A lender that issues a letter of credit on behalf of the lenders in the syndicate and is indemnified by the lenders for its liability under the letter of credit

Frontloading was set out in article 4(1)(b)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (EU EMIR) as being the obligation to clear OTC derivatives subject to the clearing obligation in article 5(2) of EU EMIR, which are entered into or novated between the date on which the notification to the European Securities Market Authority (ESMA) that a central counterparty has been authorised to clear that type of derivative and the date on which the clearing obligation comes into force. It was a controversial obligation because of the significant uncertainties it would bring to the market with the consequences mainly borne by derivatives end-users.

Dispute Resolution analysis: In this decision, the High Court granted short-term injunctive relief under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA 1982) in support of ongoing unfair prejudice proceedings in the Isle of Man. The decision is notable for the pragmatic approach adopted by the judge to the distinction between an interim injunction intended to ‘hold the ring’ and a freezing order, illustrating the extent to which the English courts may be willing to grant tightly framed, urgent relief to preserve assets in support of foreign proceedings. Produced in partnership with Maya Chilaeva, barrister of Quadrant Chambers.

A closed pension scheme to which no further contributions will be paid, and no further benefits accrue.

Action which may result in any offer or bona fide possible offer being frustrated or in shareholders being denied the opportunity to decide on its merits. Such action should not be taken without the approval of the shareholders in general meeting (Rule 21.1).

Where unforeseen circumstances prevent the performance of a contract so that it may be treated as discharged.

Property Disputes analysis: This summary judgment application by a landlord concerned a claim for damages for unpaid rent and other sums of over £9 million, arising out of obligations between a landlord and tenant in relation to the building safety of commercial premises. The tenant had wide ranging repair obligations and argued unsuccessfully that the lease had been frustrated. Summary judgment was granted in favour of the claimant landlords for an undetermined sum. Produced in partnership with Sonia Rai of Five Paper.

This Practice Note on frustration provides a practical guide when considering whether an unforeseen event may be considered to have frustrated an agreement. It must be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Discharge by frustration. Frustration is a common law doctrine in English law. It brings a contract to an immediate end where an unforeseen supervening frustrating event frustrates the contract rendering performance of it impossible, illegal or radically different from that which had been agreed. Where it applies, all future obligations under the agreement fall away. Sums paid prior to the supervening event and discharge are recoverable but any sums yet to be paid are no longer payable, subject to the court’s discretion (under the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 (LR(FC)A 1943)) to allow the recovery of prior incurred expenses. Frustration is particularly difficult to successfully establish. It introduces an element of uncertainty into contractual relations which the courts are not favourable to and is therefore subject to narrow confines (The Super Servant Two). For a summary in tabular form

The legal concept whereby a contract is automatically terminated on grounds that one party can no longer perform the contract, for example due to death.

Commercial analysis: In this case, the court held that a contract providing for payment of a share of the running costs of a medical centre was not frustrated by the cancellation of one of the three GP partnerships’ registration to practice as a health service provider. There are relatively few cases on the doctrine of frustration and this judgment is of interest because it relates to the exercise of a statutory power which, it was argued, had the effect of rendering performance of the contract illegal. The court considered the multi-factorial approach required in analysing the doctrine of frustration. It focused in particular on: 1) whether the possibility of the frustrating event had been foreseen and provided for in the contract; and 2) the parties’ actions following the alleged frustrating event, namely the cancellation of their registration to practice by the Care Quality Commission (the CQC). Written by Harriet Campbell, professional support lawyer, at Stephenson Harwood LLP.

Frustration is a doctrine in English law comprising a common law right to terminate a contract where a frustrating event occurs after the contract date. See Practice Note: Discharge by frustration. Frustration is a particularly difficult claim to succeed with. It introduces an element of uncertainty into contractual relations which the courts are not favourable to. For guidance on the steps involved in analysing a potential frustration scenario, see Practice Note: Frustration event analysis—a practical guide. It is also worth considering the below cases both for general guidance on the various steps involved and by way of illustration of the court’s approach. The cases are listed in reverse chronological order. However, it is critical to bear in mind that each case will be fact sensitive and therefore decided on its own merits, particularly with regard to the ‘multi-factorial approach’ espoused in Edwinton Commercial Corp v Tsavliris Russ (Worldwide Salvage and Towage) Ltd, The Sea Angel. The common law doctrine of frustration is sometimes considered alongside the contractual right of parties to suspend and/or terminate

Material made up of mainly metal components removed from the casing of fuel elements after use.