[ON THE HEADED NOTEPAPER OF CLAIMANT’S SOLICITORS] FAO [MANAGING PARTNER] [NAME OF DEFENDANT ACCOUNTANT] [ADDRESS LINE 1] [ADDRESS LINE 2] [POSTCODE] [DATE] Dear [insert organisation name] [PROSPECTIVE CLAIMANT’S NAME] AND [PROSPECTIVE DEFENDANT’S NAME] Preliminary notice of claim We write on behalf of our client [insert client’s name]. This

EU Law analysis: Chris Milton, partner, and Emily Howard, associate, at J A Kemp analyse the Enlarged Board of Appeal’s (EBA) preliminary opinion in a case regarding the extent to which the description and figures should be used when interpreting the claims for assessing patentability.

EU Law analysis: This judgment by the Court of Justice, Grand Chamber, is about the preliminary reference procedure (Article 267 TFEU) and the power of courts of last instance in EU Member States not to refer, provided that certain conditions are met. It reaffirms existing case-law and provides further guidance about how domestic courts must decide whether the interpretation of EU law is so obvious as to render a reference unnecessary—on the one hand, they are not required to examine all language versions of EU law and may decide not to refer even in cases where different interpretations are possible but not sufficiently plausible; on the other hand, they must be particularly vigilant, given the objective of uniform interpretation of EU law, and must provide reasoning for their decision not to refer. The judgment confirms the significance of courts of EU Member States in the process of interpretation of EU law while it makes it clear that their power is neither unlimited nor unchecked. It is also helpful for practitioners, as it highlights the relevance of the information they may provide domestic courts in order to argue that a reference to the Court of Justice be made. Written by Professor Panos Koutrakos, barrister at Monckton Chambers and Professor of EU Law, and Jean Monnet Professor of EU Law at City, University of London.

When a Notice of Appeal or cross-appeal is received by the EAT, it is subject to a preliminary stage referred to as a 'sift'. The preliminary sift is performed by a judge or the Registrar. The aim of the sift process is to determine how the appeal may most effectively be managed and which of the available tracks it should follow. The categories of cases following the sift process are as follows: • cases which disclose no reasonable grounds of appeal or are an abuse of process or otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings ('Rule 3(7) cases') • cases which fall within Rule 3(7) above and are also considered to be 'wholly without merit' ('Rule 3(7ZA) cases') • cases in which a preliminary hearing is appropriate, ie where it is doubtful whether there are reasonable grounds of appeal ('PH cases') • cases which should proceed directly to a full hearing ('FH cases') • cases which should be expedited to a full hearing ('XFH cases') In carrying out the

IP analysis: The High Court has dismissed a claim for trade mark infringement made against Premier Inn by easyGroup, arising from Premier Inn’s usage of ‘Rest easy’ in branding following an April 2021 rebrand. easyGroup alleged trade mark infringement under sections 10(2) and 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994) and subsequently sought declarations of invalidity against the Premier Inn series trade mark. The court held there was no infringement under TMA 1994, s 10(2), with ‘Rest easy’ being a common idiom in the English language and easyGroup having failed to evidence sufficient consumer confusion. Likewise, the judge found easyGroup’s TMA 194, s 10(3) claim failed, with no adequate evidence of detriment or unfair advantage having been offered. Accordingly, easyGroup’s claims for declarations of invalidity also failed. The judgment shed illuminating light on the use and admissibility of survey evidence in trade mark infringement claims, demonstrating the limits of its utility in circumstances where it is not sufficiently relevant or convincing. Written by Hallam Whitehead, solicitor at Knights.

Dispute Resolution analysis: In Premier Oil UK Ltd v Shell International Trading and Shipping Company Ltd, concerning a dispute as to the ambit and instructions to be provided to a referee relating to a dispute on changes to the contractual pricing structure, the High Court summarised the existing law and provided new guidance as to when it is appropriate for a court to express a view as to the ambit of the powers of a contractually appointed expert before those powers have been exercised. Rebecca Crookenden, managing associate and Anna Purvis, trainee solicitor, at Stephenson Harwood LLP, consider the decision and its practical implications.

Premier Oil is one of several companies in the oil & gas sector that has had to evaluate its financing options to adapt to the impact of a prolonged low oil price environment. Brexit impact As of exit day (31 January 2020) the UK is no longer an EU Member State. However, in accordance with the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK has entered an implementation period, during which it continues to be subject to EU law. References to exit day in many Brexit SIs are to be read as reference to IP completion day (Implementation Period completion day, defined in clause 39 as 31 December 2020 at 11.00 pm) (unless that provision is expressly disapplied by the SI in question). For further details, see News Analysis: Brexit—impact of the Withdrawal Agreement and European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 for R&I lawyers and Brexit Bulletin—key updates, research tips and resources. Although schemes do not fall within the Recast Regulation on Insolvency, their subsequent recognition often relies on Brussels

This Practice Note is archived and no longer maintained. Background Premier Oil plc (now Harbour Energy plc) (‘Premier’) is incorporated in Scotland and listed on the London Stock Exchange (LSE). It is an oil and gas exploration and production company with interests in the UK, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Falkland Islands, Mexico and Brazil. Following the reverse takeover by Premier of Chrysaor Holdings Limited (‘Chrysaor’) on 31 March 2021, Harbour Energy plc is now the largest UK listed independent oil and gas company. Premier will be familiar to those in the restructuring market as it initially restructured in 2017 and was the subject of considerable press attention when it unsuccessfully attempted to restructure its debts again in 2020. Both the 2017 and 2020 debt restructurings were based on the use of Scottish schemes of arrangement under Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). In 2020, Premier’s proposed restructuring was the subject of a rare creditor challenge during

This Practice Note deals with what constitutes ‘premises’, when a potential claimant will be a ‘lawful visitor’ and rules relating to parkland and the countryside. Premises can be land or buildings, as well as any fixed or moveable structure, and can cover everything from shops, offices, public buildings, aircraft and houses. There are three types of lawful visitor: those with express permission, eg a person you invite into your house, those with implied permission, eg a person entering a shop, and those with a right to enter, eg a police officer. What are ‘premises’? Although the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) governs the liability of those in occupation or control of premises, premises are not defined. It is clear, however, that the term should be interpreted very broadly and includes: • any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft: this includes both permanent and temporary structures such as scaffolding and ladders. In Furmedge v Chester-Le-Street District Council a company which had put in place a large inflatable sculpture was

(1) For securities selling above par, the difference between the price of a security and par. (2) An amount that must sometimes be paid above par in order to call an issue, ie a call premium. (3) Occasionally used and interchangeable with margin or spread when the latter two refer to a percentage above a given amount or rate. (4) The price paid for an asset. (5) The additional price an investor is prepared to pay for an asset with attractive characteristics. (6) The cost of life cover; usually paid monthly but can be paid annually and sometimes quarterly. For most policies the plan will come to an end if the premium is not paid for one month.

In relation to equity shares (other those of a closed-ended investment fund or of an open-ended investment company), a listing on the Main Market of the London Stock Exchange where the issuer is required to comply with those requirements in LR 6 (Additional requirements for premium listing (commercial company)) and the other requirements in the listing rules that are expressed to apply to such securities with a premium listing.

Traditionally the term premium channels has been used to describe channels, which viewers subscribed to as an add-on to the basic service and for which they paid a premium.