Section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) provides for a statutory minimum period of notice that must be given to bring a contract of employment to an end, except where one of the parties is entitled to terminate without notice because of the conduct of the other party. As the right is in relation to a contract of employment only, the right to statutory minimum notice applies only in relation to employees (see Practice Note: Employee status) and apprentices (see Practice Note: Apprenticeships). The contract of employment can specify a longer period of notice but, where the contract provides for shorter notice than the statutory minimum, the contract is treated as giving the statutory entitlement. Who qualifies for statutory minimum notice Qualifying service required The right to statutory minimum notice depends upon a qualifying period of one month’s continuous employment, whether it is the employer or the employee who is giving notice. For employment of less than one month, the notice to be given is that expressly stated in the contract or implied ‘reasonable notice’—the

[Organisation name]: [Volunteer agreement] [We appreciate your commitment to us and we will do our best to make your volunteer experience with us positive and rewarding. To make sure you have the best possible experience we have created this agreement which sets out our commitment to you and what we hope you can contribute.] Commitments to volunteers We will: • ensure you are valued part of [organisation name]; • be responsive to your requirements and do our best to help you develop your volunteering role with us; • be flexible in relation to your volunteering hours, recognising your need for holiday time and other commitments; • honour the time commitment you have agreed to give us and not expect more from you unless offered and agreed; • provide you with an induction explaining how we operate and how

To: [insert name of employee] From: [insert name of employer] Please sign below to indicate your agreement to work from [insert time][am OR pm]

Law360: Apple defeated claims that it discriminated against a female Spanish employee by ordering her to return to her London-based role as part of a post-pandemic policy, an employment tribunal has ruled.

Commercial analysis: David Bridge and Alex Danchenko of CMS consider the recent Court of Appeal decision in Kulkarni v Gwent Holdings Ltd that has provided helpful guidance on the interpretation of contractual clauses allowing for termination, or the compulsory transfer of shares, for ‘material or persistent’ and/or repudiatory breaches, and whether such repudiatory breaches are necessarily incapable of being remedied. While the decision turned, for the most part, on the specific wording of the relevant clauses, any additional clarity is welcome in an area of law which is often difficult for commercial actors (and legal practitioners advising them) to get right.

This Agreement is made on [date] Parties 1 [NAME OF COMPANY], a company incorporated in England with registered number [number] whose registered office is at [address] (the Company); and 2 [NAME OF EMPLOYEE], of [address] (you). THE PARTIES Agree: 1 Education and training 1.1 [Following your recent request for time off for study or training, the OR The] Company will: 1.1.1 grant you leave of absence from work from [insert date] to [insert date] for the sole purpose of attending [[specify particular course] OR any educational or training course] (Course) and sitting any examination[s] relevant to the Course which, in its reasonable opinion, is likely to benefit your work; 1.1.2 permit you to take [paid OR unpaid] leave of absence from work in order for you to attend the Course[ and/or [paid OR unpaid] leave to sit any such examination]; 1.1.3 bear any enrolment, tuition and/or examination fees payable for the Course; 1.1.4 reimburse you for any reasonable travel, accommodation, living and other expenses you incur in attending; the Course or sitting such examination(s), subject to compliance with the Company's expenses policy from time to time; 1.1.5 except where the requirements of its

Construction analysis: The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against summary judgment for the defendant in a claim in negligence where a third party intruder caused a fire at the claimant’s property having gained access during an inspection by the defendant. The court at first instance held that this was a ‘pure omission’ case and the defendant did not owe the claimant a duty of care. The Court of Appeal disagreed with this finding and found that the alleged duty of care owed by the defendant to the claimant in respect of the damage caused by the third party was arguable (which was all that was required).

This Practice Note provides guidance on key contractual issues in business-to-business (B2B) digital commerce conducted using websites, platforms, mobile apps and emails. It covers issues of contract formation (including offer, acceptance, incorporation and consideration) and contract formalities in those contexts (including electronic signatures) and the enforceability of browse-wrap (aka browse wrap, browsewrap or click free) and click-wrap (aka click wrap or clickwrap) terms. For more information on the contractual matrix that generally governs a website, see Practice Note: Digital commerce—website terms, policies and notices. Where businesses use online platforms (such as a marketplace) or mobile apps (m-commerce), generally the same legal issues arise as in the use of any website. Therefore, this Practice Note uses the term ‘website’ for simplicity and identifies specific differences applicable to online platforms or m-commerce only where relevant. For more information, see also: Mobile apps—overview. This Practice Note does not consider the regulation of B2B digital commerce providers more widely. For more information, see Practice Note: Business-to-business digital commerce—compliance and regulation. Assimilated law Throughout this Practice Note, references are

Construction analysis: This is the latest instalment in a series of decisions arising out of claims by a developer (BDW) against its structural engineer (URS) in respect of structural defects in two residential developments, where the repair works were carried out at a time when it no longer had any proprietary interest in the developments and no claims had been intimated by the any third parties. In its much-anticipated judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Technology and Construction Court and the Court of Appeal, holding that: (i) the repair costs fell within URS’s scope of duty and were not too remote; (ii) the retrospectively extended limitation period in section 135(3) of the Building Safety Act 2022 meant that there was no relevant time bar at the time of the repair works; (iii) URS owed a duty under section 1(1)(a) of the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA 1972) to BDW as the developer; (iv) BDW was entitled to claim a contribution from URS when it had paid compensation (in kind) by carrying out the repairs. However, the Supreme Court refrained from considering the principles on the accrual of a tortious claim and preferred to leave that question to a future case. Written by Mathias Cheung, barrister at Atkin Chambers.

This Checklist highlights the key procurement, licensing and contractual issues relevant to artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) solutions. Depending on the specific application, the inclusion of AI may mean adding simple automated functionality, through to creating a complex, intelligent tool controlled by either a third party or by the customer. This Checklist assumes that the AI will be capable of an element of learning and that, as such, one or both of the parties will be involved in training it. For a discussion of methodologies for the management of risks and challenges that might arise during the deployment of AI technology, see News Analysis: Understanding and managing the risks in artificial intelligence (AI) technology projects. General issues related to software development and licensing, systems integration, outsourcing and software support services may also be relevant, depending on the solution, but are not highlighted in this Checklist. For more information, see: • Ireland—Software development agreement—checklist • Ireland—Key issues in SaaS and hardware/software maintenance SLAs • Ireland—Service level agreement—hardware/software fault resolution support services

This Practice Note provides an introduction to some of the regulatory responsibilities and contractual requirements that firms authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) or Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), or 'principals', have in relation to their appointed representatives (ARs). It discusses such issues as appointing an AR, conducting verification, entering into a contract and the notifications that a principal must make to the FCA in relation to its ARs. New regime for appointed representatives Alongside a call for evidence on the AR regime by HM Treasury, in December 2021 the FCA set out in consultation paper CP21/34 its proposals for improving its AR regime. These proposals included gathering additional information on ARs and Introducer Appointed Representatives (IARs) and heightening reporting requirements for principals, as well as clarifying and bolstering the responsibilities and expectations of principals, including improved oversight of ARs by their principals. In August 2022, the FCA published Policy Statement PS22/11, in which it confirmed its new rules for the new, improved regime. The new rules came into effect on 8 December 2022

This Practice Note provides practical guidance on proper execution of simple contracts and deeds for limited liability partnerships (LLPs). See also Precedents: Execution clause—limited liability partnership—contract and Execution clause—limited liability partnership—deed. For analysis relating to the formation of an LLP, see Practice Note: Forming a limited liability partnership. We have produced a collection that is a comprehensive, interactive resource to help users identify and work through the concepts and common issues when executing documents. Each section or phase includes practical guidance, precedent clauses and Q&As relevant to that section. For more information, see: Execution collection. The law Before 1 October 2009, the execution formalities that applied to LLPs were set out in the Companies Act 1985. Since 1 October 2009, LLPs have been subject to the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) by virtue of and modified by the Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Companies Act 2006) Regulations 2009 (LLPs (Application of CA 2006) Regs 2009), SI 2009/1804 which applies CA 2006, ss 43–47 to LLPs with modifications. CA 2006, s 43 (as modified and applied by LLPs (Application of CA 2006) Regs 2009,