Key information Name of firm [Insert firm name] Name of role holder [Insert name] Reports to [Insert name] Role type [Full-time/Part-time/Contractor][[If a contractor role, insert length of contract]] Primary location [Insert the primary location for this role—if there is a requirement for the role holder to regularly spend time in multiple locations, eg in each regional office, it is worth making sure this is made clear] Remote/hybrid/office-based? [Insert type of work model] Date role commenced [Insert date] Length of probation period [Insert] End of probation review date [Insert date] Role summary • To lead and direct the HR function to deliver a comprehensive human resources

The nature of joint and several liability As seen in Practice Note: Joint, several, and joint and several liability, joint and several liability arises where two or more persons under the same contract make a promise to the same person, and at the same time each of them individually makes the same promise to that same person. For instance, where B and C jointly promise to pay £100 to A, but both B and C also separately promise A that £100 will be paid to

The powers of the liquidator are set out in Schedule 4, Part III of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). The liquidator’s general power to sell is found in IA 1986, Sch 4, Pt III, para 6, which provides: ‘Power to sell any of the company’s property by public auction or private contract, with power to transfer the whole of it to any person or to sell the same in parcels.’ However, where the property being sold is subject to a charge, the liquidator has no general power under IA 1986 to sell the asset free of the security,

Also known as the client or developer. The person for whom the works are undertaken under the contract'>building contract by the contractor. Sometimes, but not necessarily, the employer is the owner of the site.

This week's edition of Commercial weekly highlights includes: judgment of the Court of Appeal in KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco where the court allowed the appeal, finding that the 2018 contract included an implied term that the price for 800MT of water extracted soluble orange solids would, in the absence of agreement, default to a reasonable or market price, news that the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 came into force on 19 June 2025, and news that the Competition and Markets Authority has detailed its new enforcement powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Act 2024 regarding dynamic pricing practices.

Commercial analysis: The court granted summary judgment in favour of Virgin Aviation (Virgin) on a claim for sums due under a contract with Alaska Airlines (Alaska), notwithstanding a defence of circuity of action based on a claim in unjust enrichment. The court found that the basis for the unjust enrichment claim was flawed as a matter of construction. However, in the alternative, the court held that the no set off clause would have precluded Alaska from relying on a defence of circuity to resist summary judgment. Written by Joshua Crow, barrister at One Essex Court.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) delivered a significant judgment that provides valuable guidance on several aspects of construction law, including the enforcement of adjudicator's decisions and the payment requirements of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Significantly, the court found that the final date for payment in a construction contract should occur within a specified period of time from the due date, and could not be dependent on the issue of a VAT invoice by the payee. Written by Simon Tolson, Senior Partner at Fenwick Elliot.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed PGMOL's appeal as it was able, on the basis of the findings of fact made by the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) and the extensive submissions made by both parties, to conclude that the irreducible minimum of mutuality of obligation and control necessary for a contract of employment between the part-time referees and PGMOL was satisfied in relation to the individual match contracts. However, as it did not necessarily follow that the individual match contracts were therefore to be characterised as contracts of employment, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the case should be remitted to the FTT for its decision.

This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes the publication of a new edition of the City of London Law Society (CLLS)’s precedent letter of intent, consideration of a contractor’s entitlement to payment following termination in relation to a JCT contract clause (Shaylor v Valesecure), a handbook published by the Welsh Government detailing changes to building control in relation to the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA 2022), publication of the Single Building Assessment (SBA) Specification Document which relates to the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill by the Scottish Government and a case in which the court considered the replacement of an expert witness following interference by solicitors (Glover v Fluid Structural Engineers).

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) dispute resolution panel has ruled that B. Braun Medical Ltd's off-contract sales of a branded sedative medicine during 2021-2022 do not qualify for exceptional central procurement exemption under the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing and access (VPAS). The panel's 27 March 2025 decision found that since the National Health Service England handled the procurement rather than a central government body, the sales did not meet VPAS exemption criteria, making B. Braun liable for scheme rebate payments.

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) has published the government response to the consultation on Contracts for Difference (CfD) Allocation Round 6 contract amendments. The response confirms the decision to amend the CfD standard terms and conditions and the Private Network CfD Agreement. The amendments include changes to the Change Control Procedure and the Milestone Delivery Date definition, with the aim of preventing consumers, who ultimately fund the CfD scheme via energy bills, from subsidising electrification of the offshore oil and gas sector.

The Law Society has recommended that minimum salaries should increase to £24,916 outside London and £28,090 in London for those employed for a period of recognised training (a training contract) and Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE) candidates employed for the purpose of qualifying work experience. The recommended minimum salary is reviewed in June each year as a matter of voluntary good practice before the revised figure comes into effect in September. The current recommended minimum salary for trainees is £24,320 outside of London and £27,418 in London.