[ HM Land Registry Prescribed Clauses ] [ LR1. Date of the lease [date] LR2. Title Number[s] LR2.1 Landlord's title number[s] [number] [and [number]] LR2.2 Other title numbers [existing title number(s) against which entries of matters referred to in LR9, LR10, LR11 and LR13 are to be made] LR3. Parties to this lease Landlord [[OPTION 1—name of Landlord (not an overseas entity)] [of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [number]) whose registered office is at OR [address]OR[OPTION 2—name of Landlord (overseas entity)] [incorporated OR formed OR in [territory of incorporation/formation] (registration number [number]) [and registered at Companies House (company registration number BR[number])] (overseas entity ID [[number] OR not required OR ) whose registered office is at [address]] Tenant [[OPTION 1—name of (first) Tenant (not an overseas entity)] [ [of] OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [number]) whose registered office is at OR [[address]] [and [name of second Tenant (not an overseas entity)] [of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [number]) whose registered office is at OR [address]] OR[OPTION 2—name of (first) Tenant (overseas entity)] [incorporated OR formed OR in [territory of incorporation/formation]

date [date] Parties 1 [name of Landlord] [of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [number]) whose registered office is at] [address] (Landlord) 2 [name of Tenant] [of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [number]) whose registered office is at] [address] (Tenant) 3 [[name of Guarantor] [of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [number]) whose registered office is at] [address] (Guarantor)] 1 Definitions In this Agreement, the following definitions apply: AA 2020 • Agriculture Act 2020; Adjoining Property • the Retained Land [and any other property adjoining or near to the Holding [that is owned or occupied by the Landlord [or a Group Company of the Landlord] at any time during the Term] ]; Adjoining Property Rights • any rights of any nature over the Holding in favour of the owners and occupiers of Adjoining Property; Agreement • this agreement and any document supplemental or collateral to it; Annual Rent • [£[amount, in words] [([amount, in figures] pounds)] each year; (a) from [today OR [date]] to [date]—£[amount]; (b) from [date] to [date]—£[amount]; (c) [[etc];] ] OR ATA 1995 • Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995; Authority • any statutory, public, local or other authority or any court of law or any government department

Farm business tenancies were introduced with effect from 1 September 1995 by the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 (ATA 1995). They represent a significant departure from the regime which applies where a tenancy of an agricultural holding is protected under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (AHA 1986). Whereas AHA 1986 is largely prescriptive as to the terms of what constitutes a tenancy of an agricultural holding, ATA 1995 by and large allows the landlord and the tenant to agree whatever terms they wish on almost all matters. However, there are mandatory provisions in relation to: • rent (ATA 1995, Pt II) • compensation (ATA 1995, Pt III) • removal of tenant's fixtures (ATA 1995, s 8) The regimes applied by AHA 1986 and ATA 1995 are mutually exclusive, so it is imperative to identify correctly which form of tenancy is in issue. Moreover, if the tenancy is a farm business tenancy it cannot be a tenancy which is protected under the Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954). Definition Subject to some exceptions (see

The Farm to Fork strategy is part of the Green Deal and aims to address the challenges of producing and consuming food in a sustainable way. The Farm to Fork strategy addresses four key areas of supply chain management in the food industry: production, practices, consumption, and waste. Within this, it presents ideas on how to achieve better management of the four key topics, such as how future diets will need to change, and how mandatory labelling could become the norm where front-of-pack nutritional information as well as origin indication are required.

Scope A farm-out is, in effect, a mechanism pursuant to which the owner of a participating interest in certain oil and gas assets (the Farmor) agrees to divest a percentage of its participating interest (the Assigned Interest) under a production sharing contract (the PSC) (or another host government agreement granting rights to hydrocarbons), to a third party (the Farmee), but instead of a cash consideration typical in a traditional sale, in a farm-out, the consideration is likely to be a combination of cash and fulfilment of certain work program obligations. Farming out provides the Farmor an opportunity to bring in a partner not only to recover its past costs invested in the project, or to share the financial burden going forward, but also to provide technical support and capabilities, which may not be otherwise available, as well as to share risk and potential uplift associated with an exploration asset. A farm-out agreement (the FOA) incorporates many characteristics of a traditional sale and purchase agreement, such as limitations on liability, pre-completion undertakings, warranties and indemnities

Property disputes analysis: On 9 August 2023, the judgment in Spencer v Spencer, a farming proprietary estoppel claim, was handed down. Stephen Jourdan KC, Falcon Chambers, considers the decision and its implications.

MLex: EU lawmakers endorsed legislation on Tuesday that allows the EU to swiftly suspend tariff preferences if agricultural imports from the Mercosur bloc risk serious harm to EU producers. The ‘farming safeguard’ introduces faster triggers, investigations and reinforced monitoring for sensitive products. The vote is the final parliamentary hurdle before the measure can be published and applied alongside the EU-Mercosur trade agreement.

NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in the Faroe Islands and throughout the world are met, see further: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Faroese merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in the Faroe Islands? The latest amendment to the Faroese Competition Act (the Act) came into force on 26 March 2024, where filing fees were introduced. The Faroese Competition Authority (FCA) generally interprets the competition rules on the basis of EU competition law and in accordance with EU merger control. The Faroe Islands have adopted guidelines on merger-related issues. Currently, the guidelines are only available in Faroese. The guidelines can be found on the website of the FCA. However, an outdated version of the Act is available in English. To our knowledge, there are currently no specific 'hot' issues. 2. Under Faroese merger control law, is the control test the same as the EU concept of ‘decisive influence’? If not, how does it differ and what is the position

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the final decision of 14 October 2025; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigations into resale price maintenance by Gucci, Chloé and Loewe (AT.40840, AT.40880 and AT.40881) Latest development On 14 October 2025, the Commission issued three infringement decisions in which it imposed fines totalling €157.4m on Gucci, Chloé and Loewe.The fines imposed on the three undertakings were as follows:• Gucci—€119.67m (including a 50% reduction for cooperation) • Chloé—€19.69m (including a 15% reduction for cooperation)

A reactor type which is driven by the use of fast neutrons and which exploits the "plutonium economy" fuel cycle by utilising natural / depleted uranium after an initial fuel charge of plutonium. The fast neutrons (as opposed to the thermal neutrons used in conventional PWR and BWR designs) react with the 238U to produce 239Pu.

Appointing environmental consultants • Letter requesting environmental consultant proposal for phase 1 audit • Licence to carry out environmental investigations • Environmental consultant form of collateral warranty (with optional step-in clauses) • Environmental consultant’s appointment • Reliance agreement Property transactions • Sale contract—environmental provisions • Restriction on title—environmental provisions binding on successors in title • Sale contract clauses—seller retains environmental liability for contamination • Sold with information clauses • Contaminated land disclosure—‘sold with information’ provisions—indemnity from buyer to seller • Sold with information with indemnity • Payments for remediation clauses • Schedule apportioning costs of remediation of contaminated land • Agreement on liabilities • Asbestos indemnity • Asbestos indemnity for when seller is in breach • Transfer of environmental permits • Leases—landlord protection clause for contamination • Leases—landlord responsible for existing contamination; tenant responsible for new contamination and aggravated contamination • Leases—tenant protection clause for existing contamination • Leases—tenant environmental covenants • Leases—end of term environmental report • Pie crust lease of a unit on an estate • Letter requesting environmental consultant proposal for phase 1 audit • Licence to carry out environmental investigations • Environmental consultant’s appointment

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court has taken a measured approach in addressing applications by Joint Official Liquidators (JOLs) seeking oral examination of former Farfetch executives. In partially refusing these applications under Article 21 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, the court determined that written responses would suffice at this stage. The decision strikes a careful balance between the JOLs' information needs and protecting respondents from potential oppression while addressing practical concerns about confidentiality and jurisdiction. This ruling offers significant guidance on information-gathering powers in cross-border insolvencies. Written by Camilla Whitehouse, Barrister and Founder, Gainsborough Law.