You will find the following Practice Notes useful in relation to your question: • Auto-enrolment—an introduction • Auto-enrolment—who needs to be enrolled? As explained in the first Practice Note, all ‘eligible jobholders’ must be enrolled automatically into an ‘automatic enrolment scheme’. The second Practice Note explains that ‘an eligible jobholder’ is a jobholder aged at least 22 but under state pension age who has qualifying earnings above the earnings trigger (ie earnings above £10,000 for the 2019/20 or 2020/21 tax years). The second Practice Note also sets out exceptions to the auto-enrolment duty (see main section entitled Exceptions

In answering this Q&A, we have set out the general approach to the postal rule and have not addressed any specific considerations that may be relevant for a particular type of notice. The postal rule is a rule relating to offer and acceptance in contractual matters. The rule applies only where postal use is reasonable: Henthorn v Fraser and provides that acceptance by post takes place when the letter of acceptance is posted, not when it is received or the acceptance comes to the attention of the offeror: Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681, 106 ER 250 (not reported by LexisNexis®). It is based upon the notional equation of the posting of

Contract variation A contract variation is a subsequent change to an original contract. Not all changes to a contractual relationship amount to an effective or valid variation. Sometimes the changes are such that the end result is not a varied contract, but a rescinded, assigned or novated contract. For general guidance, see Practice Note: Contract variation. Contracts can be varied in several ways, see Practice Notes: • Contract variation—Written variation • Contract variation—Oral variation • Contract variation—Variation by conduct • Contract variation—Unilateral variation • Contract variation—Waiver, or • Contract variation—Sustained minor breach An existing contract may be varied provided that the variation satisfies the usual requirements for the creation of a binding agreement—ie offer, acceptance, consideration and contractual intention of the parties (see section on ‘Consideration’ in the above Practice Note and more generally: Forming enforceable contracts—overview). A contractual variation will itself be a contract between the parties to the existing agreement and therefore consideration must be provided for the variation to take

Section 113 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (as amended) (HGCRA 1996) provides, inter alia, as follows: ‘113.—Prohibition of conditional payment provisions. (1) A provision making payment under a construction contract conditional on the payer receiving payment from a third person is ineffective, unless that third person, or any other person payment by whom is under the contract (directly or indirectly) a condition of payment by that third person, is insolvent.’ It is assumed that the insolvency provisions are not relevant for present purposes and that the relevant clause is contained within a construction contract as defined

Commercial analysis: The case involved the construction of a contract between the parties whereby the University of Portsmouth (UoP) agreed to undertake scientific research into the development of a liquid aspirin drug (the Drug) for the treatment of brain cancer. Innovate sought damages of £100m for breach of contract and UoP successfully relied on a clause in the contract limiting its liability to £1 million. The Judge considered the question of exclusion and limitation clauses and fraud rejecting the argument that the clauses in question should not be given effect by reason of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 1977). Written by Lynne Counsell, barrister at Addington Chambers.

The Insolvency Service has reported that Tanveer Khan and Tasneem Khan have been disqualified as company directors for 13 years and ten years respectively, following a High Court hearing in Manchester on 12 February 2026. The disqualifications arise from the fabrication of a £9.8m NHS contract and the defrauding of investors of over £2.18m through Matz Medical Limited. The company entered administration in October 2022, with creditors facing an estimated shortfall of more than £40m. Tanveer Khan used forged documents, including fake NHS purchase orders, delivery notes and bank payment confirmations, to deceive lenders and investors between March and May 2022. This occurred despite the company having been suspended from NHS Supply Chain frameworks since December 2019. A separate £16.5m claim brought by the joint administrators against Tanveer Khan for breaching directors' duties remains ongoing. Both individuals are prohibited from forming, managing or promoting a company without court permission until March 2039 and March 2036 respectively.

Arbitration analysis: In Kat Yue Construction v Fai Lee Construction, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance refused leave to appeal against a decision declining to stay court proceedings in favour of arbitration. The dispute arose from a construction contract which contained an arbitration clause. The parties settled the initial dispute by entering into a Settlement Agreement that expressly provided that the arbitration clause ‘shall not apply’. When further disputes arose under the Settlement Agreement, the defendant applied to stay the proceedings in favour of arbitration, arguing that the plaintiff’s damages were based on the original contract and therefore fell within the arbitration clause. The court refused a stay and subsequently refused leave to appeal. The court held that the Settlement Agreement, rather than the original contract, was the ‘centre of gravity’ of the dispute. Although damages were assessed by reference to the original contract, the plaintiff’s right to relief depended on establishing a breach of the Settlement Agreement—which the court characterised as a ‘condition precedent’ to recovery. The court further noted that requiring arbitration would render the express exclusion clause otiose and lead to ‘fragmentation’ of proceedings. This decision illustrates that where related agreements contain conflicting dispute resolution regimes, the court will adopt the regime governing the agreement at the ‘centre of gravity’ of the dispute. It reinforces the principle that courts will not strain to bring disputes within an arbitration clause where parties have expressly agreed otherwise. Written by Paul Starr, partner, and John Law, associate, at King & Wood Mallesons.

Arbitration analysis: The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) in Brazil analysed, in the context of a Special Appeal, if an arbitration clause established in a maritime transport contract should be transmitted to the subrogated insurer in case of a redress lawsuit. The Reporting Justice Maria Isabel Gallotti proclaimed that although the subrogated creditor is not automatically bound by the arbitration clause through legal subrogation, it may occur through contractual subrogation, or, in this case, through the insurer’s previous knowledge of the existence of an arbitration clause in the contract of carriage. This is because the arbitration clause cannot be understood as a very personal condition of the party, precisely because it is a generic and common legal institute applicable to any capable contractor, not deriving from a personal characteristic whose provision could not be performed by a third party. The decision shows that the courts in Brazil, in case of a dispute involving an insurance subrogation claim and an international maritime contract, would likely rule in favor of the applicability of the arbitration clause, reinforcing legal certainty on this matter in the country. Written by Camila Mendes Vianna Cardoso partner, Ana Carolina Moreira Balbi de Faria, and Luciana Rodamilans Stukart both are associates at Kincaid Mendes Vianna Advogados.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case is of interest to practitioners for three reasons. First, when oral contracts are in issue, determination on a summary basis is rarely appropriate—and the existence of a transcript does not necessarily change that. Second, the interaction between unjust enrichment and contract is a complex area of law. This case stands as a warning that practitioners should be wary about seeking summary determination of unjust enrichment claims when a relevant contract may be lurking in the background. Third, an argument that there has been a breach of the duty to provide full and frank disclosure can come too late; any such argument should be raised at the earliest opportunity if it is to bite. Written by Tim Benham-Mirando, barrister at Serle Court (and junior counsel in the case).

[ON HEADED NOTEPAPER OF PARTY A] [Insert address of Party B] [Insert date] Dear [name of Party B], Contract extension 1 We refer to the agreement dated [insert date of agreement to be extended] between you and us relating to [insert specific purpose of agreement] (Contract). 2 In consideration of the sum of £[1] paid by us to you (receipt of which you acknowledge), with effect from [insert date] we agree to extend the term of the Contract for a period [of [insert number] [insert days, weeks, months] OR up to and including [insert date]].[ We further agree to vary the Contract

A notice is an entry in the register of title that protects the priority of a specific interest affecting the land in a registered title. The interests which can, and should, be protected by an application to register include estate contracts (eg contracts for sale, agreements for lease). A restriction indicates that the proprietor's powers of disposition are fettered in some way. Its effect is to prevent the

In order for an insourcing to amount to a service provision change within the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE 2006), SI 2006/246, reg 3(1)(b), the following conditions must be satisfied: • (immediately before transfer) there must be an organised grouping of employees (which may be a single employee) situated in Great Britain • (immediately before transfer) the principal purpose of the organised grouping must be the carrying out of the activities on behalf of the client • (immediately before transfer) the client must intend the activities to be carried out by the transferee • the client must intend the activities not to relate to a single specific event or short-term task • the activities must not consist wholly or mainly of the supply of goods for the client's use For further information on service provision changes generally, see Practice Note: Service provision changes. Where there is a relevant