This Practice Note provides practical guidance regarding the requirements of the company seal. Where a company has a seal and it is being utilised, practitioners must ensure that it complies with the relevant section of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). However, note that not all companies have a company seal and even companies that do have seals are not obliged to execute simple documents under seal. For further details, see Practice Note: Execution formalities—companies. We have produced a collection that is a comprehensive, interactive resource to help users identify and work through the concepts and common issues when executing documents, including information relating to the use of a company seal. Each section or phase includes practical guidance, precedent clauses and Q&As relevant to that section. For more information, see: Execution collection. Requirements for all company seals Company seals are required to have the company's name engraved in legible characters on them. Failure to comply with this requirement results in a criminal offence being committed by the company and each of its officers. The penalty for

This Practice Note examines the rules and guidance on remuneration incentives (the remuneration incentives rules) which apply to firms as set out in Chapter 19F of the Senior Management Arrangements, Systems and Controls sourcebook (SYSC 19F) in the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Handbook. SYSC 19F covers four sets of remuneration incentives: MiFID remuneration incentives (SYSC 19F.1); IDD remuneration incentives (SYSC 19F.2); funeral plan remuneration incentives (SYSC 19F.3); and public offer platform remuneration incentives (SYSC 19F.4). Application of remuneration incentives rules SYSC 19F.1 applies to: • common platform firms, but excluding collective portfolio management investment firms • MiFID optional exemption firms, and • third-country firms (but only in relation to activities carried on from an establishment in the UK) SYSC 19F.2 applies to applies to an insurance distributor carrying on insurance distribution activities from an establishment maintained by it, or its appointed representative, in the UK. SYSC 19F.3 applies to applies to a firm carrying on regulated funeral plan activities. SYSC 19F.4 applies to a firm with respect to the activity of operating an electronic

This checklist outlines the obligations, in table format, of each of the economic operators under Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 which lays down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (the EU AI Act). The EU AI Act was published in the Official Journal of the EU on 12 July 2024, setting out a cross-sectoral regulatory approach to the use of AI systems across the EU. It was amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 and Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 as regards the simplification of the implementation of harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Digital Omnibus on AI), which was published in the Official Journal on 24 July 2026 and entered into force on 27 July 2026. The EU AI Act introduces a harmonised approach to AI regulation across the EU, facilitating a ‘uniform legal framework in particular for the development, marketing and use of AI in conformity with EU values’ as well as mechanisms at EU level to enforce those rules. For more information on the EU AI Act, see Practice Notes: The EU AI

Between 6 April 1978 and November 1986 schemes contracted out of SERPS had to meet a requisite benefits test confirming that they provided a minimum accrual rate (1/80th pensionable salary for each year of pensionable service). This test was in addition to the GMP requirements. The test is now obsolete.

A document issued under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 29, requiring a person to appear before a magistrates’ court to answer a written charge.

This Practice Note considers requests by creditors in administration, liquidation and bankruptcy for an office-holder to seek a decision on a matter or to instigate a decision procedure to consider their removal from office. It does not relate to requests by creditors for a decision to be made by way of a physical meeting rather than deemed consent or another qualifying decision procedure, which is dealt with in Practice Note: The decision-making procedures and deemed consent. Requisition of decision A ‘requisitioned decision’ means: • a request to the official receiver (OR) by one quarter in value of the company’s creditors to seek nominations for a person to be liquidator of the company in place of the OR • a request to a liquidator by one tenth in value of the company’s creditors to seek a decision on a matter • a request to a liquidator in a voluntary winding up (not appointed by the court under section 108 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986)) by 25% in value of the company’s creditors (excluding those who are connected

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.

IP analysis: The Court of Appeal upheld a High Court decision striking out Zaun Ltd’s (Zaun) counterclaim challenging the validity of a registered EU Design (REUD) and its UK re-registered design (UKRRD) equivalent. Praesidiad Holding BVBA (Praesidiad), previously known as Betafence, the design rights holder, had already successfully defended the design’s validity through the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and EU courts. The Court of Appeal ruled that Zaun’s renewed UK challenge was barred by res judicata (the legal doctrine preventing re-litigation of claims or issues that have already been resolved by a competent court) and constituted an abuse of process, despite the UK’s departure from the EU. The decision reinforces that EUIPO judgments, particularly where upheld by the EU General Court, may remain binding in UK proceedings involving post-Brexit re-registered rights. For rights holders, this affirms the continued value and enforceability of EU-originated IP rights in the UK. For defendants, it highlights the importance of raising and resolving validity issues in the appropriate forum, as opportunities to re-litigate in the UK may be limited once EU decisions have reached finality. Written by Amanda McDowall, partner, and Saher Amin, trainee solicitor, at Lee & Thompson LLP.

IP analysis: This case is relevant to defending UK-cloned IP rights created on IP completion day (31 December 2020). The defendant previously attempted to invalidate the first claimant’s RCD before the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The General Court then held the RCD valid and denied the defendant permission to appeal to the Court of Justice. Those EUIPO proceedings began pre-Brexit and concluded post-Brexit. Thereafter, the parties re-commenced their previously stayed UK court proceedings. In those proceedings, the defendant then filed a counterclaim against the claimants for invalidity of the RCD and its newly registered UK clone (re-registered design). The claimants applied to strike out the defendant’s counterclaim, relying on (1) Article 86(5) of Regulation EC 6/2002, which prevents invalidity counterclaims against an RCD where the RCD’s validity has already been determined in a final EUIPO decision, and (2) the English law principles of res judicata and abuse of process. The High Court held in favour of the claimants. Written by Lakmal Walawage, partner and Head of Intellectual Property, at JMW Solicitors LLP.

'Things done'

'A thing done between others'

If the claimant is unable to prove precisely how an accident took place, they may be able to rely on the maxim res ipsa loquitur, 'the thing speaks for itself'.