[ In the COUNTY COURT AT [insert] OR In the High Court of Justice ] [ [Specify division] ] [ [Insert location] District Registry ] Claim No: Between [Insert name]        Claimant and [Insert name]        First Defendant Second Defendant ________________________________________________ Particulars of claim ________________________________________________ 1 At all relevant times, the Claimant was working as a [insert job title eg Delivery Driver] for [insert employer’s name eg Plant Hire Limited]. In the course of [his OR her] work, on [insert date of accident], [he OR she] was required to deliver a power float (‘the float’) to the First Defendant’s premises at [insert address]. 2 Upon the Claimant’s arrival at the premises, the First Defendant explained to the Claimant that he intended to unload the float from the truck using a JCB. The First Defendant explained to the Claimant that there would be various people on site who would assist in this process. The Claimant assumed (reasonably) that the First Defendant was the contractor who had hired the float or was otherwise in authority on the site and assented to the course of action

Claim No. [insert claim no] IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert] Between 1 Mr X Y Claimant - and - 2 Y Z LTD Defendant _____________________________________________________________________________ PARTICULARS OF CLAIM _____________________________________________________________________________ 1 The Claimant was at all material times employed by the Defendant as a [insert job title] at the Defendant’s [insert as appropriate] premises. 2 [At all material times the provisions of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 as amended by the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 [which came into force on the 6 July 2005] applied.] 3 In the course of [his OR her] employment between the dates of [insert date] and [insert date] the Claimant was regularly required to use vibrating tools [give full details of tools, and hours worked on tools per shift/working day, or frequency of use of tools]. This caused [his OR her] injury. 4 It is the Claimant’s case that at all relevant times the Defendant had or ought to have had knowledge that the exposure to vibration [use of the relevant equipment OR repetitive actions] posed a foreseeable risk of injury and that

This Checklist covers the particulars that must be included by a tenant or landlord applying to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT), by the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules (the Property Chamber Rules), SI 2013/1169. It includes in particular details of the prescribed information to be included in an application concerning the right to acquire the freehold or an extended lease of property under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (LRA 1967). Information only required for applications under other statutes is omitted. If there is a failure to comply with the requirements in the Property Chamber Rules, practice directions or tribunal directions, the tribunal may take whatever action it considers just, including waiving the requirement or requiring the failure to be remedied. In practice, a minor error is unlikely to be fatal if the particulars and documents included with an application are sufficient to enable the application

means the Seller and Buyer and Party shall mean either one of them as applicable

For the purposes of this Q&A, we have assumed that the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) notice referred to is an exclusion notice to exclude the provisions of LTA 1954, Pt II from the new lease. This Q&A covers: • the situation where a new lease is being entered into • where that lease is to be contracted out of LTA 1954, Pt II • where the lease is one to which LTA 1954, Pt II would apply if it were not contracted out • where the tenant has not already gone into occupation Pursuant to LTA 1954, s 38A, a landlord and tenant are at liberty to agree that the provisions of LTA 1954, Pt

This Agreement is made on [date] 1 [insert name of party] [of OR trading as [insert trading name]

This Practice Note identifies the key parties involved in most construction projects (including the employer, the contractor, the professional team of consultants (designers and non-designers), sub-contractors and funders) and provides an introduction to their roles and their relationships with one another, including the contracts that are entered into between them. For an illustration of the way a development project may be structured and the contractual nexus between the parties involved, see: Structure of a development project—diagram. Employer The employer (who may be referred to alternatively as the client or the developer) is the party for whom the construction works are to be carried out. The employer is often, but not always, the party who owns the site upon which the works are to be constructed. The employer will typically appoint a professional team, comprising various consultants, to help it to develop a project brief and produce designs etc in preparation for inviting contractors to tender for the job. The first to be appointed will typically be the architect. The employer will enter into an appointment with

What does this Practice Note cover? This Practice Note summarises the key parties involved in EMTN programmes and stand-alone international bond issues settled through the ICSDs, including: • issuer • investors • arrangers/managers (dealers under EMTN programmes) • co-managers • fiscal agent or trustee • paying agents, and • ICSDs/other CSDs Issuer The issuer is the entity wishing to raise finance in the capital markets. Issuers can be: • governments, sovereign entities and government-owned entities—government bonds have different names in different countries, eg: ◦ gilts in the UK ◦ Treasuries in the US ◦ Bunds in Germany, and ◦ OATs in France • public limited companies—it is generally an offence under Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) for private companies to offer securities to the public (subject to certain exceptions) • municipal, regional and public authorities • banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions • supranationals (eg the World Bank and the EBRD), or • utility companies such as Thames Water and EDF Potential issuers, particularly small and medium size enterprises

What does this Practice Note cover? This Practice Note discusses the parties in a Rule 144A (17 CFR § 230.144A)/Regulation S debt offering. These offerings are generally complex transactions that involve multiple parties, each performing a critical role. Key parties include the representatives of the issuer, one or more investment banks to serve as the initial purchasers of the securities (and to perform a similar role for the Regulation S securities), a trustee/paying agent, and an independent auditing firm, as well as counsel to the issuer, initial purchasers, and trustee. Further, there may be other parties involved in a more limited capacity, including local counsel, The Depository Trust Company (DTC), credit ratings agencies, printers and regulators, among others. Each of these parties is discussed in further detail below. Issuer The issuer is the entity issuing the securities being offered and sold. As the driver of the securities offering, the issuer will approve the key commercial terms of the offering, including the size of the offering, interest rate, and maturity date,

Employment analysis: Parties should avoid using a narrative form of drafting style for pleadings (statements of case, in particular ET1s and ET3s) in employment tribunals. They should adopt a succinct and clear drafting style. In particular, the claim form should set out what the claim is and a brief summary of the facts relevant to each particular claim (if more than one is advanced). It should be clear from the document itself, within the brief summary of the relevant factual events, which facts are relevant to which claim, according to comments by HHJ Katherine Tucker in the EAT.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Following a costs management hearing, the High Court held that ‘no order as to costs’ of the hearing was the appropriate outcome on the basis that the claimant’s costs budget had been found to be unrealistic and disproportionate and had been subjected to significant reductions. It further ordered the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs of the subsequent hearing which had been listed to determine the issue of costs and directed that the claimant’s own costs of the budgeting process would be subject to an additional 15% reduction following any final assessment of those costs. Written by Shilpa Shah, barrister at Ropewalk Chambers.

The offeree and any offeror or competing offeror whose identity has been publicly announced (including, in each case, any potential offeree, offeror or competing offeror).