It is assumed that the underlying contract is a generic business to business commercial contract for the supply of goods which is not governed by any specific industry or sector regulation or legislation. Additional considerations may apply, for example where the contract relates to property, or is a security, or is in a regulated industry such as finance or utilities. It is further assumed that, using the example set out above, A has been dissolved and B wishes to assign the benefit of the contract between A and B to C. Assignment of rights under a contract Commercial contracts often include provision as to the parties’ ability to assign rights under the contract (typically requiring consent to be obtained and/or notice to be provided). An assignment is the transfer of a right or an interest vested in one party to another

Once it is established that a claimant has the right to bring an unfair dismissal claim—in other words, that they were an employee, they were dismissed, their claim was presented in time and they have the requisite continuous employment, it will generally be for the employer to show: • what the reason or, if there was more than one, the principal reason was for dismissing the employee, and • that it was a potentially fair reason for dismissal For further information, see Practice Note: Reason for dismissal—general. Redundancy is a potentially fair reason for dismissal. An employee is dismissed by reason of redundancy if their dismissal is wholly or mainly attributable to: • the employer ceasing or intending to cease carrying on the business for the purpose of which the employee was employed by him • the employer ceasing or intending to cease carrying

Background The general rule of law is that any person with legal personality and capable of being identified, may sue or be sued in the English courts, but that, while this rule remains paramount, the exceptions to it are extensive and reflect the full range of diversities which inevitably exist between different persons or bodies and the legal

This situation was considered in the case of Wakeman, in which British employees brought claims of direct race discrimination on the basis that they were being paid substantially less for doing the same job than Japanese employees seconded to work in London, who continued to be employed on a Japanese pay structure. The employment tribunal, among other things, dismissed the claimants’ claims for direct race discrimination in relation to the pay package, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) rejected their appeals. Dismissing the claimants’ appeal, the Court of Appeal held: • the employment tribunal had not erred in finding that the respondents did not discriminate on racial grounds against the claimants. The tribunal was entitled to find that the higher level of pay was attributable to the seconded managers' status as secondees, and not their Japanese race or nationality • it was not necessary to disaggregate the pay package and examine its component parts;

As explained in our Q&A: What is the difference between joint insured, co-insured and composite insured? composite insurance applies where the parties are insured under the same insurance policy but have different interests under it. Each insured party is treated independently. This effectively creates separate insurance policies, for example, one between the policyholder (eg the employer) and the insurer, and a separate one between the lender and the insurer. Under composite insurance the lender has its own distinct rights under the policy. If the other party’s insurance falls away due to an act or omission, the lender’s policy should be unaffected. It is usual therefore, for a lender to require composite insurance. See

It is assumed that the insolvency provisions referred to are an express provision in the lease permitting the landlord to forfeit the lease on the grounds of tenant insolvency. Express provision permitting forfeiture for tenant insolvency A lease may contain an express proviso for the landlord to forfeit the lease in certain specified circumstances such as a failure by the tenant to pay the rent due or a failure by the tenant to observe any other covenant in the lease. One circumstance in which a lease may entitle the landlord to forfeit is the insolvency of the tenant, see Cadogan Estates Ltd v McMahon. If there is not an express term permitting forfeiture for tenant insolvency, then one will not usually be implied (see Commentary: Insolvency as a ground for forfeiture: Property Insolvency [3.6]). Property

In most cases, the terms of a tenancy (other than duration and rent) will be ordered by the court if the parties cannot agree, as the court is given wide discretion under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, s 35 (LTA 1954). However, subject to one transitional provision, the court's power under the LTA 1954, s 38(4) to authorise an agreement excluding the security provisions of the LTA 1954 was repealed with effect from 1 June 2004 by the Regulatory

Premises licences are issued under the Gambling Act 2005 (GA 2005). Responsibility for granting licences rests with local licensing authorities which are generally the district or borough council where the premises are located: GA 2005, s 2. The licensing authority’s decision to accept or reject an application involves the exercise of a statutory function

Our suggested approach is set out in our Precedent Lease of whole building under clause 22.1 which states that if the lease is disclaimed or forfeited, and within three calendar months of that disclaimer or forfeiture the landlord serves notice in writing on the guarantor requiring it to do so, the guarantor must accept a lease of the property for a term commencing on the date of disclaimer or forfeiture of this lease and

A non-disclosure agreement or confidentiality agreement is used where one or more parties wish to share confidential information. The parties expressly agree to keep the information confidential. See: Confidential information—overview. In situations where the recipient seeks to impose liability limitations, you may find the following Precedents useful: • Confidentiality agreement—one-way—pro-recipient • Limitation of liability clause The

It is not standard market practice to define materiality for this purpose. What is 'material' in respect of one warranty will commonly be quite different in another context. For example, a warranty that a company has not, since the date of its last audited accounts 'materially increased the level of its stocks' might be better replaced by a warranty that stock levels have not risen in that period by more than 10% (or whatever

A salary sacrifice is a formal contractual arrangement under which an employee gives up a right to receive part of their cash salary in exchange for a defined non-cash benefit. In principle, employees and employers can enter into this type of arrangement in relation to any benefit that they agree on. In some cases, the relevant benefits have been offered because the employer is able to purchase or provide the benefit to employees using its bulk purchasing power so that the employees receive the benefit at a discount to what they would be able to purchase individually (eg gym membership). However, until 2017 the choice of non-cash benefits had largely been driven by tax