Forum non conveniens describes the court’s discretionary power to stay or dismiss proceedings where another available court is clearly the more appropriate forum for the dispute, in the interests of justice and convenience. It typically arises in cross‑border litigation involving foreign parties, governing laws or places of performance.In Scotland and Northern Ireland, forum non conveniens is well‑established in case law (notably the Spiliada test, applied across UK jurisdictions) and is used to resist jurisdiction or seek a stay where there is a more suitable foreign court. Relevant factors include the location of witnesses and evidence, applicable law, connections of the parties and any risk of irreconcilable judgments.In England and Wales, the same principles operate through the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court and under jurisdictional regimes such as the common law rules post‑Brexit. Historically, EU jurisdiction rules significantly constrained its use between Member States, but that limitation has reduced since the UK’s withdrawal.In Ireland, forum non conveniens is similarly recognised at common law, subject to EU and Lugano‑type instruments where applicable. Practically, it is a key tool in international litigation strategy and in managing parallel proceedings.

An agreement to buy or sell an asset at a future date at a price agreed today. Forwards are similar to futures. However, forwards are not exchange-traded.

A document required to be prepared by the council's executive leader or equivalent containing details of all matters likely to be the subject of key decisions in the relevant authority for the next four months (see Regulation 13 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/3272).

Date [date] Parties 1 [name of Fund] [of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [number]) whose registered office is at OR [address] (Fund) 2 [name of Developer] of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [number]) whose registered office is at OR [address] (Developer) 3 [[name of Guarantor] of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [number]) whose registered office is at OR [address] (Guarantor)] 1 Definitions In this Agreement, the following definitions apply: [Adverse Rights • any easement, covenant, right or other interest in or over the Property, the release, discharge or variation of which is reasonably necessary in order to facilitate the Works or the use and occupation of Development;] [Adverse Rights Agreement • any document giving legal effect to the release, discharge or variation of an Adverse Right;] Agreement for Lease • any agreement for made between the Developer and a Tenant (whether before or after today) in the form attached to this Agreement at Appendix 13; Appointment • a deed executed by each member of the Professional Team [substantially] in the form [of the respective drafts] attached to this Agreement at Appendix 7; Appraisal • the Developer’s appraisal of the cost and viability of the Development, a copy of which is attached to this Agreement at Appendix

An agreement in which a lender sells a specific future income stream to a counterpart usually in order to hedge interest rate and/or exchange rate risk

A syndicated facility under which lenders who have already provided funding to a particular borrower under an existing facility arrangement commit to provide further funds for the specific purpose of refinancing (in whole or in part) the existing facility upon its maturity date. The FSF will commonly be agreed up to two years in advance of the maturity date.

Fossil Group Inc (the Company) launched a Liability Management Exercise (LME) in September 2025. The transaction was structured as a ‘stapled exchange’, combining a US exchange offer, consent solicitation and rights offering with a backstopped English Part 26 A restructuring plan (RP) giving the option to implement the restructuring (i) out-of-court, if the 90% minimum tender condition was satisfied or, if not, (ii) through an in-court process (the RP, also the UK Proceeding). As the requisite majorities were not obtained for the US exchange offer (only about 82.67% of notes validly tendered), the restructuring proceeded via the English RP (see Practice Note: Part 26A restructuring plan deal debrief—Fossil (UK) Global Services Ltd). The key points appear below. For a look at some FAQs about LMEs, see Practice Note: FAQs on Liability Management Exercises. Capitalised terms not defined in this Practice Note are as defined in the US exchange offer dated 9 September 2025 (the US Exchange Offer). Key legal and tactical takeaways This

The companies and trade associations have published a joint letter calling for targeted amendments to the EU Methane Emissions Reduction Regulation (EUMR) through the EU simplification agenda, including the stop-the-clock mechanism. The co-signatories express concerns that the Regulation in its current form risks undermining the Union's energy security of supply and competitiveness, citing industry assessments indicating that up to 43% of the EU's natural gas and around 90% of its crude oil imports may not comply with the Regulation's requirements as of January 2027.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court sanctioned the restructuring plan of Fossil (UK) Global Services Ltd under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) (the ‘Plan’), following near‑unanimous approval (99.99% by value) from a single class of noteholders, comprising both retail and wholesale creditors. Mr Justice Richards applied the four‑stage test set out by Lord Justice Snowden in Re AGPS Bondco Plc (‘Adler’): (i) whether the statutory requirements were satisfied, (ii) whether the class was fairly represented and voted bona fide in the interests of the class, (iii) whether the plan was fair and could reasonably have been approved (the so‑called ‘limited rationality test’), and (iv) whether any legal ‘blot’ or defect existed. The court placed particular emphasis on the quality and accessibility of information provided to retail creditors, noting that the involvement of an independent Retail Advocate helped ensure that they were properly informed and adequately represented throughout the process. Concerns regarding the participation rights of ‘New‑Money’ providers and the appropriateness of a single class were considered and rejected, with the judge satisfied that all creditors were better off under the Plan than under the relevant alternative. No defects were identified, and expert evidence supported the conclusion that the Plan would likely be recognised in the US, thereby ensuring its cross‑border effectiveness. Written by Brian Rostron, associate at Addleshaw Goddard LLP.

Foster care refers in practice to the placement of a child or young person away from their birth parents or usual carers with an approved foster carer, on either a short‑term, long‑term, emergency or kinship basis, under the supervision of the relevant child protection authority. It is a core mechanism for safeguarding children who cannot safely remain at home, while maintaining, where appropriate, family contact and the prospect of rehabilitation or permanence elsewhere.In England and Wales, “foster parent” and related concepts are defined and regulated mainly by the Children Act 1989 and associated regulations. Scotland uses similar terminology under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and the Children’s Hearings system, while Northern Ireland relies principally on the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. Ireland governs foster care under the Child Care Act 1991 and Child and Family Agency Act 2013. Across all jurisdictions the term is broadly consistent.Key legal issues include local authority or agency approval of carers, care planning, parental responsibility, reviews of placements, safeguarding standards, and pathways to adoption or other permanence. Foster care is central to public law children proceedings, care orders, emergency protection, and voluntary accommodation.

The Fostering Services (England) Regulations 2011 (FS(E) Regs 2011), SI 2011/581, reg 27 governs the approval of foster parents. In considering what recommendation to make to the fostering service provider, the fostering panel must consider and take into account all of the information passed to it and may request the fostering service provider to obtain any other relevant information or to provide such other assistance as the fostering panel considers necessary. The fostering panel may obtain such legal advice or medical advice it considers necessary. It would appear that where further information comes to light after a foster parent has already been approved, prompting an investigation, that, absent any other mechanism in the regulations, the review process set out in FS(E) Regs

Law360: Three foster carers urged the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 24 September 2025 to grant them permission to take their dispute for worker status directly to the Supreme Court, saying the tribunal should invoke a provision allowing the traditional appeals route to be bypassed in matters of public importance.