What is the problem? In an intellectual property (IP) claim, it is often difficult to predict quantum at the time the claim is issued. Why does the problem arise? The difficulty in predicting how much is likely to be recovered in an IP claim should liability be established is, not least, because the extent of the infringement may not be known to the claimant at the time of issue and may only be revealed in subsequent disclosure which is obtained or otherwise in the course of proceedings. In addition, very often claimants have the option of seeking quantum representing either their damages or an account of the defendant’s profits which is an election which is usually made at a later stage in the process after some additional disclosure (essentially the proceedings are split into liability and quantum stages). Ordinarily,

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) found that the claimant was entitled to damages from the defendant quarrying business, because stone supplied by the defendant to the claimant for use on a housing development was not fit for purpose.

The days on which commercial rents are usually paid. Traditionally these are 25 December, 25 March, 24 June and 29 September (ie Christmas, Lady Day, Midsummer Day, Michaelmas), although some leases use the modern quarter days – 1 January, 1 April, 1 July, 1 October.

Formerly at common law 2 February, 15 May, 1 August and 11 November respectively but now Candlemas (28 February), Whitsunday (28 May), Lammas (28 August) and Martinmas (28 November) (see the Term and Quarter Days (Scotland) Act 1990)

Law360: The Pensions Regulator (TPR) said in a speech on 24 March 2025 that it has warned pension schemes that are failing to meet data standards, as one in four schemes continue to hold some form of pensions data in a ‘nondigital form'.

1 General information Date of this report [insert date] Date of last report [insert date] Name of person submitting report [insert name] 2 Key points 2.1 [Insert key point] 2.2 [Insert key point] 2.3 [Insert key point] 2.4 [Insert key point] 3 Action points arising from last COFA board report Action point Person responsible Status [Insert action point] [Identify

1 General information Date of this report [insert date] Date of last report [insert date] Name of person submitting report [insert name] 2 Key points 2.1 [Insert key point] 2.2 [Insert key point] 2.3 [Insert key point] 2.4 [Insert key point] 3 Action points arising from last COLP board report Action point Person responsible Status [Insert action point] [Identify person responsible for this action point (may or may not be the COLP)] [insert status] [Insert action point] [Identify person responsible for this action

A: General information Date of monitoring review [insert date of monitoring review] Person conducting monitoring review [insert name] B: Consolidated data Criteria In the last [insert period, eg month] Over the last 12 months Number of suspected compliance breaches reported internally to the COLP [insert number] [insert number] Number of actual compliance breaches (serious and non-serious) [insert number] [insert number] Number of serious compliance breaches [insert number] [insert number] Number of compliance breaches reported

Quarterly emissions level, specified by the EA in the nuclear operator's Environment Permit, and which, if exceeded, must be reported to the EA.

1 General information Date of monitoring review [Insert date] Person conducting monitoring review [Insert name] 2 Consolidated data Criteria In the last [insert period, eg quarter] Over the last 12 months Number of routine file audits/reviews required as per supervision/risk management procedures [Insert number] [Insert number] Number of routine file audits/reviews completed [Insert number] [Insert number] Number of closed file audits/reviews completed [Insert number] [Insert

A: General information Date of monitoring review [insert date of monitoring review] Person conducting monitoring review [insert name] B: Consolidated data Criteria In the last [insert period, eg 3 months] Over the last 12 months Number of incidents of inappropriate or other behaviour that violates our policies reported internally to the COLP [insert number] [insert number] Number of investigations commenced [insert number] [insert number] Number of investigations concluded [insert number] [insert number] Number of serious policy

Quasi in rem refers to court proceedings that primarily affect specific property (the “res”) in order to determine or secure a person’s rights, rather than determining all aspects of that person’s status or liabilities. It is most commonly discussed in the context of jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments. In practice, a court exercises quasi in rem jurisdiction where it uses control over assets within its territory (for example land, bank accounts or moveable property) to adjudicate claims linked to those assets, often where personal jurisdiction over the defendant is limited or disputed. The expression is largely descriptive and rooted in common law and conflict of laws doctrine, rather than being defined in UK or Irish statute. Modern civil procedure in England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland has moved away from rigid in personam / in rem / quasi in rem categories, but the terminology still appears in textbooks, older case law and commentary on international jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, especially from US sources. Across these jurisdictions, the underlying idea is broadly consistent: the court’s order binds the property within the jurisdiction, rather than conclusively resolving all personal rights of the parties worldwide.