Arbitration analysis: The Delhi High Court has recently granted an anti-arbitration injunction in Engineering Projects (India) Ltd v MSA Global LLC (Oman), staying the ongoing ICC proceedings seated in Singapore on account of the arbitrator’s non-disclosure of a prior appointment by the opposing party’s chairman. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, a learned Single Judge of the Court, held that such non-disclosure, struck at the root of party consent and procedural fairness. The learned Single Judge held the arbitral proceedings as being prima facie vexatious and oppressive, and thus injuncted the said proceedings. This landmark decision takes a divergent view from previous decisions of the court, which traditionally followed a ‘hands off’ approach particularly in foreign seated arbitrations. It sets a potentially dangerous precedent where an Indian Court may interfere in the arbitral process notwithstanding the fact that the parties have chosen a seat outside India, particularly in cases where procedural fairness is involved. Written by Saurabh Seth, founder at Chambers of Saurabh Seth.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 7 May 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the proposed acquisition of Ilva by ArcelorMittal (Case M.8444). The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in markets for flat carbon steel. Latest development On 7 May 2018, the Commission conditionally approved the transaction, subject to commitments. In terms of commitments, the Commission has accepted a package of remedies that will see the divestment of:• production assets in Belgium, the Czech republic, Luxembourg, Italy, Romania and Macedonia, and • distribution assets in France and Italy. Parties ArcelorMittal S.A. is a Luxembourg-based multinational steel manufacturing, listed on stock exchanges in Amsterdam, Barcelona, Bilbao, Luxembourg, Madrid, New York, Paris and Valencia. ArcelorMittal is the world's leading steel and mining company, with a presence in 60 countries and with industrial production facilities in 18 countries. Ilva S.p.A., currently controlled by the Italian government, is a manufacturer of flat carbon steel. Its production facilities are located in Italy, the main site being

An architect is the designer of a project. Where there is more than one designer (for example, there may be engineers or other consultants who may design specific parts of the project) the architect is commonly the lead designer responsible for ensuring that individual components of the design work together.

Construction analysis: The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 gives a qualifying author of a drawing the moral right of paternity—to be identified as author of their drawings, even where the copyright and right to use the drawing has been assigned to others. If that moral right is infringed the author can bring a claim in damages so long as the right to be identified as author has been asserted by the author. The judgment of O’Farrell J provides a useful summary of the basic elements that are required to bring a claim for infringement of moral rights. In this case, she held that the claimant had not disclosed an arguable cause of action. The claimant also failed to establish an arguable cause of action based on the tort of passing off (a misrepresentation by one trader which damages the goodwill of another). The claimant’s application to amend its claim failed on both counts. Written by Caroline Pope, partner at DLA Piper.

This is an archive of Appendices A–G to the Sponsor Guidance for the Worker, Temporary Worker and Student categories (known respectively as Tier 2 and Tier 5 before 1 December 2020, and Tier 4 before 5 October 2020). It covers versions of the appendices valid from 1 October 2008, up to and including the current guidance versions. For further guidance on how to use this archive and to research other immigration information using the National Archives website, see Practice Note: Locating guidance and using archives for immigration research. Archive of Sponsor Guidance Appendix A This is an archive of Appendix

This is an archive of Sponsor Guidance for the Student category (known as Tier 4 before 5 October 2020). It covers guidance valid from 5 October 2009, up to and including the current guidance versions. For an archive of Sponsor Guidance Appendices A–G, see Practice Note: Archive of Sponsor Guidance Appendices. Note that this archive also includes Sponsor Guidance relating to Tier 4 Highly Trusted Sponsors, which existed in a separate set of guidance from 22 March 2010 to 4 September 2011, below. The Highly Trusted Sponsor Status was replaced with the Tier 4/Student Sponsor Status. For a link to archived versions of Sponsor Guidance from 16 September 2008–13 August 2009, see Practice Note: Archive of Sponsor Guidance for Workers and Temporary Workers—Archive of Sponsor Guidance for Tiers 2, 4 and 5. For further guidance on how to use this archive and to research other immigration information using the National Archives, see Practice Note: Locating guidance and using archives for immigration research. Archive of Sponsor Guidance for Students Guidance document name Version Comparison

This is an archive of Sponsor Guidance for the Worker and Temporary Workers categories, which replaced Tiers 2 and 5 from 1 December 2020. It also includes Tiers 2 and 5 Sponsor Guidance from 16 September 2008 until the end of the pre-Brexit Points-Based System. Note that the archive has three main sections, which contain links to archived versions of Sponsor Guidance as follows: • Archive of Sponsor Guidance for Workers and Temporary Workers from 19 November 2020 • Archive of Sponsor Guidance for Tiers 2, 4 and 5 from 16 September 2008–13 August 2009 • Archive of Sponsor Guidance for Tiers 2 and 5 from 5 October 2009–5 October 2020 For an archive of Sponsor Guidance Appendices A–G, see Practice Note: Archive of Sponsor Guidance Appendices. For guidance on how to use this archive and to research other immigration matters using the National Archives, see Practice Note: Locating guidance and using archives for immigration research. Archive of Sponsor Guidance for Workers and Temporary Workers (sponsorship matters) This is an archive

This is an archive of PDF Policy Guidance documents for applicants in work, investment and study categories under the Points-Based System (PBS), and Appendix W of the Immigration Rules, which preceded the post-Brexit immigration system. Note that the Tier 1 (Investor) and Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) categories are still in force for some applicants. The archive can be used for research purposes, in order to see what the relevant guidance stated at a particular point in time. There are also some comparison versions highlighting what changed in each new version. The post-Brexit system largely commenced on 1 December 2020. Under the previous system, the main form of guidance for applicants in each category was a PDF Policy Guidance document. This contrasts with the post-Brexit system, where the main form of guidance for applicants is now the relevant route visa information tool on GOV.UK. For guidance on how to use this archive and to research other immigration information using the National Archives, see Practice Note: Locating guidance and using archives for immigration research. Archive

This case tracker contains a selection of significant employment judgments handed down in 2017. Information relating ongoing cases of significance can be found in our standard Case tracker—Employment. Links to Employment news analysis reports are included where they are available. We are always pleased to receive details of other cases that may be of interest to subscribers. Please use the 'Contact Us' button above and the Lexis®Ask function to send us details. Case Name Citation Topic Court and Judgment Date History STATUS Dewhurst v CitySprint 2202512/2016 WORKER STATUS—Whether a cycle courier is a worker or a self-employed contractor. Central London Employment Tribunal (ET) held that Ms Dewhurst was a worker and entitled to holiday pay for two days, see our report of 10 January 2017. Central London Employment TribunalJudgment on 5 January 2017. Heard on 22 November 2016. Boxer v Excel Group Services 3200365/2016 WORKER STATUS—Whether a cycle courier is a worker or a self-employed contractor. Central London ET held that Mr Boxer was a worker and entitled to holiday pay for one week, see our report

This case tracker contains a selection of significant employment judgments handed down in 2018. Information relating to ongoing cases of significance can be found in Practice Note: Case tracker—Employment. Links to Employment news analysis reports are included where they are available. The Lexis®+ UK Employment team is always pleased to receive details of other cases that may be of interest to subscribers. Please use the 'Contact Us' button above and the Lexis®Ask function to send us details. Case Name Citation Topic Court and Judgment Date History STATUS AND WORKER CATEGORIES Kowal v The Doctors Laboratory 2200444/2017, 2200445/2017, 2200446/2017, 2200447/2017, 2200448/2017 EMPLOYMENT STATUS—Whether a courier is an employee for an unfair dismissal and discrimination claim. The respondent has accepted that the claimants are workers and not self-employed. It was reported that, in the settlement of the claims, the respondent accepted that some of the claimants were employees, see LNB News 09/02/2018 109 ‘Gig economy: Settlement sees blood couriers get full employment rights’. Central London Employment TribunalClaims reported as settled on 8 February 2018 Claims filed on 7 March 2017. Listed

This case tracker contains a selection of significant employment judgments handed down in 2019. Information relating to ongoing cases of significance can be found in Practice Note: Case tracker—Employment. Links to Employment news analysis reports are included where they are available. The Lexis®+ UK Employment team is always pleased to receive details of other cases that may be of interest to subscribers. Please use the 'Contact Us' button above and the Lexis®Ask function to send us details. Case Name Citation Topic Court and Judgment Date History STATUS AND WORKER CATEGORIES Addison Lee v Gascoigne A2/2018/1494 WORKER STATUS—Whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) was correct to uphold the decision of the employment tribunal (ET) that a cycle courier was a worker rather than a self-employed contractor (and therefore entitled to holiday pay and the national minimum wage). See report on the EAT’s decision of 14 May 2018. Court of Appeal20 March 2019 Awaiting decision on papers. Case stood out on 25 July 2018 pending decision in Farrar, Aslam v Uber BV. Case stood out on 4 December 2018 while

This case tracker contains a selection of significant employment judgments handed down in 2020. Information relating to ongoing cases of significance can be found in Practice Note: Case tracker—Employment. Links to Employment news analysis reports are included where they are available. The Lexis®+ UK Employment team is always pleased to receive details of other cases that may be of interest to subscribers. Please use the 'Contact Us' button above and the Lexis®Ask function to send us details. Case Name Number Topic Main issue Case history Varnish v British Cycling Federation t/a British Cycling UKEAT/0022/20 Employment status Whether an Olympic funded athlete is an employee or worker so as to be able to bring claims of sex discrimination, detriment for whistleblowing, victimisation and unfair dismissal. The ET held that the claimant was not an employee or worker of British Cycling or UK Sport, see report of 28 January 2019. The EAT agreed with the ET and dismissed the claimant’s appeal, see News Analysis: When a contract falls outside the employment field altogether (Varnish v British Cycling Federation) (24/7/20). Rejected