This Deed is made on [insert day and month] 20[insert year] Parties 1 [Insert name of Chargor], a company incorporated in England and Wales with registered number [insert company number] whose registered office is at [insert address] (the Chargor); and 2 [Insert name of Lender] of [insert address] (the Lender). Recitals: (A) The Lender has agreed to make available a loan facility to the Chargor on the terms and conditions set out in the ‘Facility Agreement’ (as defined below). (B) It is a condition precedent to the availability of the loan facility that the Chargor enter into this Deed for the purpose of providing security in favour of the Lender in respect of the Secured Obligations (as defined below). It is agreed as follows: 1 Definitions and interpretation 1.1 Definitions In this Deed, unless otherwise provided: Facility Agreement • means the facility agreement entered into on [the date of this Deed OR [insert date]] between the Chargor as borrower and the Lender as lender; Insurance Policies • means each of the insurance policies now or in the future held by or otherwise benefiting the Chargor in relation to the Real Property

Property Disputes analysis: The Court of Appeal allowed a second appeal in a long-running boundary dispute over the bank of a stream in Leicestershire. The three separate judgments affirm that, in a boundary dispute, an HM Land Registry title plan is ordinarily irrelevant to the location of a boundary. The effect of the ‘general boundaries’ rule is that the line of a boundary falls to be located by looking underneath the title plan. The Court of Appeal also held that section 75 of the Land Registration Act 1925 (LRA 1925) operates only where the limitation period expired after first registration. Written by Tom Morris, barrister at Landmark Chambers.

The return less the rate of inflation.

A right available against the whole world.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The court stated that court permission is required for real time transcription and recording of hearings and set out the rules and formalities that should be complied with to obtain the necessary court approval. The court outlined the legislation underpinning the rules on recording of court proceedings and the consequences of failure to comply with the rules. The court also gave guidance as to the appropriate procedures for transcribers to adopt as regards formalities, and as to the correct use of access links for court hearings. Written by Angharad Parry, barrister at Twenty Essex.

The value after allowing for inflation.

To realise an asset means to dispose of it/sell it.

The measure of losses used in the calculation of distributable profits. References to realised losses, in relation to a company's accounts, are to such losses of the company as fall to be treated as realised in accordance with principles generally accepted at the time when the accounts are prepared, with respect to the determination for accounting purposes of realised losses (CA 2006, s 853(4)).

The measure of profits used in the calculation of distributable profits. References to realised profits, in relation to a company's accounts, are to such profits of the company as fall to be treated as realised in accordance with principles generally accepted at the time when the accounts are prepared, with respect to the determination for accounting purposes of realised profits (CA 2006, s 853(4)).

One of the potentially fair reasons for dismissal is that the employee could not continue to work in the position which they held without a duty or restriction imposed by or under statute being contravened (whether by themself or their employer). See Precedent: ET3 Response to unfair dismissal claim-contravention of statute. A dismissal because of a failure to produce right to work documents cannot amount to a dismissal for breach of an enactment. That is because section 15(3) of IANA 2006 does not impose a ‘requirement’ on an employer to obtain certain documents, just the possibility of ‘excusal from a penalty’ if certain documents are obtained from the employee. It is not sufficient that the employer genuinely believed that continued employment would contravene a statute: the employment must contravene statute as a matter of fact. However, an employer's genuine, but mistaken belief that they could not legally continue to employ the employee may be 'some other substantial reason' (see Practice Note: Reason for dismissal—some other substantial reason). Examples of dismissals that may fall within

This Practice Note examines the potentially fair reason for dismissal: reasons relating to capability and qualifications. It covers dismissals relating to incompetence, lack of skill or aptitude, ill-health and qualifications, sickness, health reasons, incapacity, and poor performance. It addresses issues of medical evidence, performance improvement meetings, procedural fairness taking into account the Acas Code of Practice, up to date medical reports relating to ill-health capability, loss of a qualification or driving licence necessary for the role and the consideration of suitable alternative work. Reasons that relate to capability and qualifications are potentially fair reasons for dismissal. Capability is defined, in relation to an employee, as meaning their capability by reference to skill, aptitude, health or any other physical or mental quality. Qualifications are defined as any degree, diploma or other academic, technical or professional qualification relevant to the position which the employee held. See Precedents: • ET1 Claim for unfair dismissal—ill-health capability • ET3 Response to unfair dismissal claim—ill-health capability • ET1 Claim for unfair dismissal—performance capability • ET3 Response to unfair dismissal claim—performance capability For

Conduct is a potentially fair reason for dismissal. Dismissals for misconduct are probably the most frequent category of unfair dismissal claim brought before the employment tribunal. The conduct does not have to be of any particular character. It does not have to be 'reprehensible' or even 'culpable' for it to constitute a potentially fair reason, although the extent to which the claimant is blameworthy may be relevant when considering whether or not dismissal was a fair sanction in all the circumstances and also when assessing compensation, see: Appropriateness of dismissal: general below and Practice Note: The unfair dismissal compensatory award—Contributory fault. Dismissal for an isolated incident of misconduct will rarely be fair although, in some circumstances, the incident will be sufficiently serious to justify dismissal for a first offence. Generally, dismissal for misconduct will only be a reasonable sanction if the employee had committed earlier acts of misconduct and been warned that further incidents may lead to dismissal. Refusal to comply with instructions An employee is under a general obligation to follow lawful and reasonable instructions