An AIF in which another AIF invests or has an exposure in accordance with Article 4(1)(m) of Directive 2011/61/EU. (AIFMD, art 4(1)(y)).

A UCITS, or an investment compartment thereof, which: (a) has, among its unitholders, at least one feeder UCITS, (b) is not itself a feeder UCITS, and (c) does not hold units of a feeder UCITS (Directive 2009/65/EC, Art 58(3)).

An antenna system that serves a concentration of TV sets such as in an apartment building or hotel. MATV utilises one central antenna to pick up broadcast signals.

An agreement entered into by an operator and a franchisor where the operator must operate franchise outlets itself within a designated area and may not sub-franchise to third parties.

An agreement where a franchisor grants a master franchisor the right to grant sub-franchises within a territory.

This DEED OF Agreement is made [insert date] [insert year] Parties 1 [Insert name] [of OR incorporated in [England and Wales] under number [insert company number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (the Franchisor); and 2 [Insert name] [of OR incorporated in [England and Wales] under number [insert company number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (the Master Franchisee), each a party and together the parties. BACKGROUND (A) The Franchisor has developed the Method and the Business. (B) The Franchisor [has applied to register OR is the registered proprietor of OR owns OR has the right to sub-licence] the Trade Marks. (C) The Franchisor wishes to appoint the Master Franchisee to carry on the Master Franchise Business in the Territory, including the right to appoint Unit Franchisees to carry on the Business in the Territory. (D) The Master Franchisee wishes, and is able, to accept such appointment. the parties agree: 1 Definitions and interpretation 1.1 In this Agreement: [Adverse Change of Law • means the adoption, promulgation, modification or reinterpretation of any legal requirement by any Relevant Authority after the Effective Date which materially and adversely affects the Franchisor’s ability to enjoy the economic benefits of this Agreement

A franchisor may enter into a master franchise agreement with a master franchisee, under which the franchisor grants the master franchisee the exclusive right to appoint franchisees within a specific territory in the form set out by the franchisor.

The Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, delivered a speech to the Judicial Institute for Scotland in Edinburgh on 30 April 2026 examining how artificial intelligence (AI) is expected to reshape the judiciary and the delivery of justice. He said courts across Europe would need to adapt rapidly to technological change by developing digital justice systems capable of delivering faster and more cost-effective outcomes while preserving human oversight, public confidence and the rule of law. Sir Geoffrey argued that AI would increasingly be used to inform or make routine judicial decisions, particularly in straightforward cases, and said judges and lawyers had a responsibility to redesign justice systems for future generations whose expectations had already been shaped by AI, online services and social media.

The Master of the Rolls has announced an update to Guideline Hourly Rates. These rates are used for summary assessment of court costs in England and Wales. The update provides new figures across all grades (A to D) and geographical bands, including London 1-3 and National 1-2. The rates vary based on the fee earner's experience and location, with the highest rates applicable to Grade A solicitors in London 1 at £566 per hour. This revision ensures that the guideline rates reflect current market conditions and maintain fair cost assessment practices in legal proceedings.

In a recent speech, Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, argued that artificial intelligence and climate change are creating unprecedented situations that necessitate a re-examination of fundamental human rights. He contended that current legal and regulatory approaches, including GDPR protections against automated decision-making, may be insufficient as AI capabilities rapidly advance. Sir Geoffrey proposed that the international legal community should consider new rights for individuals to preserve human decision-making in critical areas and to compel environmental action from governments and businesses. He acknowledged the complexity of defining appropriate boundaries for AI use and climate obligations, but stressed the importance of addressing these issues proactively to safeguard human agency and environmental sustainability in the machine age.

The Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, has delivered a speech at the LawtechUK Generative AI Event, advocating for the legal profession to adopt AI technologies. He outlined three key reasons: (1) as AI is being adopted across various sectors, lawyers should not remain isolated from it; (2) future legal work will likely involve AI-related liability claims, necessitating lawyers’ understanding of AI capabilities; and (3) AI will improve efficiency in legal advice and dispute resolution. Vos referenced the UK Judiciary’s Judicial Guidance for AI use, which emphasises the need to understand the capabilities and limitations of generative AI, safeguard confidential information when using public Large Language Models, and thoroughly review AI-generated content before use. He mentioned that the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce is preparing a legal statement on AI liability and highlighted the development of a Digital Justice System to resolve disputes online using AI where appropriate. Vos also called for a debate on which decision-making processes should remain human prerogatives in the AI era, suggesting that existing human rights frameworks may require re-evaluation in light of advancing AI capabilities.

The Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos has delivered a speech at the Human Rights, Algorithmic Justice and Global AI Policy Conference at Durham University, addressing the potential need to amend the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) to protect human rights in the age of advanced AI. Vos highlighted the evolving acceptance of technology in society and questioned whether machines should make decisions traditionally made by humans, such as in judicial contexts. He noted the EU's AI Act, which classifies AI systems used in judicial decision-making as ‘High Risk AI systems’ and contrasted this with the more accepting stance of countries like China. Vos raised three key issues: the distinction between judicial and other decision-making; the difference between judicial decision-making and legal advice; and the rights needed to ensure just and fair decision-making in addition to Article 6 of the ECHR. He argued that judicial decisions are unique as they are the final recourse for individuals and businesses and expressed scepticism about AI being considered an ‘independent and impartial tribunal’ under Article 6. Vos concluded by emphasising the need for ongoing debate on the appropriate use of AI in judicial decision-making and the protection of human rights in this context.