Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: ICC Judge Barber dismissed an application to strike out, or alternatively restrain the advertisement of a winding up petition, for a failure to demonstrate substantial grounds for disputing the petition debt; and a failure to demonstrate a genuine arguable cross-claim of substance. The applicant company was described by the judge as ‘hopelessly insolvent’, despite the ‘regrettable’ assertions made in the evidence in support of the application. The underlying dispute was over a promissory note for £2.37m and whether the note was subject to an implied term of good faith. A further contention was that because an application to restrain presentation had been made before the presentation of the petition, the petition should not be treated as having been presented: an ‘extraordinary proposition’ in the judge’s view which she had no hesitation in rejecting. Written by Zachary Kell, barrister at Radcliffe Chambers.

Horizon Nuclear Power is a UK energy company developing a new generation of Nuclear power stations. A wholly owned subsidiary of Hitachi, Ltd. planning to provide at least 5,400MW of new power capacity across its two sites, Wylfa Newydd on the Isle of Anglesey and Oldbury in South Gloucestershire. www.horizonnuclearpower.com

Ireland—Banking & Financial Service analysis: This article, was written by Katherine Quirke and Sinead Cantillon of Arthur Cox. A glance ahead at legal and regulatory developments expected this month.

Horizontal agreements are agreements between organisations at the same level of the supply chain and may include agreements between competitors or collaboration or research and development agreements. They can present competition law concerns.

The share of consumers subscribing to a commonly owned system.

This checklist can be used to help ensure compliance with EU competition law on cooperation between competitors (see further, Analysing horizontal co-operation agreements under EU competition law). Framework for assessment When considering cooperation between competitors it is necessary to consider: • the competition rules under Article 101 TFEU: ◦ the first question is whether the agreement is caught by Article 101(1) TFEU—the starting point is the Commission’s Horizontal Cooperation Guidelines (Horizontal Cooperation Guidelines) (see further, Article 101(1) analysis below) do not forget to consider: ‣ whether there is an effect on trade between Member States (see further, Effect on trade) ‣ whether there is an appreciable restriction (see further, Appreciable restriction of competition) ‣ the de minimis thresholds (as applicable) ◦ the second question is the application of Article 101(3) TFEU • EU and national merger control ◦ more complex arrangements, such as alliances and joint ventures, may amount to a merger or concentration (see further, A 'concentration' with an EU dimension) • an abuse of dominance under Article 102 TFEU (where

Horizontal direct effect is an EU law doctrine that allows a private party to invoke EU law before a national court against another private party.

Transaction between firms supplying competing products/services.

Hors de combat is a French term used in public international law to describe a combatant who is out of the fight and therefore must not be made the object of attack. A person is hors de combat where they are defenceless due to unconsciousness, wounds, sickness, capture, or surrender, and no longer take part in hostilities.The concept is reflected, though not always under that exact phrase, in the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, which are incorporated into the domestic law of the UK and Ireland. It is central to the law of armed conflict rules on the protection of prisoners of war, the wounded and shipwrecked, and civilians taking no active part in hostilities.In practice, the status of being hors de combat is highly relevant to determining war crimes, rules of engagement, targeting decisions and individual criminal responsibility of commanders and soldiers. Usage and legal effect are broadly consistent across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, which all look to the same international humanitarian law framework and related case law of international criminal tribunals.

A recent Court of Appeal decision in the case of Turnbull v Warrener has reviewed the liability issues that are relevant to horse riding accident claims under the Animals Act 1971. The Court of Appeal were unable to reach a unanimous view with regards to all issues raised in the appeal, but came to the ultimate conclusion that the claim should fail and the appeal should be dismissed.

Negligence Many of the principles involved in horse riding accidents are common to the rest of personal injury law. For example, the owner of an equestrian centre owes a duty of care to clients who visit their stables to ride as well as to employees who may be exercising or training horses. The duty of care will likely include a duty to: • take reasonable care to supply suitable horses • provide appropriate and well-maintained equipment • provide adequate supervision and instruction • provide suitable premises Employees who work with horses are also entitled to the protection of the usual workplace duties of care. For further guidance, see Practice Note: The employer’s duty of care. In Harris v Miller, the defendant was liable in negligence for allowing the 14 year old claimant to ride their horse, ‘Polly’, a young inexperienced thoroughbred, in an open field when they did not have enough knowledge of the horse and its behaviour. The defendant’s standard of care was assessed by reference to that of the ordinary and reasonably

An order that an offender be admitted to and detained in a specified hospital.