Pensions analysis: The High Court considered the proper construction of pension increase provisions under which payment of full RPI increases depended on a funding-related affordability test. It held that the trustee must undertake a forward-looking assessment of whether paying the increase would require higher employer contributions, taking account of reasonably foreseeable developments rather than merely the immediate funding position. The trustee could also consider benefit security and competing claims on scheme resources. The decision provides useful guidance for pension schemes with similarly drafted provisions, demonstrating that historic drafting may be construed to operate sensibly within the modern statutory funding regime and that trustees should consider the future funding consequences of conditional or discretionary increases. Produced in partnership with Ben Fairhead and Richard Meers of Arc Pensions Law LLP.

This Practice Note looks at how restrictive covenants are interpreted, and examines the meaning of some common phrases found in covenants. Approach to construction of covenants Restrictive covenants are construed in the same way as any other contract. The court must identify what a reasonable person, having all the background knowledge which would have been available to the parties, would have understood them to be using the language in the contract to mean. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Contract interpretation—the guiding principles. It is also necessary to check that the covenant is enforceable between the parties concerned. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Restrictive covenants—nature and characteristics. Because each document is unique in its precise terms and background facts, earlier court decisions on similar wording are not a reliable guide to interpretation. Subject to that caveat, the remainder of this Practice Note looks at the possible interpretation of some common terms in restrictive covenants. Building ‘Building’ may mean ‘a structure with a roof and walls’, but has also been held to include: • an advertising

Construction analysis: The case concerned the Court of Session’s interpretation of a provision of a settlement agreement relating to a construction dispute, where the meanings contended for by both parties were considered comprehensible and where neither interpretation was more obviously consistent with business common sense than the other. The commercial background and other provisions in the settlement agreement did not assist in interpretation and the court’s interpretation turned purely on the specific wording within the provision. The court noted that words included must be accorded some meaning by a reasonable reader. The court held that on the proper construction of relevant provision, that provision necessarily came into operation if and only if the defender or the Project Manager issued instructions. Since it was common ground that no such instructions were ever issued, the pursuer’s fell to be regarded as irrelevant.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court has considered the approach to interpreting releases under a settlement agreement, particularly where the releases related to fraud-based claims. The judge rejected any assertion of ‘sharp practice’ by those seeking to rely on the settlement agreement as precluding future claims. The releases in question had been specifically identified and did not amount to a general release where ‘sharp practice’ may require a remedy.

Public Law analysis: A useful judgment (and reminder) about the role the common law principles of statutory interpretation can play when the court is considering the language of a statute dealing with a duty to pay compensation due to an interference by the State with the use of private property. Written by Simon Bell, barrister at The Barrister Group.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: A bankruptcy petition can be presented against an individual provided that, among other things, they have ‘carried on business in England and Wales’ in the three years preceding the petition. In Lyons, the court decided that a bankruptcy petition could be presented against a Bahamas-based debtor on the basis of his personal dealings with one property in England. It rejected an argument that the condition was satisfied because the Bahamas-domiciled debtor had an ownership/control interest in more than 30 companies incorporated in England and Wales. This judgment clarifies, among other things, the meaning of ‘carrying on business in England and Wales’ for the purposes of a bankruptcy petition. Written by Aziz Abdul, legal director and Claire Robinson, managing associate at Addleshaw Goddard LLP.

Interrogation refers to the formal questioning of a suspect, accused person, witness or other individual by police or other investigators, usually in connection with a criminal investigation. It covers structured, often recorded, interviews designed to obtain information, admissions or confessions, and is distinct from informal conversation or general enquiries.In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, interrogation is governed principally by police powers and safeguards under legislation such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and equivalent codes, including rules on caution, legal advice, silence, oppression and admissibility of confessions. In Scotland, police “interviews” are regulated under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016, with similar protections. In Ireland, interrogation is regulated under the Judges’ Rules, the Criminal Justice Acts and constitutional fair‑trial guarantees.Across all four jurisdictions, key legal issues include voluntariness of statements, the right to legal assistance, treatment of vulnerable suspects, recording requirements and exclusion of improperly obtained evidence. The term is descriptive rather than usually defined in statute, but is widely used in criminal practice, human rights law and litigation concerning the lawfulness and reliability of suspects’ statements.

A message transmission circuit between two communication satellites, as opposed to a circuit between a single satellite and the earth.

A person who has exercised a right to intervene in existing proceedings in relation to a marriage or civil partnership (and is not a party to such marriage or civil partnership).

A: General information Date of interview Candidate name Position applied for Interviewers Interview stage First interviewSecond interviewOther (please state) Interview conducted online or in person? B: Preliminary questions [Please summarise your career to date OR Talk me through your CV] (Let candidate talk—do not prompt them) Describe your perfect job Why did you apply for this particular role? Where

There are strict codes governing how an interview is carried out, in particularly warning a suspect that anything they say may be used in evidence against them.

This Practice Note explains the law in relation to interviewing a suspect under caution under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) and associated PACE Codes of Practice, in particular PACE Code C. It details what an interview under caution is, the advice that should be given to a suspect by their solicitor before the interview takes place, details of where the interview will take place and how it will be conducted. It also examines how the interview will be recorded and the position when interviewing juveniles or vulnerable persons. It also explains ‘no comment’ interviews and written statements given under caution. Present and historic versions of the PACE 1984 Codes of Practice are published by the Home Office and can be found here. What is an interview under caution? An interview is the questioning of a suspect regarding their involvement or suspected involvement in an offence which must be carried out under caution (a person must be cautioned when there are reasonable objective grounds to suspect them of committing an offence). The police