This precedent is for use between a processor and sub-processor. It assumes the sub-processor is able to obtain fairly favourable terms and that the original processor has contracted with the controller based on Precedent: Personal data processing schedule—pro-supplier—UK GDPR and EU GDPR. For a list of precedent provisions for use between a controller and processor, see: List of data protection clauses and agreements for commercial transactions and personal data processing and sharing. This precedent uses the additional defined terms ‘Agreement’, ‘Business Day’, ‘Charges’, ‘Customer’, ‘Services’, ‘Supplier’ and ‘Supplier Personnel’, which are unlikely to be specific to this schedule and which it is assumed are separately defined in the relevant agreement. The Schedule Part A: Operative provisions 1 Definitions 1.1 In this Schedule: Controller • has the meaning given in applicable Data Protection Laws from time to time; Controller Entity • means [insert as appropriate, eg ‘the Controller of the Protected Data, which as at the date of this Agreement is [insert name of legal entity]’]; Data Protection Laws • means, as binding on either party or the Services: (a) the EU GDPR;

This Practice Note discusses the benefits of personal development for in-house lawyers. These include creating business cases for increased salaries, allowing individuals to maximise their contribution to the business, ensuring optimal delivery of legal advice to the business and developing individuals. While in-house lawyers may consider legal advice to be their most important contribution to their organisation, their business colleagues may disagree. In-house lawyers are also valued for their non-legal business skills and commercial understanding. A development programme focused on the development of technical legal skills and not these other skills seems unbalanced and out of tune with the totality of the service delivered by in-house lawyers to their clients. Who is responsible for the development of in-house lawyers? The following are some stakeholders who might be expected to take responsibility for the development of in-house lawyers: • regulators of the legal profession • the company/employer • the manager of the legal team

Personal equity plans are not an investment in their own right. They are a tax-free wrapper used to hold investments. PEPs were discontinued on 6 April 1999 and replaced by individual savings accounts (ISAs).

Banking & Finance analysis: The Court of Appeal in National Westminster Bank v Alfano considered whether a number of personal guarantees were enforceable. The case is a good reminder of some key principles of law underpinning personal guarantees.

A personal guardian is an individual appointed to make decisions about a child’s care and upbringing when those with parental responsibility or parental rights and responsibilities cannot do so, usually because of death or incapacity. In practice, it refers to the person named in a will, parental responsibility agreement or court order to assume day‑to‑day responsibility for the child’s welfare, living arrangements, education and medical decisions.In England and Wales, and Northern Ireland, the role is governed mainly by children and succession legislation (for example, guardianship provisions in the Children Act 1989 and equivalent Northern Irish legislation), and is usually termed “guardian” rather than “personal guardian”. In Scotland, the nearest equivalent is a “guardian” with parental responsibilities and rights under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. In Ireland, the role is regulated by the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 (as amended), again using “guardian”.“Personal guardian” is therefore a descriptive term rather than a defined statutory label, but it is commonly used in private client, family law and estate planning to distinguish the person caring for the child from trustees or financial guardians managing the child’s property.

Ireland—Dispute Resolution analysis: This article, was written by Lorna Kennedy, and Audrey Burke of Dillon Eustace LLP.

An injury to the body or mind as opposed to property.

This TRUST is made on [date] Parties 1 [name] of [address] acting by [name] of [address] (the Litigation Friend) and 2 [name] of [address] and [name] of [address] (the Original Trustees) Background (A) This Trust is called [insert name] (the Trust). (B) This Trust is established to receive the compensation payment in respect of a personal injury to [insert name] (the Beneficiary) who is aged under 18 years. (C) Legal proceedings [under Claim Number [insert number]] were issued following the personal injury and the payment of compensation was ordered on [date to be completed once order is made]. (D) The Court of Protection (the Court), pursuant to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, ordered on [date to be completed once order is made] that the compensation

This TRUST is made on [date] Parties 1 [name] of [address] (the Settlor) and 2 [name] of [address] and [name] of [address] (the Original Trustees) Background (A) This Trust is called [insert name] (the Trust). (B) This Trust is established to receive the compensation payment in respect of a personal injury to the Settlor. (C) Legal proceedings [under Claim Number [insert number]] were issued following the personal injury and the payment of compensation to the Settlor was ordered on [date to be completed once order is made]. (D) The Settlor has authorised the transfer of the property in the Schedule to the Original Trustees.

This TRUST is made on [date] Parties 1 [name] of [address] acting by [name] of [address] (the Litigation Friend) and 2 [name] of [address] and [name] of [address] (the Original Trustees) Background (A) This Trust is called [insert name] (the Trust). (B) This Trust is established to receive the compensation payment in respect of a personal injury to [insert name] (the Beneficiary) who lacks capacity to manage their property and financial affairs under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. (C) Legal proceedings [under Claim Number [insert number]] were issued following the personal injury and the payment of compensation was ordered on [date to be completed once order is made]. (D) The

Insurance & Reinsurance analysis: A recent trend, particularly in industrial disease claims, has been for defendant insurers to be met with an argument designed to circumvent a meritorious limitation defence by recourse to the rule that time for limitation purposes ceases to run on a resolution to wind up a defendant company. This argument was based on the rule in Larnell. At both first instance and on appeal, the claimant’s attempt to outflank the limitation defence was rejected: claimants in personal injury cases whose claims are brought more than three years after their cause of action accrued or their date of knowledge (if later), but where it would not be equitable to allow the claim to proceed under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980), are not able to escape the consequences using the rule in Larnell. Written by Edward Broome, barrister at Crown Office Chambers.

This Practice Note covers the clauses in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (CJCA 2015) that are relevant to personal injury claims. It considers fundamental dishonesty and inducements. The main aim of CJCA 2015 is to make provision about how offenders are dealt with before and after conviction and to amend the offence of possession of extreme pornographic images. However, it also deals with proceedings and powers of courts and tribunal and judicial review. The relevant sections of CJCA 2015 came into effect on 13 April 2015. For practitioners working in the fields of personal injury and clinical negligence law, the significant parts of the Act are in Part 3 entitled ‘Courts and Tribunals’. The Act alters the common law position relating to dishonesty in civil claims. Courts already have power to strike out claims in their entirety for an abuse of process, but this power is to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances.