It is not uncommon for forms relating to satisfaction of charges at Companies House (ie forms MR04 and MR05 and LLP equivalents) to be filed in error owing to some misunderstanding. The case of Re OC Realisations 2011 (in liquidation) (not reported by Lexis+® UK) (HHJ Langan QC, Newcastle Upon Tyne District Registry, 4 July 2012) decided that where two statements of satisfaction in full of charges had been entered on the register, this did not affect the continuing validity of the security. For more information, refer to Practice

Rules produced by the JCT in accordance with which the contract price is adjusted where Option C (Formula Adjustment) is selected.

When an offer is made for the share capital of an investment trust, it is common for the consideration to be calculated by reference to a formula related to the net assets of the offeree. If an offer is made on this basis, the guidance under Appendix 2 of the Code sets out special requirements to be followed.

This Practice Note provides information on formulating a learning and development (L&D) policy. It reviews key issues to consider including: • what is an L&D policy • who is responsible for the L&D policy • regulatory or statutory requirements that must be complied with • identifying the content and scope of the policy • identifying the aims of the policy • how to develop, draft and implement the L&D policy • alignment with other business objectives • reviewing the L&D policy The SRA requirements relating to training contracts are outside the scope of this Practice Note. What is an L&D policy? An L&D policy outlines the firm's viewpoint for the development of its employees. It generally covers areas such as the firm's training standards, scope, priorities and how employees access L&D. An L&D policy is different from an L&D plan, which is a strategic document setting out how L&D can help a business meet its objectives. See Practice Note: Learning and development plans. L&D policies are unique to the organisation

To [insert name of night worker] The purpose of this questionnaire is to ensure that you are suited to working at night. All the information you provide will be kept confidential. Do you suffer from any of the following health conditions? YES NO Diabetes Heart or circulatory disorders Stomach or intestinal disorders, such as ulcers Any medical condition which causes difficulties sleeping Chronic chest disorders, especially if night-time symptoms are troublesome Any medical condition requiring medication to a strict timetable Any

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 7 September 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline An application to strike out or summarily dismiss a standalone claim brought by Forrest Fresh Foods Limited against Coca-Cola European Partners Great Britain Limited claiming an abuse of dominance. Latest development On 7 September 2021, the CAT handed down its judgment in which it ruled that was not for the CAT to assess what the case might be, and that, based on existing materials, there is no reasonable basis for the claim. The CAT therefore ordered that the claim be struck out. The CAT also noted that, if it was not struck out it would have been minded to give summary judgment to Coca Cola based on the deficiencies in the claim. The CAT also ruled that the application did not meet the standard for the award of exemplary damages Parties Claimant:• Forrest Fresh Foods Limited (FFF). FFF

Law360, London: Forsters LLP and a former Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi lawyer who was convicted of a multimillion-pound fraud have avoided being drawn into a philanthropist's £3.5m legal battle over a collapsed property deal.

Forthwith is a term generally found in contracts, court orders, and primary and secondary legislation stipulating an immediate time frame within which an action or event is required to be done.

The general rule for detailed assessment The general rule for when detailed assessment is to take place is set out in CPR 47.1, which provides that the costs of any part of the proceedings are not to be determined by detailed assessment until the conclusion of the proceedings. This is primarily so that the costs can be assessed in the round. However, as explained in Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees SA (in its capacity as trustee of the Tchenguiz Settlement) v ITG Ltd (2015), the court has the power to depart from the general rule and make an order for the immediate assessment of costs at any stage of the proceedings. Such orders provide for costs to be assessed 'forthwith' or 'immediately' or a similar term and are often referred to as 'forthwith orders', the term used in this Practice Note. Detailed assessment—where proceedings have not been concluded Although proceedings have not been concluded, detailed assessment may be carried out where: • the court has awarded provisional damages under CPR 41 (CPR PD 47, para 1.1)

Dispute Resolution analysis: Mr Justice Henshaw, sitting in the Commercial Court, confirmed that the court cannot compel an applicant to provide additional fortification of its undertaking in damages (also known as a cross-undertaking) after a freezing injunction has been discharged. It must be sought while the injunction is still in force. Undertakings and fortification are standard features of freezing injunctions and are the ‘price’ a claimant chooses to pay in return for the grant of an injunction. Imposing additional fortification retrospectively would deprive the applicant of the opportunity of considering whether to assume that burden as the price of obtaining the freezing injunction. An alternative attempt to invoke CPR 3.1(5) to obtain fortification post-discharge of an injunction will also fail. The judge held that CPR 3.1(5) cannot override common law rules on undertakings in damages and is limited to procedural defaults relating to the CPR, Practice Directions, or pre-action protocols. Written by Alexandra Prato, associate at RPC and Kylie Tang, trainee solicitor at RPC.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Mrs Justice Cockerill ruled against the Saudi defendants’ jurisdictional challenge to a suit brought by their sister, a Saudi national living in Canada as a refugee. The subject matter of the dispute arose almost entirely in Saudi Arabia but the claimant argued that as a refugee without a Saudi national ID number she would be unable to access justice in that forum. The defendants argued that she could get around this problem by executing a power of attorney. The judge held that the lack of an ID number did prevent the claimant from issuing proceedings in SA and, in any event, she would be unable to properly engage in such a case. She therefore rejected the jurisdictional challenge. The judge was critical of the parties for serving excessively long skeleton arguments in breach of the provisions of the Commercial Court Guide and without securing permission at an appropriate stage. She disallowed both parties the costs of their skeletons. Written by David Juckes, barrister at Hailsham Chambers.

This Practice Note considers the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens when dealing with cases in which Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) applies. For guidance on the general principles, see Practice Note: Forum non conveniens—principles. Given that the UK has left the EU, this will only be applicable in cases in which the jurisdictional regime under Brussels I (recast) is to be applied due to transitional provisions. For guidance, see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—application to the UK post IP completion day (jurisdiction) [Archived]. Application of Brussels I (recast) When dealing with proceedings in which jurisdictional issues are to be determined under Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), the courts of England and Wales are required to apply the provisions in the regulation as interpreted by the Court of Justice. This excludes the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens due to Court of Justice authority in Owusu v Jackson—the decision in Owusu was contrary to previous case law of the courts of England and Wales but those courts