This Checklist considers the procedural and other matters that the tribunal are likely to deal with at the preliminary meeting in an arbitration, whether ad-hoc or institutional. These include dealing with jurisdictional challenges, applications for interim remedies or trial of preliminary issues, setting timetables for the progress of parts of the arbitration and making arrangements for the exchange and presentation of evidence. Regardless of whether your arbitration is ad-hoc or institutional or what set of institutional rules you arbitrate under, it is likely that the tribunal will order a preliminary meeting shortly after its constitution. The parties themselves (as opposed to their advisors) are not usually required to attend this hearing though it is beneficial if they can attend as they will meet the tribunal and face the opposing team at this early stage. In international arbitration it may also be a rare opportunity for all concerned to be in one place prior to the hearing and could be an opportunity for separate settlement negotiations. Whether this is appropriate may depend on various considerations,

[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 letter is our client’s

ARCHIVED: This Precedent has been archived and is not maintained. [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

[ON THE HEADED NOTEPAPER OF CLAIMANT’S SOLICITORS] FAO [CLIENT PARTNER OR SENIOR PARTNER] [NAME OF DEFENDANT ] [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

[ON THE HEADED NOTEPAPER OF CLAIMANT’S SOLICITORS] FAO [[HEAD OF BARRISTERS CHAMBERS]] [NAME OF DEFENDANT CHAMBERS] [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

[ON THE HEADED NOTEPAPER OF CLAIMANT’S SOLICITORS] FAO [ [APPROPRIATE DIRECTOR OR SENIOR PARTNER] ] [NAME OF DEFENDANT BROKER] [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

[ON THE HEADED NOTEPAPER OF CLAIMANT’S SOLICITORS] FAO [[CLIENT PARTNER OR SENIOR PARTNER]] [NAME OF DEFENDANT FIRM] [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

[ON THE HEADED NOTEPAPER OF CLAIMANT’S SOLICITORS] FAO [[APPROPRIATE DIRECTOR]] [NAME OF DEFENDANT BROKER] [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

[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