Dispute Resolution analysis: In this case, the court was asked to consider whether it should depart from the principle of open justice in circumstances where a claimant had commenced a claim that might, should details of the claim become public, breach certain confidentiality obligations in a deed of settlement. The court re-affirmed the principle of open justice and explained that derogations from that principle were only possible in certain cases—here, the court explained that ‘while the court may use its powers to afford protection for information whose release into the public might cause harm […] this will have to be justified by the circumstances and should be as narrowly used as possible. The existence of an obligation of confidence, per se, does not shift the balance’. Written by Oliver Browne, Partner and Chair of the London Litigation & Trial Department at Latham & Watkins.

Commercial analysis: In Zaha Hadid Ltd v The Zaha Hadid Foundation, the High Court confirmed that agreements of indefinite duration would not necessarily be interpreted to include bilateral termination rights and that the absence of such rights did not mean the relevant agreements operated in restraint of trade. Written by Oliver Dutton, trainee at A&O Shearman.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In Head v Culver Heating Co Ltd, Mrs Head successfully appealed against a finding that no award should be made in respect of the lost years claim. Jon Andrews, principal lawyer at Slater and Gordon, looks at the High Court’s re-determination of the lost years claim following the Court of Appeal’s judgment in January 2021. As people increasingly seek retirement income by way of investing in properties jointly owned by spouses, there are undoubtedly some interesting points to consider in this case. Written by Jon Andrews, principal lawyer, at Slater and Gordon.

In political guidelines published on 18 July 2024, President Ursula von der Leyen set out her legislative and policy plans for the next five-year Commission of 2024 to 2029.

In political guidelines published on 18 July 2024, President Ursula von der Leyen set out her legislative and policy plans for the next five-year Commission of 2024 to 2029.

Re-elected European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, proposed two legislative priorities that will affect the pharmaceutical industry as part of its five-year plan setting out goals that aim to boost competitiveness, sustainability and promote research and innovation in Europe. The first, the European Biotech Act in 2025, is aimed at boosting competitiveness in the pharmaceutical sector supporting green and digital transitions. The EU pharma industry (EFPIA) announced its support for a Biotech Act. The second proposal is a Critical Medicines Act to combat drug shortages of critical medicines and ingredients, including antibiotics, insulin, and painkillers, by reducing dependence on medical treatments and ingredients sourced from outside the region, particularly for products with few suppliers. These efforts are part of completing the European Health Union larger vision.

This Practice Note examines when re-engagement (re-engagement) will be ordered as a remedy under section 112 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) following a finding of unfair dismissal. It deals with the tribunals obligation to ask the employee whether re-engagement is sought and if so to consider an order for re-engagement. The Practice Note goes on to examine the circumstances in which re-engagement will be ordered, the contents and effect of a re-engagement order and the calculation of arrears of pay and other benefits. It explains that a second stage re-engagement hearing will take place where the re-engagement order has not been complied with, either fully or at all, including calculation of an additional award of compensation under ERA 1996, s 117 if the tribunal finds that it was practicable for the employer to have complied with the re-engagement order. Re-engagement is one of the orders that may be made by a tribunal under ERA 1996, s 112 following a finding of unfair dismissal. Following a finding of unfair dismissal, the tribunal must explain to the employee the

1 [Gross Internal Area means the gross internal area of the Premises expressed in square [feet OR metres] and measured in accordance with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ Property Measurement (2nd Edition). OR Net Internal Area means the net internal area of the Premises expressed in square [feet OR metres] and measured in accordance with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ Property Measurement (2nd

Public Law analysis: Involve confirms that contracting authorities may re-moderate tender scores without expressly reserving that power in the invitation to tender (ITT), provided published criteria and procedures are applied consistently and fairly. Although DWP breached transparency by considering extraneous material only in relation to Involve’s bid, the breach caused no loss because the same score and exclusion would have followed on the published criteria. The court also upheld exclusion for breach of agreed conflict-of-interest mitigation measures, notwithstanding the absence of any demonstrated advantage. The judgment emphasises the high threshold for manifest error, the need for robust audit trails and disciplined evaluation, and the importance for incumbent suppliers of strict compliance with conflict-management arrangements. Produced in partnership with Kris Kelliher and Sarah Ward of Devonshires Solicitors.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The claimant suffered a serious brain injury in a road traffic accident. The defendants’ expert considered she may have pre accident myotonic dystrophy (MD) which would undermine life expectancy and care levels in the claim. Electromyographic neurophysiological (EMG) testing could determine this issue. The claimant refused to have testing. The defendants were granted a stay pending agreement to testing in respect of damages for future loss. The claimant’s application for permission to appeal was refused. They therefore asked for permission to reopen this issue. CPR 52.30 permits reopening of appeals to avoid injustice in exceptional and appropriate circumstances where no alternative effective remedy is available. The court held that refusal to give permission omitted concerns raised about the claimant’s autonomy and detriment to her mental health. Permission to appeal was therefore granted. The appeal application has yet to be heard. Written by Marcus Weatherby, serious injury and clinical negligence solicitor, Pattinson and Brewer Solicitors.

The process by which a company of one type (eg a public company limited by shares) is re-registered as a company of another type (eg a private company limited by shares) in accordance with the provisions of CA 2006, Part 7.

This Checklist is a quick guide to the steps to be taken and the documents to be prepared in order for a private limited company to re-register as a public limited company under Part 7 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), including: • Preliminary considerations • Documentation • Meetings and procedures • Companies House filings and certificates, and • Post-registration matters Preliminary considerations Step Notes/Resources Tick box when step complete or matter considered Does the company have a share capital that meets the requirements for public companies? If not, steps must be taken to meet the share capital requirements before re-registration may take place. CA 2006, s 90Note: Only a private company with a share capital may be re-registered as a public company (which prevents private companies limited by guarantee from being re-registered as public).CA 2006, s 91Note: The share capital requirements for public companies are that the value of the company's allotted share capital must not be less than the authorised minimum (being £50,000 or the prescribed euro equivalent, currently