[ To be typed on headed notepaper of employer ] [Date] Dear [insert name of employee], Your resignation I write on behalf of [insert name of employer] (the Company) to acknowledge receipt of your resignation letter dated [insert date][, addressed to [enter name of recipient of resignation letter, if different from writer of this letter]]. Under the terms of your [service agreement OR contract], you are required to give [number] [weeks’ OR months’] notice. Your last day of service with the Company will therefore be [insert date]. The Company currently intends to require you to work your notice period but I will notify you if this position changes.[ You should therefore continue to attend for work as normal unless instructed otherwise.] [ [In accordance with the terms of your [service agreement OR contract], you are required to OR The Company

A warranty is a contractual term, breach of which does not entitle the injured party to terminate the contract, but does permit an action in damages for the injury suffered. For more information, see Practice Note: Contract interpretation—conditions, warranties and intermediate terms. Supply of goods agreements often include supplier warranties and may provide for specific remedies (eg see Precedent: Supply of goods agreement—pro-customer, clause 6 and Practice Note: Contracts for the sale and supply of goods—business to business). A manufacturer's warranty is generally understood to mean something different and may sometimes be described as a manufacturer's guarantee. It will generally be offered by the manufacturer of goods (which may be a different party to the supplier) to an end user. The remedies available will depend on whether the warranty/guarantee is offered in the context of a business-to-business or a business-to-consumer context. For more information on the remedies

Where the restrictive covenant is an absolute covenant not to extend the property, there is no obligation on the beneficiary to give consent to an extension. However, it may be possible to apply for a modification or discharge of the restrictive covenant if certain statutory grounds are satisfied. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Modification and discharge of restrictive covenants. A transfer that contains a restrictive covenant will be construed in the same way as a term in a contract and the law in relation to the implication of terms into a contract will apply—see Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd. These rules of interpretation apply whether the restrictive covenant is an absolute covenant or a qualified

Under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (PTW Regs 2000), SI 2000/1551, reg 5(1), a part-time worker must not be treated less favourably than a comparable full-time worker as regards the terms of the worker’s contract (ie including contractual benefits such as holiday), unless the treatment is justified on objective grounds. A worker is a part-time worker if they are paid wholly or in part by reference to the time they work and, having regard to the custom and practice of the employer in relation to workers employed by the worker's employer under the same type of contract, is not identifiable as a full-time worker. In determining whether less favourable treatment has occurred, the pro rata principle is applied unless it is inappropriate. Therefore, if full-time

Where a dispute or claim arises in respect of an employee who works wholly or partly abroad and/or has a foreign employer, two questions will need to be determined: • what are the employee’s rights? • where should any litigation that may ultimately arise be adjudicated? In determining these questions, three main issues arise: • applicable law, ie which system of law is applicable to the contract of employment under consideration? • international jurisdiction, ie whose courts and/or tribunals should decide the case? • the territorial scope of relevant applicable or mandatory law, ie how the courts and employment tribunals decide what statutory rights (if any) the employee has, both in terms of: ◦ purely domestic law rights, and ◦ rights derived from EU law For information: • on applicable law, see Practice Note: Applicable law—which system of law applies to the contract or employment relationship • on international jurisdiction, ie whose courts and/or tribunals should decide the case, see Practice

[Insert in para 8.2 of claim form ET1:] 1 The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a [insert job title, eg service engineer] from [insert date] until [his OR her OR their] dismissal on [insert date]. The Respondent is [insert brief description of the nature of the Respondent, eg an internet service provider]. [ The contract of employment ] 2 [The Claimant’s contract of employment included a notice period of [insert details, eg three months].] 3 [Insert details of any other relevant contractual terms, eg ones that refer to disciplinary rules or procedures or of relevance to the conduct in question.] [ The Respondent’s disciplinary rules and procedures ] 4 [Insert details of any relevant provisions of the Respondent’s rules or procedures or any other relevant matter relating to them.] The Claimant’s dismissal [Set out

This Practice Note considers issues relating to arbitral tribunal jurisdiction under Russian law. Note: the Russian court judgments referred to in this Practice Note are not reported by LexisNexis®. Determining tribunal jurisdiction under Russian law Russian law upholds the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz, allowing arbitral tribunals to decide whether or not they have jurisdiction to hear a dispute. The principle is set out in paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Law of 7 July 1993 No. 5338-I. On International Commercial Arbitration (as amended) (the Law on ICA), which translates as: ‘The arbitration tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction or to resolve any objections with respect to the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement. In order to do so an arbitration clause which forms part of a contract shall be treated as an autonomous provision. The decision of the arbitral tribunal that the contract is null and void shall not entail

The Department of Health and Social Care has updated the Primary Medical Services (Directed Enhanced Services) Directions page by adding The Primary Medical Services (Directed Enhanced Services) Directions 2026 and removing The Primary Medical Services (Directed Enhanced Services) (Amendment) Directions 2025 and The Primary Medical Services (Directed Enhanced Services) Directions 2025. The 2025 Directions come into force on 1 April 2026 and apply in relation to England. The Directions require NHS England to establish, operate and, as appropriate, revise four directed enhanced service schemes—the Network Contract Directed Enhanced Service Scheme, the Learning Disabilities Health Check Scheme, the Violent Patients Scheme and the Minor Surgery Scheme—setting out eligibility, contractor obligations, payment arrangements and contract variations.

Arbitration analysis: The Superior Court of Justice of Lima (Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima) annulled the arbitral award between Ingram Micro SAC and the Public Ministry, citing motivación aparente (apparent reasoning) in the arbitrator's decision. In the 2020 dispute over computer equipment delivery delays due to the pandemic, the Ministry terminated the contract and imposed penalties. The arbitral tribunal sided with Ingram Micro, rejecting the contract termination and penalties. However, the court's decision underscores the need for coherent and well-founded reasoning in arbitral awards. It highlights the delicate balance between arbitration autonomy and judicial oversight, emphasizing the importance of avoiding apparent reasoning. This case sets a precedent for arbitration in Peru, urging parties to provide thorough justifications to mitigate the risk of annulment based on perceived lack of substance in the arbitral decision Written by Seguimundo Navarro, partner at inARB | Arbitrator | MCIArb | ArbP | LLM, Spain.

Construction analysis: The court refused to grant strike out or summary judgment on the assignment issue because the Claimant/Applicant, Crestline Direct Finance L.P. (Crestline), refused to disclose or clarify an earlier assignment of a performance bond (the Bond). Without that document, the court could not determine what had been transferred to Crestline in May 2024. The validity of the assignment therefore remained in dispute. As to termination, the court held that the construction and effect of clause 8.7 of the building contract between Click Herschel Ltd (Click Herschel) and Mid Holding Co UK Ltd (MHC) (the Building Contract) was not to be decided in the context of the application. For practitioners, the key take away is the importance of establishing a clear assignment strategy at the outset of a project and ensuring it is properly executed and documented. Contracts and security documents must clearly define assignment rights, limits, and potential assignees. Finally, Wilson & Sharp Investments Ltd v Harbour View Developments Ltd remains good law: in an insolvency scenario under a JCT contract no further sums fall due to a contractor until replacement works are completed (preserving employer cash flow). Written by Liam Hendry (senior associate) and Lily Calver (paralegal) at Archor LLP.

This Practice Note looks at the process of contracting out of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) and highlights the common pitfalls that can occur during the contracting out process and ways to avoid them. Why contract out? LTA 1954 gave tenants of business premises security of tenure—in other words, the right to stay on in their premises after the expiry of the contractual term of the lease. A landlord who grants a tenant a lease with security of tenure can only bring the lease to an end and regain possession of the premises by following the procedures set out in LTA 1954. Even then, the landlord must be able to establish one of the limited statutory grounds for possession laid out in LTA 1954, s 30 and successfully obtaining possession is likely to involve the payment of compensation to the tenant. A tenant who has security of tenure under LTA 1954 is therefore in an extremely strong negotiating position if their landlord wishes to obtain vacant

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 10 February 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the acquisition by Staples of Office Depot (Case M.7555). The transaction involves a horizontal overlap in markets for office supplies distribution. Latest developments The Commission cleared the transaction subject to commitments on 10 February 2016. Under the commitments, Staples will divest: • the whole of Office Depot's contract distribution business in the EEA and Switzerland to address both the competition concerns in international contract sales, as well as in national contract sales in Sweden and the Netherlands, and• Office Depot's entire business operations in Sweden to also address the competition concerns in the Swedish wholesale market for the supply of office products. Staples will only be permitted to close the transaction once the Commission has assessed and approved the divestiture to a suitable purchaser. The Commission has concluded that these commitments remove the entire overlap between the merging parties in all areas where concerns