What is reasonable will depend upon the number of documents involved, the nature and complexity of the proceedings, the ease and expense of retrieving documents and the significance of any document likely to be found during the search, the existence of electronic documents.

The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, s 13 imposes an implied term into contracts for the supply of services that the services will be performed with reasonable skill and care. This is a negligence test; the services do not have to be perfect.

Commercial analysis: The Court of Appeal recently considered the factors to be taken into account in determining the reasonableness of a term excluding the statutory implied term as to quality in either a hire purchase agreement or an agreement based on a party’s standard terms of business. Written by Martin Hevey, senior associate at Herbert Smith Freehills.

Property analysis: The Court of Appeal clarified the test for reasonable service charge designation where landlords exercise contractual discretion. The court held that challenging a landlord's decision requires proving it was beyond the realms of reasonableness, not merely that better alternatives existed. The ruling arose from leaseholders disputing full gym costs after the landlord granted a third party a long lease while maintaining their usage rights. For service charge disputes, the threshold question is whether no reasonable landlord could have reached the decision, marking a demanding standard for leaseholder challenges to discretionary landlord decisions. Practical implications written by Jessica Parry of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP.

Commercial analysis: Where a development agreement requires ‘both parties [to act]…in good faith’, ‘reasonably’ and ‘in the spirit of the agreement’, how does the court give content to those obligations? Does one party’s refusal to permit the registration of a charge, needed to secure refinancing, amount to a breach? The court held that where the contract prescribed no basis for determining ‘the spirit of the agreement’, it would be interpreted as a reference to the parties’ shared aims in entering into the agreement, ascertained as part of the usual process of construction. As to the requirement to act reasonably, the court distinguished between situations where the contract left that to be determined objectively by the court, and those where it was left to one of the parties. The latter might be qualified by an implied Braganza duty to exercise the decision without being arbitrary, capricious or irrational. Written by Seb Oram, barrister at 3PB Barristers.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court made a retrospective administration order. It did so on a ‘worst case’ basis, without reaching a firm conclusion on whether the purported initial appointment of the administrators (made out of court under paragraph 14 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986)) had been premised on an invalid floating charge, although did so while noting that there were ‘strong grounds’ for finding that the charge was invalid. The court considered a large quantity of evidence from purported creditors who supported the winding-up petition. That evidence ultimately had little probative value to the issues in dispute, because (i) much of it appears to have been unreliable, or at best to have been evidence of disputed debts; and (ii) the court was unable to conclude there was any majority creditor view either way. In circumstances where the company was clearly insolvent and the administration was more likely to achieve a better result for creditors than a liquidation, the court ultimately rejected the petitioner’s position that a winding-up order should be made (from which the petitioner had resiled by the time judgment was given). Written by Samuel Parsons, barrister at Erskine Chambers.

Planning Analysis: In New Dawn Homes, the court upheld an inspector’s decision to aggregate two areas and treat them as forming part of a larger development site for the purposes of requiring an affordable housing contribution. The decision clarifies that the courts will look at explanatory text supporting a local plan policy to interpret an unclear policy.

IP analysis: TVIS has successfully appealed the finding that its claim for infringement under section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994) failed. Howserv’s use of PETSURE for pet insurance services resulted in a likelihood of confusion and therefore infringed TVIS’s trade mark for VETSURE, registered for identical services. Lord Justice Arnold gave the leading judgment in the Court of Appeal and concluded that although VETSURE alluded to insurance against veterinary costs, a major component of most ‘pet insurance’ services, it did not describe that service. The trial judge’s finding to the contrary impacted his assessment of the inherent distinctiveness of the VETSURE trade mark. Furthermore, the trial judge was inconsistent in finding that the mark lacked acquired distinctiveness but possessed a ‘reputation’. These and other errors made it necessary for the appeal court to assess the likelihood of confusion afresh. Written by Bonita Trimmer, consultant and Alice Elliott-Foster, associate, at Browne Jacobson LLP.

To change a fund's constituents so that they more closely match those of its benchmark.

An election by trustees under which provides a relief to beneficiaries who are resident but not domiciled in the UK, in the event they receive a capital payment from the trust which is matched with trust gains which are realised after 6 April 2008, but part or all of which accrued before 6 April 2008.

A rebate is a return of part of a payment, premium, fee or price, usually where more has been paid than is ultimately due, or where a contractual or statutory right to a refund or discount arises. In legal practice across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, “rebate” is a descriptive commercial and regulatory term, rather than a single, uniformly defined legal concept.Rebates commonly arise in contracts (for example, volume or loyalty rebates in supply agreements), financial services (such as rebated commissions or fees), insurance (premium rebates), consumer law (refunds or price reductions) and tax (repayment of overpaid tax or statutory rebates). Their availability and calculation are governed by the relevant contract terms, sector‑specific regulation and, where applicable, consumer protection or tax legislation.Key legal issues include: whether the rebate is discretionary or contractual; conditions precedent to entitlement; how and when the rebate is calculated and paid; interaction with anti‑bribery, competition and inducement rules; and tax treatment. Courts will interpret rebate clauses using ordinary contractual principles in each jurisdiction, with broadly consistent approaches to construction, unfair terms and unjust enrichment.

A rebuttable presumption is an assumption the court is required to make unless and until it is displaced by sufficient evidence to the contrary. In practice, it allocates the evidential burden: once the party benefiting from the presumption establishes the basic facts that trigger it, the onus shifts to the other party to adduce evidence rebutting the presumed fact or legal state of affairs.Rebuttable presumptions are found across civil and criminal law in England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, and may arise from statute, common law or evidential rules. Examples include presumptions of legitimacy, presumptions of death after a period of disappearance, and certain presumptions about intention, knowledge or service of documents.The standard required to rebut depends on context (usually the civil standard of balance of probabilities; exceptionally, a heightened standard in some criminal or quasi‑criminal contexts). If unchallenged or not adequately rebutted, the presumption will generally determine the point in issue. The concept and its effects are broadly consistent across the UK and Ireland, though the precise form and source of particular presumptions, and rules of evidence, may differ between jurisdictions.