Commercial Property Standard Enquiries The Commercial Property Standard Enquiries (CPSE) have become the industry standard pre-contract enquiries for commercial property transactions: • CPSE.1: General pre-contract enquiries for all commercial property transactions • CPSE.2: Supplemental pre-contract enquiries for property subject to tenancies for commercial use • CPSE.3: Supplemental pre-contract enquiries for commercial property on the grant of a new lease • CPSE.4: Supplemental pre-contract enquiries for commercial leasehold property on the assignment of the lease • CPSE.5: Enquiries before surrender of a rack rent commercial lease • CPSE.6: Supplemental pre-contract enquiries for property subject

Joint ventures are becoming increasingly popular in the agricultural industry and provide options for farmers who perhaps want to share the workload or are considering taking a step back from farming or landowners who would prefer not to farm in-hand. There are a number of different joint venture agreements available, and the type of model to use will often depend on several factors. This Practice Note will look at various joint venture models in terms of what they are, the factors to be considered when deciding which model would be best for the parties to use, how each model is formed and various other factors which need to be taken into account when advising clients. At the outset, it is important to note that the various structures available are interchangeable: the parties may start with a licence to occupy so that they have an opportunity to get to know each other before moving on to a partnership or share farming model, which could in turn change to a farm business tenancy if the landowner wants

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note looks at the special jurisdiction provisions in Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), when dealing with different types of claims and disputes. The special jurisdiction under Article 7 enables a claimant to bring proceedings against a defendant in a jurisdiction in which the defendant is not domiciled. Such jurisdiction is non-exclusive and so, if applicable, does not oust the jurisdiction of any other EU Member State. Impact of UK’s departure from the EU Following exit day (ie 31 January 2020), the UK became a third state in respect of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). As a result of transitional provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU, the UK remained subject to Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) during the implementation period, which began on exit day and ended on IP completion day (ie 31 December 2020, at 11 pm). The position post IP completion day requires consideration

This Practice Note considers the appointment of the arbitral tribunal where there are multiple parties to the arbitration. For an introduction to multi-party and multi-contract arbitration generally, see Practice Note: Multi-party and multi-contract arbitration—an introduction. Tribunal appointments—potential difficulties with multiple parties Generally speaking, in a two-party arbitration the claimant and respondent each appoint (or nominate for appointment) an arbitrator and the chair (or presiding arbitrator) is then appointed who is party neutral. However, difficulties can arise in cases where there are multiple claimants or respondents who are unable to agree on a joint arbitrator to appoint (or nominate). Arbitration agreements, appointments and multiple parties Practitioners dealing with disputes with multiple claimants and/or multiple respondents must ensure that they comply with any provisions either in the relevant arbitration rules, the arbitration agreement or the law of the seat of arbitration. A failure to do so could render an award invalid. In situations where a future dispute may involve multiple parties practitioners drafting arbitration agreements should ensure that this issue is clearly dealt with, either by: • adopting

IP analysis: In March 2018, the second defendant, Ms Chloe Wilkinson, set up a YouTube channel under the name ‘DissociaDID’. Ms Wilkinson is affected by a condition known as dissociative identity disorder (‘DID’), which is characterised by an individual taking on two or more alternative and distinct personality types. The first defendant, Dissociadid Ltd, is a company set up by Ms Wilkinson. Ms Wilkinson uploaded videos on DID and herself on to her YouTube channel in an attempt to raise awareness and provide support to others who suffer from this condition. The channel became successful and by May 2021 it reached an excess of 1 million subscribers. By 2020, Ms Wilkson’s gross earnings were approximately £105,000. In March 2020, the claimant, Mr Sergio Mendes Costa, reached out to Ms Wilkinson to collaborate on her project. Mr Costa and Ms Wilkinson worked on nine literary works. While there is no dispute that eight of those works were works of joint authorship (‘Joint Works’), the ninth piece of work (the ‘Disclaimer’) became a point of dispute with Mr Costa claiming that he was a joint author of the Disclaimer and Ms Wilkinson alleging that Mr Costa’s contribution was too insubstantial to have made him a joint author. His Honour Judge Hacon came to the overall conclusion that Mr Costa was not a joint author of the Disclaimer. On the issue of counterclaim the judge held there was no contract between Mr Costa and Ms Wilkinson. Had the contract existed, it would not have contained the implied terms alleged by Ms Wilkinson. Notwithstanding this, the judge found that Mr Costa intended to cause harm to the defendants—harm generated by videos vanishing in large numbers from the defendants’ channel. Written by Anamitra Mukhopadhyay, solicitor at JMW Solicitors LLP.

Employees’ pensions rights under an occupational pension scheme can be categorised as: • pension rights arising under the trusts of the relevant pension scheme, and • contractual terms arising under the employees’ employment contract (either expressly or impliedly) For further information, see Practice Note: Pensions and the employment contract. Recognition of the dual nature of pension rights is important, especially if changes are contemplated to employees’ future pension rights. Generally, changes to employees’ pension rights under an occupational pension scheme will require exercise of the scheme’s amendment power (the sponsoring employer may also be required to consult employees on the proposed changes). However, given the dual nature of pension rights, employers will often also seek to obtain employees’ express consent to the proposed changes (usually following the conclusion of any consultation exercise) so as to minimise the likelihood of a successful challenge by the employees under their employment contracts or other relevant contractual documentation (eg employee handbooks or collective agreements). For further information on consultation by employers, see Practice

Consultant appointment 1 The Consultant shall [use its reasonable endeavours to] perform the Services and its obligations under this Agreement [together

Public Law analysis: This case involved a successful application by a contracting authority under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR), reg 96(1)(a) to lift the automatic suspension imposed by regulation 95 of the PCR. It provides further clarity on the test to lift the automatic suspension and the difficulties faced by those opposing such an application. As is usually the case in such an application, the contracting authority accepted (for the purposes of the application) that there was a serious issue to be tried such that the case centered on the delicate balance between the adequacy of damages and the balance of convenience. Mrs Justice Jefford, albeit with some hesitation, acknowledged that lifting the suspension could potentially disrupt the claimant’s business in ways that damages could not adequately compensate. However, compelling factors strongly favored lifting the suspension, highlighting the significant evidentiary burden on claimants and the challenges they face when contesting an application to lift the automatic suspension, particularly in cases involving essential public services. The case also highlights the importance of a cross undertaking in damages when it comes to applications to lift the automatic suspension. Written by Sam Pringle, senior associate and Gabriella Rasiah, trainee solicitor at DWF Law LLP.

The answer to this Q&A relates to an above threshold procurement exercise conducted subject to the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102. The first point to note is that, insofar as this issue is concerned, the end of the Brexit transition period at 11 pm on 31 December 2020 does not impact on the rules and best practices in question. For further reading on the Brexit impact, see Practice Note: What does IP completion day mean for Local Government? [Archived] For recent analysis, see News Analysis: Brexit—the end of public procurement rules or business as usual? That said, the UK Government published a Green Paper in December 2020 entitled 'Transforming Public Procurement', which promises to radically change the procurement landscape in the UK. The first paragraph of its Executive Summary gives a flavour of the path down which the government wishes to travel: 'The proposals in this Green Paper are intended to shape the future of public procurement in this country for many

ARCHIVED: This Checklist has been archived and is not maintained. This practical guidance relates to the pre-Procurement Act 2023 regime This Checklist contains guidance relevant to public procurement exercises commenced before the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) came into force on 24 February 2025. In-scope procurements begun on or after this date are governed by PA 2023. Under the transitional and savings provisions for PA 2023, the previous public procurement regimes continue to apply to the extent necessary to allow contracting authorities to complete and manage procurements commenced before PA 2023 came into force. This Checklist should be read in that context. For background reading, see Practice Note: Introduction to the Procurement Act 2023—PA 2023. Further practical guidance on PA 2023 is set out in a separate subtopic, see: Procurement Act 2023—overview. Limitation in public procurement proceedings Procurement challenges are subject to relatively short limitation periods. It is therefore important that bidders are alive to potential breaches arising during the procurement process itself. Where a breach occurs,

The Government Commercial Agency (GCA) has published an article summarising the 17 notices introduced under the Procurement Act 2023 and how contracting authorities must use them throughout the procurement lifecycle. The guidance explains that the notices support transparency from procurement planning through to contract award and post-award contract management, and identifies which notices are mandatory or optional, including planning and pipeline notices, tender process notices, award and post-award notices and dynamic market notices. It also sets out the notices that must be published when calling off contracts through a framework agreement, including UK6 contract award notices, UK7 contract details notices, UK17 payments compliance notices and, where applicable, UK8 contract payment notices, UK9 contract performance notices, UK10 contract change notices and UK11 contract termination notices.

System development agreements govern a wide range of projects from the straightforward to the large, complex and costly. The objective is usually simple: to create an IT system meeting the customer’s needs in a trouble-free way, by an agreed time and for an agreed price. However, this simple ambition often masks a mass of complexity reflecting the underlying complexity of IT systems themselves. Practical matters, including the methodology for the project, the components of the system and how the system should work in real-life conditions, fundamentally affect the issues that a development agreement must address. Without a clear working knowledge of the commercial and technical issues, there is a good chance that lawyers will produce contracts which are divorced from reality and inadequately address the risks. In addition, development contracts contain a mixture of contract, intellectual property and commercial issues which can look standard to the uninitiated but in fact vary widely in order to accommodate specific project requirements. This Practice Note covers the following key issues: • Development methodology • Incorporating other software • Hardware