Ofgem has approved code modification R0287 to the Retail Energy Code (REC) and rejected the alternative proposal, R0287A. Ofgem determined that R0287, the original proposal, more effectively facilitates the REC objectives. Under the approved modification, REC Schedule 1 and Schedule 23 will be amended to clarify that annulments may only be used in scenarios where the consumer has not entered into a contract with the gaining supplier and asks the losing supplier to prevent the switch from taking place. Ofgem explained that this modification addresses inconsistent interpretations of the annulment process across the industry, which have led to disputes regarding its application. The modification will take effect on 27 February 2026.

This week's edition of Commercial weekly highlights includes: a High Court judgment in Car-Wizard Ltd v Vixen Surface Treatments Ltd concerning the commercial enforceability of contractual terms and the resolution of a business dispute over performance and liability in a supply/services relationship, announcement that the Department for Business and Trade has launched three consultations on proposed reforms to UK product safety laws, and the commencement of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, Part 4, Chapter 4 (Alternative dispute resolution for consumer contract disputes) on 6 April 2026.

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal brought by Orion Shipping and Trading LLC, holding that clause 14 of the 2012 Norwegian Saleform (NSF) entitles buyers to recover loss of bargain damages where they terminate a contract following a delay in delivery caused by the sellers’ proven negligence. The Court held that the wording of clause 14, read in its contractual and commercial context, encompasses loss of bargain damages and that neither the ‘causation principle’ nor the ‘clear words principle’ required a different interpretation. Iain Sharp, partner, and Vassilis Mavrakis, legal director, both at Hill Dickinson, provide commentary on the judgment.

This week's edition of Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights includes: the latest monthly insolvency statistics published by the Insolvency Service, an examination of a judgment that considers when the court will order that a borrower be given conduct of the sale of a mortgaged property in place of receivers (Fairmont Property Developers v Venus Bridging Ltd), an update from the Loan Market Association (LMA) regarding standard terms and conditions for Par and Distressed Trade Transactions and other relevant contract updates, plus a round-up of other news and cases for restructuring and insolvency professionals.

The Special Committee on Agriculture has approved the Council's negotiating mandate on amendments to the Common Market Organisation (CMO) regulation. The changes introduce mandatory written contracts between farmers and buyers, with exceptions for micro/small enterprises and transactions under €20,000. Long-term contracts will include a revision clause triggerable after 12 months, while member states can implement voluntary mediation mechanisms for contract disputes. A two-year transition period will apply following implementation. The Council will begin negotiations with the European Parliament once the latter finalises its position on the amendments.

This Agreement is made on [date] Parties 1 [insert name of supplier] [of OR a company incorporated in [England and Wales] under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (Supplier); and 2 [insert name of customer] [of OR a company incorporated in [England and Wales] under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (Customer), each of the Supplier and the Customer being a party and together the Supplier and the Customer are the parties. Background (A) The Supplier conducts the business of supplying [insert description] to other businesses. (B) The Customer conducts the business of [insert description]. (C) The parties have agreed that the Supplier shall supply goods to the Customer on the terms and conditions set out in this Agreement. (D) The parties contemplate that the Supplier shall supply the goods to the Customer in a series of supplies over time rather than a single supply. (E) The Supplier is a Preferred Supplier of the Customer. The parties agree: 1 Definitions and interpretation 1.1 In this Agreement: [Actual Spend • has the meaning given in clause 6.2;] Affiliate • means any entity that directly or indirectly Controls, is Controlled by, or is under common Control

This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes: a Technology and Construction Court (TCC) decision in Persimmon v AMEC on the proportionate pleading of fire safety defects in a claim under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, holding that a comprehensive Scott schedule was not required; the Welsh Government's publication of revised standards, codes and rules for the building control profession in Wales, including new dutyholder roles and a definition of higher-risk buildings and the Scottish Building Contract Committee's (SBCC) publication of its 2024 Design and Build Suite for use in Scotland, based on the JCT 2024 editions and adapted to Scottish law and practice.

Date [date] Parties 1 [insert Seller’s name here] of [insert Seller’s address here] (the Seller); and 2 [insert Buyer’s name here] of [insert Buyer’s address here] (the Buyer). 1 Definitions In this Agreement, the following definitions apply: Contract • the contract made between the Seller and the Buyer providing for the Buyer to buy the Property from the Seller dated [insert date of exchange]; Licence Period • the period starting today and ending on the occurrence of any of the events listed in clause 5, whichever is the soonest; Permitted Use • only for the purposes of carrying out the Works; Property • [address/description]; VAT • value added tax payable by virtue of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 or any similar tax levied in addition to or by way of replacement for value added tax; and Works • the works to the Property specified in the Schedule to this Agreement. 2 Interpretation In this Agreement: 2.1 the clause headings are for reference only and do not affect its construction or interpretation; 2.2 general words introduced by the word 'other' do not have a restrictive meaning even where preceded by words indicating a particular class of acts, things or matters;

In the preliminary stage of the private equity investment process, it is common for the parties to enter a heads of terms to set out the principal terms of the investment. See Precedents: Heads of terms—equity and Heads of terms—non-leveraged investment—equity. The document generally takes the form of a standard agreement, a letter or a term sheet. Nature and purpose The heads of terms sets out the principal commercial terms of the proposed investment. The document is not intended (with certain specific exceptions) to be legally binding on the parties to it. It is a statement only of the parties’ intentions and does not constitute: • a conditional contract • an unconditional offer capable of creating a binding contract by acceptance, or • any other form of promissory undertaking by either party to enter into the proposed transaction The general purposes of heads of terms are to: • express the parties’ intention to negotiate in good faith • set out the basis on which the proposed transaction will proceed, including such commercial terms (eg the investment details) and limitations

This Checklist sets out a number of practical steps that a contractor should consider taking where the employer becomes insolvent during a construction project. This Checklist assumes that the employer has entered into a written contract with a main contractor for construction works which are not yet complete, and that the contractor has engaged sub-contractors. It assumes that it is not a PFI project. The actions to be taken in any specific situation will of course depend on the terms of the contract(s) between the parties and the status of the works at the time of the employer's insolvency, but this Checklist is intended to provide a starting point for the contractor to consider. For guidance on how to spot potential problems with solvency and how to protect the contractor’s position at the outset of a project, see Practice Note: Construction insolvency—how to spot problems and how to protect yourself—contractors. In the event that the employer has become insolvent, the contractor needs to be proactive to protect its own financial interests. Steps that

This Checklist sets out practical steps that an employer should consider taking where a design consultant engaged by the employer becomes insolvent during a construction project. This Checklist assumes that the employer has entered into a written appointment with a design consultant for services which are not yet complete. It assumes that it is not a PFI project. The actions to be taken in any specific situation will of course depend on the terms of the contract(s) between the parties and the stage of the project at the time of the consultant's insolvency, but this Checklist is intended to provide a starting point for the employer to consider. This Checklist looks at the issue from the perspective of an employer that has engaged a consultant where the procurement route is traditional, or where the procurement route will be design and build but novation of the consultant’s appointment has not yet taken place. Where a contractor engaged under a design and build contract has responsibility for the design of the project and the consultant’s

This Practice Note covers how the Standard Conditions of Sale (Fifth Edition—2018 Revision) (SCS) provide for the insurance of the property, what happens if the property is damaged before completion and what happens if the buyer takes early access to the property. What happens if the property is damaged or destroyed between exchange and completion? Condition 5.1 of the SCS provides that risk in the property passes to the buyer from the date of the contract. This reflects the open contract position. If the property is damaged or destroyed between exchange and completion, the buyer will still be required to complete. However, the seller does owe the buyer a duty to take reasonable care of the property. Who insures between exchange and completion? Previous versions of the SCS did not deal with responsibility for insurance comprehensively and complications could arise. Ordinarily, as the property is at the buyer’s risk from exchange, the buyer should insure the property from exchange of contracts. The buyer’s conveyancer should