Building contract 1 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Contract, the term approval when used

The term 'approved regulator' is used in the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007) to describe a regulator of reserved legal activities.

Term associated with the goal of EU Directives which is to harmonise certain concepts across all EU Member States’ legislations.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note provides a summary analysis, in table format, of the revised CPR 36 which came into effect on 6 April 2015 as against the old Part 36 rules (in force prior to 6 April 2015). Note: although the revised CPR 36 applies in its entirety only to Part 36 offers made on/after 6 April 2015, as of that date certain of its provisions (CPR 36.3: definitions, CPR 36.11: acceptance of a Part 36 offer, CPR 36.12: acceptance of a Part 36 offer in a split trial case and CPR 36.16: restriction on disclosure of a Part 36 offer) will also apply to Part 36 offers made before that date where trial (whether of the whole claim or a part(s)/issue(s)) is due to commence on/after 6 April 2015. See Practice Note: Illustrating the changes—the transitional provisions for the revised Part 36 in force as of 6 April 2015 [Archived]. For access to the pre-6 April 2015

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 15 January 2026; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into the completed acquisition by Aramark Limited of Entier Limited. The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in the supply of catering and related facilities management services to the offshore energy sector in the UK North Sea. Latest developments On 15 January 2026, the CMA issue its final report, concluding that the transaction is likely to result in an SLC in relation to the supply of offshore catering and ancillary facilities management services to customers for assets used in the oil and gas sector in the United Kingdom Continental Shelf (UKCS) as the parties are close competitors, among the largest suppliers, and face limited competitive constraints.In terms of remedies, Aramark proposed a contract divestment to address the CMA’s provisional competition concerns in the UKCS offshore catering market, but later withdrew the remedy. The CMA has concluded that Aramark must sell Entier, akin to an unwinding of the transaction,

ArbTech has published its upcoming event under the theme 'Litigate and Innovate: Hackathon for Lawyers'. The event will be held at CityPoint, London on 24 October 2024.

An arbiter is a neutral third party appointed to resolve a dispute outside the courts, usually by making a binding decision after considering evidence and legal submissions. In modern UK and Irish legal practice, “arbiter” is most closely associated with Scots law, where it is the traditional term for what is otherwise commonly called an “arbitrator”. Scottish arbitration statutes and case law often use “arbiter” and “arbitrator” interchangeably. In England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Ireland, “arbitrator” is the standard term under arbitration legislation, rules and institutional procedures; “arbiter” may still appear in older contracts, trust deeds or case law but is largely historical or stylistic. The arbiter’s key legal functions include determining issues of fact and law, issuing an award, and managing the procedure in accordance with the relevant arbitration agreement, institutional rules and governing statute (such as the Arbitration Act 1996 or the Arbitration Act 2010 (Ireland)). An arbiter must be impartial and independent, and their jurisdiction depends on valid party consent. Their awards are generally final and enforceable, subject only to limited grounds of challenge or appeal.

The issue of whether a dispute may be resolved by arbitration (as opposed to, usually, court proceedings). Arbitrability is determined, generally, in accordance with the law of the seat of arbitration; as such, which disputes are arbitrable will vary between jurisdictions, although there is some consistency internationally.

It is considered a general principle that arbitration may be used to resolve almost any type of claim or dispute concerning legal rights. This has been referred to as a ‘presumption’ of arbitrability (see, for example, the comments of the Singapore Court of Appeal in Larsen Oil and Gas Pte v Petroprod). However, in most jurisdictions, including England and Wales, there are limits (or reservations) to that general principle, and, in accordance with the doctrine or principle of non-arbitrability, certain disputes may not be resolved using the arbitral process even if they fall within the scope of the relevant arbitration agreement (see, for example, the statement of the English High Court in RiverRock Securities v International Bank of St Petersburg). Nevertheless, while it is generally accepted that certain categories of disputes are arbitrable and some are not, the precise boundary between the two can be hard to draw. Indeed, the concept of arbitrability itself lacks precise definition. It has been referred to as ‘the susceptibility of a particular kind of dispute to a binding objective

Arbitration analysis: The High Court of Singapore (‘SHC’) recently dismissed a winding up application under Singapore’s insolvency law because the disputed debt forming the subject matter of the application arose under contracts containing prima facie valid arbitration agreements. The SHC followed the Singapore Court of Appeal’s approach in AnAn Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co) (‘AnAn Group’), which requires insolvency courts to defer to arbitration when (a) a prima facie valid arbitration agreement subsists between the parties; (b) the defendant’s dispute or cross claim prima facie falls within the scope of this arbitration agreement; and (c) the defendant is not abusing the court’s process by raising the dispute or cross claim. This decision serves as a word of caution for creditors attempting to recover a disputed debt by presenting a winding up application instead of taking recourse to the arbitration agreement between the parties. Written by Bikram Chaudhuri (partner at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co), Juhi Gupta (principal associate at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co) and Siddharth Doshi (senior associate at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co).

Arbitration analysis: The Paris Court of Appeals held that an arbitration seated in France was ‘international’ under Article 1504 CPC and annulled both a partial and final ICC award for excess of jurisdiction under Article 1520(1). Construing the arbitration clause autonomously and in light of the parties’ common intention, the court found that contractual carve-outs excluding disputes relating to Aster’s ‘Exclusive Rights’ encompassed claims concerning software ‘ideas’ and protected information. The tribunal’s failure to distinguish arbitrable from excluded claims vitiated its jurisdictional ruling, invalidating the awards in their entirety. The decision underscores the strict effect of contractual exclusions and the need for careful drafting and cautious jurisdictional analysis by tribunals. Written by Louis B. Buchman of Lexforce.

Simultaneously buying and selling of assets across different markets to make a profit out of pricing inconsistencies, usually with very low risk.