We have been informed by the European Commission that the public consultation on Regulation (EC) 1393/2007 on the service in the member states of judicial and extra-judicial documents in civil or commercial matters (EU Service Regulation) which was expected during the second half of 2014 has been delayed. (For further background, see Legal update, European Commission publishes report on EU Service Regulation).

We understand from the Commission that it has invited tenders for project comprising a comparative analysis of the laws and practices of Member States concerning service of documents. The tender procedure will be concluded soon, and the Commission intends to launch the consultation with the contractor in the first quarter of 2015.

The European Commission's report on the scope and application of Article 14 of Regulation 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) was expected by the end of June 2014 (Planned Commission initiatives until end of 2014). However, this appears to have been delayed.

Article 14 of Rome I relates to the assignment of claims and subrogation, but does not seem to address the applicable law on the proprietary effects of assignment. For example, it does not deal with whether an assigned claim takes priority over the rights of another person. The European Commission is required, under Article 27(2) of Rome I, to produce a report and to consider whether Article 14 should be amended. For further information, see Practice note, Rome I: an outline of the key provisions.

The proposed Regulation to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters (EAPO Regulation) will establish a new and self-standing European procedure for the preservation of bank accounts, which will enable a creditor to prevent the transfer or withdrawal of his debtor's assets in any bank account located in the EU. The UK government has decided not to opt into the EAPO Regulation.

The EAPO Regulation is proceeding under the ordinary legislative procedure and, on 27 June 2014, it was published in the Official Journal. It entered into force on the 20th day following that of its publication and will apply, in its entirety, from 18 January 2017. Article 50 of the EAPO Regulation, dealing with the requirement for the provision of information, will apply from 18 July 2016.

For more information, see European Account Preservation Order: legislation tracker.

On 16 July 2014, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) provided its opinion on the European Commission's Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and Council amending Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Small Claims Procedure (ESCP) and Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European order for payment (EOP) procedure. The EESC made a number of observations (see Legal update, EESC provides opinion on proposal to revise European Small Claims Procedure).

The Justice and Home Affairs Council has now reached a general approach on the European Commission proposal for a Regulation amending the ESCP Regulation and the EOP Regulation (see Legal update, European small claims procedure: Council reaches general approach on European Small Claims Procedure Regulation). The general approach constitutes the basis for negotiations between the Council and the European Parliament to agree the final text of the regulations.

Progress of the proposed regulations can be followed in the European Small Claims Procedure and European Order for Payment Procedure: legislation tracker.

The European Commission plans to modernise Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings (Insolvency Regulation). The primary aim of the proposals is to move the Insolvency Regulation's focus away from liquidation to the restructuring of businesses and, by extension, to improve outcomes for creditors.

On 4 December 2014, the Council of the EU reported that it had endorsed a compromise agreement reached with the European Parliament on the proposed amended regulation and, on this basis, adopted a political agreement with the European Parliament. It is anticipated that the regulation will be approved, without further amendment, by May 2015. The regulation will then be published in the Official Journal and most of its parts will enter into force 24 months later. See Legal update, Council of the EU adopts political agreement on amendments to Insolvency Regulation.

For more detail, see Practice notes, A guide to the European Commission's proposal for a regulation amending the EC Insolvency Regulation and Amendments to the EC Insolvency Regulation: legislation tracker.

The outcome of the government's balance of competences review is still awaited. This follows the MoJ's call for evidence on civil judicial cooperation (including family matters) which closed in August 2013.

For current information on the various aspects of the review and the proposed timetable, see the FAQs document on the government's website. For further background information, see Legal update, Balance of competences review: MoJ call for evidence on civil judicial cooperation.

The European Law Institute (ELI) and the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) are continuing to work on a joint project to develop European rules of civil procedure, using the 2004 Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure, developed by the American Law Institute and UNIDROIT, as their starting point.

Preliminary reports produced by the first three working groups (service, provisional measures and access to documents) were presented at a joint meeting of the members of the steering committee and working groups, held in Rome on 27 and 28 November 2014. Two further working groups were established at the meeting, focussing on:

The working groups are expected to report on these areas during 2015. For further information, see Legal update, European rules of civil procedure: reports from working groups.

The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements was concluded in June 2005, but is not yet in force. It is designed to promote international trade and investment by offering greater certainty for parties involved in business-to-business contracts and international litigation, through the creation of an optional worldwide framework of rules on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

A key objective of the Hague Convention is to govern the enforcement (whether within or outside the EU) of choice of court agreements which nominate a court outside the EU. It contains a framework for the mutual recognition of exclusive jurisdiction clauses as between those states for which it has entered into force.

The European Commission signed the Hague Convention in April 2009 and on 10 October 2014, EU Justice Ministers approved a draft Council Decision to ratify it. In accordance with a draft Council Decision, adopted by the EU Council on 4 December 2014, the instrument of ratification will be deposited in accordance with Article 27 of the Hague Convention, within one month after 5 June 2015. The date of entry into force of the Hague Convention in the EU will then be published in the Official Journal.

For more information, see Legal updates, Council Decision approving the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements published in Official Journal and Hague Convention: European Parliament consents with draft Council Decision to ratify the Hague Convention on choice of court.

Regulation No 650/2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession (referred to as the Succession Regulation or Brussels IV) will apply from 17 August 2015 in all member states except for the UK, Ireland and Denmark.

Brussels IV aims to remove obstacles to the free movement of persons in relation to cross-border estates, to allow EU citizens to organise succession matters in advance and to effectively guarantee the rights of beneficiaries, other persons close to the deceased and creditors. For more detail, see Practice note, EU Succession Regulation (Brussels IV).

A new advisory group, set up by the CJC to explore the role that online dispute resolution (ODR) can play in resolving civil disputes, is expected to provide its report in Spring 2015. For more details, see Legal update, CJC sets up advisory group for online dispute resolution.

Directive 2013/11/EU on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes (ADR Directive) will be implemented into the domestic law of member states by 9 July 2015 at the latest. Regulation (EU) 524/2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes (ODR Regulation) will apply from 9 January 2016, with some limited exceptions.

Both legislative acts aim to increase the use of out-of-court schemes in the EU by giving consumers a fast, cheap and informal way to settle disputes with traders as an alternative to often lengthy court proceedings.

For a detailed overview of the regulatory procedure with regard to the ODR Regulation and ADR Directive, see Practice note, Alternative Dispute Resolution and Online Dispute Resolution proposals: legislation tracker.

United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) has established a working group for ODR in cross-border electronic commerce transactions, including business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-consumer (B2C) transactions.

The working group is currently drafting procedural rules in this area. The aim of the rules is not to effect a change in domestic laws, but to offer a cheap and quick option for the resolution of low-value, cross-border disputes as an alternative to court proceedings. The rules would be suitable for use between parties globally.

The working group's next session is scheduled for February 2015. For more information, see UNCITRAL: Working Group III: 2010 to present: Online Dispute Resolution.

UNCITRAL's working group on arbitration and conciliation is due to consider the issue of enforcement of settlement agreements resulting from international commercial conciliation proceedings at its next session in New York in February 2015. For more information, see Uncitral: Working Group II.

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has received approval from the Legal Services Board (LSB) to regulate businesses that are authorised to carry out and provide reserved legal activities. It will start accepting applications for BSB-regulated entities from 5 January 2015, and will start authorising applications from April 2015.

The BSB still intends to apply separately to the LSB to become a licensing authority of alternative business structures (ABS); however, there have been no updates as to the timing of this.

For more detail, see the BSB website.

ILEX Professional Standards (IPS), the regulator for members of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX), has received parliamentary approval to begin regulating businesses, giving members of CILEX the ability to set up their own law firms.

IPS expects to begin taking applications from legal businesses in 2015, subject to the order being signed by justice minister and final clearance by the Legal Services Board (LSB).

For more detail, see the CILEX website.

On 21 May 2014, the SRA announced that the CPD system will be reformed. The new system will be implemented for all solicitors from 1 November 2016, but firms can choose to adopt the new system from 1 April 2015.

Under the new system there will no longer be a minimum number of 16 CPD hours or a restricted list of qualifying training activities. Instead, solicitors and firms will be free to decide what training to do, how to do it and when. The SRA will provide more guidance on the new system and transitional arrangements in spring 2015

For more detail, see Article, SRA reform of the CPD system for solicitors and Online learning and conferences from Practical Law.