Silent (or non-affirmative) cyber coverage, and the systemic risk it presents to the insurance market, have been of significant regulatory concern in recent years. This Practice Note examines silent cyber in professional indemnity insurance (PII), the regulatory concerns it has generated, and the market’s response to date. It also considers the differing approaches adopted by the International Underwriting Association (IUA) and the London Market Association (LMA), and the implications of those approaches for underwriting practices and minimum terms for regulated professions. Cyber risks encompass any risk associated with financial loss, business interruption or reputational damage suffered by an organisation arising from the failure, unauthorised use or erroneous operation of its IT systems. Such risks may arise from both malicious acts (including cyberattacks) and non-malicious events (such as system outages or accidental data loss). The frequency and visibility of cyber events have increased markedly. Organisations across all sectors, including professional services, defence, education, healthcare and charities have experienced cyber events of growing sophistication

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Silicon Valley Bank specialised in lending to businesses (particularly start ups) in the technology and life science sectors. Due to growing fears about the bank’s viability, its customer base withdrew tens of billions in deposits until, on Friday 10 March 2023, financial regulators stepped in, in what was the largest failure of a US bank since 2008. UK authorities followed suit. This Practice Note sets out the key issues involved in the collapse, including background information, the impact on deposits, lending transactions, and derivative transactions. The impact on stablecoins and cryptoassets is also considered. This Practice Note also includes links to general information in connection with the legal issues surrounding bank stability. What has happened in the US? On 10 March 2023, California financial regulators took possession of Silicon Valley Bank, California (SVBUS) due to ‘inadequate liquidity and insolvency’. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was appointed as receiver. On 12 March 2023, the

This Practice Note discusses the key considerations in relation to a work-related claim for silicosis. It discusses the condition itself, the duties on the employer, causation considerations and valuing these claims. Introduction Silicosis is an incurable lung disease caused by the inhalation of silica dust (respirable crystalline silica (RCS)) leading to progressive lung scarring and breathing impairment. It is usually associated with cumulative exposure over years, but very high exposures can cause accelerated or acute disease over much shorter periods. In occupational settings, employers have legal duties to protect workers from RCS exposure and those who develop silicosis may pursue claims when such duties have been breached. Interest in silica/silicosis claims has increased since the 2010s with the advent of artificial stone (AS), a material which often forms kitchen worktops. AS contains very high levels of crystalline silica and can, therefore, generate very high levels of RCS when cut, ground or polished. This has led to certain engineered stone being banned in Australia and increased concern over the use of the same in the UK, where HSE

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Silicosis is an incurable lung disease caused by prolonged inhalation of respirable crystalline silica (RCS), leading to progressive lung scarring and impaired breathing. In occupational settings, employers have legal duties to protect workers from silica dust exposure. Where these duties have been breached, those who develop silicosis may pursue legal claims. Written by Jim Hester, barrister at Parklane Plowden Chambers.

Similarly situated describes persons or entities whose relevant characteristics are materially alike so that their treatment in law can properly be compared. It is a comparative concept used across many areas of practice, rather than a single statutory definition.In discrimination, equality and human rights law in the UK and Ireland, the question is whether a claimant is treated less favourably than a comparator who is similarly situated but for the protected characteristic (for example, in employment, housing, education or access to services). Courts assess whether the comparator is in the same or not materially different circumstances, focussing on factors such as role, responsibilities, decision-maker, timing and applicable policies.The expression is also used in public law (for example, challenging inconsistent decision‑making), competition law (comparison between competing undertakings), sentencing and confiscation (comparison between offenders), and tax law (consistency of treatment between taxpayers).Usage is broadly consistent across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland: the key inquiry is whether the selected comparator provides a fair and realistic benchmark for assessing equal treatment, justification, proportionality or consistency.

TMT analysis: This judgment addresses remedies following the granting of judgment in default to Simon Schofield, the award-winning theatrical producer, actor and creative director, against Politicalite Ltd, the publisher of an influential online news publication ‘Politicalite’. The article was published by Politicalite in September 2022 and written by Jordan Kendall (its Editor in Chief and the second defendant in the claim) with the headline ‘EXCLUSIVE: Phillip Schofield and best pal Simon “groomed” [X], claim Telly insiders’. X was a student of a theatre company run by Simon Schofield. Despite sharing the same name, Simon Schofield is no relation of Phillip Schofield, but the two are old friends. The judgment addresses the conduct of the defendant and the remedies that the court may consider appropriate to award in certain cases. It is an important reminder to individuals that pre-action correspondence can be disclosed before the court and, if it is demonstrative of a particular type of conduct (here, at times, malicious and threatening) that will be taken into account in the court’s consideration of the damages award. Furthermore, had the defendants accepted Mr Schofield’s pre-action offer, they would have avoided having to pay significant damages (Schofield was not seeking damages prior to issuing his claim) and costs awards. Written by Jessica Welch, associate at Simkins LLP.

Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public contracts - Framework agreement - Directive 2014/24 / EU - Article 5, paragraph 5 - Article 18, paragraph 1 - Articles 33 and 49 - Annex V, part C, points 7, 8 and 10 - Regulation Implementation (EU) 2015/1986 - Annex II, headings II.1.5 and II.2.6 - Contract award procedures - Obligation to indicate, in the contract notice or specifications, on the one hand, the quantity estimated or estimated value and, on the other hand, the maximum quantity or maximum value of the products to be supplied under a framework agreement - Principles of transparency and equal treatment - Directive 89/665 / EEC - Article 2d, paragraph 1 - Appeal procedures for the award of public contracts - Lack of effects of the contract - Exclusion.

I [name of declarant] of [address] declare that 1 [I OR [name of tenant] [(incorporated in England and Wales with company registration number [number])] ] propose[s] to enter into a tenancy of premises at [address of premises] for a term commencing on [[date] OR a date to be agreed between the parties OR the date on which the tenancy is granted OR the [Access Date OR [other defined term] under the agreement for lease pursuant to which the tenancy of the premises will be entered into] ]. 2 [I OR The tenant] propose[s] to enter into an agreement with [name of landlord] that the provisions of sections 24 to 28 of the Landlord and Tenant

This [Deed OR Agreement] dated [•] 20[•] is made Parties 1 [insert name], a company incorporated in England and Wales with registered number [insert company number] whose registered office is at [insert address] (the [ Settlor OR Lender]); and 2 [insert name] of [insert address] (the [Trustee OR Borrower]). Background 1 Definitions and interpretation 1.1 Definitions In this [Deed OR Agreement], unless otherwise provided: 1.1.1 The Trust Fund means the sum of [•] paid by the Settlor to the Trustee by [cheque OR bankers draft OR transfer etc] and held by the Trustee at [•] Bank plc in account number [•] 1.1.2 The Specified Purpose means [•] 1.2 Interpretation

Name: Department: Date: [Insert reason for keeping this check sheet, eg Subject of client call] Day 1 Day 2 Day

I [name of declarant] of [address] declare that— 1 [I have OR [name of tenant] has] a tenancy of premises at [address of premises] for a term commencing on [date]. 2 [I OR The tenant] propose(s) to enter into an agreement with [name of landlord] to surrender the tenancy on a date or in circumstances specified in the agreement. 3 The landlord has not less than 14 days before [I OR the tenant] enter(s) into the agreement referred to in paragraph 2 above, or (if earlier) become(s) contractually bound to do so, served on [me OR the tenant] a notice in the form, or substantially

EXPLANATORY NOTE: IN THIS PRECEDENT, INSERT THE NAME OF THE GUARANTOR WHERE PROMPTED TO DO SO. OTHERWISE, TO KEEP THIS DECLARATION IN LINE WITH THE PRESCRIBED STATUTORY FORM, USE ‘I’ OR ‘THE TENANT’ AS APPROPRIATE. SEE DRAFTING NOTES FOR THIS PRECEDENT FOR MORE DETAILS. I [name of declarant] of [address] declare that: 1 [I OR [name of guarantor] [(incorporated in England and Wales with company registration number [number])] ] propose[s] to enter into a tenancy of premises at [address of premises] for a term commencing on [a date to be agreed between the parties OR the date on which the tenancy is granted OR [insert other appropriate wording]]. 2 [I OR The tenant] propose[s] to enter into an agreement with [name of landlord] that the