Arbitration analysis: Matthew Bradley of 4 New Square analyses the decision of Mr Justice Andrew Baker in the Commercial Court to dismiss a serious irregularity challenge to a London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) tribunal’s award for failure to deal with all the issues that were put to it, pursuant to section 68(2)(d) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The court’s essential finding was that there was no relevant issue capable in principle of engaging AA 1996, s 68(2)(d), such that the challenge failed for that reason alone. In the course of giving judgment, the court made some trenchant observations as to the proper pleading of arbitration Claim Forms, and as to the proper distinction to be drawn between pleadings and witness statements in challenges under AA 1996, s 68 (and s 67).

Arbitration analysis: The Commercial Court upheld a challenge under section 68(2)(d) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) where an ICC tribunal failed to determine two essential causation issues relevant to a lost profits award. The judgment reinforces that an ‘issue’ for the purposes of section 68 may include a substantive sub-issue that fairness requires to be resolved. The court emphasised that a tribunal must engage with material disputes and that a decision cannot be inferred solely from the outcome where the award contains no reasoning on the point. The case provides important guidance on the distinction between challenges to reasoning and genuine failures to address determinative issues and confirms the court’s preference for remission where substantial injustice is established.

Requirement which must be met before permission to serve outside the jurisdiction will be granted by the court.

Medical treatment of those without capacity to consent Generally, it is the patient's (P’s) consent which makes invasive medical treatment lawful. Where P is unable to consent to treatment, it is lawful to give P treatment which is necessary in their best interests. Section 5 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) provides a general defence for acts done in connection with the care or treatment of a person, provided that the actor has first taken reasonable steps to establish whether the person concerned lacks capacity in relation to the matter in question and reasonably believes both that the person lacks capacity and that it will be in that person’s best interests for the act to be done. In 2018, the Supreme Court confirmed in NHS Trust v Y that, if the provisions of MCA 2005 are followed, any relevant professional guidance observed and relevant guidance in the Code of Practice followed, including as to the undertaking of the decision-making process, then, if there is

Law360: A Texas bankruptcy judge's decision this week to award roughly USD400 million to lenders excluded from Serta Simmons' controversial 'uptier' deal is poised to transform creditor-on-creditor disputes and shift how debtors decide where to seek Chapter 11 protection.

Law360: Lenders to Serta Simmons Bedding presented closing arguments in a Texas bankruptcy court on 25 March 2026 in a trial over damages that investors excluded from the mattress maker's 2020 'uptier' deal say they should be awarded, an issue which the presiding judge expects to decide on in the next few months.

A software process or device (physical or virtual) providing services to other applications (clients).

Data centre construction is surging around the world as companies race to build the critical infrastructure needed to power advancements in artificial intelligence (AI). Brody Greenwald, partner, Darryl Lew, partner, Kate Perumal, partner, and Efat Elsherif, associate at White & Case, consider how this boom in data centre construction could lead to a new wave of international arbitration.

Hardware that acts as an application provider and allows users to run specific software packages and internet applications to multiple users in given organisations.

The transmission of a document by one party or intended party to another under the CPR.

Property Disputes analysis: The Court of Appeal held that the cost of remedying pre-existing structural defects in residential buildings was not recoverable from leaseholders under standard service charge provisions. Broadly drafted repair, maintenance and safety clauses were insufficient to impose liability for substantial structural remediation in the absence of clear and specific wording. Upholding the tribunal decisions below, the court confirmed a restrictive approach to lease interpretation where service charges are concerned. The decision is significant for practitioners advising on building safety and historic defect remediation. It limits landlords’ and local authorities’ ability to pass on major structural costs to leaseholders and reinforces the importance of precise drafting when allocating financial risk for extraordinary works. Written by Katie Briggs, principal associate at Browne Jacobson LLP.

Service Level Agreement 1 Definitions 1.1 In this Schedule: Available/Availability • means that the [core functionality of the] Hosted Solution is [materially] available for use [in accordance with its Specification] by the Customer, calculated as follows: A = (PU – X) / (PU) (x 100 to be expressed as a percentage) A means Available PU means Potential Uptime X means the aggregate total minutes during the relevant Month (excluding Downtime) during which the Hosted Solution is not Available; [Critical Service Level Failure • means [either: (i) the Supplier’s failure to achieve the Service Level for [three Months] in any [six Month] period; or (ii) the Supplier's failure to achieve Availability above [Z%] over any one Month OR define as appropriate];] Customer Connectivity • means the telecommunications and information technology equipment and infrastructure necessary to access the Hosted Solution from the Customer’s location; Downtime • means any period of time, calculated in minutes, when the Hosted Solution is not Available due to an Exclusion; Exclusion • means: (a) a Force Majeure Event; (b) emergency or planned maintenance to the Hosted Solution; (c) any issue with the Customer Connectivity; (d) any act or omission of the Customer;