Dispute Resolution analysis: The High court was asked to strike out/enter summary judgment in favour of two directors (Hutt and Loughlin) who were the subject of a liquidator’s (Ward’s) claim for a declaration that a payment of £160,000 was void as a preference, despite a previous claim against them for breach of statutory duty and misfeasance arising out of the same facts, which had been discontinued. The court held that CPR 38.7 applied (permission required for making another claim following discontinuance) but had not been complied with and refused permission under that rule. The court also struck out the claim on the grounds that it was an abuse of process. The case throws up some interesting procedural points regarding the operation of CPR 38.7 (particularly where limitation is at issue) and the circumstances in which res judicata will apply.

Background to medical use claims Second (and subsequent) medical use patent claims (referred to hereinafter as ‘second medical use claims’) are specific to the pharmaceutical/biotechnology industry and are used to define the scope of an invention by way of a specified medical use. For an introduction to these and other types of patent claims, see Practice Note: Major types of patent claims. There are two different types of second medical use claim which are described in more detail below. The inclusion of a medical use as a feature in a claim has implications for the claim’s patentability and its scope of protection.  To understand the background of second medical use claims it must be appreciated that they came about under the previous 1973 version of the European Patent Convention (EPC 1973) which has since been succeeded by the EPC 2000. The original second medical use claims granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) from the mid-1980s until 2010 followed the format of ‘the use

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Jessica Brooke, barrister at Enterprise Chambers, examines the High Court's decision in Lambert v Forest of Dean District Council and others that a second application to annul a bankruptcy order, after the first application was struck out for failure to comply with an unless order, would be refused primarily as an abuse of process and secondly on its merits, even in circumstances where the bankruptcy order ought not to have been made.

This Practice Note considers the second charge mortgage regime (loans secured on a property that is already subject to a first ranking charge mortgage), including: (i) the transfer of second charge mortgages into the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulated mortgage regime, (ii) the treatment of the back book of second charge mortgages that existed before the implementation of the Mortgage Credit Directive (2014/17/EU) (MCD) on 21 March 2016, (iii) the rules that apply to regulated mortgage contracts (RMCs) which are second charge mortgages entered into on or after 21 March 2016 and (iv) tailored rules for niche products and other non-MCOB requirements. Second charge mortgages defined A regulated second charge mortgage is a loan secured on a borrower’s property that is used as, or in connection with a dwelling, and already subject to a first ranking charge mortgage. A second charge mortgage is subordinate to a first charge mortgage and in the event of default, a second charge lender's interest in the proceeds of realising the property will only arise once the liabilities owing to the first

Debt ranking below senior secured debt and above shareholders in a distributions waterfall.

In an acquisition finance transaction, debt that is secured on the same security package as senior debt, on a second ranking basis. It ranks behind senior debt but in front of other junior debt such as mezzanine debt.

The Home Office has issued the second in what it calls ‘monthly monitoring of entry clearance visa applications’ statistics, publishing provisional data which gives an indication of the number of people who have an intention to enter the UK for work and study reasons. This is further to the various policy changes made in recent months with the intention of reducing net migration.

Delete the following definitions in clause 1.1 of Precedent: Subscription and shareholders’ agreement—single investor: Completion; Completion Date; Conditions; and Subscription Shares Insert the following new definitions in clause 1.1 of Precedent: Subscription and shareholders’ agreement—single investor: First Completion • means the performance of the respective obligations of each of the Parties set out or referred to in clauses 3.1 and 3.2; First Completion Date • means [the date of this Agreement OR [insert date]] or such other date as the Parties agree in writing; First Subscription Conditions • means the conditions set out in clause 2.2 and First Subscription Condition means any one of them; First Subscription Shares • means the Shares to be subscribed for by the Investor pursuant to clause 2.1; Milestone Date • means [insert date]; Milestones • means the milestones to be satisfied by the Company before Second Completion set out in Schedule 8; Second Completion • means the performance of the respective obligations of each of the Parties set out or referred to in clauses 5.1 and 5.2; Second Completion Date • means the date which is [insert number] Business Days after satisfaction or waiver (as the case may be) of the Second Subscription Conditions; Second

The provision of capital to a company that has entered the production and growth stage although it may not be making a profit yet. It is often at this stage that venture capitalists become involved in the financing.

The second state pension, which replaced SERPS from 6 April 2002. Also known as the additional state pension. No longer available under the new state pension scheme introduced on 6 April 2016.

Construction analysis: The Inner House of the Court of Session overturned a ruling on a preliminary issue of prescription/limitation on appeal. The outcome was to deprive the Contractor of any remedy against Arup in the proceedings and leaving it to meet the cost overrun claimed to be some £5,951,533. Sections 6(4) and 11(3) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act were considered and applied in a global or straightforward way whereas efforts to identify specific and distinct (and thus later) dates for time to start running was deprecated ‘no salami slicing’. Written by James Davison, barrister at 3PB Barristers.

The Education Secretary, Gavin Williamson, has announced the second wave of a competition, backed by £120m worth of funding, to open eight new employer-led art Institutes of Technology (IoT), bringing the total to 20 across England. IoT's bring together further and higher education providers and offer 'higher technical STEM education and training... in key sectors such as digital, construction, advanced manufacturing and engineering, which will play a key role in helping to rebuild the economy' after coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The competition is open to all regions of the country without an existing IoT. The first wave of the competition saw 12 IoTs selected in areas such as the South West, Midlands, Yorkshire, the North East, and London.