Effectively, ownership of capacity on an international cable by someone other than an original member of the cable consortium.

Leave under the Immigration Act 1971 (IA 1971) to enter or remain in the United Kingdom which is not limited as to duration: see IA 1971, s 33(1).

Indemnities are an important tool for managing risk in commercial contracts. They are often fiercely negotiated and are frequently the subject of judicial scrutiny. They vary enormously in their language, scope and use but they should not be drafted, reviewed or negotiated without a clear understanding of the principles that have emerged from the case law around them. An indemnity clause should not be considered in isolation. It should be viewed as part of a suite of potential remedies, with a clear understanding of the distinctions between them and how they may interact. An indemnity clause should be reviewed in the context of the whole agreement together with external factors, such as the circumstances of the agreement and insurance, in order to fully appreciate and advise on the management of the risk to be protected. This Practice Note is primarily focused on indemnity clauses in general commercial contracts but it includes references and links to other forms of indemnity for further research. For an example indemnity clause with drafting notes for use in a business-to-business

An indemnity is an agreement by one person to bear the cost of certain claims brought against another person in specified circumstances.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Judge Keyser QC (sitting as a High Court judge) has given a warning to practitioners who seek to make inappropriate applications to strike out witness evidence prepared for a trial, pursuant to CPR PD 57AC, on the basis of non-compliance with that Practice Direction applicable to trial witness statements in the Business and Property Courts. While this application had partial success (in that parts of the claimants’ witness statements were struck out), the nature of the application, which was judged to be ‘disproportionate’ and ‘oppressive’, including given the scale of the costs which were generated, meant that the applicant was ordered to pay 75% of the respondents’ costs on an indemnity basis. The decision acts as a clear guide to the parameters of the sanctions regime for non-compliance with the Practice Direction on witness statements and a reminder of the consequences of failure to adhere to the principles set out in recent case law. Written by James Bradford, barrister at 39 Essex Chambers.

This involves the costs being determined with any doubt as to whether the costs have been reasonably incurred or were reasonable in amount being resolved in favour of the receiving party.

An indemnity clause provides that any liability a trustee may incur is reimbursed by the pension scheme or the employer.

1 Save in relation to any liability relating to death or personal injury, each party indemnifies, and shall keep indemnified, the other party against all costs and damages (including legal expenses) incurred in any future actions, claims or proceedings in respect of the Dispute, or any part of it, which it or any of its associated companies, officers, directors, agents or affiliates may bring against the other party or any of its associated

1 The Consultant shall indemnify and hold the Employer harmless from and

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is based on provisions revoked on 1 April 2013. It is therefore for historical purposes only. General Where costs are assessed on the indemnity basis, the court will: • not allow costs which have been unreasonably incurred or are unreasonable in amount • not be concerned with whether or not costs are proportionate • resolve any doubt over whether costs have been reasonably incurred in favour of the receiving party CPR guidance The CPR contains no guidelines as to when indemnity costs will be ordered, although it does prescribe two specific sets of circumstances in which they are likely to be ordered: • costs payable under a contract. While such costs are not expressed to be payable on the indemnity basis, the lack of a requirement to be proportionate amounts to the same thing (r 48.3) • where a Part 36 offer has been made by the claimant, is rejected by the defendant, and the claimant recovers more (r 36.14(3)(b)) The court's approach A summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: The court awarded indemnity costs to the claimant after she had successfully set aside an earlier judgment that had been obtained by fraud. It was held that the defendant’s conduct in producing a fraudulent document in support of their claim took the case ‘out of the norm’ per the test in Excelsior Commercial Holdings. The judge also awarded the claimant the costs she had paid when she lost the first trial, and her trial costs—these would be wasted irrespective of the outcome of any further proceedings. Written by David Juckes, barrister at Hailsham Chambers.

This Practice Note considers orders for costs determined on an indemnity basis (indemnity costs orders). A court may order that costs are assessed on an indemnity basis so that any doubt as to the costs claimed are resolved in favour of the receiving party. Compare to a standard basis where any doubt is resolved in favour of the paying party, where costs are determined with any doubt as to whether the costs have been reasonably incurred or were reasonable in amount being resolved in favour of the receiving party (CPR 44.3(3)). It explains what this is and sets out the CPR guidance together with the approach the courts will take when exercising its wide discretion to indemnity costs and determining whether there are matters which take the case out of the norm (the critical requirement set out in the leading authority in the Court of Appeal decision in Excelsior Commercial & Industrial Holdings v Salisbury Hamer Aspden & Johnson), eg wide, disproportionate, premature or speculative claims, failure to engage with or be reasonable in settlement