The aggregate value of the shortfall between the notified value of receivables and the amount actually paid by the debtor.

Public Law analysis: The High Court allowed a judicial review claim brought by a family in Gaza, against the refusal of the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (FCDO) to assist them with exiting Gaza. In doing so, the High Court ruled that, even those Gazan clients who do not fall within the FCDO’s ‘Extended Eligibility Criteria’ potentially are entitled to diplomatic assistance from the UK, if they have strong family life in the UK. The court rejected an argument from the claimant under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and held that there is no duty under Article 8 ECHR to provide diplomatic assistance. However, the court held that the FCDO’s refusal was irrational for not engaging with important features (the family’s exceptional Article 8 rights which secured them Entry Clearance, cohort implications, and real-world feasibility) and ordered reconsideration. No mandatory order was provided. Written by Parvez Anwar Pantho, caseworker at Duncan Lewis.

Family analysis: In London Borough of Barnet v AG and others the court had the opportunity to fully explore the conflict between the duties imposed on the state to protect all children physically present in its jurisdiction and the protection of the rights and privileges afforded to diplomats and their families living in its jurisdiction. Hannah Markham QC, head of the family team at 36 Family, examines the decision.

Employment analysis: The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the defence of diplomatic immunity applied to allegations that a serving diplomat had trafficked a domestic servant who worked at his diplomatic residence. The EAT also reviewed the doctrine of precedent and concluded that neither the EAT nor the employment tribunal was bound by an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal where the Supreme Court decided the case but on a different ground. The case is now the leading authority on diplomatic immunity in these circumstances—but as the EAT granted the first ever ‘leapfrog’ certificate directly from the EAT to the Supreme Court, with a recommendation that the appeal to the Supreme Court be expedited, it seems likely that this issue will soon be resolved at the highest level. Written by Mohinderpal Sethi QC and James Green, barristers at Littleton Chambers.

An agreement which is usually executed as a deed which is provided by the Construction Contractor, a construction sub-contractor or consultant (the promisor) as well as other parties in the PFI structure. The agreement provides a party (the beneficiary) who has an interest in the project but who is not a party to the original contract (for example the Authority or the Funder) with rights and remedies against the promisor if there is a problem with the services or works that have been provided by the promisor.

An agreement which is usually executed as a deed which is provided by the Construction Contractor, a construction sub-contractor or consultant (the promisor) as well as other parties in the PFI structure. The agreement provides a party (the beneficiary) who has an interest in the project but who is not a party to the original contract (eg the Authority or the Funder) with rights and remedies against the promisor if there is a problem with the services or works that have been provided by the promisor. Direct Agreements are very similar to Collateral Warranties but tend to have more detailed step-in and step-out rights which allow the beneficiary to step into the contract and take over the role of the original paying party in the event that there has been a default by the paying party.

Direct participants include securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, clearing corporations and other organisations, who have direct accounts with each such clearing system. These are typically major international financial institutions; occasionally a major corporate may be a Direct Participant.

Radiation received directly from a source such as a nuclear power plant, rather than indirectly as a result of radioactive discharges.

This Practice Note considers the purpose of a direct agreement specifically in the context of a PFI or PF2 project. It looks at the different direct agreements that will typically be given and how a direct agreement works (including looking at step-in rights). It also explains the difference between direct agreements and collateral warranties in PFI and PF2 projects. Note that, in the 2018 Budget (delivered on 29 October 2018), it was announced that the government will no longer use PF2 on new projects (see News Analysis: Budget 2018—what does it mean for infrastructure and housebuilding?). This policy was confirmed in the National Infrastructure Strategy in 2020. However, existing PFI and PF2 projects will continue to run, and given the typical lifespan of such projects this is likely to be for many years. What are direct agreements? A direct agreement is a relatively short tripartite agreement. The main purpose behind a direct agreement is to allow the beneficiary under that direct agreement to step-in to the shoes of Project Co (either themselves or by a nominated substitute)

What is a direct agreement? Direct agreements are very common in project finance transactions. A direct agreement is an agreement which gives the lenders to the project direct rights in respect of a key project document (for the meaning of ‘project document’, see: Project documents—issues for lenders—overview). Those rights are explained in Direct agreements—key provisions below. For an example of a direct agreement, see Precedent: Form of Contractor Direct Agreement in favour of a lender (for use on infrastructure and energy projects). The relevance of project documents The project documents are the contracts which set out each party's responsibilities in relation to a project and the success or failure of most projects often depends heavily on them. For a project which is not yet built, one of the project company’s (for the meaning of ‘project company’, see Practice Note: Project finance—key project parties) most valuable assets will be its rights under the construction contract. Once the project is fully constructed, project documents with significant value tend to include the operation and maintenance contract

Direct applicability denotes the effect of certain legal instruments in EU law to be automatically binding without being subject to further implementation measures in the member states.

This practical guidance relates to the Procurement Act 2023 regime As of 24 February 2025, the main provisions of the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) are in force. Procurements begun on or after this date must be carried out under PA 2023 (where applicable), whereas those begun under the previous legislation (the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102, the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016, SI 2016/274, the Concession Contracts Regulations 2016, SI 2016/273, and the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011, SI 2011/1848) must continue to be procured and managed under that legislation. This practical guidance focusses on public procurement under PA 2023. For background reading on the previous regime, see Practice Note: Introduction to public contracts procurement—pre PA 2023 [Archived]. For practical guidance on procedures allowing direct award under PCR 2015, see Practice Note: Public procurement—negotiated without a notice procedure—pre-PA 2023. Direct award The default for contracting authorities is that a competitive tendering exercise is required for contracts covered by PA 2023. However, in certain limited cases, a direct award is permitted