Claims for holiday pay may be brought before an employment tribunal in one of three ways: • as a claim for statutory holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998, SI 1998/1833 (WTR 1998) (failure to pay it is a breach of regulation 16 brought under regulation 30(1)(b), and for failure to pay in lieu of untaken holiday it is a breach of regulation 14 brought under regulation 30(1)(b)) • statutory or contractual holiday pay as a deduction of wages claim, contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) and brought under ERA 1996, s 23(1)(a) (HMRC v Stringer established that statutory holiday claims can be brought under ERA 1996 as well as under WTR 1998) • contractual holiday pay as a breach of contract under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, SI 1994/1623, arts 3 and

Position for busines-to-consumer transactions provided by consumer protection legislation The right to cancel a contract concluded by distance selling (ie not in a face-to-face setting, but online or by postal order) is ordinarily governed by the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/3134 (CCR 2013). The CCR 2013 provide that a consumer can exercise the right to cancel at any time within the cancellation period without giving a reason (CCR 2013, SI 2013/3134, reg 29). However, the right to cancel does not apply to those contracts listed in the regulations 27 to 28 of the CCR 2013, which include contracts for passenger transport services. Therefore, specifically in respect of air

There are a number of ways in which liability for negligent misstatement may be avoided and/or limited. For details on founding a claim of negligent misstatement, see Practice Note: Negligent misstatement—founding a claim. For guidance generally on clauses seeking to limit or exclude liability, see Practice Notes: • Misrepresentations—excluding and limiting liability for them • Contractual estoppel • Contractual estoppel—illustrative cases Disclaimers of liability for negligent misstatement Liability for negligent misstatement can be disclaimed if the statement is accompanied by a form of words which makes the intention to disclaim clear. In Hedley Byrne v Heller the defendants stated that their advice was given 'without responsibility' and this was held to be effective to negate liability for negligence which would otherwise have arisen. It is important that the words chosen are express and unambiguous: the court will not be prepared to identify a disclaimer as a matter of inference (Box v Midland Bank [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 434, not reported by LexisNexis®). Third parties The

This Practice Note looks at the main legal and commercial issues when engaging a third party to design and build a new website. Websites can range from simple HTML plain-text sites to complex internet applications, social network services and business platforms. Consumers expect modern websites to be sophisticated, interactive, functional, and responsive—features which web developers and web designers must factor into the planning and development process. Website development agencies usually employ both developers and designers to handle projects from start to finish. It is not uncommon, however, for developers or designers to work independently on a freelance basis—either outsourced by agencies or contracted directly to customers. This means that customers may not always engage with one agency, but several developers/designers independently at various stages of development projects. In any case, it is important to understand the role and purpose of each specialist discipline throughout the development process including the type of work carried out respectively. For template agreements, see Precedents: • Website development agreement—short form • Website development agreement—long form Website design Website designers deal with

This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes commentary on the key announcements in the King’s Speech 2024 for the construction industry, a case in which the court considered issues in relation to the signing of a Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) contract (Ubhi Construction v Aspire Enterprises), a case in which the court scrutinised large budgets claimed by both the claimants and defendants (Pan NOx Emissions Litigations), and the latest update from the Construction Leadership Council (CLC) on activity in the construction industry.

A contract is substantially performed when: • the purchaser (or a person connected with the purchaser) takes possession of the whole, or substantially the whole, of the subject matter of the contract, or • a substantial part of the consideration is paid or provided For these purposes, HMRC considers a contract to be substantially performed where a purchaser obtains 'the keys to

This Q&A assumes that the prize competition is a sales promotion for consumers, rather than a trade promotion or other type of competition. A controller can only lawfully process personal data in compliance with the lawfulness, fairness and transparency principle under Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the General Data Protection Regulation (the GDPR) if it satisfies one of the six conditions set out in Article 6(1) of the GDPR. See Practice Notes: Data protection principles and Lawful basis for personal data processing. The three conditions relevant to prize promotions are: • processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party • processing is necessary for the purpose of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or a third party • the data subject has given consent to the processing

The basic approach of contract interpretation as provided by Lord Hoffmann’s five principles in Investors Compensation Scheme (see Practice Note: Contract interpretation—the guiding principles) is supplemented by general guidelines (known as 'canons of construction') which can be used to assist in ascertaining the meaning of a written contract. The contra proferentem principle is one of those canons of construction. Where there is doubt about the meaning of a contract, the contra proferentem principle is applied, where the ambiguity identified cannot be resolved through other methods of construction. The words under review will be construed

This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes a case in which the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) refused to enforce an adjudicator’s decision where there was a dispute about the existence of an underlying construction contract (High Tech v WLP Trading), an analysis of a case in which the TCC found that an assignee was entitled to adjudicate under a construction contract (Paragon v FK Facades), an update on the progress of the Building Safety (Wales) Bill, the issue of a protocol from the Society of Construction Law (Singapore) (SCL(S)) on experts' joint statements in arbitration, an announcement from the Scottish Building Contracts Committee (SBCC) on the release of its 2024 edition contracts, and the laying of the Procurement (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

TMT analysis: This analysis considers the role of technical standards in the ICT sector and in particular in relation to artificial intelligence (AI). It discusses some of the standards that have been developed relevant to AI, the project to create standards under the EU AI Act and the UK government’s approach. It also considers how standards can be leveraged by customers procuring AI systems, both internally and in contract negotiations. Written by Dr Sam De Silva, partner and global co-head of the Commercial Practice Group, CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP.

When an employee is absent from work on account of being sick, their employment contract will usually stipulate the requirements for self-certification and fit notes. It is usual, eg, for the employment contract to stipulate that the employee must self-certificate for the first seven days of illness and produce a fit note after the seventh day of absence. See Precedent: Employment contract basic version, clause 8.2. Entitlement to sick pay is likely to depend on the employee complying with the relevant reporting (and other) conditions set out in their employment contract. There are specific

Misrepresentation An important part of the process of buying or leasing a property is raising pre-contract enquiries. If replies to enquiries are inaccurate, the seller may be liable for misrepresentation. Failing to disclose an item in replies to enquiries may also lead to a misrepresentation. See Practice Note: Property—enquiries before contract. A misrepresentation is a false statement of fact made by one party to another, which is not a term of the contract but induces the other party to enter into the contract. The misrepresentation