This Practice Note forms part of the Data Protection Negotiation Guide (Guide). This part of the Guide addresses the negotiation of provisions relating to deletion and return of personal data at the end of the processing in agreements between controllers and processors subject to the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR). For an introduction to the Guide, see Practice Note: Data protection negotiation guide—controller: processor—introduction. This Practice Note utilises a number of common abbreviations. They are separately defined within the above introduction. As explained in Practice Note: Data protection negotiation guide—controller: processor—introduction: • the parties have commercial flexibility to allocate the costs and expenses of performing these obligations between themselves • there are significant similarities between the UK GDPR and the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (EU GDPR) and the Guide focuses on the position under the UK GDPR. For information about the background to the UK GDPR and its relationship with the EU GDPR, see Practice

This week's edition of Financial Services weekly highlights includes: BoE speech on strategy for modernising wholesale payments; EIOPA opens six consultations on the EU IRRD; IAIS publishes Year in Review 2024 report; plus dates for your diary over the coming week.

This Practice Note answers a series of frequently asked questions (FAQs) concerning execution of documents in finance transactions. It answers some frequently asked questions on execution of deeds and simple contracts more generally, before addressing queries on execution of security, intercreditor and guarantee documentation, witnessing formalities, running the signing process on finance transactions. It finishes with some common issues and problems that may arise in relation to execution and how to address them. Each question includes a high-level summary with relevant authority and links to corresponding detailed guidance and analysis. What are the main documents to be executed in a lending transaction? In a loan transaction, the key documents to be executed are typically referred to as the 'finance documents'. This term refers to the suite of documents entered into between the obligor(s) and lender(s) or other finance parties which set out the contractual relationship between them. The finance documents required for a transaction depend on the parties involved, the type of financing and the structure of the transaction, but typically

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Court of Appeal—continuing breach and concurrent causes of action The Court of Appeal has considered issues of continuing breach as a concurrent cause of action in seeking to apportion liability for losses in light of an indemnity in a share sale agreement which rendered the seller liable for losses arising out of services provided before the transfer date. The issue was whether the pre-transfer negligence was considered to be a breach of duty continuing to occur after the transfer from day to day, such that daily a new cause of action arose which would mean that there was a concurrent cause of action alongside the indemnified breach which, per EE Caledonia, would prevent the appellant relying on the indemnity. The majority view, differing from the first instance decision, held that there was no continuing breach thus no concurrent cause of action and the indemnity could therefore be relied on after the transfer date up until new fresh causes of action arose (as they

Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society (ALCS) does not deal with ‘primary rights’ (distribution rights) and remuneration, as these are dealt with via a writer’s publishing contract with their publisher, or the producer of their work. ALCS deals with ‘secondary rights’ where a third party uses a work that’s already been distributed to the public, for example, when schools photocopy books they own, or libraries lend books, or overseas TV companies retransmit UK TV signals. Royalties from ‘secondary rights’ are paid to writers through ALCS—unless the royalties come from UK library lending, when the Public Lending Right pays them.

This week's edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes case analysis of Oxford Hotel Investments Ltd v Great Yarmouth BC on whether a microwave alone constitutes ‘cooking facilities’ for the purposes of the HMO test; Rehman v SSHSC concerning COVID-19 elements being struck out of nursing home fatal accident claims; and R (Coventry CC) v Home Secretary, in which the court dismissed a judicial review claim challenging the lawfulness of the Home Office’s actions in placing asylum seekers in accommodation in the claimant’s local authority area. Case reports include WM v Bradford District Care NHS Foundation Trust, clarifying the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal to make statutory recommendations for leave under section 72(3) of Mental Health Act 1983; Sex Matters v Mayor and Commonality and Citizens of the CoL, in which judicial review permission concerning a challenge to admission arrangements at pond facilities based on gender identity rather than biological sex was dismissed as premature; R (Spiropoulos) v LGO, clarifying the scope of the LGO’s jurisdiction under section 26 of Local Government Act 1974; Surrey CC v Persons Unknown concerning an injunction granted to prevent unauthorised encampments and fly-tipping in Chobham Common; Mayor and Commonality and Citizens of the CoL v RWHL regarding non-domestic rates liability despite CVA; R (CLT) v Hounslow LBC concerning a judicial review allowed recognising the claimant as a looked-after child; DBS v A Local Authority, clarifying that the DBS is entitled to disclosure of information regarding family court proceedings from a local authority; and R (CHO) v Governing Body of Lonsdale School, concerning a judicial review dismissed over special school hours. It includes expert analysis of the Local Government Funding Settlement and the government’s move towards a radical rebalancing of funding in favour of more deprived councils, to and further updates on Social housing, Adult social care, Judicial review, Governance, Local government finance, Children’s social care, Education, Public procurement, Licensing, Pensions and Planning.

A distributor is an independent contractor who buys goods on their own account from an exporter or supplier and resells the goods to customers in their own territory.

This week's edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes: case analysis of Halton Borough Council v SSHCLG, in which the Court of Appeal confirmed withdrawal following an expert's change of evidence is not unreasonable conduct for costs in planning inquiries and Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise v SST, in which the court clarified the application of Finch to aviation emissions in dismissing the challenge to an airport expansion DCO. Case reports include Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Various Leaseholders of Brewster House and Malting House, in which leaseholders who purchased flats under the RTB scheme were found not liable for structural defect costs; City of London Corp v John Bussandra, in which the court overturned the determination that Bussandra was intentionally homeless in considering the test for ‘deliberateness’ in relation to mental illness; and Hitchings v Orton, in which the Administrative Court clarified that regulation preventing proposals on matters previously determined by VTE includes predecessor valuation tribunals. It includes further updates on Social housing, Planning, Local government finance, Public procurement, Governance, Education, Children’s social care, Healthcare, Social care and Licensing.

This week's edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes case analysis of Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v HMRC, in which the Supreme Court ruled that hospital car parking charges are subject to VAT; Wandsworth LBC v Young, clarifying notification duties on discharge of the main housing duty and public law defences to possession claims for temporary accommodation; CKT and DGT v Twyford CE Academies Trust, in which the High Court considered whether school faith-based over-subscription criteria amounts to race discrimination; Turner v SSHCLG, in which the court confirmed that an enforcement notice can be validly served by fixing it to main entrance of multi-occupier site; and Wealden DC v Devall, in which a Planning injunction was granted to restrain unlawful rebuilding and hardstanding on sensitive land. Case reports include R (Hassen) v Westminster CC, in which the court ordered the council to house the homeless applicant after breach of a Tomlin order and awarded damages; Daniah v SSE, in which the court dismissed an appeal against teaching prohibition orders for operating an unregistered independent educational institution; and R (Margery Kempe Trust) v Norfolk CC, in which the Administrative Court rejected a challenge against a local authority property disposal. It includes further updates on Social housing, Education, Planning, Governance, Public procurement, Children's social care, Social care, Pensions, Licensing and Environmental law and climate change.

A multilateral system operated and/or managed by a market operator, which brings together or facilitates the bringing together of multiple third-party buying and selling interests in financial instruments—in the system and in accordance with its non-discretionary rules—in a way that results in a contract, in respect of the financial instruments admitted to trading under its rules and/or systems, and which is authorised and functions regularly and in accordance with the provisions of Title III of EU MiFID II or UK MiFID II, as applicable. For more information, see Regulated Markets under MiFID II and MiFIR.

This week's edition of Financial Services weekly highlights includes: FCA speech outlines balanced approach to AI innovation and human oversight in financial markets; ESAs publish list of critical ICT third-party providers under DORA; IOSCO publishes final report on neo-broker regulation; plus dates for your diary.

This week’s edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes the latest coverage on local government reorganisation and the DfE SEND white paper and consultation on education reform. It features case analysis of Hampshire CC v GC, clarifying when a child with SEND remains ‘in the authority’s area’ for EHCP purposes; R (UYR) v Derby CC on interim relief in age disputes; Stockport MDC v EKK on capacity to marry; WM v Bradford District Care NHS Foundation Trust on the First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health)’s powers to recommend leave under MeHA 1983, s 72(3); Tower Hamlets LBC v Leaseholders, in which the Court of Appeal held that RTB leaseholders were not liable via service charge for remedying inherent structural defects; Trafford MBC v SSHCLG, confirming that allocation-wide infrastructure contributions must be considered despite the absence of a masterplan; R (RA and AA) v SSFCDO on the court’s power to make orders affecting claims beyond those before it, R (Good Law Project) v EHRC, upholding guidance on single-sex spaces; and R (MXV) v Home Secretary, marking a significant shift in the application of the Hardial Singh principles. It also includes expert analysis on the Building Safety Regulator as a standalone body. This edition includes further updates on Local government reorganisation, Local government finance, Education, Children’s social care, Adult social care, Social housing, Planning, Judicial review, Public procurement, Licensing and Pensions.