This Agreement is made on [date] Parties 1 [insert name of party] [of OR a company incorporated in England and Wales under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (Manufacturer); and 2 [insert name of party] [of OR a company incorporated in England and Wales under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (Distributor); each of the Manufacturer and the Distributor being a party and together they are the parties. Background (A) The Manufacturer manufactures [and supplies] the Products. (B) The Distributor has agreed to distribute [and support] the Products on a non-exclusive basis in the Territory in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. The parties agree: 1 Definitions 1.1 In this Agreement: Active Sales • has the meaning given in Article 8(7) of VABEO; Affiliate • means any entity that directly or indirectly Controls, is Controlled by, or is in under common Control with, another entity; Business Day • means a day other than a Saturday, Sunday or bank or public holiday in England; Business Plan • means the business plan set out in Schedule 6 as modified by the Manufacturer from time to time by giving written notice to the Distributor; CMA • means

Arbitration analysis: This case involved an application to Commercial Court of Moscow Region Arbitration Court for recognition and enforcement of a Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) arbitral award. The claimant, an Austrian company, commenced SCC arbitration against the respondent, an English company, for breach of contract. The arbitral tribunal ruled in favour of the claimant and ordered the respondent to pay damages and costs in excess of EUR 2m. As the respondent did not comply with the arbitral award, the claimant sought to enforce the award in Russia against a Russian company ‘OOO Kimberli-Klark’, claiming that this company and the respondent are ‘the same economic entity’. The respondent did not attend the hearing in Russia and ‘OOO Kimberli-Klark’ provided written submissions stating that the arbitration award could not be enforced against it due to the latter not being a party to the arbitration agreement between the claimant and the respondent. The Russian court held that due to the fact that both the respondent and ‘OOO Kimberli-Klark’ belong to the same group of companies, they can be considered the same economic entity. The application to enforce the arbitration award was therefore granted. Written by Irina Tymczyszyn FCIArb, arbitrator and counsel, Tymczyszyn ArbitrationSIBUR International v Kimberly-Clark Ltd [A41-72465/2024], Arbitration Court of the Moscow Region

The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) has published its 2026 Annual Report, covering 1 July 2025–30 June 2026. ICSID administered a record 363 cases, compared with 347 in the previous financial year, registered 60 new cases and concluded 83 proceedings, the second-highest annual total. It also provided services in 15 cases governed by non-ICSID rules, including 12 under the arbitration rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. The report records 250 appointments to tribunals, commissions and ad hoc committees, with appointees representing a record 52 nationalities and women accounting for 31% of appointments. Of the 60 arbitration proceedings concluded, 38 were decided by tribunals and 22 were settled or otherwise discontinued. Institutional developments included Honduras becoming the 166th signatory to the ICSID Convention and the announcement of ICSID's first staffed offices outside Washington, DC, in Singapore and Paris. The report also highlights ICSID's June 2026 publication of its first in-depth study of contract-based arbitration, related caseload statistics and revised Model Clauses for Contracts. The study found a higher combined rate of settlement and discontinuance and shorter average case durations compared with the overall ICSID caseload.

This Precedent service level agreement (SLA) is suitable for use as a schedule, or the clauses can be incorporated into a larger agreement, or included as an annex to a statement of work/order document, depending on the contract structure. It is intended for use where the supplier is supporting a system (hardware and/or software) located at the customer’s premises (rather than hosted by the supplier) whether that system is the supplier’s own manufactured hardware and/or software or a third party’s (or a combination). It provides for a break/fix fault resolution support service with service levels and service credits. It also includes customer obligations, exclusions and reporting. It can be read alongside the Practice Note: Ireland—Key issues in SaaS and hardware/software maintenance SLAs. See also the ‘Service levels and service credits’ section of Practice Note: Ireland—Negotiation guide: IT contracts This Precedent assumes that the supplier is providing service levels based on the time to respond to, and the time to resolve, faults in the supported system. A failure of the supplier to

This Practice Note sets out the common law and discusses usual drafting provisions in commercial leases in Scotland dealing with landlord and tenant obligations in relation to insurance, insured and uninsured risk, reinstatement, rent abatement and termination where the property is damaged or destroyed. If the lease is silent about repairing obligations, the landlord is required to make good any want of repair within a reasonable time of the tenant bringing the need for the repair to the landlord’s attention, see Practice Notes: Repair clauses in commercial leases in Scotland—Repair under the common law and Repair and dilapidation disputes—commercial leases in Scotland and Repair: Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia [501]. If the property is destroyed or is so damaged as to be unfit for use and occupancy, then the lease is terminated by the rule of rei interitus. It is usual for leases to contract out of this rule, by saying the lease will continue in force if the premises are damaged or destroyed by any cause, see Practice Note: Repair clauses in commercial

THIS PRACTICE NOTE APPLIES TO OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEMES This Practice Note looks at the disclosure requirements that were applicable to trustees (or managers) of occupational pension schemes up to 5 April 2014 under the Occupational Pension Schemes (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 1996, SI 1996/1655 (the 1996 Disclosure Regulations). The 1996 Disclosure Regulations were repealed on 6 April 2014 and therefore do not apply beyond 5 April 2014. In this Practice Note, any reference to 'trustees' includes, in the context of a contract-based occupational pension scheme, the managers of the scheme. For information on disclosure requirements applicable to personal pension schemes up to 5 April 2014 under the Personal Pension Schemes (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 1987, SI 1987/1110, see Practice Note: Personal pension schemes—disclosure requirements before 6 April 2014 [Archived]. With effect from 6 April 2014, the disclosure requirements applicable to occupational and personal pension schemes were consolidated and harmonised into one set of regulations, the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/2734. For information on

Many of the usual events of default for a typical syndicated loan facility will also apply (in some form) to a real estate finance transaction. For information about those events of default, including what events of default are and why they are used, see Practice Note: Events of default. This Practice Note examines the types of additional events of default which are commonly found in real estate finance investment and development transactions. Purpose of events of default Rather than relying on general contract law for a remedy if the borrower breaches the loan agreement, most facility agreements include a mechanism under which a lender can, if it chooses, take certain actions if the borrower breaches the loan agreement or certain other events occur. The events that allow the lender to take such action are normally specifically set out in the facility agreement and are referred to as 'events of default'. If there is an event of default that is continuing, the lender will normally be allowed to take any or all of the following actions:

The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 apply if you enter into an off-premises or distance contract with a consumer client. At the heart of the regulations is the duty to give the client: • notice of their right to cancel (called Instructions for cancellation), and • a Cancellation form This Q&A answers the practical question: can you amend the model Cancellation form and Instructions for cancellation, or do you have to replicate the versions in Schedule 3 of the Regulations? What do the Regulations say? Regulations 10 (off-premises contracts) and 13 (distance contracts) require that if a right to cancel exists, you must give or make available to the consumer a cancellation form as set out in part B of Schedule 3. This contrasts with the Instructions for cancellation, which may be provided by means of the model instructions on cancellation set out in part A of Schedule 3. There is obviously a policy reason for distinguishing the two forms in this way, ie the model Cancellation

This Practice Note considers the remedies that are available for whistleblowing claims under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 (Ireland) (PDA 2014 (IRL)) and the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (Ireland) (UDA 1977 (IRL)). For the purposes of this note, a person raising a protected disclosure is referred to as a ‘reporting person’ or ‘reporter’, rather than a ‘whistleblower’. Whistleblowing interim relief claims A reporter can apply to the Circuit Court for interim relief (a form of injunction). Any such application must be on notice to the reporter’s employer. The remedy is available to reporters who claim to have been dismissed or otherwise penalised for making a protected disclosure. Under PDA 2014 (IRL), Sch 1, a reporter who is an employee may apply to the Circuit Court within 21 days of their dismissal (or such longer period as the court may allow) for an order continuing their employment contract pending the final outcome of a claim of unfair dismissal, where the employee claims they were dismissed wholly or mainly for having

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. NOTE: On 5 September 2023, CIETAC introduced new revisions (Revisions) to its current 2015 arbitration rules, in response to the growing needs for flexibility and efficiency in the digital age and evolving practice in international arbitration following a revision plan initiated in April 2021. The Revisions across over 30 articles include digital case management, multi-tiered arbitration agreements, jurisdiction, multi-contract arbitrations, arbitral procedures and other challenging issues. The Revisions will become effective from 1 January 2024, and apply to all CIETAC arbitrations commenced as of that date. CIETAC’s current arbitration rules took effect from 1 January 2015 (the CIETAC Rules 2015). This Practice Note is UNDER REVIEW—it currently reflects CIETAC's structure and role as set out in the CIETAC Rules 2015. This Practice Note covers arbitration under the CIETAC Arbitration Rules 2015 (CIETAC Rules), which, generally, apply to arbitrations accepted by CIETAC on or after 1 January 2015 (CIETAC, art 84). For guidance on arbitration under the CIETAC Rules 2012, see: CIETAC

1 Introduction 1.1 This policy sets out Company guidelines for the reimbursement of travel, hotel and other expenses you may incur while on Company business. It also sets out the procedure for obtaining reimbursement, including the evidence you must provide and the level of authorisation you must obtain. 1.2 This policy applies only to employees. It does not apply to agency workers, [suppliers, ]consultants[, contractors] [, volunteers] [, interns] or casual workers. 1.3 The Company will reimburse all reasonable expenditure incurred in accordance with this policy. Any attempt to make an expenses claim that is fraudulent, or in breach of this policy, may lead to disciplinary action. 1.4 This policy does not form part of any contract of employment and the Company may amend it at any time, eg to take account of changes in procedure or expense thresholds. You will be notified in writing of any change. 1.5 In providing reimbursement of expenses, the Company will comply with its obligations in respect of PAYE deductions for income tax and National Insurance contributions. 1.6 If you are uncertain as to whether a particular expense will be reimbursed, please contact the [Accounts OR HR] department before the expense is incurred.

For guidance on the basic features of the doctrine of estoppel and the different classifications it has been subject to, see Practice Note: Estoppel—what, when and how to plead and related content. Promissory estoppel—what is it? Where A has, by words or conduct, made to B a clear and unequivocal promise or assurance which relates to the legal relations between them and is intended to be acted on accordingly, then, once B has taken A at their word and acted on it, A cannot afterwards be allowed to revert to their previous legal relations as if no promise or assurance had been made by them. Promissory estoppel is also sometimes known as 'equitable forbearance' and is said to have developed from the doctrine of waiver, which occurs where one party (A) voluntarily agrees to a request by the other (B) not to perform in the manner fixed by the contract—see Practice Note: Estoppel—what, when and how to plead (section on waiver) which also considers the general role of estoppel as operating as defence rather than a cause of action in