Nature of rights under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 It is important for practitioners to understand the distinction between the rights conferred by the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA 1987) and those provided by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015). While CRA 2015 provides for contractual rights between the seller and the consumer, CPA 1987 confers rights against ‘producers’. CPA 1987 does not limit a claimant’s ability to pursue other remedies against that producer (or any other relevant person in the supply chain) such as negligence or through a claim for breach of contract. In practice it can therefore be expected that, where available, more than one cause of action might be advanced by a claimant. See Practice Notes: Product liability—claims in negligence and Product liability—claims in contract. For further guidance on CRA 2015, see Practice Note: Product liability—claims in contract. For guidance on the main defences to a claim under CPA 1987, see Practice Note: Defences to a claim under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Potential defendants Liability

Introduction This Practice Note aims to introduce the reader to the key concepts of the law of marine insurance and highlight both the overlap with and the differences from the law of insurance generally. The development of marine insurance in England and of the law associated with it can probably be traced back to thirteenth century with the insurance of vessels and their cargoes being a response to the expansion of sea trade. Historically, the law of marine insurance developed from the transit of goods and passengers by sea, embracing the insurance of both property risks and liability risks. The definition of a contract of marine insurance found in section 1 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 (MIA 1906), however, is wide-ranging, namely a contract whereby the insurer undertakes to indemnify the assured against marine losses, that is to say the losses incident to marine adventure. That wide definition is further expanded by MIA 1906, s 2, which extends the definition of a contract of marine insurance to include

This Practice Note identifies a number of common assignment scenarios and key considerations when involved in such scenarios, such as intra-group assignment, assigning debts and warranties. For guidance on what constitutes a valid assignment of a contract, see Practice Note: What constitutes a valid assignment of a contract? For guidance on the key practical and commercial considerations when assigning contracts, see Practice Note: How to assign rights under a contract. Intra-group assignment Companies within a group will usually want the ability to transfer contractual rights between them without consent. This may arise, in particular, where any assignee may subsequently cease to be a member of the assignor's group. It may be that, in such an instance, the assignee is required to assign the rights back to the assignor or another member of the assignor's group immediately upon ceasing to be a member of the relevant group. For analysis of some of the issues that may arise as a result, see Practice Note: Common issues in an intra-group reorganisation. Assignment of debts A bank, or

Court of Appeal—professional negligence ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal in a solicitors' negligence case on the ground that the loss of chance element of the damages claim was too remote. The trial judge found that Lewis Silkin LLP had breached their duty in failing to advise their client about the inclusion of a jurisdiction clause in his contract of employment with a franchisee of the Indian Premier League's Twenty20 series. The absence of a jurisdiction clause meant that in his subsequent litigation with the franchisee as to a severance payment, the client was subjected to (albeit ultimately unsuccessful) jurisdiction challenges by the franchisee, which delayed his ultimately obtaining judgment for the severance pay of £10 million. The client pleaded that had Lewis Silkin advised on jurisdiction then an exclusive jurisdiction clause would have been included in the employment contract. Had that been so, then the client would have obtained judgment for the severance payment earlier than he did (because there

Construction analysis: The court declared that a contractor’s default interim payment notice (given under the JCT Intermediate Building Contract 2011) in the absence of a payment notice from the contract administrator was valid, even though it was not referred to in a covering email (sent in advance of a meeting about the final account). While there was a high threshold for the contractor to meet as to the validity of the notice, it was to be construed in accordance with the contractual and factual background. The court also declared that a valid pay less notice had been given on behalf of the employer, even though it was ‘contingent’ (the sender’s primary position was that the default interim payment notice was not valid). While the sender must have the requisite intention when giving a pay less notice, this was to be derived from the manner in which the notice would have informed the reasonable recipient.

The Welsh Government unveiled a substantial £52.1m investment in general practice for the 2024-2025 General Medical Services (GMS) contract. This represents the largest annual investment in GMS since the pandemic. The package includes a 6% pay uplift for GPs, £12.7m for staff pay expenses, and a £23m one-off practice stabilisation payment. The agreement also introduces improvements to GP access, including enhanced NHS Wales App functionality and new contractual requirements for GPs to identify and record patient frailty and ethnicity data. Additionally, the learning disabilities annual health check will become part of unified services within the GMS contract, and changes to the coronavirus (Covid-19) anti-viral treatment pathway have been agreed upon. These measures aim to strengthen the sustainability of general practice and improve service accessibility across Wales.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 28 November 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into a cartel concerning purchases on the styrene monomer merchant market (AT.40547). Latest development On 28 November 2022, the Commission issued its infringement decision after the five companies settled with the Commission and acknowledged their involvement in the cartel. Total fines totalling €157m were imposed. Total fines imposed on each company were: • INEOS—no fine (as a result of being awarded immunity)• Synthos—€32,505,000

Tax analysis: In Exchequer Solutions Ltd, the Upper Tribunal (UT) ruled that there was insufficient mutuality of obligation for there to be an overarching contract of employment between an umbrella company and individual workers, meaning that each work assignment was treated as a separate employment. As a result, home to work travel did not qualify as allowable for income tax purposes under the 'necessary attendance' rules for temporary workplaces in section 338 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003).

Construction analysis: The Commercial Court (Comm) applied a strict interpretation of the terms of an on-demand bond, which in particular prohibited the issuer from resisting payment pending further investigation or enquiry into the circumstances of the claim. This was despite the fact that the contractor on whose behalf the issuer had issued the bond had brought separate proceedings alleging that the employer/beneficiary owed them money for completing works under the contract.

Employment analysis: ‘Volunteer’ is not a term of art and the legal status of all volunteers will depend upon the construction of the documents as a whole. The employment tribunal in this case had erred by finding that there was no contract (and therefore no worker status) where the claimant had to make a claim for remuneration rather than receiving payment automatically, according to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) refused to grant declarations relating to the contractor’s entitlement to payment, following termination of a contract based on a Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) terms. In doing so, it considered interesting questions of contractual interpretation relating to the calculation of the sums due to the contractor after termination, and the effect of an invalid assignment by the employer.

This document provides general guidance regarding cohabitation agreements. It explains what a cohabitation agreement is, why you might want to make one, and the sorts of things you might want to put into it. Your family lawyer will be able to provide specific advice based on your circumstances. What is a cohabitation agreement? A cohabitation agreement is a written, signed document, often signed as a deed in front of witnesses. It will generally deal with three principal areas: • who owns (and owes) what at the time of the agreement, and in what proportions • what financial arrangements you have decided to make while you are living together, and • how property, assets and income should be divided if you should split up Where the agreement is properly drawn up, the terms are reasonable, and each of you has had separate, independent legal advice on its effect, a court is more likely to uphold the agreement in the event of a dispute. It can also be prudent to include provisions that address potential future events, eg the needs of any future children. When should I make