Packet delay variation. It is defined by the ITU (International Telecommunication Union) as: 'End-to-end 2-point IP packet delay variation (PDV) is defined based on the observations of corresponding IP packet arrivals at ingress and egress MP (eg MPDST, MPSRC). These observations characterise the variability in the pattern of IP packet arrival events at the egress MP and the pattern of corresponding events at the ingress MP with respect to a reference delay.' Jitter may be caused by electromagnetic interference and crosstalk with carriers of other signals and can introduce clicks or other undesired effects in audio signals and loss of transmitted data between networks.

This Practice Note examines the importance of drawing up a job description and person specification as part of the recruitment process. Whether an organisation has a dedicated personnel or HR team, or devolves recruitment responsibilities to line managers and supervisors, it is important that anyone involved in recruitment is aware of the principles of good practice, particularly in relation to discrimination and data protection. It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person: • in the arrangements the employer makes for deciding to whom to offer employment, or • as to the terms on which the employer offers a person employment, or • by not offering a person employment For further guidance, see Practice Note: Employment events which give rise to discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims. Employers should therefore ensure that any procedure involving applicants being invited to submit applications for a vacancy is fair, objective and free from bias. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) Employment Statutory Code of Practice (EHRC Code) contains a number of recommendations in relation

A: The role Information Details Job title [Insert title] Job ref [Insert reference] Department [Insert department] Section [Insert section] Reports to [Insert relevant management structure] Primary location [Insert the primary location for this role—if there is a requirement for the role holder to regularly spend time in multiple locations, eg in each regional office, it is worth making sure this is made clear] Remote/hybrid/office-based?(Specify which office, if hybrid or office-based) [Insert type of work model] Grade [Insert details] Salary [Insert

Dispute Resolution analysis: A defendant who voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction cannot be an anchor defendant for the purposes of Gateway 3 in an application for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction. The decision of the House of Lords in John Russell and Company Ltd v Cayzer Irvine and Company Ltd remains good law. Written by Phillip Patterson, barrister, Gatehouse Chambers.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 10 December 2013; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into Johnson & Johnson and Novartis (Fentanyl) (case number COMP/39.685). Latest developments The Commission has imposed fines of €10.798m on Johnson & Johnson (and subsidiaries) and €5.493m on Novartis (and subsidiaries). Parties • Johnson & Johnson (and subsidiaries) • Novartis (and subsidiaries) Market(s) Pharmaceuticals (painkiller medicines). The drug involved is Fentanyl, a painkiller 100 times stronger than morphine. It's main use is for pain relief for cancer sufferers. Issues Agreement

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 18 April 2012; it is no longer maintained. See further, case facts, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the acquisition by Johnson & Johnson of Synthes (Case M.6266) Parties Johnson & Johnson and Synthes Both companies are based in the USA and active in the production of orthopaedic medical devices. Market(s) Production

CASE HUB Archived—This archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the abandonment of the transaction on 8 April 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the proposed acquisition by Johnson & Johnson of the haemostatic patch product TachoSil from Takeda Pharmaceuticals International AG (Case M.9547). The transaction involves an horizontal overlap in the market for haemostatic patches. Latest developments On 8 April 2020, the notification to the Commission was withdrawn and the parties announced that they had abandoned the transaction. Parties Johnson & Johnson (J&J): J&J is headquartered in the US. It is the parent company of a global group active in the provision of pharmaceutical products, medical devices and consumer healthcare products.. Takeda Pharmaceuticals International AG (Takeda): Takeda is an affiliate of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, a public company incorporated in Japan. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited is the parent company of a global pharmaceutical group. Takeda focuses its activities in the following therapeutic areas: gastroenterology, neuroscience,

Joinder of issue describes the point in civil or criminal proceedings when the parties’ positions are clearly opposed on the facts and/or law, so that there is a defined dispute for the court to determine. It commonly arises when a defendant serves a defence (or, in criminal cases, enters a plea), putting the claimant’s or prosecutor’s case “in issue”.In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the concept is reflected in the Civil Procedure Rules and criminal procedure, but “joinder of issue” is largely used as a descriptive procedural term rather than a statutory definition. In Ireland, the expression is likewise used in pleadings and procedural texts to mark when matters are formally contested. In Scotland, similar ideas exist through the closing of the record or fixing the proof, though the specific phrase “joinder of issue” is less frequently used.Practically, joinder of issue is important for case management, disclosure, evidential preparation and the framing of issues for trial or proof. It defines what is admitted, what is denied, and what the court must adjudicate, and can affect costs, burden of proof and the scope of argument at hearing.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case concerned the attempted addition of two new parties to existing proceedings. The application was made at a relatively early stage, before statements of case had closed. Although the court ultimately refused the application, the judgment provides some interesting analysis of the procedural approach that should be adopted and the key matters that should be taken into consideration. In particular, although the CPR does not expressly provide that the existing parties should be notified of a joinder application, the judge considered that as a matter of common sense this ought to occur, not least so that the case management implications of joinder can properly be canvassed and considered. Written by Rachel Turner, senior associate at PCB Litigation LLP.

This Practice Note sets out the procedure to add a third party to financial proceedings as specified by the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010). It provides guidance on when it may be appropriate for a third party to be added on the court’s own initiative, on the application of an existing party, or on an application by the third party, and where the responsibility for making a joinder application may lie. It also examines guidance given by the courts as to the joinder of parties and specific cases where joinder may arise, for example in cases involving trusts, business assets or litigation funding providers. FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 9.26B provides that the court may direct that a person or body be added as a party to proceedings for a financial remedy if: • it is desirable to add the new party so that the court can resolve all the matters in dispute in the proceedings, or • there is an issue involving the third party and an existing party that is connected to the

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 6 October 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Joined Cases C- 174/19 Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission and C- 175/19 Stena Line Scandinavia v Commission—appeals against the General Court’s judgments in Cases T- 630/15 and T- 631/15, which partially annulled the Commission’s decision to approve aid for the financing of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project between Denmark and Germany (SA.39078). Latest development On 6 October 2021, the Court of Justice issued its judgment in which it dismissed the appeals in their entirety. Parties Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland (together, Scandlines) and their parent Scandferries Holdings ApS owned by a consortium consisting of First State Investments, Hermes Investment Management and equity investor 3i Group. Scandlines operates ferry services between Denmark and Germany on two routes, Rødby–Puttgarden and Gedser–Rostock (the former across the Fehmarn Belt). Stena

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 4 September 2014; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline National reference from the Italian Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio to the Court of Justice requesting a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU seeking to clarify whether national legislation on the carriage of goods by road (which, in particular, provides that charges payable by customers may not be lower than minimum operating costs) is compatible with the principles of free competition, free movement of undertakings, freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services. Parties • Anonima Petroli Italiana SpA (Anonima) • Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico• Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Lazio Regional Administrative Court)Anonima is an Italian company active in the supply of crude oil to the petrochemical industry and the distribution of petroleum products. It is the most important subsidiary of the holding company Gruppo api. Market(s) Road haulage services in Italy. Background to reference The reference was made by the Lazio Regional Administrative