A reference to a person who has died without leaving a valid Will or who has failed to dispose of their entire estate by Will.

Formally notify someone of something usually in writing.

Intimate samples from a detained suspect An intimate sample is: • a sample of blood, semen or any other tissue fluid, urine or pubic hair • a dental impression, or • a swab taken from any part of the genitals (including pubic hair) or from a person’s body orifice other than the mouth The police have the power to take intimate samples from a person who is detained only if: • the appropriate consent is obtained in writing, and • the action is authorised by an officer of the rank of inspector or above The officer can only authorise this if there are reasonable grounds for: • suspecting the involvement of the person from whom the sample is taken in a recordable offence, and • believing that the sample would tend to confirm or disprove their involvement in that offence It is also possible for the police to take intimate samples from a person convicted of offences outside England and Wales where two or more non-intimate samples suitable for the same means of analysis have

Authorising and ordering intimate searches An intimate search is the physical examination of any of the suspect’s body orifices other than the mouth. This is a physical intrusion, not simply a visual examination. Only a suspect who is under arrest and in police detention can be subjected to an intimate search. PACE 1984 Code C applies. An intimate search can only be authorised by an officer of at least the rank of inspector and they must have reasonable grounds for believing that: • a detained individual has concealed upon their person: ◦ anything that could cause physical harm to themselves or others, and ◦ they may harm themselves or others while in the detention of the police or the custody of the court, or • a detained individual: ◦ may have Class A drugs concealed on their person, and ◦ at the time they were arrested, they were in possession of those drugs with the intention of supplying or exporting them An officer may not authorise an intimate search of a person

The process by which documentation is sent to interested parties

Intimidation, in legal practice, describes conduct intended to frighten, coerce or overbear the will of another person, often to make them act (or refrain from acting) against their wishes or legal rights. It typically involves threats of violence, unlawful action, economic harm or other serious detriment.Across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, “intimidation” is used both as a general descriptive term and in specific statutory and common law contexts. It commonly arises in criminal law (for example, witness intimidation, harassment, coercive control, stalking, or threats linked to organised crime), employment and trade union disputes, public order offences, and in civil claims such as intimidation as an economic tort.Key legal features usually include: a threat or course of conduct; intention (or, in some contexts, recklessness) as to causing fear or compulsion; and a link between the intimidating conduct and the victim’s decision or detriment. Jurisdictional differences centre on specific statutory formulations and procedures, but the core concept of using fear or pressure to control another’s conduct is broadly consistent across the UK and Ireland.

In legal practice, intoxication describes impairment by alcohol, drugs or other substances that affects a person’s understanding, judgement, self-control or ability to form mens rea. The term is descriptive; treatment is set mainly by case law in criminal proceedings, while road traffic and licensing statutes prescribe specific limits or tests.Criminal law focuses on whether intoxication is voluntary (self-induced) or involuntary, and on the offence type. In England & Wales and Northern Ireland, voluntary intoxication can negate the mens rea of specific-intent offences (for example, murder, theft) but is no defence to crimes of basic intent such as assault (the Majewski rule). Dutch courage-intending the crime and drinking to carry it out-does not assist. Involuntary intoxication (for example, spiking; unforeseen effects of a non-dangerous sedative) may exculpate only if the defendant did not in fact form the required intent.Scotland takes a similar approach: voluntary intoxication is not a defence, though it may show absence of mens rea; it cannot ground diminished responsibility. Ireland broadly applies the same specific- and basic-intent distinction.Outside criminal liability, intoxication is relevant to contractual capacity, consent, employment discipline, licensing/public order offences, and drink/drug-driving, where statutory limits and evidential rules govern proof.

Intoxication General defences are those which arise from specific characteristics of the defendant or the circumstances of the offence which mean that the prosecution cannot prove all the elements of the offence. The investigating officer is under a duty to investigate crime impartially and fairly and so evidence supporting a defence should be collected and retained in the same way as evidence of the offence. Some offences are subject to specific statutory defences but the general defences should be considered in every case. Strictly speaking, intoxication, whether voluntary or involuntary is not defence to a crime per se. Instead, the intoxication itself may negate the necessary mental element (mens rea) for the crime, which can act as a defence, but only in specific circumstances. Specific intent Where an offence requires specific criminal intent, voluntary intoxication may be sufficient to show that the accused could not have formed the requisite intent to commit the offence. The specific criminal intent required is that of bringing about a particular consequence at the time of the criminal action. If the accused

This Agreement is made on [insert day and month] 20[insert year] Parties 1 [insert name of party] [of OR a company incorporated in [England and Wales] under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (the Lender); and 2 [insert name of party] [of OR a company incorporated in [England and Wales] under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (the Borrower). background (A) The Borrower is a wholly-owned direct or indirect Subsidiary (as defined below) of the Lender. The Lender has agreed to provide to the Borrower an unsecured term loan of £[insert amount of loan in figures] ([insert amount of loan in words] pounds sterling) subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. (B) [[insert any further details]] The parties agree: 1 Definitions and interpretation 1.1 In this Agreement: Business Day • means a day other than a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday when banks are generally open for business in London; Interest Periods • has the meaning

Introduction The use by an investor from one EU Member State (MS) of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) to commence an arbitration against another EU MS as the host state, has been a source of significant debate in recent years. The debate has highlighted the tension between the rights and protections granted to investors under EU law and those provided under BITs and the ECT. As discussed in greater detail below, that debate has now been largely settled as a matter of EU law. However, and notably, in almost all intra-EU investor-state arbitrations (whether under BITs or the ECT) (Investor State Arbitration or ISA) to date, arbitral tribunals have refused to decline jurisdiction on account of the intra-EU objection. Accordingly, many EU investors are seeking to enforce arbitral awards against EU Member States outside the EU and many more are seeking to seat arbitral proceedings concerning new intra-EU investment disputes outside the EU. For a background discussion of

Introduction The intra-EU posting of third-country nationals (TCNs) is a common labour mobility practice used by companies established in one Member State to provide services temporarily in another. Governed by Article 56 TFEU on the freedom to provide services, the posting of TCNs is rooted in the landmark Vander Elst ruling, Case C-43/93, which clarified that Member States cannot impose additional work permit requirements on lawfully employed TCNs posted from another Member State. While Directive 96/71/EC, the Posting of Workers Directive or PWD, as amended by Directive 2018/957/EU and complemented by Directive 2014/67/EU, the Directive on the enforcement of the PWD, provides the general legal framework for posting, these instruments remain silent on the specific modalities applicable to TCNs (for more information on the PWD, see Practice Note: Posting of workers in the EU). Moreover, the Directive ‘does not affect either the agreements concluded by the Community with third countries or the laws of Member States concerning the access to their territory of third-country providers of services; whereas this Directive

Competition between different firms, e.g. retailers, in relation to the same product or products produced by the same firm