This is the document in which the Authority sets out what it requires from the project in terms of the works and services to be carried out. This can be (and usually is) an output-based document which allows Project Co to respond and say how it will meet these requirements.

This is the document in which the Authority sets out what it requires from the project in terms of the works and services to be carried out. This can be (and usually is) an output-based document which allows Project Co to respond and say how it will meet these requirements.

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.

Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society (ALCS) does not deal with ‘primary rights’ (distribution rights) and remuneration, as these are dealt with via a writer’s publishing contract with their publisher, or the producer of their work. ALCS deals with ‘secondary rights’ where a third party uses a work that’s already been distributed to the public, for example, when schools photocopy books they own, or libraries lend books, or overseas TV companies retransmit UK TV signals. Royalties from ‘secondary rights’ are paid to writers through ALCS—unless the royalties come from UK library lending, when the Public Lending Right pays them.

A government scheme to compel employers to provide pensions for employees. All eligible employees should have been enrolled by 1 February 2018. Employers must make contributions towards their employees' pensions.

Ireland—Employment analysis: This article, was written by A&L Goodbody LLP’s Pensions Team. The introduction of the State’s automatic retirement savings system called ‘MyFutureFund’ has gained a lot of media coverage over the last week.

Smart boxes installed at the customer's home, which automatically dial the prefix to route calls to the selected CPS communications provider.

Pensions analysis: This decision by the General Regulatory Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) is a rare example of a successful reference by an employer following the imposition by the Pensions Regulator of a fixed penalty notice and then an escalating penalty notice following a failure to pay contributions as required by the auto-enrolment provisions of the Pensions Act 2008. It helpfully summarises the statutory context and previous decisions of the Upper Tribunal relevant to the scope and nature of the jurisdiction of the FTT to consider a reference in such a case and the matters to be taken into consideration. It then considers the merits of the appellant’s case of ‘reasonable excuse’ based on post going astray. It gives a useful insight into the sort of evidence which may support a case of reasonable excuse in such circumstances, while warning employers against failure to take reasonable steps to ensure that post is delivered. Written by Elizabeth Ovey, barrister, Radcliffe Chambers.

The auto-enrolment regime under Part 1 of the Pensions Act 2008 requires employers to assess their workers and, where the statutory conditions are met, enrol them into an appropriate pension scheme. From the moment a new employer determines they need to hire a worker (for further information on which, see Practice Note: Worker status), they should take the steps outlined in this Checklist to ensure compliance with the auto-enrolment regime. For an overview of the auto-enrolment regime, see Practice Note: Auto-enrolment—an introduction. The Pensions Regulator (TPR) provides guidance and an online tool to help new employers prepare for and comply with their duties. Review recruitment materials and processes New employers should ensure that their recruitment processes comply with the auto-enrolment rules on prohibited recruitment conduct. Job adverts, application forms, interviews, information about the role and proposed employment terms must not state or imply that an applicant’s prospects depend on whether they might opt out of automatic enrolment. Nor can the employer be seen to encourage or otherwise induce a worker to opt out after they’ve been hired. For

Pensions analysis: The appellant company appealed against notices issued by the Pensions Regulator (TPR) imposing a fixed penalty and an escalating penalty as a result of the company’s failure to complete its redeclaration of compliance by the required date. The company’s director sought a review of the notices on the ground that they were sent to an address to which he did not have access. TPR declined to conduct a review on the ground the application was out of time, a conclusion which depended on whether the notices had been “issued” and was relevant to the question whether the First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction to deal with the references made to it. In finding that the notices had been issued, the Tribunal set out in detail evidence as to tPR’s systems for issuing notices, directed that the general evidence need not be repeated in future cases and gave guidance as to evidence that the systems had been operated in any particular case. Written by Elizabeth Ovey, barrister at Radcliffe Chambers.

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: The unfair dismissal compensatory award cap is used to calculate the compensation limit under sections 56(3)–(4) of the Pensions Act 2008 (PenA 2008). From 1 January 2027, section 25 of the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025) removes that cap from section 124 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. ERA 2025, s 154 and Sch 3, para 5 permit consequential regulations to specify a replacement limit for these pension-related detriment claims. Compensation under PenA 2008, s 56(3) will therefore not necessarily become uncapped. However, regulations are yet to be introduced. This Practice Note will be reviewed once further information is available. For further information on ERA 2025 and to track its progress, see Practice Note: Employment Rights Act 2025—tracker. This Practice Note considers the various sanctions that are imposed upon employers and other parties for non-compliance with the pensions auto-enrolment regime and the protections afforded to workers under the regime. It considers automatic unfair dismissal or detriment for pensions reasons, whistleblowing, and enforcement. Settlement of relevant claims by COT3 or settlement agreement (formerly

This Practice Note answers frequently asked questions about practical aspects of auto-enrolment, including worker assessment, postponement, opt-out and re-enrolment, salary sacrifice, TUPE transfers, scheme certification, provider changes and correcting non-compliance. For general guidance on the auto-enrolment regime, see Practice Note: Auto-enrolment—an introduction. What is the practical difference between an eligible jobholder, a non-eligible jobholder and an entitled worker? The category into which a worker falls determines whether the employer must enrol them automatically, must enrol them if they opt in, or need only arrange access to a pension scheme if they ask to join. Each category requires the individual to be a worker who works or ordinarily works in Great Britain under the worker’s contract. For further information on the meaning of ‘worker’, see Practice Note: Worker status. An eligible jobholder is broadly a worker aged at least 22 but under state pension age whose qualifying earnings exceed the earnings trigger. The employer must automatically enrol an eligible jobholder into an ‘automatic enrolment scheme’ unless an exception applies. For the 2026/27 tax year, the earnings trigger is £10,000 a year and