This Practice Note explains the different situations where an adjudicator may resign, whether it be of their own volition or mandatory, and looks at the procedure for resignation. For guidance on the parties’ liability to pay the adjudicator’s fees following resignation, see Practice Note: An adjudicator's fees and expenses. In relation to the ability of a referring party to bring an adjudication to an end, see Practice Note: Abandoning the adjudication. Voluntary resignation Whether or not an adjudicator may resign voluntarily is determined by the rules governing the adjudication, although in practice if an adjudicator does not wish to act there may be little the parties can do (or would want to do) to compel the adjudicator to continue acting. Common reasons for resignation include illness or unforeseen personal circumstances, but most rules which permit voluntary resignation do not expressly require the adjudicator to give reasons. The Scheme for Construction Contracts permits the adjudicator to resign ‘at any time’ by giving notice in writing to the parties (Part I, para 9(1)). The scope of the adjudicator’s

This Practice Note looks at the company law implications regarding the resignation of a company secretary of a public or private company. It does not discuss how a company secretary of a public company or a private company may be appointed or be removed, as to which see Practice Notes: Appointment of a company secretary and Removal of a company secretary. Resignation of a company secretary Neither the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) nor the model articles contain any specific provisions about how a company secretary may resign. Subject to any specific provisions in the company’s articles of association

Filed on behalf of the Claimant Witness statement of [insert initial and surname of witness] Number of witness statement: [insert number of witness statement in relation to the witness] Exhibit details: [insert initials and number of each exhibit referred to] Date on which statement was made: [insert date] Claim no.: [insert claim number] In the high court of justice

Filed on behalf of the Defendant Witness statement of [insert initial and surname of witness] Number of witness statement: [insert number of witness statement in relation to the witness] Exhibit details: [insert initials and number of each exhibit referred to] Date on which statement was made: [insert date] [Date of translation: [insert date]] CLAIM NO: [insert claim number] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE business and property courts of england and wales Commercial court (kBD) OR In the high court of justice business and property courts in [insert location] [specify division] [specify specialist court] BEFORE [insert judge’s name] AND IN AN ARBITRATION CLAIM Between 1 [insert Claimant’s name] Claimant -and- 2 [insert Defendant’s name] Defendant AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Between 1 [insert Claimant’s name] Claimant -and- 2 [insert Respondent’s name] Respondent ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WITNESS

Produced in association with 4 Pump Court. This Practice Note provides a summary of the options available to a party wishing to prevent enforcement of an adjudication decision, while also highlighting grounds that have failed or been rejected by the court. The courts take a pro-enforcement approach to adjudication decisions, and as set out below the circumstances in which a decision will not be enforced (or a stay of execution granted) are limited. Summary of grounds for resisting enforcement The court will only refuse to enforce an adjudicator's decision, or grant a stay of execution, in very limited circumstances: • the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction (see Practice Note: Grounds for a jurisdictional challenge in an adjudication) • there was a serious breach of natural justice in the adjudication (see Practice Note: Breach of natural justice in adjudication) • the referring party is insolvent and/or there is a risk of dissipation of the awarded sum (see Practice Note: Adjudication—resisting enforcement using a stay of execution) • fraud during the adjudication (see Practice Note: Fraud in adjudication)

Arbitration analysis: The Hong Kong Court of First Instance considered an award creditor's application for security pending the determination of a challenge to the enforcement of an HKIAC arbitral award. The award debtor alleged that enforcement should be refused because it had been unable to present its case and because the arbitrator had displayed apparent or actual bias against its quantum expert. The court rejected those allegations on a preliminary assessment, holding that the arbitrator's rigorous scrutiny of the expert evidence, procedural rulings, and limited factual inquiries fell within his proper adjudicative role and did not give rise to any real possibility of bias. Applying established principles on security in enforcement proceedings, the court found the setting-aside application without merit, ordered the award debtor to provide security amounting to 70% of the award sum, and awarded indemnity costs against it. The decision reaffirms Hong Kong's pro-enforcement approach to arbitration and the high threshold for resisting enforcement on grounds of bias, procedural unfairness, or inability to present a case. Produced in partnership with Andrew Rigden Green of Watson Farley & Williams LLP.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The applicant liquidators had obtained freezing orders at an ex parte hearing in furtherance of their claim under sections 212 and 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) in respect of an alleged fraudulent art investment scheme. The Chancellor of the High Court had to decide whether to continue the orders. Following a three-day interlocutory hearing, the Chancellor set out the well-known principles and authorities relevant to the grant and continuation of a freezing order and held that the applicants had a good arguable case on the merits, that there was a risk of dissipation, and that there had not been a failure of full and frank disclosure. The Chancellor was critical of certain aspects of the first respondent’s approach, in particular, the first respondent had made the hearing like a mini trial, had taken every point including those that could not be resolved at an interlocutory hearing, and had showed a lack of proportion and restraint in respect of the full and frank disclosure arguments pursued. Written by Justin Perring, barrister, New Square Chambers.

A proposal put forward to be decided upon at a meeting of the board of directors or of the shareholders of a company in general meeting. See also ordinary resolution, special resolution and written resolution.

The Resolution Foundation has published a report which examines the labour market experiences of foreign-born workers in the UK. The report found that recently arrived migrants are 2.4 times more likely than UK-born workers to be on flexible contracts after adjusting for demographic factors. It recommends establishing a data firewall between the new Fair Work Agency (FWA) and Immigration Enforcement, while calling for accelerated simplification of worker status classifications. The report also emphasises that trade unions, charities and Workertech platforms all have a valuable role to play in supporting migrant workers.

The Resolution Foundation’s 'Call of Duties: Revenue and Reform for Autumn Budget 2025', published on 23 September 2025, outlines a package of measures aimed at broadening the tax base while addressing the distortions between employment, self-employment, and business structure while ensuring more consistent treatment of different forms of income. The report also places particular emphasis on reducing distortions within the National Insurance (NI) system. A key focus is the treatment of employer pension contributions and salary sacrifice arrangements, which the Foundation argues creates arbitrary advantages for some workers and businesses while narrowing the tax base. The report proposes reforming pension tax relief by extending employer NI to employer pension contributions and compensating by relief for employee contributions, moderating the NI relief on salary sacrifice, for example by applying employer NI at half rate or capping relief, and shifting part of employee NI into income tax so that pensioners and other non-employed income earners contribute more fairly. The report emphasises that such changes should be phased and modest, to avoid shock effects on wages, employment or smaller firms.

THAT the directors be authorised to [advance by way of loan OR provide] an amount not exceeding £50,000 when aggregated with the value of all other Relevant Transactions and Arrangements (as defined below) to [insert name of the director] in their capacity as a director of the Company the sum of £[insert amount of funds, not to exceed £50,000 when aggregated with other Relevant Transaction and

That the directors be authorised to advance a loan from the Company to [insert name of the director] provided that the loan amount