Law360: Aon Plc and Marsh McLennan on 8 September 2024 called for the reinsurance sector to lift its moratorium on Ukraine-related risks, saying that blanket policy exclusions were undermining the war-torn country's economic recovery.

Energy analysis: This case concerned disputes as to the amount of security to be provided under bilateral decommissioning security agreements (BDSAs) executed as part of the purchase in 2011 by Apache from Esso of Mobil North Sea LLC (MNSL). The court’s decision raises potential issues regarding the interpretation of the Petroleum Act 1998 (PA 1998) with regards to decommissioning liability. The court was required to determine whether Esso might be called upon under the PA 1998 to decommission certain wells, drilled after the sale of MNSL, and therefore whether security should be given in relation to those wells. The court found that in order to be covered by a PA 1998, s 29 notice, the wells needed to fall within the definition of an offshore installation which ‘is or has been maintained or is intended to be established’. Since there had been no intention to drill these wells at the time of the section 29 notice, the notice did not cover them and therefore security did not need to cover them. Written by Judith Aldersey-Williams, partner (Aberdeen) at CMS.

Joint Ownership If a person wishes to sell a property against the wishes of another co-owner, that person can apply to court for an order for sale if they are a tenant in common. A common example of this would be during the breakdown of a relationship, divorce, or inheritance. One party could bring their claim under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996). Severance It should be remembered that where a property has been purchased

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the withdrawal of the notification on 21 December 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the proposed acquisition of VDM by Aperam (Case M.8907). The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in the production of nickel alloy products. Latest developments On 21 December 2018, Aperam announced that it had terminated the SPA with Lindsay Goldberg to acquire VDM and abandoned the transaction in view of the Commission’s objections to the transaction. The notification to the Commission was withdrawn on the same day. Parties Aperam (Luxembourg) is a manufacturer of stainless, electrical and specialty steel, with customers in over 40 countries,

Law360: Apollo Global Management said 4 June 2024 it's heading up an US$11bn investment to acquire a 49% interest in a joint venture with Intel Corp related to Intel's Fab 34 chip factory in Leixip, Ireland.

Local Government analysis: The King’s College NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) sought permission from the local planning authority (‘Bromley’) for the construction of a new endoscopy unit at the Princess Royal University Hospital. The Bromley planning committee granted the application by a majority of one, against the recommendation of the officer. The claimant, a local resident, sought judicial review of that decision. At an oral renewal hearing permission was granted to bring the claim on one of six grounds, namely the decision was tainted by apparent bias arising from the fact that one member of the committee who had voted in favour (Councillor McPartlan) was also a governor of the Trust. At the substantive hearing, the claimant also relied on Councillor McPartlan’s position as trustee of a small charity ‘Billie’s Fund’ set up following his wife’s diagnosis with leukemia to support various healthcare related causes. Councillor McPartlan had complied with the local ‘Code of Conduct for Councillors’ adopted by Bromley (‘the Bromley Code’), which required that he declare his interests but did not require that he recuse himself. The claim was dismissed by Mr Justice Lane, who held that a fair-minded and informed observer would not consider that there was a real possibility a member of the planning committee was biased. This conclusion was based on a close factual analysis of Councillor McPartlan’s role as governor, and on the fact that he had complied with the Bromley Code which was not itself unlawful or unreasonable. Written by Siân McGibbon, barrister at Landmark Chambers.

In practice, apparent authority (or ostensible authority) describes when a principal is bound by an agent’s act because the principal’s words, conduct or the agent’s position reasonably led a third party to believe the agent had authority, even if no actual authority existed.A case-law doctrine in agency law (see Freeman & Lockyer; Armagas v Mundogas), it turns on: a representation or holding out attributable to the principal (including by appointing someone to a role such as managing director); the third party’s reasonable, good-faith reliance; and a transaction of a kind ordinarily within that role’s scope. An agent’s assertion is not enough. If the third party knows of limits, or is put on inquiry, the principal is not bound.For companies, this operates alongside statutory protections for persons dealing with a company in good faith (Companies Act 2006, section 40; comparable protections under Ireland’s Companies Act 2014). For partnerships, the Partnership Act 1890 attributes acts of a partner in the usual course of business to the firm unless the third party knows of a lack of authority.Usage and effect are broadly consistent across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, and central to transactional risk and due diligence.

The process by which an employee appeals the decision of an employer (for example following a termination or disciplinary hearing) or Court or Tribunal.

A judicial office created by Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 following Scottish Civil Courts Review, which reported in 2009.

Appeal No. HU/1234/2025 IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Between: MAGGIE SMITH Appellant – and – Secretary of state for the home department Respondent ___________________ APPEAL SKELETON ARGUMENT ___________________ 1 Mrs Maggie Smith (‘the Appellant’) appeals against the decision set out in the Respondent’s Reasons for Refusal Letter (‘the RFRL’) dated 14 February 2025. The Appellant appeals under section 82(1)(b) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 against the refusal of her human rights claim, on the basis that her removal would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, because it would constitute a disproportionate interference with Article 8 ECHR. FACTUAL SUMMARY 2 The Appellant is a French national born 18 January 2000. She is married to Bernie Smith, a British national, born 14 February 1999. The couple met in the UK and married in the UK on 1 January 2024. 3 The Appellant arrived in the UK in 2019 on a student visa, which she varied to a graduate visa in 2022. After her marriage to Mr Smith she sought to switch in-time to a partner visa. She submitted her application on 1 November

The Planning Inspectorate has dismissed an appeal against a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) surcharge. The appeal was made under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, SI 2010/948, reg 117(1)(b) as it was claimed the collecting authority had failed to serve a Liability Notice ‘as soon as practicable’ after the relevant permission was issued.

This Practice Note explains how to appeal to the Crown Court against a sentence imposed by the magistrates’ court. It may be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Appealing a conviction in the Crown Court. For detailed guidance on appealing a sentence imposed in the Crown Court, see Practice Notes: Starting an appeal in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division (CACD) and Criminal appeals—certificates of fitness to appeal from the Crown Court. Asking the magistrates’ to correct minor errors in sentence The magistrates’ court has the power to vary, rescind or set aside a sentence or other order made on conviction (such as costs order, disqualification order and victim surcharge order) if it is the interests of justice to do so save where the Crown Court or the High Court has determined an appeal about that sentence or order. If a minor error in sentence has been made by the magistrates’, practitioners should consider applying to the magistrates’ to vary or correct the sentence, rather than commencing a full appeal against sentence