The literal rule is a rule of statutory interpretation and is where the courts simply look at the words of the statute and apply them as they are written giving them their ordinary and natural meaning.

This Agreement is made on [insert date] between the following parties (each a ‘party’ and together the ‘parties’): Parties 1 [insert Company name] a company incorporated in England and Wales whose registered number is [insert Company number] and whose registered office is at [insert registered office] (the Company); and 2 [insert Author name] of [address] (the Author). Background (A) The Author is the owner of the worldwide copyright in the literary work published by [name] entitled [title] (the Work). (B) The Author has agreed to option and assign to the Company certain rights in and to the Work subject to the conditions and for the consideration set out in this Agreement. The parties agree: 1 Definitions and interpretation 1.1 The following definitions apply in this Agreement: Act • means the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988; Final Budget • means the above and below the line production budget of the applicable Production (as approved by the financiers of the Production) less any contingency, completion guarantee fees, finance fees (being commitment and finders’ fees and the like) and interest, financier overhead fees, insurance costs, legal and accountancy fees, deferments and the sums payable to the Author under clauses 2.1, 4.1 and 4.5; Merchandising

A literary work is a copyright work, other than a dramatic or musical work, which is written, spoken or sung.

A conversation with Kaupo Lepasepp and Mantas Petkevičius, partners at regional law firm SORAINEN, on the key issues on foreign direct investment (FDI) control in Lithuania. 1. What is the applicable legislation? Areas in the scope of the screening obligation are set out in: • the Law on the Protection of Objects Important for Ensuring the National Security of the Republic of Lithuania (the ‘Law on National Security’) • the Resolution of the Government No. 556 (the ‘Resolution 556’) which defines the list of economic activities considered strategically important economic sectors for national security • the Resolution of the Government No. 746 (the ‘Resolution 746’) which defines the list of protection zones for equipment and property important for national security (the ‘Protection zone(s)’) • the Resolution of the Government No. 1540 (the ‘Resolution 1540’) which defines the procedure of the preliminary screening. • EU Regulation 2019/452 (the “EU FDI Screening Regulation”) which establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union 2. Which government or other body (or bodies) reviews foreign investments? The Commission

This table summarises all completed investigations by Lithuania’s competition authority (the Konkurencijos Taryba—KT) into alleged cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions (Articles 101/102 TFEU and national equivalents) since 2018. Note—only investigations that have been made public are included in this table. 2026 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/Article 5 of the National Law on Competition Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Information services• Modulasoft • Saisto Projektai Restrictive agreements—bid rigging • Infringement decision announced—08/10/2026; fines totalling €9,760 Vehicle spare parts• Manado• Parts Ready Restrictive agreements and cartel • Infringement decision announced—12/02/2026; fines totalling €41,080 Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/Article 9 of the National Law on Competition The KT has not yet issued any decisions under Article 102/Article 9 in 2026 2025 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/Article 5 of the National Law on Competition The KT did not issue any decisions under Article 101/Article 5 in 2025 Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/Article 9 of the National Law on Competition The KT did not issue any decisions under Article 102/Article 9 in 2025 2024 Investigations

NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in Lithuania and throughout the world are met, see Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Lithuanian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Lithuania? Gun-jumping remained a key enforcement priority for the Lithuanian Competition Council in 2026, while the year also introduced a simplified merger notification process and increased clarity through guidelines on ex post merger reviews (review of transactions that fall below the notification thresholds). At the same time, the Competition Council has been more willing to accept proportionate remedies where concerns can be resolved. As of 15 January 2026, the merger notification procedure was simplified to reduce administrative burdens. For example, companies no longer need to submit a signed confirmation of gross income in Lithuania or distinguish between activities, etc. On 6 August 2026 the Competition Council also issued guidelines on Article 13 of the Law on Competition No. VIII‑1099 of 23 March 1999 (Law on Competition). These guidelines explain in

A party to any proceedings who does not have a solicitor or other legal representative duly authorised to represent him or her in those proceedings.

This Practice Note considers the provisions and authorities relating to costs management and costs budgeting in cases involving litigants in person (LIPs). It considers the application of CPR 3 and CPR PD 3D in proceedings involving LIPs, the requirements under CPR 3.1A(2) and the overriding objective, the exemptions from the obligation to file a costs budget or budget discussion report (Precedent R) and considerations when seeking to vary or agree budgets in cases involving an LIP. It also covers the guidance produced by the Law Society, CILEx and Bar Council when dealing with cases involving LIPs and costs. Cost management The overriding objective makes it clear that the court, so far as is practicable, ensures 'that the parties are on an equal footing' (CPR 1.1(2)(a)) and in cases involving a litigant in person (LIP), effective cost management has an important role in ensuring this. When dealing with multi-track civil litigation, the proceedings may be subject to formal costs management process which includes the requirement to provide costs budgets and the court's making of a

This Practice Note considers the provisions and authorities relating to quantification of costs claimable by Litigants in Person (LiPs). It covers the two-thirds rule which applies to compensation for proven losses and what a LiP needs to show to be able to claim more than the fixed LiP hourly rate (ie to prove financial loss) and how the time they claim will be assessed including cases where the court has considered quantifying financial loss in LiP cases. It also considers the other measure of time, that is time spent, and the hourly rates which apply in these cases. CPR 46.5(4) sets out how the costs will be calculated and this is either by reference to: • proven financial loss, or • the amount for the time reasonably spent on doing the work at a fixed rate, currently £24 per hour (CPR PD 46, para 3.4). Note, prior to 1 October 2025, the rate was £19 per hour. The rate of £24 per hour applies to the time reasonably spent carrying out work on or

This Practice Note covers the basic rules and factors to consider when dealing with costs incurred by a litigant in person (LIP), and how parties can be classed as a LIP. It covers recovery under the provisions of the Litigant in Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975 (LP(CE)A 1975) (as amended), definitions of ordinary LIPs and legal professional LIPs and introduces the CPR and common law provisions governing recovery by LIPs. Abbreviations used in this Practice Note: • LIP—Litigant in person • LP(CE)A 1975—Litigant in Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975 (as amended) • ordinary LIPs—Litigants in person excluding practising solicitors • legal professional LIPs—Litigants in person who are practising legal professionals such as solicitors or barristers Definition of a LIP A LIP is not limited to a person who conducts litigation without a solicitor or barrister.. The term ‘litigant in person’ is not completely defined within the CPR, although CPR 46.5(6) provides a list of persons/entities covered by the term for the purposes of costs recovery. It includes: • a company acting without a

This Practice Note considers the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and Practice Directions governing the recovery of costs by a litigant in person (LIP). It explains the operation of CPR 46.5 which provides that a LIP can recover their costs (on summary assessment or detailed assessment) for the same categories of work and disbursements which a legally represented applicant could recover, limited to two-thirds of the reasonable amount which would be payable to a notional lawyer. It explains the applicable hourly rate for recovery by LIPs, where financial loss cannot be proven, and how the courts have been interpreting this. It also covers situations where ‘McKenzie Friends’ are involved and how the courts deal with their costs. Abbreviations used in this Practice Note: • LIP—litigant in person • SCCO—Senior Court Costs Office Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) provisions Under CPR 46.5, LIPs are entitled to seek an order for costs. However this is subject to three key limitations: • the overall figure awarded to a LIP for costs (excluding disbursements) will not exceed two-thirds

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court has struck out a litigant in person’s counterclaim under CPR 3.4(2)(b) as an abuse of the court’s process or as otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings. In doing so, the court confirmed that the same rules apply to litigants in person as apply to represented litigants. In considering the application to strike out the counterclaim, the court also applied the principles developed for cases of application for relief from sanctions.