For a general overview, see our Practice Note: Payment of debts—solvent estate. The claim in this case is in contract, the deceased or his attorney or other agent acting on his behalf presumably entered into a contract with the proprietor of the nursing home that he would receive accommodation and care services in exchange for the payment of an agreed sum per week or per month. It may have been agreed that payment would be deferred until he left the nursing home or even until his death but at some point payment will have fallen due. The limitation period for such a claim is the same whether the claim were brought against the deceased in his lifetime

SIAC ARBITRATION NO.[ ] OF 202[ ] IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: Parties 1 WEIPA RESOURCES LIMITED Claimant AND 2 SELANGOR RESOURCES SDN BHD Respondent ARCHIVED: This Precedent has been archived and is no longer maintained. 1 This is the Respondent’s Statement of Defence in response to the Claimant’s Statement of Claim (SOC) filed on [insert date]. 2 The abbreviations used in the Claimant’s SOC are adopted herein, unless defined otherwise. 3 Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the SOC are admitted. 4 Save that the parties entered into an agreement in writing (the Contract) on or around 15 August 2014, and that the governing law of the Contract is the law of [insert governing law], paragraph 3 of the SOC is not admitted. 5 Paragraph 4 of the SOC is admitted. 6 Paragraph 5 of the SOC is not admitted. 7 Paragraph 6 of the SOC

SIAC ARBITRATION NO.[INSERT NUMBER] OF 202[INSERT NUMBER] IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: Parties 1 SOLENTRA RENEWABLES PTE LTD Claimant AND 2 MARITON ENGINEERING CO LTD Respondent 1 This is the Respondent’s Statement of Defence in response to the Claimant’s Statement of Claim (SOC) filed on [insert date]. 2 The abbreviations used in the Claimant’s SOC are adopted herein, unless defined otherwise. 3 Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the SOC are admitted. 4 Save that the parties entered into an agreement in writing (the Contract) on or around 15 August 2022, and that the governing law of the Contract is the law of [insert governing law], paragraph 3 of the SOC is not admitted. 5 Paragraph 4 of the SOC is admitted. 6 Paragraph 5 of the SOC is not admitted. 7 Paragraph 6 of the SOC is denied, and the Claimant

FORTHCOMING CHANGE : On 13 October 2025, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) launched a consultation on proposed improvements to the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) in England and Wales. Among other things, the consultation proposes a major overhaul of Fair Deal protections, aligning the scheme with the 2013 Fair Deal guidance and ending the use of ‘broadly comparable’ pension schemes for future outsourcing (save in certain exceptional circumstances). Instead, all staff compulsorily transferred under TUPE would retain continuous LGPS membership through a new default ‘deemed employer’ model, ensuring the original Fair Deal employer remains responsible for pensions rather than relying on admission bodies. These protections would extend across re-tenders and subsequent transfers, safeguarding access for ‘protected transferees’ and, at the employer’s discretion, for new joiners on the contract. For those currently in broadly comparable schemes, the proposals envisage bulk transfers into the LGPS that preserve accrued final-salary benefits, with future accrual on a CARE basis. Draft regulations to implement these Fair Deal changes were published

This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes analysis of a landmark judgment on the first building liability order (BLO) made under the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA 2022) (381 Southwark Park Road v Click), publication of guidance from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) on complying with the higher-risk building regime, release of the New Engineering Contract (NEC)’s practice note on conflict avoidance clauses for NEC4 contracts, a case in which the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) ruled that a party’s survey reports were not privileged and should be disclosed in court proceedings (BNP Paribas v Briggs & Forrester), the establishment of the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA), publication of the Public Procurement (Revocation) Regulations 2025, and responses from built environment industry bodies to the Spring Statement 2025.

This Practice Note provides an overview of Directive 2011/83/EU, the EU Consumer Rights Directive (EU CRD), including the amendments introduced by Directive (EU) 2019/2161, the EU Omnibus Directive, Directive (EU) 2024/825, the EU Empowering Consumers Directive and Directive (EU) 2023/2673, the Revised EU Distance Marketing of Consumer Financial Services Directive. It explains the scope of the EU CRD, key definitions including the differences between distance, off-premises and other contracts, what information must be provided to the consumer, and the consumer’s cancellation rights (also known as the right of withdrawal). It also considers the rules on additional payments, payment surcharges, help-lines, and delivery and passing of risk. This Practice Note does not cover UK legislation. For more information on UK legislation, see Practice Notes: • Distance, doorstep and on-premises sales • Consumer Rights Act 2015—summary • Consumer Rights Act 2015—goods • Payment surcharges For an overview of key consumer legislation in the EU, see Practice Note: Key EU consumer legislation—summary. Key EU legislation and materials The EU Consumer Rights Directive The EU CRD aims to align and harmonises

This week's edition of Corporate Crime weekly highlights includes analysis of a judgment determining how contract rules apply to DPAs, of an EU court ruling that EU sanctions imposed against a Russian billionaire should remain in place, and of the steps that foreign companies should be taking to prepare for the imminent corporate criminal offence of failure to prevent fraud. Also included is news of the commencement of new protection from unfair trading rules under the DMCCA 2024, of the government’s plans for a new reward scheme to encourage informants to come forward to HMRC about tax fraud, and of sentences for individuals after the CPS secures convictions in a £266m money laundering case. All this, and more, in this week’s Corporate Crime highlights.

This Practice Note considers the relevance of material breach in the context of construction projects, looks at contractual definitions of material breach and identifies key case law on the meaning of the term in the absence of a contractual definition. Relevance of material breach on construction projects The term ‘material breach’ is found in various types of contract. In the context of construction contracts, material breach provisions are most likely to be found in relation to termination and/or suspension—ie the contract may provide that: • the contractor and/or employer is able to terminate, and/or • the contractor is able to suspend work if the other party is in ‘material breach’. In relation to the ability to terminate, there is often a grace period during which the party in material breach is afforded the opportunity to remedy the breach before the contract is terminated. It is also common to see material breach provisions in PFI/PF2 contracts (see Practice Note: Termination of PFI/PF2 contracts). In addition, material breach may be relevant to the question of whether works

This Q&A discusses the duty of rationality that applies where a contract provides that a matter is to be determined by a party, as considered in Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd. What Braganza itself was about The claimant’s husband worked on a ship in the course of his employment, pursuant to a contract which had a clause conferring a benefit on the claimant if he died in service. However, that benefit would not be due if, ‘in the opinion of’ the employer or its insurers, the death was suicide. The claimant’s husband disappeared while working onboard, and was presumed drowned. The employer investigated and the manager appointed to decide the employer’s position on the issue decided the death was suicide. The claimant sought to challenge the employer’s entitlement to form that opinion and rely on it for the purposes of the contract. It was common ground that the employer’s opinion had to meet some threshold of reasonableness—at least the low threshold that the opinion not be so unreasonable that

This Checklist highlights issues that commonly require consideration prior to a party referring a dispute to adjudication. It includes links through to in-depth guidance on the various issues and notes the relevant provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996) where applicable. Legal matters It is necessary to check that there is a legal right to refer a dispute to adjudication, including whether the dispute has crystallised and comes within the scope of permitted disputes. • Entitlement to refer a dispute to adjudication The referring party must have a legal right to refer a dispute to adjudication. This can be either a statutory or a contractual right, or an ad hoc agreement between the parties to adjudicate. Therefore, consider: ◦ is there a statutory right—does the parties’ contract fall within the definition of ‘construction contract’ under HGCRA 1996, s 104 and is not otherwise excluded from its ambit? See Practice Note: What is a construction contract under the HGCRA 1996? ◦ is there a contractual right to adjudicate? See

Form of agreement There is doubt whether a right of pre-emption is a 'contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land' for the purposes of LP(MP)A 1989, s 2. In Pritchard v Briggs, the Court of Appeal held that a right of pre-emption itself does not create an interest in land because it gives no immediate right to call for a conveyance. However, the majority of the court suggested (obiter) that the right 'matures' into a proprietary interest when the obligation to make the offer arises. Despite continuing doubts and criticism of that ruling, best practice is to ensure that the contract creating the right of pre-emption (and any sale contract resulting from it): • complies with LP(MP)A 1989, s 2, and • is supported by consideration See also Registration below. Pre-emption period Ensure that the agreement sets out a fixed period within which the buyer has the benefit of the right of pre-emption. Trigger event Consider whether the trigger for the seller to offer to sell the property

_______________________________________ [NAME OF PROJECT] REquest for disclosure, clarification and directions concerning possible unilateral or ex parte communication involving [THE DISPUTE BOARD OR [DB member name] (DISPUTE BOARD MEMBER)] [Date] _______________________________________ Requesting Party: [Name of Party 1] [Address] [Telephone/Fax Number] [Email address] [ON THE HEADED NOTEPAPER OF THE reQUESTING PARTY] The Dispute Board: [Name of DB member] [Address] [Telephone/Fax Number] [Email address] [[Name of DB Member 2] [Address] [Telephone/Fax Number] [Email address] [Name of DB Member 3] [Address] [Telephone/Fax Number] [Email address]] The Other Party: [Name of Party 2] [Address] [Telephone/Fax Number] [Email address] [[The Engineer/Employer’s Representative] [Address] [Telephone/Fax Number] [Email address]] [NAME OF PROJECT]: request for disclosure, clarification and directions concerning possible unilateral or ex parte communication involving [the Dispute Board OR [DB member name] (Dispute Board member)] We refer to the contract between the Requesting 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]