When determining whether a principal should be liable for the discriminatory acts of another party as its agent under the statutory provisions in the discrimination legislation, an individual who is employed by A is not an agent of B simply on the grounds that he performs work for B’s benefit; he is no more acting on behalf of B than B’s own employees are, and they would not typically be treated as agents. In order for such a relationship to exist, there would need to be very cogent evidence to show that the duties which an employee was obliged to do as the employee of A were also being performed as an agent of B. Once it is recognised that the legal concept of agency does not necessarily involve a power to affect legal relations with third parties, the concept of agency at common law and the so-called 'general concept of agency' are not materially different. Court of Appeal: Kemeh v Ministry of Defence.

A principal offender is the actual perpetrator of the offence.

The EU will only act within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out in those.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Anonymity shall be granted if necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and in order to protect the interests of that party or witness, the determination of which requires the court to have regard to the relevant principles set out in the authorities and the balancing exercise of the relevant interests under CPR 39.2, the Court of Appeal so held in dismissing the appellant’s appeals against the refusal to make orders anonymising her name and redacting certain details from published judgments in judicial review proceedings against the respondent Camden London Borough Council (‘Camden Council’). Written by Sandip Patel QC FCIArb, managing partner at Aliant, London.

Principles and Practices of Financial Management is a formal document produced by the company and signed off by the board detailing the processes of managing the with-profits fund, particularly explaining how areas involving discretion will be handled.

Private Client analysis: The case concerns a guardianship order made in Scotland in January 2025 for three years in respect of RF. There were two issues in the case. The first was whether the guardianship order gave Argyll and Bute Council (‘the Local Authority’) the power to authorise the deprivation of RF’s liberty in England. The second issue was, if so, whether the Court of Protection in England and Wales should grant recognition and enforcement of the guardianship order as applied for by the Local Authority. The Official Solicitor on behalf of RF opposed the application on the grounds that there was no effective route for RF to challenge his confinement or trigger a review of the restrictions on him. In dealing with these arguments the court gave a useful analysis of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) as applied to any specific guardianship order. Written by Lynne Counsell, barrister at Addington Chambers.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Where a solicitor represents a protected party, the court, subject to certain exceptions (CPR 46.4(3) and Practice Direction 46 at paragraph 2.1—inapplicable on the facts of this case) must assess the costs payable by that protected party to that party’s own solicitor out of their damages—CPR 46.4(2)(a). The costs will be assessed in accordance with the indemnity principle as is usual for a client-solicitor assessment—see CPR 46.9. A litigation friend, or court of protection deputy, will not have the power to compromise costs (even client-own solicitor costs) without approval of the court. Pursuant to the application of the solicitor acting for the protected party, the court was considering what solicitor costs were recoverable from the damages awarded to the protected party after the successful resolution of the protected party’s claim including whether, and the extent, to which a success fee was recoverable. Written by Lauren Godfrey, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This helpful judgment sets out the principles that the court will apply when considering whether to give permission for expert evidence. In particular, it emphasises the importance of identifying a pleaded issue that the expert evidence goes to and then to identify and define the issues that the expert will consider. The court held, in relation to the remaining two additional experts sought (the application for a third had been dropped before the hearing) that in neither case was the evidence necessary for the resolution of the pleaded issues, let alone likely to assist the court. The court also considered the scope of a defence under section 238(5) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) to a transaction at an undervalue claim. In particular, in considering whether there were reasonable grounds for the belief that the transaction would benefit the company, it was not necessary to show that any alternative transaction identified in retrospect, but not raised or considered at the time, was one which was not viable or sensible for other reasons. Written by James Potts KC, barrister at Erskine Chambers.

Employment analysis: The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s discretion to extend time for lodging an appeal under EAT Rule 37 (as applied prior to the September 2023 rule change) has become 'encrusted by authority' in a way which has led to the emergence of rigid sub-rules which are not justified by the broad terms of the Rule or by the reasoning in the relevant case law. In particular, the guidance in Abdelghafar is not inflexible and allows the exercise of discretion in a way which is judicial, even-handed and fair, and the exercise of the discretion involves recognising a material distinction between the case of an appellant who lodges a Notice of Appeal and nearly all of the documents required by EAT Rule 3(1) inside the time limit, and an appellant who lodges nothing until after the time limit has passed, according to the Court of Appeal.

This Practice Note provides information on the principles of costs recovery including the general rule, the court’s discretion and proportionality. It also provides information on the indemnity principle, recovery of costs under contractual clauses and costs recovery for specific phases in proceedings. This Practice Notes acts as an introduction to this topic and should be read in conjunction with the following Practice Notes: • Costs orders—the general rule • Costs orders—departing from the general rule and circumstances where it is not applicable • Costs and the indemnity principle • Costs and proportionality • Costs—recovery of costs under contractual clauses Costs recovery—the general rule The general rule under CPR 44.2(2)(a) is that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs. This means that if the claimant is successful, the defendant will usually be ordered to pay the claimant's costs, while if the defendant is successful, the claimant will usually be ordered to pay the defendant's costs. Usually the successful party will not recover all of the costs they have incurred in bringing or

Double tax treaties or conventions (DTTs) have a dual nature. They are: • conventions between states (the contracting states), governed by international law, and • part of the domestic law of contracting states As a result, they are simultaneously subject to the rules of interpretation applicable to both international and domestic public law with the rules of international public law taking precedence in cases of dispute. Because DTTs have a dual nature, courts in each jurisdiction have developed their own approach to their interpretation. States have different methods of incorporating international agreements into their domestic law: • those that automatically incorporate a treaty into their domestic law so that as soon as it is signed and ratified the treaty becomes part of domestic legislation (the USA falls into this category), and • those that require a form of legislative process to take place, incorporating the treaty into domestic law, before the treaty can be accepted as domestic law (the UK falls into this category) The UK’s domestic taxing provisions have effect

Company number: [insert number] The companies act 2006 Private company limited by shares Written