Effective assistance of counsel refers to legal representation that meets the standard of competence reasonably expected of a qualified lawyer, so that an accused person can properly exercise their fair trial rights. It focuses on the quality of advice, preparation and advocacy, rather than simply the presence of a lawyer.In England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the concept derives primarily from common law on fair trial rights and professional negligence standards, and is read alongside Article 6 ECHR as applied by the Human Rights Act 1998 and equivalent devolution arrangements. Irish courts apply a similar standard under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003.Case law across these jurisdictions examines whether counsel’s acts or omissions were so serious that the proceedings were rendered unfair or the conviction unsafe, for example through failure to investigate, advise on pleas, challenge key evidence, or pursue viable defences. The test is usually objective and highly contextual.In practice, arguments about effective assistance of counsel arise in appeals against conviction, applications to set aside judgments, miscarriage of justice claims, and professional discipline or negligence proceedings against solicitors and barristers.

Commercial analysis: The claimant (EMFC) claimed commission and outstanding payments under a contract with the defendant The Resort Group (TRG) in relation to TRG’s entry into facilities with a third party. At first instance, TRG unsuccessfully argued that EMFC had repudiated the contract so EMFC was entitled to the payments. However, TRG succeeded in showing that EMFC had not been an effective cause of the transaction and was not therefore entitled to the commission. Following cross-appeals by both parties, the Court of Appeal held that EMFC was entitled to both the commission and the outstanding payments. The case involved consideration of contractual construction and implication of terms in the context of effective cause terms, as well as principles of repudiation, and provides some salutary lessons for both transactional lawyers and litigators alike. Written by Jon Felce, partner at PCB Byrne LLP.

The effective date, in scheme funding, is the date at which the scheme’s assets and liabilities are assessed, using information on the membership and economic conditions at the time. The choice of effective date may affect the valuation significantly.

The effective date of termination is the date on which: • the notice expires where the contract is terminated by notice, whether given by employer or employee • the termination takes effect where the contract is terminated by the employer without notice (ie summary dismissal) • the termination takes effect where the contract is a limited-term contract which terminates by virtue of the happening of a limiting event

This Practice Note sets out how the effective date of termination (EDT) is determined for unfair dismissal purposes under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996). It explains how to identify the EDT where notice is given, where no notice is given (summary dismissal), and on the expiry of a fixed or limited term contract, and when the statutory minimum notice period affects qualifying service and the basic award. The ‘effective date of termination' (EDT) is important in the context of unfair dismissal for the following reasons: • an employee is usually only entitled to bring an unfair dismissal claim if they have the qualifying period of continuous employment, ending with the EDT (see Practice Notes: Entitlement to claim unfair dismissal and Qualifying period for unfair dismissal) • the period of continuous employment (ending with the EDT) is an element of the calculation of the unfair dismissal basic award (see Practice Note: The basic award) • the unfair dismissal compensatory award is calculated from the date immediately following the EDT (see Practice Note: The unfair dismissal compensatory

The quantity obtained by multiplying the equivalent dose to various tissues and organs by a weighting factor appropriate to each and summing the products. Unit Sievert, symbol Sv. Frequently abbreviated to dose.

This Checklist is designed to help a business incorporate its standard terms and conditions effectively into a transaction, whether the means of communication of that contract are via a website, email or telephone. Standard terms and conditions are not, in themselves, a contract. They are simply the terms which form the basis of a contract. They will not cover the commercial aspects of a contract such as: • who you are contracting with • when the contract starts and ends (the term) • the goods/services being purchased (type, specification, quantity) • the price Equally, if you do not incorporate your terms and conditions into the contract, you are likely to be accepting the other party’s terms and conditions. The other party’s terms and conditions are likely to be one-sided in favour of that party and contain onerous provisions, which you will need to comply with. This Checklist is designed to help a business ensure that its terms and conditions are properly incorporated into contracts whether it is purchasing or selling. How do I/the business

This Practice Note summarises the board evaluation process and looks at what’s involved, why it’s done, common issues and pitfalls and relevant requirements and guidance. The regulatory framework UK Corporate Governance Code The UK Corporate Governance Code ( UKCG Code), which is issued and administered by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), is the benchmark for good governance of companies with a listing of equity shares in the equity shares (commercial companies) category, regardless of whether they are incorporated in the UK or elsewhere, and contains a number of recommendations regarding the board evaluation process. The FRC’s Corporate Governance Code Guidance accompanies the UKCG Code. For general information on the application, purpose and provisions of the UKCG Code, see Practice Note: The UK Corporate Governance Code. The UKCG Code recommends that premium listed companies undertake a formal and rigorous annual review of the board, its committees, the chair and individual directors. The annual board evaluation should consider its composition, diversity and how effectively members work together to achieve objectives. Individual evaluation should demonstrate

Article 101(1) TFEU prohibits agreements and concerted practices which may affect trade between EU Member States and which may have the object or effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition. While the distinction between the two categories of infringement has become rather blurred, in general, object infringements arise from conduct that is inherently anti-competitive and is hence at the more serious end of the scale. In such cases, there is no need for a competition authority or claimant to prove an actual effect on competition, since this is presumed. In contrast, agreements that are less obviously anti-competitive require analysis of their actual or potential effects before being condemned under competition law. Any negative effect on competition must be appreciable to be caught by Article 101 TFEU. It is not necessary to demonstrate specific and actual restrictive effects; it is sufficient to establish, on the basis of a realistic and credible analysis, that the agreement is capable of producing appreciable restrictive effects on competition. Any effects analysis requires the consideration of an appropriate counter-factual,

Arbitrationanalysis: In its judgment of 27 April 2026, the Arbitrazh Court of the Murmansk Region (case no. A42-2551/2025) ordered T. AG (Germany) and AS L. (Latvia) to jointly compensate damages of EUR 8.8 million to ООО ‘MTP Lavna’. The court held that the defendants’ refusal to return advance payments (based on EU sanctions) constituted a tortious act under Russian law, despite prior arbitral proceedings rejecting the same claim. Written by Dr. Axel Boës of KDB.legal Koch Boës.

This Practice Note details requirements in relation to disclosure within financial proceedings, the duty of disclosure to the court as it relates to both the parties and their lawyers and the consequences of non-disclosure, including the drawing of adverse inferences, costs and appeals. For detailed practical guidance on the parties’ duties and obligations, see Practice Note: The duty of disclosure in financial proceedings. For procedural matters, see Practice Note: The procedural aspects of disclosure in financial proceedings. The circumstances in which non-disclosure may lead to an order being set aside and when non-disclosure may or may not be considered material, including the decisions in Sharland and Gohil are considered in Practice Note: Setting aside financial remedy orders—fraud, material non-disclosure and mistake. Requirements The obligation on a party to provide full, frank, and clear disclosure of all material facts, documents and information relevant to the case, and the consequences of non-disclosure, should be stressed to a client at the outset of the case. This obligation is set out in the pre-application protocol annexed to the Family

Objectives The UNCITRAL Model Law on cross-border insolvency's (the UNCITRAL Model law on insolvency) preamble lists the following objectives: • co-operation between the courts and other competent authorities of this state and foreign states involved in cases of cross-border insolvency • greater legal certainty for trade and investment • fair and efficient administration of cross-border insolvencies that protects the interests of all creditors and other interested persons, including the debtor • protection and maximisation of the value of the debtor’s assets, and • facilitation of the rescue of financially troubled businesses, thereby protecting investment and preserving employment It aims to respect differences between the countries and doesn't seek to harmonise laws, so focuses on procedure rather than substance. It was quickly realised that attempting to harmonise the diverse insolvency laws of countries across the world would be a step too far, so substantive law is left to the domestic law of the enacting state (although see the European Commission's plans to harmonise insolvencies