This week's edition of Commercial weekly highlights includes: a High Court decision in Songa Product and Chemical Tankers IV AS v Gardsea Shipping Inc holding that whether payment was made on the final banking day is determined by midnight local time at the place of performance, not the most western time zone, analysis of a Court of Appeal decision in RTM v Bonne Terre Ltd confirming that consent under data protection legislation is assessed objectively, not by reference to a data subject’s subjective state of mind or personal vulnerability; and the Competition and Markets Authority’s final infringement notice to Marks Electrical Limited imposing a £720,000 penalty for automatically opting customers into paid services without express consent under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.

This Practice Note provides practical guidance on the execution of documents by companies after 6 April 2008 (being the date on which the relevant provisions of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) came into force). It covers the execution of deeds by companies and the execution of simple contracts by and on behalf of companies. Where practitioners are advising in relation to documents executed before 6 April 2008 (for example, in the event of a dispute), the relevant provisions of the Companies Act 1985 should be considered. In this Practice Note, it is assumed that the company executing the document in question is a private company governed by CA 2006 and that the document is in writing. For execution considerations for other legal entities, see: Execution—overview. We have produced a collection that is a comprehensive, interactive resource to help users identify and work through the concepts and common issues when executing documents, including information relating to the execution of deeds and simple contracts by and on behalf of companies. Each section or phase includes practical guidance, precedent clauses and Q&As relevant to that section.

The Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) prohibits: • a public company (or a subsidiary of it, whether a public or private company) from giving financial assistance directly or indirectly for the purpose of: ◦ the acquisition by a person of that public company's shares, whether the assistance is given before or at the same time as the acquisition takes place, or ◦ reducing or discharging a liability incurred for the purpose of acquiring that public company’s shares, where the shares have been acquired by a person (and whether or not the liability was incurred by that person or someone else), and • a public company, which is a subsidiary of a private company, from giving financial assistance directly or indirectly for the purpose of: ◦ the acquisition by a person of that private parent company’s shares, whether the assistance is given before or at the same time as the acquisition takes place, or ◦ to reduce or discharge a liability incurred for the purpose of acquiring that private parent company’s shares, where the shares have been acquired

This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes analysis of the Building (Higher-Risk Buildings Procedures) (Wales) Regulations 2025, publication of further regulations and guidance from the Welsh Government on building regulations in Wales, publication of guidance by the Scottish Government guidance on its Compliance Plan Approach (CPA) for high risk buildings in Scotland, launch of a consultation on the creation of a single construction regulator, a case in which the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) considered whether an adjudicator’s ‘approximate’ valuation gave rise to a breach of natural justice (Project One v VMA), and an announcement by the Construction Leadership Council (CLC) that the Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) has opened applications for the Construction Products Register of Specialists.

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes: analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including new guidance on the Damage Claims Portal and Online Civil Money Claims Pilot and the Court of Appeal decision in Morris v Williams & Co Solicitors (A Firm) (litigating multiple claims on one claim form); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

This week's edition of Commercial weekly highlights includes: analysis of the High Court's decision in Illiquidx Ltd v Atlana Wealth Ltd where it ruled that the defendant had breached the terms of the non-disclosure agreement by misusing confidential information, commentary on the Supreme Court's rejection of Dyson's application to challenge jurisdiction in a forced labour claim, and news that the Advertising Standard Authority published its 2024 Influencer Ad Disclosure monitoring report.

This Practice Note considers how to enforce a settlement agreement concluded after proceedings have been issued. It discusses enforcement of settlement agreements in various scenarios, including when settling by using a consent order or a Tomlin order and under Part 36. Discontinuance of proceedings, rather than settlement by agreement of a consent order or Tomlin order, is also addressed. For guidance on enforcing a settlement concluded before proceedings have been issued, see Practice Note: Enforcing a settlement agreement concluded pre-action. Has the settlement been incorporated in a judgment or court order? Where a claim is settled after proceedings have been issued, it is important to provide in the agreement how those proceedings are to be terminated or otherwise dealt with. The settlement may itself take the form only of a consent order if the claim is very straight forward and not confidential if the settlement relates only to a case management issue within the proceedings. More likely, however, a detailed settlement agreement with future executory terms will have been negotiated to dispose

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note introduces the data export restriction under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998) prohibiting the transfer of personal data to a territory outside of the European Economic Area (EEA) unless there is an adequate level of privacy protection for their personal data. This archived Practice Note provides information on the data protection regime before 25 May 2018 and reflects the position under the DPA 1998. This Practice Note is for background information only and is not maintained. For further information on the position under the General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the GDPR), see Practice Notes: Introduction to the EU GDPR and UK GDPR, which includes a section on International personal data transfers and personal data transfers to international organisations and UK GDPR and EU GDPR—transfers of personal data internationally and to international organisations. For a comparison between the position under the GDPR and the preceding data protection regime, see Practice Note: DPA 1998 to GDPR comparison—international data transfers of personal data [Archived]. For a comprehensive

FORTHCOMING CHANGE relating to discovery assessment time limits and the correction of errors: on Legislation Day, 13 July 2026, draft legislation was published for inclusion in Finance Bill 2027 (also known as Finance Bill 2026–27) to introduce a new statutory duty for taxpayers to take reasonable steps to correct inaccuracies in documents submitted to HMRC once they become aware of them. As part of these measures, it is proposed that section 118(6) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 will be amended so that a failure to take reasonable steps to inform HMRC of an inaccuracy in information provided to HMRC may result in the inaccuracy being treated as deliberate, rather than careless, with potential material implications for the discovery assessment time limits that accordingly apply. For more information, see News Analysis: Legislation Day: Draft Finance Bill 2027—Tax analysis. By way of background relating to this development, on 15 February 2024, the government published a call for evidence entitled ‘The Tax Administration Framework Review: enquiry and assessment powers, penalties, safeguards’ inviting views on how

This Agreement is made on [date] Parties 1 [Insert name of supplier company], a company incorporated in [England and Wales] under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at [insert registered office] (Supplier); and 2 [Insert name of customer company], a company incorporated in [England and Wales] under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at [insert registered office] (Customer), each of the Supplier and Customer being a party and together the Supplier and Customer are the parties. Background (A) The Supplier is a supplier of[ IT products and services]. (B) The Customer has appointed the Supplier, subject to this Agreement, to supply Products and/or Services as set out in the Statements of Work. The parties agree: 1 Definitions and interpretation 1.1 In this Agreement: Agreement Term • has the meaning given in clause 3.1; Business Day • means a day other than a Saturday, Sunday or bank or public holiday in England; Commencement Date • means the date of this Agreement; Confidential Information • has the meaning given in clause 10; Customer Default • means the Customer’s: (i) breach of any of its obligations under this Agreement; (ii) negligence; or (iii) other unlawful act or omission; Customer

This Practice Note summarises Directive (EU) 2019/633 of 17 April 2019 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain (EU UTP Directive). It provides details on the background, scope, enforcement of the EU UTP Directive. It explains the practices which are allowed provided that the supplier and the buyer agree on them beforehand in a clear and unambiguous manner and the unfair trading practices which are regarded as unfair in all circumstances. The EU UTP Directive was adopted on 17 April 2019, EU Member States had to transpose it by 1 May 2021 and had to apply the measures by 1 November 2021. This Directive aims to protect weaker suppliers in the agriculture and food supply chain, against stronger buyers. Background Over the last three decades, the business-to business (B2B) food and non-food supply chain was impacted by an increased concentration of bargaining power and vertical integration across the EU,

What is the ICC? The ICC was founded in 1919 in the aftermath of the First World War to promote international commerce and cooperation. The ICC Court was established in 1923 as the ICC’s arbitration body. It quickly grew in importance, to the extent that, during the Second World War, the ICC Court moved into temporary accommodation in neutral Sweden. The ICC pioneered international commercial arbitration as it is known today, initiating and leading the movement that culminated in the adoption of the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention), the most important multilateral treaty on international arbitration—see Practice Note: The New York Convention—the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards—an introduction. The ICC Court has also developed dispute resolution mechanisms specifically conceived for business disputes in an international context. The ICC provides parties with a flexible and neutral setting for dispute resolution. It offers confidentiality and freedom for parties to choose the framework for how and where they want