This Practice Note contains a jurisdiction-specific Q&A guide to financial services litigation in Greece published as part of the Lexology Getting the Deal Through series by Law Business Research (published: October 2021). Authors: Souriadakis Tsibris—Giannis Koumettis; Michael Tsibris 1. What are the most common causes of action brought against banks and other financial services providers by their customers? Greek law recognises two main causes of liability: tort and contractual. Contractual liability arises from breach of contract, whereas tort liability arises from a breach of statute obligations. The existence of an agreement between two parties does not exclude the possible parallel existence of tort liability of one party to the agreement towards the other. Supreme Court Decision No. 1028/2015 found that the criterion for tort liability to apply despite the existence of a contract is whether the behaviour of one party towards the other would also establish tort liability even if there was no agreement between them. In that case, the plaintiff may choose between the two legal bases to bring an action against his or her counterparty,

This week's edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes: expert analysis on the decision in Welsh Language Commissioner v National Savings and Investments, where the Welsh Language Commissioner challenged the decision to withdraw its Welsh language scheme despite the Commissioner's recommendation. Case reports include the decisions in QA v SOS for FCDO, where the High Court quashed the SOS’s decision on Afghan resettlement due to bias concerns; ZHB v Cardiff City Council, in relation to age assessment; A Local Authority v W, where the Family Court ruled on the threshold criteria for infant's care proceedings despite the mother's pre-birth death; South Tyneside Council v E, where the Family Court granted special guardianship to the maternal uncle in UAE despite the challenges; the Court of Appeal’s decision in Sashi Shashikanth v NHS Litigatin Authority, on the adjudicator's decision on NHS contract dispute; Wallis v North Northamptonshire Council, where the High Court dismissed the out-of-time judicial review claim against planning permissions; and SOS for Work and Pensions v Versnick, where the Court of Appeal upheld a EU national’s right to rely on spouse’s benefit for universal credit. This weekly highlights also includes further updates on Social care, Social housing, Healthcare, Public procurement and Governance.

A clause, usually in a sub-contract, whereby the contractor is only obliged to pay if the sub-contract works are certified under the main contract. This is irrespective of whether the sub-contract works have been satisfactorily completed. Following the amendments to the HGCRA 1996, these clause are now prohibited by HGCRA 1996, s 110(1)(a).

This Practice Note provides an overview of what interim payments are, how the right to be paid (usually by monthly or stage/milestone payments) arises and the contractual mechanisms for interim payment. It also considers the need to ensure that interim payment mechanisms meet the requirements of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996), and examines how the payment regime is dealt with in standard forms such as the JCT and NEC contracts. See also Practice Note: Interim payments in construction contracts. For a list of key cases considering the payment provisions of the HGCRA 1996, see Practice Note: HGCRA 1996 payment provisions—key cases. In relation to the JCT and NEC contracts, see also Practice Notes: JCT contracts—price and payment and NEC contracts—price and payment. What is an interim payment? Construction projects can be worth millions of pounds, and the programme periods can stretch over months and years. Very few contractors would be able to complete such an undertaking if they had to wait until the works were completed before receiving any payment. As

This Practice Note considers the approach of the English courts when considering whether to stay English court proceedings where the parties have agreed an exclusive, non exclusive or asymmetric jurisdiction clause. The court will apply the strong reasons test when determining whether to order a stay. The jurisdiction clause may provide for English court jurisdiction or foreign court jurisdiction. In cases in which the parties have agreed an English jurisdiction clause and proceedings have been brought in a foreign court, the courts may be asked to restrain the foreign claimant from pursuing those foreign proceedings, for example by the grant of an anti-suit injunction. For guidance, see Practice Note: Anti-suit injunctions—principles. When considering questions of forum non conveniens, the English courts apply the test set out in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd (1987), ie the question is whether there is a clearly or distinctly more appropriate forum in which the disputes between the parties should be resolved. The House of Lords in Spiliada was not addressing a situation in which

Introduction This Practice Note addresses frequently asked questions concerning consumer contracts for digital content, including downloadable content, software, apps, streaming media, cloud-based products and other access-based models. It explains the standards imposed by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015), the statutory remedies available where digital content does not conform to the contract, and how those rules apply to licences, platforms and the withdrawal of access. For further guidance, see Practice Notes: • Consumer Rights Act 2015—digital content • Consumer Rights Act 2015—unfair terms • Consumer remedies and redress This Practice Note addresses the following frequently asked questions: • What counts as ‘digital content’ under the Consumer Rights Act 2015? • What standards must digital content meet? • What remedies are available where digital content is faulty, incomplete or not as described? • What rights does a consumer have where defective digital content damages their device or other digital content? • Do consumer rights apply to free digital content or digital content supplied in exchange for personal data? • How do consumer rights apply to software licences,

This Practice Note provides an overview of the key issues in the development, financing, construction, operation, and decommissioning of a ground-mounted solar project in the UK. It includes some detail around the use of project finance but, unless the project is of a particularly large size, many sponsors are increasingly prepared to finance development and construction from their own balance sheet, rather than seek recourse to the debt markets. This is particularly the case when the original developer has already sold the project ‘pre-construction’ to an investor. This Practice Note also assumes that the ground-mounted solar project is developed as a standalone project, as opposed to a hybrid project in which the solar technology is co-located with a battery energy storage system (BESS) on the same site, or combined with another generation technology. However, co-location is referenced in this Practice Note: • as a potential issue for consideration by the project sponsors at the outset when devising the structure for the project, or after the project has commenced operation, see Sections: Development phase: key

An individual frequently named in a contract appointed to oversee the smooth running of building works

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This year’s annual round-up reviews some of the most significant developments of 2017 and previews what is on the horizon for 2018. This includes the cases of Wood v Capita Insurance Services Limited [2017] UKSC 24 and Ilkerler Otomotiv Sanayai Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Perkins Engines Company Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 183, among others. Also included are updates on LexisNexis®’s content, including news of exciting developments from the past year and what is coming up in the next 12 months. Reviewing 2017 Contract law What happened in Wood v Capita Insurance Services Limited? The Supreme Court held in Wood v Capita Insurance Services Limited [2017] UKSC 24 that the appellant, which had purchased a company from the respondent, could not recover compensation it subsequently had to pay to the company’s customers who had been affected by mis-selling before it took over the company. The court found that, properly construed, the indemnity clause in the purchase agreement did not apply to the

This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes Technology and Construction Court (TCC) decisions on: retrospective extensions of time for service (Galliford Try Construction v Arcadis Consulting), an application for strike out/summary judgment concerning unpaid milestones under a subcontract (BioConstruct v Grays Thurrock Properties), and a poling gang payment dispute (IES Utilities v British Telecoms). It also covers the International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC)’s publication of a practice note on dispute board decision preparation and composition, the launch of its 2025 International Contract Users Conference and its three-year MoU with the Saudi Contractors Authority, COP30 commitments on built environment emissions, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ)’s consultation on revising carbon storage access regulations, the Welsh Government proposals for Social Public Works Clauses, the Crown Commercial Service (CCS)’s Public Procurement Review Services results, the Greater London Authority (GLA)’s draft London Plan Guidance to unlock stalled housing sites, a joint Association for Consultancy and Engineering (ACE) and Autodesk report calling for a National AI in Engineering Strategy, and HMRC’s measures to combat Construction Industry Scheme fraud.

The amount given by the state to encourage employers to contract out.

Standard contract for derivative transactions created by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) trade association.