This Checklist sets out the issues for a franchisor to consider when preparing to operate the franchise in an overseas territory. The advance of technology has helped facilitate the rise of a global economy. This has led to the creation of opportunities for companies to trade outside of their domestic markets and exploit developing territories. However, a number of issues arise when a franchisor is preparing to operate in an overseas territory some of which are detailed below. PESTLE analysis A franchisor may wish to carry out a political, economic, environmental, sociological, technological, legal and environmental factors (PESTLE) analysis in relation to a new territory. The information obtained from the analysis can be used as a guide to strategic decision making when considering international franchising. Below is a list of legal and non-legal issues that might arise with international franchising. Political • There may be increased political or legislative risks that should be taken into consideration by businesses before they commence operations in certain jurisdictions. These risks will vary from country to country and their perceived importance

A split reversion (also known as a severed reversion) arises where the reversion to one part of a leasehold estate is vested in one reversioner and the reversion to the remainder of the leasehold estate is vested in another reversioner. The existence of a split reversion can present a number of issues in relation to: • apportionment of rent (see Apportionment of rent and deeds of apportionment below) • compliance with the landlord covenants in the lease (see Compliance with landlord covenants below) • a buyer’s indemnity covenant (see Buyer’s indemnity covenant below) • business tenancies (see Tenancies under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 below) • forfeiture and notices to quit (see Forfeiture and notices to quit below) • surrender (see Surrender below) Examples of split reversions Two or more landlords owning separate parts of the reversion This situation can arise when two or more landlords, who own separate properties, join together to grant a single lease of all or part of their properties to a single tenant. More commonly, this situation

This Practice Note provides information on issues-based costs orders, their function and the circumstances where it may be appropriate for the court to make such an order. It also provides information on the potential difficulties with issues-based costs orders, cases where consideration has been given to whether to make an issues-based costs order against the overall successful party and the general principles the court will apply when making an issues-based costs order. Note: prior to 1 October 2013, the relevant provision as to the court’s discretion to make an issues-based costs order was found in rule 44.3 and older judgments referred to in this Practice Note reference that rule. What are issues-based costs orders? An issues-based costs order provides the court with a mechanism to allow or disallow a party its costs in relation to specific issues in the proceedings. The discretion for the court to make such an order is found in CPR 44.2(6)(f), which provides that the paying party must pay the costs incurred by the receiving party in relation to specific issues addressed

This Tracker provides examples of costs judgments where either the court has made an issues-based costs order or has refused to make an issues-based costs order. It is rare that such an order is made. In cases where such an order is made, it is important that the order is clearly measurable due to the difficulties for the solicitors in determining the costs relevant for each issue. Court makes an issues-based costs order—examples The following judgments provide examples of where the court made an issues-based costs order. The most recent judgment is listed first. Judgment, citation and news analysis Consideration Montres Breguet SA v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd [2022] EWHC 1895 (Ch) The judge referred to Pigot v Environment Agency [2020] EWHC 1444 (Ch) noting that ‘... an issues-based costs order is not justified just because a person was not successful on every issue, but may be appropriate if there is a discrete or distinct issue which caused additional costs to be incurred, or if overall costs were materially increased by the unreasonable raising of

The Insolvency Service has published issue 147 of its Dear IP newsletter. The new issue includes the Companies House Insolvency Filing Service survey as well as information on the new style VAT returns (VAT100), the advertising enforcement notice and guidance to support the IVA protocol for existing protocol compliant IVAs from 26 June 2022.

The Insolvency Service reports that the Information Sharing (Disclosure by the Registrar) Regulations 2024 (SI 2024/1378), effective from 20 December 2024, will enable the Registrar of Companies to disclose non-public information to insolvency practitioners (IPs) and The Financial Conduct Authority has published updated guidance (FG25/2) for IPs handling regulated firms, incorporating Consumer Duty requirements. Following the Pindar Scarborough Ltd (in Administration) [2024] EWHC 908 and Boughey & Anor v Toogood International Transport and Agricultural Service Ltd (in administration) [2024] EWHC 1425 court judgments, the Insolvency Service has revised its interpretation of 'creditor' status in terms of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), adopting a context-specific approach rather than maintaining its previous fixed-point definition.

HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) Family Public Law (FPL) service has issued a release note highlighting that currently applicants are not able to issue an application in Form C110A (Application for a care or supervision order and applications for other orders under Part IV of the Children Act 1989) and a supplemental application in Form C1 (Application for an order (Children Act 1989)), for example, in relation to an application for a secure accommodation order, at the same time. In addition, as both applications need to be considered together, the applicant should only be paying the higher fee for both applications. The FPL service release on 1 February 2024 will add a link to the 'add additional information' section of the service, named ‘C1 applications’ and the Form C1 application process will then be able to be added there. For an application in Form C1 added at the submission stage only with the Form C110A, there will be no link to a fee as the fee will be paid within the main Form C110A application.

The court has jurisdiction to make orders as to 'costs of and incidental to the proceedings’ in proceedings in the County Courts and High Court and the civil division of the Court of Appeal under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. It is an accepted principle that this jurisdiction applies once proceedings have commenced on the basis that: • CPR 7.2 provides that proceedings are started (i.e. commenced) when the proceedings are issued, and • the decision in Clydesdale Bank which held that the trigger for the courts’ discretion to order costs under section 51 was the issue of a claim form, not the service of it Costs implication for a claimant where a claim form has been issued but not served Applying the principles above,

THIS PRACTICE NOTE APPLIES ONLY TO DEFINED BENEFIT OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEMES When exercising its functions the Determinations Panel of the Pensions Regulator undertakes two distinct sets of procedural stages that must be followed. These two sets of stages are called: • the Standard Procedure • the Special Procedure As a ‘reserved regulatory function’ of the Pensions Regulator, the power to issue a contribution notice or a financial support direction can only be exercised by the Determinations Panel of the Pensions Regulator using the Standard Procedure. However, the Special Procedure is used where there may be a need to exercise the Regulator’s powers immediately to protect the members’ interests or scheme assets. This procedure does not apply to contribution notices and financial support directions. For further information on the Special Procedure, see The Pensions Regulator’s Determinations Panel—The Regulator’s procedures for exercising its functions. For further information on the Panel, see Practice Note: The Pensions Regulator’s Determinations Panel. Stages of the Standard Procedure The Standard Procedure has certain key stages which are set

Bankruptcy in England and Wales is the process whereby an individual is found to be insolvent, and that they should enter a formal process allowing the assets comprising their bankruptcy estate to be realised for the benefit of their creditors. There is a prescribed process which must be followed before either the court (for creditors' bankruptcy petitions) or the adjudicator (for debtors' bankruptcy applications) is able to make the bankruptcy order. Failure to follow the correct process could lead to the court or adjudicator refusing to make the bankruptcy order. For further reading on the bankruptcy process, see: • Bankruptcy—overview • Practice Note: Creditors' bankruptcy petitions—grounds and documents required for presentation • Practice Note: How to effect service of a creditor’s bankruptcy petition on the debtor and what happens if service cannot be effected • Practice Note: Bankruptcy petitions—process and procedure post-presentation of the petition On 6 April 2016, section 71 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 came into force. With

Dispute Resolution analysis: The appellant, Jian Guo, issued a professional negligence claim against her former legal representatives. The claim was struck out on the basis that it was statute barred. Relying on CPR PD 7A, para. 6.1 (previously para 5.1) and the court’s inherent jurisdiction, Guo argued that the court should have treated her claim as being brought in time on the basis of an earlier claim form she purportedly filed. The earlier claim form had been rejected by the court office due to substantive errors on its face and in the mode of filing. In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal provided useful guidance as to the meaning of the ‘claim form as issued’ for the purposes of reliance on CPR PD 7A, para. 6.1. The Court of Appeal did not need to determine whether the court’s inherent jurisdiction to allow proceedings to be brought after the expiry of the relevant limitation period had survived the implementation of the CPR. However, in the event that it had survived, the court provided helpful commentary on when such jurisdiction might bite in circumstances where a delay in getting the claim issued was due to a deficiency on the part of the court office and not the litigant. Written by Elizabeth Dwomoh, barrister, Lamb Chambers.