Law360: An appellate panel threw out a bid by a British doctors union and a GP to overturn a ruling that the GP's dismissal was not covered by work transfer regulations during the restructuring of his NHS employer.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In McCulloch and others v Forth Valley Health Board, the Supreme Court held that the Bolam test is the correct test for identifying the ‘reasonable alternative treatments’ which a doctor has a duty to disclose to a patient. This means that, if a doctor considers that a particular treatment is not a reasonable alternative treatment for the patient, and that view is supported by a responsible body of medical opinion, there is no duty to inform the patient of the treatment. The decision can be seen as a substantial row-back from the patient-centred approach to disclosure of risks and alternative treatments which the court favoured in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. Written by Rob Weir KC (counsel for the appellants in McCulloch) and Tom Westwell (who assisted Rob Weir KC in McCulloch), barristers at Devereux Chambers, London.

The doctrine of completeness is an evidence principle that allows a party to require that the whole of a document, conversation or statement be considered where an opposing party has introduced only a selective or misleading part. It aims to prevent unfairness and distortion by ensuring the fact‑finder sees relevant context.In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the doctrine is reflected in statutory and common law rules on “putting in the remainder” of a statement or document, including provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and related case law. It is commonly invoked in criminal trials and civil litigation when extracts from interviews, emails, contracts or recordings are relied on in isolation.In Scotland and Ireland, the same idea operates through rules of evidence and judicial discretion, allowing additional material to be led where necessary to understand or qualify what has already been admitted.Across the UK and Ireland, courts apply the doctrine of completeness to control the admissibility and scope of evidence, manage jury prejudice, and ensure that cross‑examination and submissions are based on a fair and accurate account rather than selective quotation.

The doctrine of equivalents is a patent law principle used to determine infringement where a product or process does not fall within the literal wording of a patent claim but is, in substance, the same invention. It prevents an alleged infringer avoiding liability by making only insubstantial or immaterial changes to a patented invention.In the UK (England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland), the modern approach derives from case law, particularly the Supreme Court decision in *Actavis v Eli Lilly* [2017] UKSC 48. The court applies a structured test to decide whether a variant achieves substantially the same result in substantially the same way and whether this would be obvious to the skilled person, while ensuring the variant was not clearly excluded by the claim language.In Ireland, the concept is recognised through judicial interpretation of the European Patent Convention and the Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 EPC, focussing on a balance between fair protection for the patentee and reasonable legal certainty for third parties. Across the UK and Ireland, it is primarily relevant in patent litigation, claim construction and freedom-to-operate analysis.

The doctrine of incorporation by reference describes the process by which a document, term or set of rules is treated as part of a contract, deed, will, company constitution or other legal instrument because it is clearly referred to, rather than physically set out in full. In practice, parties can “import” standard terms, technical specifications or procedural rules by identifying them with sufficient clarity, often by title, date, version or source.Across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, the concept is recognised mainly through case law and general principles of construction rather than a single statutory definition. Courts typically require: (i) clear wording showing an intention to incorporate; (ii) reasonable accessibility of the incorporated document at the time of the transaction; and (iii) consistency with mandatory statutory and common law controls (for example on unfair contract terms).The doctrine is frequently used in commercial contracts, construction contracts, financial documentation, corporate constitutions, trust instruments and testamentary dispositions. It reduces drafting length and promotes use of standard forms, but creates risks if referenced documents are ambiguous, changed without agreement, or not properly brought to the attention of the other party.

The doctrine of precedent is the custom of the courts to stand by previous decisions, so that once a point of law is decided upon by a court, then the same law must be applied to future cases with materially similar facts.

Financial Services analysis: Does the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000) exclude the common law doctrine of res judicata? David Roche of Mills & Reeve, and Sasha Bark-Jones and Ross Baker of Bond Dickinson comment on a recent ruling in which the Court of Appeal held that although the Act did not refer to res judicata—it still applied.

Charges payable on offer documents as set out in the Code section Document Charges, found after the Appendices.

Document execution checklist for Medium Term Note (MTN) programme updates This checklist sets out the documents that may be required in connection with an update to an MTN programme. For each document, the checklist identifies: • the form the document will take (eg agreement, deed, prospectus) • the party responsible for executing or issuing the document, and • the relevant signatories Name of document Form of document To be executed, or (if applicable) issued, by or on behalf of Signatories Executed? [Supplemental prospectus]Include if there have been any updates to, amongst other things, the Issuer and its financial condition and/or the law governing the notes since the date of the base prospectus. Document Issuer Not applicable Yes/No/Not applicable [Supplemental programme agreement]Include if there are any updates required to be made to this document. Agreement Issuer [insert details of Issuer’s authorised signatory / signatories] Yes/No/Not applicable Arranger [insert details of Arranger’s authorised signatory / signatories] Dealers [insert

A document of title is a document that enables the person holding it to deal with goods (or other property) as owner, or to transfer possession or control of those goods to another. In commercial practice this commonly includes bills of lading, warehouse receipts and delivery orders, and, in some contexts, share certificates and land title deeds.In England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Ireland, the concept is reflected in statute and case law, particularly in sale of goods and carriage of goods legislation, which recognise certain documents as symbolising the goods and allowing constructive delivery by endorsement or transfer. A good faith purchaser of a negotiable document of title may obtain better rights to the goods than the transferor.In Scots law, the expression is used in a similar commercial sense, although underlying rules on transfer of ownership and security differ; documents such as bills of lading still function as key indicia of entitlement to possession.Across all four jurisdictions, documents of title are central to international trade, secured lending over goods, and the resolution of priority and risk of loss issues in supply chains.

This Precedent is a draft ‘litigation hold’ or ‘document preservation’ notice to be sent by a party (or prospective party) to proceedings in the Business and Property Courts that are subject to the Disclosure Scheme under CPR PD 57AD, para 4.2 and CPR PD 57AD, para 4.3. [Insert name and address of recipient] [Insert date] PRIVATE, CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED Dear [insert recipient] Document preservation notice—[insert subject matter] We are writing to you in the context of [your current employment OR your previous employment OR your current professional relationship OR your previous professional relationship] with [insert name of the Company OR name of actual or prospective party to the proceedings]. [The Company OR name of actual or prospective party to the proceedings] [has recently OR is likely

This Practice Note provides practical guidance on document production in international arbitration proceedings. It addresses the two main forms of document production that arise in international arbitration: • the production of documents in response to a request for production (or request(s) to produce), and • the voluntary production of documents associated with the parties’ written submissions, including their pleadings (statements of case), witness statements and/or expert reports Since each arbitration is different, practitioners should consider any particular features of their case that may have a bearing on document production. Reference is made throughout this Practice Note to soft law and arbitration rules which may inform or illustrate the process of document production as it takes place in many arbitrations, with particular focus on the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (IBA Rules). It reflects the recent version of the IBA Rules, which were promulgated in December 2020. The following related Practice Notes may also be of interest to practitioners: • The role of