Software development—in brief A software development agreement is used where a customer engages a software developer to design, develop, test and (sometimes) install and maintain bespoke software. The growing adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, including AI-assisted code generation, large language models and machine learning, has introduced new considerations around development methodology, intellectual property ownership and fee structures that practitioners should address in these agreements. Software development is often a key component of systems integration agreements as well. These agreements cover the acquisition, development and integration of an entire IT system including hardware and software. The software component of the system often involves the development of a significant proportion of bespoke or adapted software by the developer or integrator. In both cases, the payment mechanism used to determine what fees are payable by the customer (and when) is an important component which (along with other contract provisions such as the limits and exclusions of the developer’s liability for contract breach, the calculation of liquidated damages for late delivery by the developer, and the

Parties to a 'construction contract' have the right to refer any dispute that has crystallised to adjudication at any time. For more information, see Practice Notes: • The right to adjudicate • Adjudication—is there a ‘dispute’? • What is a construction contract under the HGCRA 1996? If the right to adjudicate exists, a party should next consider whether adjudication would be a practical way of resolving it. There is a statutory 28–day timetable for adjudication, which may make it unsuitable for large or highly complex claims. This constraint can be overcome to an extent by the parties agreeing to extend the time in which the decision must be reached, or by the referring party dividing the claim into more than one adjudication. Nonetheless, if the claim cannot be fairly determined in the limited period that adjudication allows, it may not be the right approach. Assuming a party has a right to commence an adjudication and the dispute is capable of resolution by adjudication, what are the main benefits and risks when compared to litigation

Arbitration analysis: The case of DQR v DQT addresses the novel situation in which a related company would have been placed in a financially advantageous position had it decided to go against another company in the same group. In such a circumstance, related companies have to ask themselves—is it better to remain on the side of the larger group or is it better to go it alone (and possibly against the group) if there is an opportunity to obtain recovery. The Singapore High Court recently dismissed an application to set aside an ICC arbitral award arising from a multi‑contract dispute, involving an unincorporated joint venture and a related services contract, both connected to the delivery of a major infrastructure project. The two claimants in the court proceedings (being the unsuccessful respondents in the arbitration) argued that the arbitral tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by determining disputes arising under a separate joint venture deed The court held that the tribunal had, in fact, remained squarely within the scope of the submission to arbitration. Written by Dan Perera, partner, Aaron Tan, associate, and Michael Popp, trainee solicitor at HFW Singapore LLP.

This Practice Note provides information on the principles of costs recovery including the general rule, the court’s discretion and proportionality. It also provides information on the indemnity principle, recovery of costs under contractual clauses and costs recovery for specific phases in proceedings. This Practice Notes acts as an introduction to this topic and should be read in conjunction with the following Practice Notes: • Costs orders—the general rule • Costs orders—departing from the general rule and circumstances where it is not applicable • Costs and the indemnity principle • Costs and proportionality • Costs—recovery of costs under contractual clauses Costs recovery—the general rule The general rule under CPR 44.2(2)(a) is that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs. This means that if the claimant is successful, the defendant will usually be ordered to pay the claimant's costs, while if the defendant is successful, the claimant will usually be ordered to pay the defendant's costs. Usually the successful party will not recover all of the costs they have incurred in bringing or

This Practice Note considers whether a receiver may carry out building works and in particular whether the receiver may complete a development which is unfinished at the time of the appointment. This Practice Note highlights a number of issues which the receiver will need to consider before proceeding with any work. For ease in considering the issues involved it is assumed that: • the developer is both the mortgagor of the property and a company, and • the mortgagor is using the common construction procurement method of employing a building contractor and a professional team of architect, engineers, quantity surveyors and others (the Professional Team) References to the mortgagor include, where appropriate, the mortgagor acting by the receiver. A receiver in this context means a fixed charge receiver or a Law of Property Act receiver. Receiver’s powers to carry out building works A receiver’s statutory powers under the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) prior to executing a sale are limited to collecting rent and insuring the property (note that

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled on the ability of ‘new’ EU Member States to apply EU regulations as well as considering the interpretation to be applied to the term ‘counterclaim’ in article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (Brussels I). The interpetation will apply to Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I (recast)).

This Practice Note examines the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA’s) Mortgages and Home Finance: Conduct of Business sourcebook (MCOB) requirements regarding distribution and disclosure standards that apply to lenders, providers and intermediaries of regulated mortgage contracts (RMCs), home reversion plans (HRPs), home purchase plans (HPPs) and regulated sale and rent back agreements (SRBAs). Together, RMCs, HRPs, HPPs and SRBAs are referred to as home finance transactions (MCOB 1.2.2 G(1)). These requirements are predominantly detailed in chapters 4–9 of MCOB (MCOB 4–MCOB 9). This Practice Note also sets out the requirements for correctly calculating the annual percentage rate (APR) and the annual percentage rate charge (APRC) in chapters 10 and 10A of MCOB (MCOB 10 and MCOB 10A). For information on other aspects of MCOB, see Practice Notes: Mortgage and home finance conduct of business—application and general requirements, Mortgage and home finance conduct of business—financial promotion regime and Mortgage and home finance conduct of business—responsible lending, charges and arrears requirements. Purpose of MCOB advising and selling standards MCOB 4 outlines rules and guidance

This Practice Note is for use when determining applicable law where the contract was entered into on or after 17 December 2009. This Practice Note provides an explanation as to when and why Regulation (EC) 593/2008, Rome I was introduced. It covers the implementation of Regulation (EC) 593/2008, Rome I and the countries which are signatories, and therefore subject to the regulation, as well as reservations made by different countries. It sets out why the regulation applies to intra-UK contractual disputes. The Practice Note provides assistance on the interpretation of Regulation (EC) 593/2008, Rome I and then considers the universal application provision (art 2) and the scope of the applicable law (art 12). The general rules which apply as well as rules applicable to specific types of contracts are set out. The types of disputes excluded from Regulation (EC) 593/2008, Rome I are identified such as arbitration and the status and legal capacity of companies. It is referenced in this Practice Note as Regulation (EC) 593/2008, Rome I or Rome I. Purpose

We refer you to Practice Note: Cosmetic surgery claims and in particular, the following: ‘Managing expectations Whether a procedure has been successful or not is often a subjective assessment. Where a patient has gone in with unrealistic expectations, one of the surgeon's main responsibilities should be to manage expectations, something which can be difficult. There is often a disparity between achieving a “good” outcome and one which the patient wanted. Commonly complaints or claims are based on a patient's disappointment at the outcome of their procedure. … The law A claim for damages will be brought under contract and/or tort law. Where a tort has been committed,

The Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 (LT(C)A 1995) controls the liability of former tenants and their guarantors for rent and service charge after assignment of a lease. A landlord may recover ‘fixed charges’ from a former tenant or its guarantor only if: • the former tenant remains liable due to privity of contract or because it has given an authorised guarantee agreement (in the case of new tenancies), and • the landlord has given notice under LT(C)A 1995, s 17 within six months of the date on which the charge became due LT(C)A 1995, s 17 relates to fixed charges which

During a period of garden leave, an employee remains employed by the employer and, therefore, subject to the (express and implied) terms and conditions of their employment contract. For further information, see Practice Note: Garden leave and the right to work. Accordingly, an employee can be required to attend a disciplinary hearing during a period of garden leave to answer allegations of misconduct that have subsequently come to light. As to whether a disciplinary hearing can be convened during the garden leave period in an employee’s absence, as with most aspects of the disciplinary process,

There is a set way of calculating continuity for statutory rights under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), such as unfair dismissal, which overrides any agreement in the contract of employment. It depends on: • when the continuous period starts • when the continuous periods ends • whether anything happened to break continuity between the start and the end • whether any period with another employer counts As to the start of employment, ERA 1996, s 211(1) provides that (subject to subsection (3) an employee's period of continuous employment for the purposes of the ERA 1996 begins with the day on which the employee starts work. A person's employment (by a particular employer)