_______________________________________ [NAME OF PROJECT] RESponse to Dispute board member disclosure by [DB member name] [Date] _______________________________________ Responding Party: [Name of Party 1] [Address] [Telephone/Fax Number] [Email address] [ON THE HEADED NOTEPAPER OF THE responding PARTY] The Other Party: [Name of Party 2] [Address] [Telephone/Fax Number] [Email address] The relevant Dispute Board member: [Name of DB member] [Address] [Telephone/Fax Number] [Email address] The other Dispute Board members: [ [Name of DB Member 2] [Address] [Telephone/Fax Number] [Email address] [Name of DB Member 3] [Address] [Telephone/Fax Number] [Email address]] [[The Engineer/Employer’s Representative] [Address] [Telephone/Fax Number] [Email address]] [ [Relevant institution]: ] [[Institution name] [address]] [[telephone]] [[email address]] [NAME OF PROJECT]: response to [DB member name]’s (Dispute Board member)[disclosure dated [date] OR further particulars dated [date]] We refer to the contract between the Responding Party and the Other Party for [brief description of project] dated [date] (the Contract), which provides for the use of a dispute board (the Dispute Board). [The Contract incorporates the [relevant institutional dispute board rules] (the Applicable Rules)] [The Parties have agreed to use the [relevant institutional dispute board rules and details of where the parties agreed to use them] (the Applicable Rules)].[ There is also a [DB member agreement OR tripartite agreement] between [insert parties] dated [date] (the [DB Member Agreement OR the

Where a person assumes responsibility to perform professional services for someone who relies on those services, a duty in tort to exercise reasonable skill and care arises even if the services are performed under a contract between those parties. (See Henderson v Merrett as differing from Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v Liu Chong Hing). A professional negligence claim can also be founded

Where a tenant commits a breach of covenant and a right to forfeit arises, the landlord is put to their election. The landlord can either choose to enforce the right to forfeit and treat the tenancy as at an end or they can affirm the contract and treat the lease as continuing to

This flowchart sets out the process under the FIDIC Red, Yellow and Silver Books, 2017 editions, for defects under: • clause 7.5, where any Plant, Materials, design or workmanship is found to be defective or otherwise not in accordance with the Contract and the Employer rejects the affected Plant, Materials,

This week's edition of Property Disputes weekly highlights includes: an Upper Tribunal decision concerning the rejection of an adverse possession claim following clarification of lost conveyance terms, Court of Appeal decisions concerning leaseholder liability to contribute via service charges to remedying pre-existing structural defects in right to buy schemes, and the correct legal test for reasonableness of costs in long-term equipment hire and maintenance contracts under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, High Court decisions concerning equitable set-aside of a fraudulently obtained judgment, and the limitation of the breach of contract principle in deposit recovery. It also includes minutes of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee meeting held on 7 November 2025, a speech by the Master of the Rolls’ regarding housing sector innovations and new online procedure reforms, the Online Procedure Rule Committee’s consultation on the first Online Procedure Rules under the 2022 Act, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s and Ministry of Justice’s call for evidence on housing disrepair claims management, Senedd Research’s analyses of the Building Safety (Wales) Bill scope and regulatory concerns, and the House of Lords’ library briefing on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill.

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes: a note that the evolving US-Israel conflict with Iran could lead to increased client demand for advice and analysis of judicial decisions including the High Court decisions in Kamal v Tax Policy Associates Ltd and Neidle (application—specific) and Car-Wizard Ltd v Vixen Surface Treatments Ltd (evidence and disclosure).

Updated in June 2025 Introduction Japan has the third largest economy in the world by nominal GDP, and is one of the favoured locations for global businesses to set up their first base in Asia and/or Research and Development centre in the light of increasing importance of the Asian market and the high level technologies of Japanese companies. Japan plays an important role in Asia as a major business centre in the region, a gateway to other Asian countries and a trend setter. Global businesses, manufacturers in particular, benefit from Japanese companies, not only large sized companies but also small and medium sized companies, having the ability to provide high-quality products and components. Japan provides a highly-developed legal system including fair and functioning court procedures and a stable democratic political climate. Japan is also recognised as one of the safest countries in the world, and provides advanced infrastructure and high-quality medical services. There are a variety of ways of structuring a business operation in Japan. The aim of this guide is to highlight

A relevant transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE 2006), SI 2006/246 does not terminate the contract of employment of any person employed by the transferor and assigned to the organised grouping that is subject to the transfer. Instead, the contract of employment has effect after the transfer as if originally made between the employee and the transferee (TUPE 2006, SI 2006/246, reg 4(1)). The transferee acquires: • all rights, powers, duties and liabilities under or in connection with the contracts of employment of transferring employees • liability for all pre-transfer acts and omissions of or in relation to the transferor in respect of transferring employees or their contracts of employment The

Does the use of the word 'misrepresentation' in section 75(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 encompass a common law claim for negligent misstatement under the Hedley Byrne principle? In relation to your first query, we refer you to Practice Note: Remedies for connected lender liability in consumer credit. Any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, where it states: 'The only causes of action which may be sustained against a supplier are those in misrepresentation and breach of contract. Therefore, a creditor is not liable under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974) in tort (eg under the Consumer Protection Act 1987) or in restitution (eg for moneys

For the reasons set out below, the answer to this question will depend on: • what the contract of employment says about the right to bank or public holidays • whether the right to the bank holidays in question can be said to be contractual, rather than statutory and, if so, whether the contract of employment excludes the right to payment in lieu of accrued contractual holiday entitlement on termination Whether there is a right to bank or public holidays The right under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR 1998), SI 1998/1833 is to a total of 5.6 weeks' paid annual leave each 'leave year', made up of: • a basic entitlement to a minimum of four weeks' paid annual leave (20 days for a regular full-time worker), and • an additional entitlement to 1.6 weeks' paid annual

The wording of section 80F(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) gives no clear indication as to whether the change to the employee’s contract when a flexible working request is granted is permanent in nature. However, government and Acas guides to flexible working suggest that where an application is accepted, the resultant change to terms and conditions will be permanent. See: • Practice Note: Flexible working—Whether any contract change is permanent or temporary • Gov.UK guidance on flexible working • Acas statutory: Code of Practice: Handling in a reasonable manner requests to work flexibly • non-statutory Acas guide: the right to request flexible working Thus an employee has no statutory right to have the changes in terms and conditions that are made following a flexible working request rescinded, should circumstances

You may wish to consider: • the mechanism for the employer to offer, and the employee to accept, new or renewed employment as an alternative to a redundancy payment set out in sections 138–141 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) • the provisions relating to reinstatement in consequence of action taken in relation to dismissal For information on the former, see Practice Note: Renewal of contract, re-engagement and trial periods. In relation to the latter, under ERA 1996, s 14(2), the continuity of a period of employment is broken where: • a redundancy payment has previously been paid to the employee (whether in respect of dismissal or in respect of lay-off or short-time), and • the contract of employment under which the employee was