Claim No. [insert claim number]. [IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS [OF ENGLAND AND WALES OR IN [insert location]] ] [Specify division] [Specify specialist court] [Insert location] DISTRICT REGISTRY OR THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert location] [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS LIST] ] before [The Honourable Mr Justice OR The Honourable Mrs Justice OR His Honour Judge OR Her Honour Judge OR Master OR District Judge] [insert name] dated: [insert date] between: [insert name]        Claimant and [insert name]        Defendant _______________________________________ Directions _______________________________________ Upon reading the allocation questionnaires filed by the parties. [ upon the parties having agreed the directions set out below. AND upon hearing the parties.] It is ordered that: 1 Allocation [The case is allocated to the multi-track. Cost budgeting is dispensed with. OR The case is allocated to the fast-track.] 2 Preliminary issue The trial of the issue as to whether the Landlord satisfies the ground of opposition contained within section 30(1)[(a) OR (b) OR (c) OR (d) OR (e) OR (f) OR (g)] be tried as a preliminary issue. The directions below shall apply to the preliminary issue only and all other proceedings shall be stayed until the determination of the preliminary issue or further order. 3 Standard disclosure [The parties shall each

Claim No. [insert claim number]. [IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS [OF ENGLAND AND WALES OR IN [insert location]] ] [Specify division] [Specify specialist court] [Insert location] DISTRICT REGISTRY OR THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert location] [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS LIST] ] before [The Honourable Mr Justice OR The Honourable Mrs Justice OR His Honour Judge OR Her Honour Judge OR Master OR District Judge] [insert name] dated: [insert date] between: [insert name]        Claimant and [insert name]        Defendant _______________________________________ Directions _______________________________________ Upon reading the allocation questionnaires filed by the parties. [ And upon the parties having agreed the directions set out below. OR And upon hearing the parties.] It is ordered that: 1 Allocation The case is allocated to the multi-track. 2 Stay of proceedings [The proceedings shall be stayed until [date of expiry of stay—circa three months from service of the directions order—NB the dates for compliance with the remainder of the directions below will need to be amended to take this into account] to enable the parties to attempt to negotiate a settlement. OR If at any time the Claimant and the Defendant jointly notify the court that they wish the proceedings to be stayed for a fixed

Commercial analysis: The court found that the Italian Republic, by not ensuring that its public authorities effectively complied with the periods for payment under Article 4(3) and (4) of Directive 2011/7/EU (Late payment in Commercial Transactions) had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive. Written by Iain G. Mitchell QC (Scotland), barrister, at Tanfield Chambers.

Waste subject to the provisions of the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC of 19 November 2008.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note answers some frequently asked questions on the DAC in the UK as it applied up until 31 December 2020. As of Implementation Period (IP) completion day, the DAC no longer applies to the UK. The International Tax Compliance (Amendment) (No 2) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, SI 2020/1300 remove references to the DAC from the UK’s implementing regulations for DAC 2 and CRS, as well as changing the source of certain definitions and to maintain the effect of certain dates set out in the DAC after IP completion day. Accordingly, there is no practical impact of the DAC ceasing to apply on the exchange of financial account information. What is the directive for administrative cooperation (DAC)? In 2011, the European Council, comprising of the heads of state or government of all EU countries, the European Council President, and the European Commission President, adopted Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation

Any substance or object which the holder discards, intends to discard or is required to discard (Article 3(1) of the revised Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) (rWFD).

Background The Market Abuse Directive 2003/6/EC (MAD) was adopted in 2003 and established a legal framework throughout the EU to protect market integrity against instances of insider dealing and market manipulation. Following the widespread damage caused by the financial crisis however, a review into the effectiveness of MAD was undertaken which led to the European Commission (Commission) proposing that MAD be repealed and replaced. As a result, on 12 June 2014 the text of two new legislative tools was published in the Official Journal of the European Union: • Regulation (EU) 596/2014 (EU Market Abuse Regulation), and • Directive 2014/57/EU on criminal sanctions for market abuse (CSMAD) Taken together, the EU Market Abuse Regulation and CSMAD replaced MAD and introduced a new market abuse regime across the EU that encompasses a wider range of markets, products and behaviour than was previously provided for. The EU Market Abuse Regulation and CSMAD became effective on 3 July 2016. As part of the Lisbon Treaty negotiations in 2009, the UK and Ireland negotiated the Protocol

An officer of the company, usually registered as such at companies house, but may be also be a shadow or de facto director.

The person designated as the Director of Legal Aid Casework pursuant to LASPO 2012, s 4, or a person entitled to exercise the functions of the Director

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court held that directors who knowingly permitted systemic breaches of hire purchase arrangements, and failed to understand or comply with secured lending restrictions, were unfit under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA 1986). The judgment clarifies that sustained operational failures and inadequate asset-tracking systems may constitute gross incompetence absent dishonesty, particularly where lenders are exposed to uncontracted risk. It underscores that delegation does not absolve directors of supervisory responsibility. Practitioners should also note the court’s emphasis on directors’ understanding of financing documents and the risks of inconsistent evidence when defending disqualification proceedings. Produced in partnership with Giselle McGowan of Serle Court.

An agreement between a production company and a director for the direction of a film.

The [ Directors OR Secretary] [Insert company name] [Insert company address] [insert date] Dear [Directors OR Secretary], [Insert company name] (the Company) I hereby resign from [each of ]my office[s] as [a] [director AND/OR secretary] of the Company [and its subsidiaries ] [with