Insurance & Reinsurance analysis: The Court of Appeal provided helpful guidance on when parties will be taken to have agreed a forum selection clause, and on the more general approach to determining whether one contract has been superseded by a later contract. In this case, the parties agreed one binding reinsurance contract using an industry form and then, eight days later, appeared to agree a contract (for the same underlying risk and duration) on a different industry contract. The question for the court was whether this second contract was simply an administrative document which did not alter the already existing contract, or if it superseded the existing contract. The court also provided helpful obiter commentary on when an anti-arbitration injunction will be appropriate in the context of parallel arbitration and English Court proceedings. Written by Jonathan Schaffer-Goddard, barrister at 4 Pump Court and Attorney at Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP.

A battle of the forms occurs when two organisations are negotiating the terms of an agreement and each party wishes to contract on its own terms of business.

Construction analysis: The Outer House of the Court of Session found that a series of contracts between a contractor and a supplier, entered into under a framework agreement, was not subject to either party’s standard terms and conditions—even though the contractual documents referred to both sets of terms. The court found that the parties intended for references to their own standard terms to be ignored, and for the contracts to be governed instead by a third set of terms specified in the framework agreement.

Construction analysis: The Commercial Court held that a contract was concluded on previously negotiated bespoke terms without incorporation of the defendant's standard conditions, and that statutory implied terms under sections 14(2), 14(2A) and 14(2B) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SGA 1979) applied, demonstrating that in ‘battle of the forms’ disputes the ‘last shot’ doctrine may be displaced where evidence shows parties intended different terms to prevail. The court also clarified that the initial burden is on the claimant to establish on the balance of probabilities that its cause of action accrued within the statutory period, after which the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that the alleged accrual occurred earlier.

A measure of the speed at which data is transmitted, computed in number of elements changed per second. The 'Baud Rate' is the speed in which computers can transfer data through a modem using communications software.

A seven-bit code, only five of which are information bits. Baudot is used by some text telephones to communicate with each other.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–his archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 12 March 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related case. Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into completed acquisitions by Bauer Media Group of certain businesses of Celador Entertainment Limited, Lins FM Group Limited and Wireless Group Limited, as well as the entire business of UKRD Group Limited. Latest developments On 12 March 2020, the CMA issued its final report, clearing the transaction conditionally after an in-depth phase 2 investigation. Parties • Bauer Media Group (BMG): BMG is a German multimedia conglomerate headquartered in Hamburg that manages a portfolio of more than 600 magazines, over 400 digital products and 50 radio and TV stations around the world. The portfolio includes print shops, postal, distribution and marketing services.• Celador Entertainment Limited (Celador): Celador provides radio, television and digital media advertising services. It is headquartered in the UK.• Lincs FM Group Limited (Lincs): Lincs is based in Lincolnshire, in the UK. It owns several independent local radio stations.•

Law360, London: Bayer AG has seen off a challenge by law firm De Simone & Partners to scrap its patent for a type of contrast agent used to improve the quality of MRI scans after European patent officials confirmed that it contained a new compound.

Law360, London: A London court ruled on 1 September 2025 that Bayer retains the profits it made from selling blood-thinning treatment Xarelto during an interim sales ban that prevented generic-drugmakers infringing the now-revoked patent.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 21 March 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the proposed acquisition of Monsanto by Bayer (Case M.8084). The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in markets for the supply of ‘pesticides’ (in particular, non-selective herbicides), the supply and licensing of ‘vegetable seeds’ and the supply of ‘traits’. The proposed transaction would result in the largest portfolio of pesticides products and the strongest global market positions in seeds and traits—making the combined entity the largest integrated company in the industry. Latest developments On 21 March 2018, the Commission conditionally approved the transaction, subject to commitments. In terms of commitments, the Commission has accepted a substantial package of divestments to address concerns in relation to overlaps in seeds, pesticides and digital agriculture markets. Parties Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (Bayer) is a diversified German company active in the development and supply of pharmaceuticals, consumer health, agriculture (Bayer Crop Science) and animal health company.

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Appeal in CA-2023-000581 & CA-2023-000582 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 8 February 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Appeal by Bayerische Motoren Werke AG to the CAT and an application before the High Court for judicial review by Volkswagen AG, which both questioned whether section 26 of the Competition Act 1998 gives the CMA the power to oblige them, as foreign-domiciled companies with no presence in the UK, to respond to requests for information notices issued under that provision. Given the common issue of law for determination in the two proceedings, the claim for judicial review was allocated to the President of the CAT to determine in his capacity as a Justice of the High Court. Latest development On 19 April 2021, the CAT issued and High Court a single judgment. The CAT upheld the appeal in respect of Bayerische Motoren Werke AG and the CAT President

Dispute Resolution analysis: This Commercial Court judgment relates to an application following an allegedly inadequate response to a Part 18 request for further information in advance of extant summary judgment applications being heard. The decision contains a helpful analysis and gloss on the test for such requests and their enforcement, which brings the Part 18 procedure back to its intended realm and warns the parties against deploying it strategically where it is not appropriate or proportionate. The judge in particular reminds litigants that Part 18 requests ought not be seen as an automatic or routine part of litigation. Written by Anastasia Tropsha, associate at PCB Byrne LLP.