Insurance & Reinsurance analysis: The Court of Appeal applied ordinary black letter contractual interpretation in construing a non-assignment clause in a contract for sale. As the Court of Appeal stated: ‘At its core, this appeal raises a single issue of contractual interpretation’. The appeal considered whether a party who entered into an insurance contract to protect against the late delivery of two planes which resulted by reason of Japanese law in the automatic assignment of its interest in the planes could be considered to have violated a non-assignment clause in the sale contract. The Court of Appeal applying the usual rules of construction found that the non-assignment clause was only engaged where a party was responsible for the assignment and not where assignment occurred independently of the party, on the facts of this case by the operation of Japanese Law. Written by Lauren Godfrey, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

STOP PRESS: From 1 October 2026, section 48 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 (inserting sections 14A and 15A of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006) extends right to work civil penalty liability in certain contractual arrangements, including where a supplier which, having contracted to provide services to a customer, engages a subcontractor to perform all or part of those services. Although the subcontractor remains responsible for carrying out prescribed right to work checks on individuals it employs or engages to perform the subcontracted services, the supplier may be treated as 'employing' any individual who personally performs the services and so may also be held liable for illegal working unless it satisfies the prescribed requirements for establishing a statutory excuse. The extended liability requirements apply to relevant contractual arrangements entered into on or after 1 October 2026. See News Analysis: Extended scope of the right to work regime: how will it work in practice? and LNB News 14/09/2026 18 for further information. This Practice Note will be updated shortly

Environmental liability The company could be liable under a number of environmental regimes, including criminal liability under the: • Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (WCA 1981) • Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990) • Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 (EPR 2016), SI 2016/1154 Civil and other liability may also arise as set out below. Potential liability under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Offence Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) is an invasive non-native species (INNS). It is an offence under WCA 1981, s 14(2) if any person ‘plants or otherwise causes to grow in the wild' a plant listed in WCA 1981, Sch 9 Pt II (eg Japanese knotweed). Whether or not the company has committed an offence is likely to depend on how and where its customers have used the product and whether this has caused it to grow in the wild. Defra and the Welsh Assembly

[ In the county court at [insert] OR In the High Court of Justice ] [ [Specify division] ] [ [Specify Specialist court] ] [ [Insert location] District Registry ] Claim No. [insert claim number] [Insert name and details of the Claimant]        Claimant -and- [Insert name and details of the Defendant]        Defendant __________________________________ DEFENCE __________________________________ 1 Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Particulars of Claim are admitted. 2 Paragraph 4 of the Particulars of Claim is admitted, save that it is denied that the letter from the Claimant’s General Practitioner dated [insert date] stated that [his OR her] condition had improved over the past year. The letter stated that the Claimant had last received treatment for anxiety and depression during [insert year], that [he OR she] had made a complete recovery, and that [his OR her] anxiety and depression was unlikely to recur. 3 Paragraph 5 of the Particulars of Claim is admitted. 4 It is denied that on [insert date], another employee of the Defendant made a complaint of bullying and harassment by [insert name, eg Mr Bloggs]. On [insert date], an employee wrote to [insert name, eg Mr Jones] stating that [he OR

The tenant of a flat can obtain a new lease expiring 90 years after the term date of the existing lease under the provisions of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993). LRHUDA 1993 together with its schedules and any supplementary regulations are intended to provide a complete code enabling tenants to, effectively, extend their leases. Unfortunately, there are always situations that arise which fall outside of the statutory framework. This is just such a case. Everything is set to proceed but, unfortunately,

ARCHIVED: This flowchart has been archived and is

[Insert in para 6.1 of response form ET3:] 1 [It is [accepted OR not accepted OR denied] that the Claimant has been employed by the Respondent as a [insert job title] since [insert start date of employment]. OR It is [accepted OR not accepted OR denied] that the Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a [insert job title] from [insert start date of employment] until [his OR her OR their] employment was terminated on [insert effective date of termination]]. [Insert details of any alternative facts that Respondent puts forward as to the background relationship, eg if they assert different dates of employment.] 2 The Respondent denies that it has acted in breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998[, or made an unlawful deduction from wages in respect of holiday pay] [, or acted in breach of contract], as alleged or at all. 3 [It is also denied that the employment tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim because[ insert details, eg ‘the claim has been presented out of time’ or ‘the Claimant is not a worker so has no entitlement to paid holiday'].] The

[Insert in para 6.1 of response form ET3:] 1 It is [accepted OR not accepted OR denied] that the Claimant was employed by the Respondent as [insert job title, eg a financial analyst] from [insert datedate of employment] to [insert date][ at its [insert details of particular office or location, eg London Headquarters]]. It is [accepted OR denied] that the Respondent is [insert brief description of the nature of the Respondent, eg a global investment bank]. 2 The Respondent denies that the Claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed[ and/or wrongfully dismissed], as alleged or at all. [Insert details of the Respondent’s position on the terms relied upon by the Claimant. Sample text in response to the implied term of mutual trust and confidence (EXAMPLE A) is provided at paragraph 3 below.] 3 It is accepted that the Claimant’s contract of employment, dated [insert date], included an implied term that the Respondent would not, without reasonable and proper cause, conduct itself in a manner likely to destroy the relationship of trust and confidence between employer and employee. [Sample text in

This Practice Note sets out the considerations for a buyer and seller where a freehold or leasehold property is being sold subject to occupational leases and there are arrears of rent under those leases. It primarily covers commercial property matters, but it also touches on residential considerations. It does not deal with arrears in the context of a headlease, see instead: Due diligence—head lease rent arrears—checklist. For practical guidance and drafting tips for buyers relating to typical arrears clauses, see Practice Note: Buyer’s contract negotiation guide—arrears. When purchasing a property which is subject to leases, it is essential to establish if there will (or may) be arrears of rent under those leases as at the date of completion. If so, the parties must agree: • who takes the risk of non-payment of the arrears, and • who has responsibility for trying to collect them Risk of non-payment On the completion date, the rent already received by the seller for the quarter in which the day of completion

Introduction This Practice Note considers how dwellings (sometimes referred to as ‘tied cottages’) let to agricultural workers as part of their employment contracts are regulated under the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 (R(A)A 1976) as a ‘protected occupancy’, or the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988) as an ‘assured agricultural occupancy’, or the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 (RH(W)A 2016) as an ‘occupation contract’. It also considers the impact of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 (RRA 2025) on those lettings. Non-tied accommodation (ie lettings of farm houses and other dwellings on agricultural land) will be subject to the provisions of (as the case may be), the Rent Act 1977 (RA 1977), HA 1988, or RH(W)A 2016. Lettings under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 or the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 which include dwellings are outside the scope of this Practice Note. These lettings are unaffected by RRA 2025. Position before 1 December 2022 Prior to 1 December 2022, the general rule was that a letting of a dwelling in England or Wales to an agricultural worker who was

This Practice Note examines the nature of employment policies and policy documents in the context of employment. Policies are similar to guidelines: they are statements of usual practice, and of good practice, but they are not statements of universal practice. It is inherent in the nature of a policy that there may be circumstances where it would be inappropriate for it to be followed. It is accepted that employers will need to make rules to regulate the minutiae of daily working life without these rules becoming set in contractual stone. For example, in Dryden, the employer introduced a prohibition on smoking at work (prior to the statutory ban, see Practice Note: Smoking in the workplace). The employee resigned and claimed constructive dismissal on the basis that the introduction of the ban constituted a material breach of their contract of employment. The EAT held that the introduction of the new policy fell into the category of a 'works rule'. It had no contractual effect and, therefore, could not be used as a foundation for a constructive

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