Introduction An offshore wind farm is a power plant that contains all the facilities needed to capture wind power, transform it into electricity and supply it to the main electricity network, or a local grid. Offshore wind is becoming an increasingly important source of renewable energy to combat climate change, with the UK and Europe being world leaders in the development of offshore wind farms. While the recent gas shortages and low wind levels in Europe have highlighted the vulnerabilities of depending on offshore wind for energy security, it is undeniable that offshore wind remains a vital, growing part of the global energy mix, especially through rapid growth in China. In recent years, the offshore wind industry has enjoyed a boom in Europe, particularly in the UK, which is now one of the world’s largest offshore wind markets and home to some of the world’s largest operational offshore wind projects. The UK aims to secure 50 GW of offshore wind energy by 2030, 5 GW of which is intended to utilise

This Practice Note considers the required elements to bring a claim for knowing receipt, including what is trust property, the complex question as to what level or type of knowledge is required and the need for a causal link between the breach of trust/fiduciary duty and the defendant’s receipt. In so doing it considers some of the uncertainties flagged by the Supreme Court in its 2023 judgment in Byers v Saudi National Bank. A claim for knowing receipt is sometimes referred to as a claim of accessory liability or secondary liability, in that the claim is not brought against the primary wrongdoer. It is also sometimes referred to as a claim for ‘unconscionable receipt’. It is not a claim which requires dishonesty on the part of the defendant. Due to the ‘unconscionable’ element of the claim, it is one which is often pursued in the context of ‘civil fraud’ scenarios, although it is not a claim which requires dishonesty on the part of the recipient defendant. For guidance on the accessory liability claim

This Practice Note sets out specific types of claims and considers which jurisdictional gateway(s) may be appropriate when seeking permission to serve a claim form out of the jurisdiction. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Cross-border service—jurisdictional gateways (principles). Breach of confidence claims Prior to October 2015, difficulties were encountered when determining which gateway a breach of confidence claim would fall within. This was resolved on 1 October 2015, when gateway 21 came into force as it specifically applies when dealing with claims for breach of confidence and misuse of private information. For guidance, see Practice Note: Cross-border service—jurisdictional gateways 21–23 (breach of confidence/misuse of information). Claims involving digital assets The law and procedure dealing with disputes involving digital assets is relatively new and constantly evolving. When considering issues of service, it is important to have an understanding of the current position when looking to serve a claim form in proceedings involving digital assets. For guidance, see Practice Note: Cross-border service—jurisdictional gateways (claims involving digital assets). Defamation

This Practice Note explains what a company’s constitution is. It centres on the integral part of a company’s constitution; the articles of association. It considers the definition of a company’s constitution under the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), covers the nature of the articles of association and summarises the common provisions in a company’s articles. This Practice Note also considers entrenched provisions in the articles and the significance of the memorandum of association. What is a company's constitution? A company’s 'constitution' is defined under the CA 2006 as including: • the company’s articles of association, and • any resolutions and agreements affecting a company’s constitution The CA 2006 definition of 'constitution' is non-exhaustive and also refers to other documents forming part of the constitution of a company, including: • the certificate of incorporation and any certificates of incorporation on change of name • a current statement of capital (or statement of guarantee for a company limited by guarantee), and • any court orders or enactments altering the company’s constitution or sanctioning a compromise, arrangement, reconstruction or amalgamation Before

[To be typed on headed notepaper of the employer’s solicitors] Strictly private and confidential—to be read by addressee only [Insert name of employee] [Insert address of employee] [Insert date] [By hand OR By email] Dear [insert name of employee] Our client: [Enter name of Employer] We are instructed on behalf of [enter name of Employer] of [enter Employer’s full address] in relation to [the commencement of your employment OR your proposed employment] by [enter name of New Employer] following [your purported resignation from OR the termination of your employment with] [enter name of Employer] on [enter date]. Your employment with [enter name of Employer] [Enter details of the Employee’s employment with the Employer, including the date employment commenced, the Employee’s role and responsibilities, exposure to confidential information and trade connections] [Enter details of the circumstances surrounding the termination of the Employee’s employment or the Employee’s purported resignation, their joining or being due to join the competitor New Employer and the competitive threat to the Employer that will result/has resulted] Your obligations You remain subject to

Strictly private and confidential To: [insert buyer name] [insert buyer address] Date: [insert date] Dear [insert buyer contact name], Proposed acquisition of the business of [insert name of business being acquired] 1 Introduction 1.1 We refer to the recent discussions concerning the proposed sale by [insert seller name] (the Seller) of [insert description of the business being sold] (the Business) operating under the name [insert name of business being sold] (the Business Name), as a going concern, together with [insert description of the assets being sold] (the Assets) to [insert buyer name] (or a member of its group of companies) (the Buyer) (the Proposed Acquisition). Each of the Seller and the Buyer is a party and together they are the parties. 1.2 You have requested certain Confidential Information[ (and Personal Data)] ([each as ]defined below) be made available to you, your directors, officers, employees, agents and [legal and financial advisers OR professional advisers OR advisers] in order to enable both you and them to evaluate the Business and the Assets and to consider and negotiate the terms of the Proposed Acquisition. In consideration

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the Law Society’s briefing to Parliament on the Assisted Dying and the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill; (2) CIOT responses to Finance Bill 2025–26 and draft legislation on IHT Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief, modernising and mandating tax adviser registration with HMRC, and proposals to close in on promoters of marketed tax avoidance; (3) the FTT decision in Collingwood v Revenue and Customs Commissioners that sponsorship payments are taxable as income; (4) potential reform of pension salary sacrifice arrangements in the November Budget; (5) analysis of Peter Dunn v Kostas Kazolides which addresses questions about limitation periods, insolvency, the formal requirements for the execution of deeds, and how variation to the contract between the principal debtor and creditor may discharge a guarantor; and (6) CCCL publishes updated Guidance to Business and Property Work at Central London.

IP analysis: The High Court ruled on a rare inquiry into damages following breach of contract and trade mark infringement, holding that: (1) it was appropriate to award damages based on a notional licence fee; (2) that the evidence provided meant that a comparable licence analysis was not a reliable basis for assessing the notional licence value; and that (3) in that context, the appropriate valuation basis was the economic benefits approach. Applying the economic benefits approach, the court calculated the notional licence fee based on the licensee's (ie the defendant's) avoided operating costs (including website, social media and marketing costs), adjusted for inflation and discounting using a 4% discount rate. This decision provides helpful guidance for practitioners on damages quantification methodologies in trade mark infringement cases, particularly highlighting the evidential requirements when seeking to rely on a comparables analysis and the practical application of the economic benefits approaches. Written by Charlotte Peach, senior associate at Taylor Wessing LLP.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This appeal concerned whether the claimant, who was the hirer of property (a bailee), could bring a claim in tort against a negligent stranger to recover damages fixed in the hire contract for the loss of use suffered by the property owner (the bailor, hire company), after the hired property was damaged by the stranger’s negligence. The issues raised included whether such a claim for liquidated damages is a claim for pure economic loss, whether the scope of a tortfeasor’s duty of care extends to such liabilities, as to the foreseeability and remoteness of the loss and as to the reasonableness of the quantum claimed. The Court of Appeal unanimously found for the defendant in respect of these issues, dismissing the claim and the appeal. Written by Quentin Tannock, a barrister at 4 Pump Court.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) partially enforced an adjudicator’s decision concerning the validity of payment and pay less notices issued by the employer, under a contract containing JCT-style payment provisions. The court agreed that the payment notice was invalid for failing to explain the basis on which the sum due had been calculated—but held that this did not invalidate a subsequent pay less notice, which set out deductions against that sum due. Although the court rejected reliance on parallel Part 8 proceedings as a basis to resist enforcement, it nevertheless determined the underlying construction issues at the parties’ invitation, and gave judgment for a reduced sum. The case clarifies the content requirements of payment and pay less notices, the limits of Part 8 arguments in enforcement proceedings, when adjudication decisions may be set off against each other, and when the court might decline to enforce an adjudicator’s decision in the face of concerns about the claimant’s solvency.

Employment analysis: Section 97(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) provides that, when determining a claimant’s qualifying service for an unfair dismissal claim, the effective date of termination (EDT) is to be extended by the notice required to be given by section 86. Section 97(2) incorporates the entirety of section 86. This means that any potential extension to the EDT under section 86(1) (to include the statutory minimum notice period) is subject to section 86(6) which preserves the right for a party to give no notice where it is entitled to treat the contract of employment as terminable by reason of the conduct of the other party. As a result, there will be no deemed extension to the EDT by the statutory minimum notice period where the employer is entitled summarily dismiss the employee, eg in a case of gross misconduct, according to the EAT.

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) has published the UK renewables deployment supply chain readiness study – 2026 update, commissioned to Baringa Partners LLP, refreshing the 2024 assessment of supply chains for key renewable technologies supporting the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan to meet at least 95% low‑carbon electricity generation by 2030. The study finds that supply chain risks have reduced since 2024 but remain most acute for offshore wind, notably turbines, floating foundations, high voltage direct current cables and converter stations, ports and installation vessels, while onshore wind and solar photovoltaic face fewer constraints, mainly transformers, switchgear, planning and grid connections, alongside cross‑cutting skills shortages. It highlights recent UK Government interventions, including increased contract for difference (CfD) Administrative Strike Prices, offshore wind supply chain investment, the Clean Industry Bonus and the Clean Energy Jobs Plan, as critical to enabling renewables deployment at scale.