Private Client analysis: The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc v Ukraine is a fascinating and unusual case. As a matter of procedure, it was merely an appeal of a decision not to grant summary judgment over non-payments of Notes, debt instruments in the Eurobond form. However, this took the Supreme Court on lengthy journey through the doctrines of capacity to contract, of apparent and ostensible authority, and of duress; and how all three intertwine with the plane of international law. The international law doctrine of countermeasures also featured. The Supreme Court ultimately held in the majority judgment that:—(1) foreign states recognised by Her Majesty’s government are unlimited in their capacity to contract even where they lacked capacity under their own domestic constitutional processes; (2) the conduct and context of the major institutions of a state can constitute a representation of authority and so bind that state under the doctrine of apparent authority; (3) although breaches of international law cannot themselves constitute duress without first having been incorporated in some way in English domestic law, threat to the person is a part of English law and the threat of invasion by a foreign state is a form of threat to the person and can found a defence of duress; (4) the doctrine of countermeasures was not recognised in English domestic law (Lord Carnwath dissenting). In some respects, this case is sui generis. The most novel part of the judgment, the conclusion on duress in the international context, has only limited future application (or so one hopes). However, the other parts of the judgment are still welcome reassurance for creditors who provide financing to states and their executive bodies, given recent calls by some practitioners and international observers for reform. Written by Piers Digby, barrister at Radcliffe Chambers.

This week's edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes: case analysis of G (A Child: Scope of Fact-Finding), in which the Court of Appeal considered when a fact-finding hearing is necessary to inform a risk assessment and Saravanamuthu v SSCHLG on a challenge to the validity of a compulsory purchase order. Case reports include Somani Hotels Ltd v Epping Forest DC in which the court lifted the injunction on the use of hotels for asylum seekers and allowed the SSHD to join proceedings as an intervenor; R (Paul Knights) v South Norfolk DC, in which the Administrative Court quashed planning approval for ignoring key evidence; Mole Valley DC v SSHCLG in which the High Court rejected the Green Belt challenge and the application for judicial and statutory review was deemed unarguable; R (SK) v Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead in which the court set aside an interim mandatory injunction in finding that the claimant did not establish a strong case that the current accommodation was unsuitable simply due to one of the child’s temporary inpatient stays in hospital which impeded frequent visits; and Iqbal v Listing Officer Epsom, which upheld the decision that the Class G council tax exemption did not apply to the dwelling in question. Further developments include MHCLG’s launch of consultation on measures to streamline infrastructure planning process and response to the LGSCO Triennial Review declining to make use of revised Complaint Handling Code mandatory; the Cabinet Office’s update of Model Services Contract and Guidance for buyers under PA 2023; DfE notices to improve, guidance on Terrorism Act compliance for the education sector and consultation response on unregistered alternative provision standards. It includes further updates on Social housing, Social care, Education, Healthcare and Governance.

Banking & Finance analysis: This News Analysis provides a summary of the cases we have alerted in Banking & Finance for February 2025.

This Checklist is for use where you are acting for the seller on the sale of a registered freehold or leasehold commercial property either with vacant possession or subject to a lease or leases. It is not exhaustive and will not cover every eventuality for every transaction. You must always consider whether there are any other issues that need to be addressed. It is assumed that: • the property is not subject to any residential tenancies, and • the seller is solvent It includes the following key sections: • Preliminary matters • Is the property subject to a legal charge? • Before exchange of contracts • Are you ready to exchange? • Exchange of contracts • Post exchange • Between exchange and completion • Are you ready to complete? • Completion • Post completion Preliminary matters See also Practice Note: Transferring commercial property—a practical guide—Preliminary matters. Are the seller’s instructions clear? Effective due diligence and transaction management require a sound understanding of the seller’s needs and of the proposed terms of the sale. Consider

The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 (LPCD(I)A 1998, or the Act) creates rights for businesses (and organisations in the public sector) to claim interest for late payment of commercial debts and recover reasonable debt recovery costs when each party is acting in the course of business. It also enables contractual terms that do not provide a substantial remedy for late payments to be challenged. The Commercial Payments Bill was introduced to Parliament in May 2026 and is likely to have a significant impact on contractual payment provisions, interest on late payments, invoice dispute mechanisms, increased reporting on payment practices and increased powers of the Small Business Commissioner. For more information, see Related initiatives below. This Practice Note covers the following: • Contracts, organisations and debts subject to the LPCD(I)A 1998 • Rights under the Act • Calculating the statutory interest • Express terms for late payment in place of statutory interest • Meaning of ‘grossly unfair’ • Challenges by representative bodies under the Act • Which version of the legislation applies? • Related

This Practice Note considers Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) and the requirements that need to be met to show the court there is an effective choice of court agreement between the parties. It provides background information as to the position already adopted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on such agreements and what changes have been brought into place under the regulation and what that might mean in practice. Equivalent wording to Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) was found in its predecessors, being Article 17 of the Brussels Convention and Article 23 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. Cases referenced in this Practice Note therefore include those decided under that convention and regulation as they are relevant to understanding the requirements of Article 25. For general information about choice of court agreements, see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—requirements for an effective choice of court agreement (art 25). Key requirements The general rule is that a defendant is

This week's edition of Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights includes: an announcement from Companies House to postpone the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 presenter measures until November 2027, an analysis of court’s decision to use cross-class cramdown to bind dissenting landlords, including those with parent guarantees (Re Poundstretcher), analysis of the English court’s case management decision to stay proceedings pending resolution of New York proceedings relating to the Hunkemöller LME (Cheyne European Special Situations Fund Investments v TMF Trustee), plus a round-up of other news and cases for restructuring and insolvency professionals.

Banking & Finance analysis: This News Analysis provides a summary of the cases we have alerted in Banking & Finance for July 2026.

An amendment to an EU directive is set to complicate lending into the EU for non-EU banks, including UK banks. The relevant amendment was inserted into the EU Capital Requirements Directive IV (2013/36/EU) (CRD) as Article 21c by Capital Requirements Directive VI (2024/1619/EU) (CRD VI). In summary, Article 21c CRD requires EU member states to pass domestic legislation preventing in scope third country undertakings from providing core banking services into an EU member state except through an authorised branch in that member state. This means that non-EU lenders may not now be able to lend to EU borrowers directly from the UK, where previously those lenders may have been able to do. Member States were required to transpose CRD VI into national law by 10 January 2026, with the measures to actually apply from 11 January 2027—see: Article 2 CRD VI. Contracts entered into prior to 11 July 2026 can be ‘grandfathered’ (see below). The provisions also apply to the three additional EEA states, Norway,

STOP PRESS: From 1 October 2026, section 48 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 (inserting sections 14A and 15A of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006) extends right to work civil penalty liability in certain contractual arrangements, including where a supplier which, having contracted to provide services to a customer, engages a subcontractor to perform all or part of those services. Although the subcontractor remains responsible for carrying out prescribed right to work checks on individuals it employs or engages to perform the subcontracted services, the supplier may be treated as 'employing' any individual who personally performs the services and so may also be held liable for illegal working unless it satisfies the prescribed requirements for establishing a statutory excuse. The extended liability requirements apply to relevant contractual arrangements entered into on or after 1 October 2026. See News Analysis: Extended scope of the right to work regime: how will it work in practice? and LNB News 14/09/2026 18 for further information. This Practice Note will be updated shortly to reflect the changes. This

Banking & Finance analysis: This News Analysis provides a summary of the cases we have alerted in Banking & Finance from November 2025.

This week’s edition of Construction weekly highlights includes the release of the latest Building Safety Regulator (BSR) statistics on higher-risk building applications, publication by the British Standards Institution (BSI) of PAS 2000:2026 on construction product safety and due diligence, the release of the first contracts in the Scottish Building Contracts Committee (SBCC)’s 2024 suite, a case in which the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) refused to grant strike-out and summary judgment in a dispute concerning a claim under a bond and the validity and effect of an assignment (Crestline v Euroins), guidance from the National House Building Council (NHBC) on ground gas risks for residential developers, the British Property Federation (BPF)’s response to scrutiny of the Draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, and an MHCLG report examining barriers to small and medium enterprise (SME) engagement in the construction products sector.