Dispute resolution analysis: The High Court granted Maire S.p.A. a final anti-suit injunction restraining LLC EuroChem North-West-2 from pursuing Russian proceedings under English-law guarantees. The court held that it had jurisdiction and that the Russian proceedings were vexatious and oppressive because they relied on a Russian judgment obtained in breach of arbitration agreements and multiple tribunal and English court orders, and sought an illegitimate juridical advantage: the evidence indicated that the Russian courts would determine the contractors’ underlying liability without giving proper effect to English law or UK and EU sanctions. Considerations of comity did not prevent relief. The decision illustrates the circumstances in which the court may intervene even where the relevant contract does not prohibit proceedings in the foreign forum.

This Precedent uses the additional defined terms ‘Agreement’, ‘Business Day’, ‘Charges’, ‘Customer’, ‘Services’, ‘Supplier’ and ‘Supplier Personnel’, which are not specific to data processing and which it is assumed are separately defined in the relevant agreement. The Schedule Part A: Operative provisions 1 Definitions 1.1 In this Schedule: Controller • has the meaning given in applicable Data Protection Laws from time to time; Data Protection Laws • means, as binding on either party or the Services: (a) the EU GDPR; (b) the UK GDPR and the UK DPA 2018; (c) any laws which implement or supplement any such laws; and (d) any laws that replace, extend, re-enact, consolidate or amend any of the foregoing; Data Subject • has the meaning given in applicable Data Protection Laws from time to time; EEA Data Protection Laws • means Data Protection Laws applicable under the laws of the European Economic Area, the European Union or any of their member states; EEA Protected Data • has the meaning given in paragraph 4.2 of this Part A; EU GDPR • means the General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679; GDPR • means the EU GDPR and UK GDPR (as applicable in the circumstances); Personal Data • has the meaning given in applicable Data

This week's edition of Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights includes: the Insolvency (England and Wales) (Amendment) Rules 2026 were laid and come into force on 22 June 2026, the announcement of plans to establish a new High Court Business and Property Division to replace the Chancery Division, an analysis of an application to set aside a statutory demand including consideration of cross-claims, abuse, and stifling (Ezair v Rena Properties Ltd and others), plus a round-up of other news and cases for restructuring and insolvency professionals.

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note considers the question of international jurisdiction in relation to employment disputes instituted before 1 January 2021, ie whose courts and/or tribunals should decide an employment case where either the employee works abroad or there is a foreign employer. Note that jurisdiction for proceedings instituted from 1 January 2021 onwards is determined by the provisions of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA 1982). For more information, see Practice Note: International jurisdiction—the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 in employment cases. This Practice Note looks at the impact of Brexit and IP completion day and considers the relevant provisions of the Brussels I (recast) regime that applied to proceedings instituted before 1 January 2021. That regime continues to be relevant to the interpretation of CJJA 1982. Brexit impact From exit day (31 January 2020) the UK ceased to be an EU Member State but, in accordance with the transitional arrangements provided in the October Withdrawal Agreement, the UK was in an implementation

We have assumed that the query relates to a commercial contract between two business entities. 'Wilful misconduct', 'deliberate default' and similar are terms commonly used in exclusion and limitation of liability clauses in commercial agreements. However, the precise meanings of the terms are not always clear—generally, it will come down to a question of interpretation. Wilful misconduct In De Beers UK Ltd (formerly: Diamond Trading Co Ltd) v Atos Origin IT Services UK Ltd, the court (making reference to Re City Equitable Fire Insurance Company Limited) held that the term 'wilful misconduct' refers to: 'Conduct by a person who knows that he is committing, and intends to commit a breach of duty, or is reckless in the

The Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) permits an employer to make a deduction from a worker’s ‘wages’ (as defined in ERA 1996, s 27) if: • the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of: ◦ a statutory provision, eg the requirement to make deductions for income tax or National Insurance contributions via Pay As You Earn (PAYE), or ◦ a relevant provision of the worker's contract, eg where the employer provides a loan to the worker and has a contractual right to take money out of the worker's wages in repayment, or • the worker has previously signified in writing their agreement or consent to the deduction For further information, see, generally, Practice Note: Deductions from wages, and

The meaning and effect of a rent review clause is always a matter of interpretation of the particular words used, subject to all the usual principles of construction. See Practice Note: Contract interpretation—the guiding principles and Commentary: Construction generally: Hill and Redman's Law of Landlord and Tenant [1868]. Subject to that caveat, as pointed out in Commentary: The date from which rent becomes payable: Hill and Redman's Law of Landlord and Tenant [2265]: ‘In nearly all cases the reviewed rent will be payable from the review date in substitution for the rent previously payable. A well drawn rent review clause will provide expressly that this is to occur. In the absence of an express

If there is a determined lease on the face of the office copy entries of the title your client is seeking to buy, then this should either be removed by the seller prior to sale (preferable), or the seller should provide the buyer with all the relevant evidence of determination (see below) to enable the buyer to remove the lease during its registration process, together with an indemnity in the sale contract to deal with all matters and cover all costs in connection with the removal of the lease from the register. Practice guide 26: leases—determination sets out in detail what evidence is required by the Land Registry to remove the entry relating to the determined

This Q&A relates to section 1 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (LRA 1967), whereby a tenant of a long leasehold house and any attendant premises (eg a garden, garage, yard etc) who has owned the property for at least two years has a statutory right to acquire the freehold (as opposed to the statutory right to an extended lease as to which, see Practice Note: Guide to the right to enfranchisement and lease extensions of houses under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (LRA 1967)). It is not possible to contract out of the right to enfranchise under LRA 1967. Exclusions It is not possible to enfranchise under the following circumstances: • the house let is ancillary to other land or premises

Mutual Wills The defining characteristic of a mutual Will is that an identifiable contract exists in which the testators agree: • to execute Wills in a certain form, and • not to revoke or amend dispositions made in the mutual Will in the future, unless both testators consent See Dufour v Pereira and Charles v Fraser at 59. The natural consequence of this agreement is that a testator’s testamentary freedom is effectively diminished. However, for sacrificing testamentary freedom, mutual Wills permit a testator to control their assets in the future while still gifting such assets away to named beneficiaries. This flexibility is useful in situations when, for example, couples wish to ensure assets pass to children, but the testators have concern that the surviving partner may decide to change their Will in the future and benefit children from a previous or future marriage. For

This question raises the requirement to comply with the terms of a break clause if a tenant is to bring a tenancy to an end. The courts are quite strict when it comes to determining when it has to be exercised. Time is of the essence as is compliance with the terms of the clause. As Lord Diplock in the House of Lords decision in United Scientific Holdings Ltd v Burnley Borough Council giving the majority judgment put it: ‘…the exercise of this option by the tenant will have the effect of depriving the landlord of the existing source of income from his property and the evident purpose of the stipulation as to notice is to leave him free thereafter to enter into a contract with a new tenant for a tenancy commencing at the date of surrender provided

This Q&A considers only the law of England and Wales. Note that the transferor may be subject to legal obligations in relation to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE 2006) and other matters in respect of the non-UK employees in the jurisdictions in which those employees work. Legal advice should be sought from specialists in those jurisdictions accordingly. For further general information on questions of applicable law and jurisdiction, see Practice Notes: Applicable law—which system of law applies to the contract or employment relationship and International jurisdiction—allocating employment cases between national courts and tribunals pre-1 January 2021 [Archived]. Where there is a business transfer or service provision change amounting to a relevant transfer under TUPE 2006, the transferor and the transferee have certain obligations to inform and consult. For further