When the lessor puts the aircraft on lease it will be concerned to ensure that the aircraft is operated in such a manner as will not unduly affect the market value of the aircraft (and therefore its value as quasi-security) during the term of the lease. As a bare minimum, the lessee will be asked to undertake to the lessor that it will operate the aircraft: • in accordance with all applicable laws (which includes the state in which the aircraft is registered as well as those of jurisdictions where the aircraft is physically located) • in accordance with all permits or licences which are required by the lessee to operate the aircraft • in a way which will not invalidate any warranties granted by a manufacturer in respect of the aircraft • in accordance with the specifications and tolerances and any manuals for the aircraft provided by a manufacturer • in a way which will not invalidate the insurances or leave the aircraft uninsured, and • legally or only for legal purpose Mandatory checks and inspections Aircraft

Insurance & Reinsurance analysis: This analysis considers Re The Russian Aircraft Litigation – Operator Policy Claimsin which Mr Justice Picken held that aircraft lessors’ insurers who indemnified lessors under contingent policies acquired rights by subrogation rather than contribution against operator policy reinsurers. The court rejected claims founded on common law, equitable contribution and the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 (CL(C)A 1987), emphasising that payment under an indemnity does not discharge another insurer’s liability and that double insurance requires co-ordinate liabilities and mutuality. The decision clarifies the distinction between subrogation and contribution, limits the scope of the CL(C)A 1987 in insurance disputes, and provides important guidance on contingent insurance structures and insurer recovery rights. Produced in partnership with Michal Hain of Twenty Essex.

EU Law analysis: On 21 December 2021, the Court of Justice issued a preliminary ruling in respect of a group of cases brought under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 and held, that a flight must be regarded as having been ‘cancelled’ where the operating air carrier brings departure time forward by more than one hour. Further findings included that compensation may be payable under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 even if a passenger has no direct contract of carriage with the operating air carrier if it was booked via a tour operator on condition that the passenger believes that a reservation has been received and had proof of such perceived reservation from the tour operator. As such, a claim for compensation may be brought against the operating air carrier even if the reservation has not been forwarded to that carrier or confirmed in its reservation system, and any attempt to reduce such compensation is contrary to the Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. Written by Carol Anderson, solicitor, and Global Aviation professional support lawyer at Clyde & Co LLP (London).

ARCHIVED: This archived review, dated June 2013, was carried out by Airmic, a members’ association supporting those responsible for risk management and insurance within their own companies, with the assistance of The Chartered Governance Institute (CGI). It looks at risk reporting by selected FTSE 350 companies and provides commentary on the relevance and benefits of detailed risk disclosure. It is not maintained

Law360: Three insurers have hit back against a US$19.7m claim over a passenger jet stranded in Russia following the invasion of Ukraine, arguing that the Irish aviation company which owned it had suffered no actual loss.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case concerned whether the Airport Authority, the Appellant, (the Authority) was liable to Western Airline Limited, the Respondent, (the Airline) for negligence leading to the theft of an aircraft. The Airline had been awarded damages at first instance, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed to the Privy Council. The appeal centred on the role of the airport authority, concurrent findings of fact, the test for a duty of care associated with statutory obligations, as well as a duty to protect against criminal acts of third parties and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The Privy Council found for the Airline on all points and dismissed the appeal. Written by Katherine Deal QC and Hannah Fry at 3 Hare Court.

This Practice Note addresses the scenario where a landlord of a multi-occupied building (or their development partner) wants to add another storey of lettable space onto the top of the building. There are a number of legal traps that could thwart the proposed development. This Practice Note does not discuss the usual traps that exist for development in general, eg the need for planning permission and other consents, the infringement of easements (such as rights of light) or restrictive covenants benefitting neighbouring land. Is the work likely to trespass on property already demised to one or more of the existing tenants? If the roof or airspace which your client wishes to develop has been demised to a tenant, then any construction work by the landlord will be a trespass. You must carefully construe the terms of the lease (following the usual principles of interpretation) to determine the precise extent of the tenant’s ownership. Case law suggests that the traditional maxim that ownership of premises includes everything above and beneath it (cuius est solum eius est

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 14/04/2014; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline An appeal by AkzoNobel against the Competition Commission's decision prohibiting the anticipated acquisition by AkzoNobel of Metlac. The CAT issued its judgment, rejecting the appeal, on 21/06/2013 and the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against the CAT’s judgment on 14/04/2014. Parties AkzoNobel NV (AkzoNobel)Competition Commission (CC)Metlac Holding (Metlac) intervened in support of the CC Background AkzoNobel held a 49% stake in Metlac. In 2012, it announced it was planning to exercise an option to acquire the remaining 51% shareholding and full control. The OFT launched a merger investigation and subsequently referred the matter to the CC. The CC found that there was a SLC and prohibited AkzoNobel from acquiring the remaining 51% of shares (see AkzoNobel/Metlac . Market(s) Metal packaging coatings Decision being appealed CC's decision in the AkzoNobel/Metlac merger investigation. • CC found that

CASE HUB (note–decision appealed to the CAT in AkzoNobel v Competition Commission) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 21 December 2012; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into AkzoNobel’s proposed acquisition of Metlac. Latest developments On 21 December 2012, the Competition Commission issued its final report. The CC had found that the only effective remedy to the identified SLC was to prohibit the merger. AkzoNobel subsequently appealed this decision to the CAT–see AkzoNobel v Competition Commission. On 14 August 2015, the CMA published a notice to accept final undertakings from Akzo Nobel and the Bocchio family. The consultation on the undertakings will run until 1 September 2015. Parties AkzoNobel NV (AkzoNobel) and Metlac Holding (Metlac). AkzoNobel has a 49% shareholding in Metlac. It has exercised an option to acquire the remaining shares and sole control. • AkzoNobel manufacturers and supplies metal packaging coatings in the UK and Metlac supplies metal packaging

The Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) and Al-Haq have announced that they are seeking to appeal against the Administrative Court’s ruling in R (Al-Haq) v Secretary of State for Business and Trade [2025] EWHC 1615 (Admin), which refused permission for judicial review of the government’s decision to continue licensing F-35 fighter jet parts for export to Israel. The appellants argue that the Administrative Court’s judgment raises constitutional questions about accountability. The Court of Appeal has granted an expedited oral hearing for 9 October 2025.

Law360, London: Alaska Airlines lost its fight against Virgin on 11 June 2024 to avoid paying US$160m in royalties, with a London appeals court ruling that the carrier still had to pay even if it did not use Virgin's branding.

NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in Albania and throughout the world are met, see further: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Albanian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Also, are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Albania? In June 2020, Albania transposed the Directive (EU) 2019/1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 to empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market (ECN+ Directive) into the Albanian legal system. It is worth noting that the transposition was carried out by adopting a soft law instrument, namely a guideline, whereas EU Member States normally adopt amendments to the existing competition acts or by adopting separate laws. In February 2024, the competition authority of Albania launched public consultations for the proposed amendments to the Law No. 9121 on Competition Protection, as amended (Competition Act). The amendments are still in the draft stage. 2.