A segment of the Main Market which is part of the FCA’s Official List. The requirements of the standard listing segment are less rigorous than those of the premium listing segment.

ARCHIVED: Lexis+® UK Corporate conducted research to examine current market trends in respect of equity capital markets (ECM) transactions in 2019. Background and approach This review looks at the 22 companies which listed on the standard segment of the Official List 2019 (by way of IPO, introduction or transfer from AIM) and forms part of our annual trend report which aims to provide insight into the current dynamics of ECM activity in the UK. The other parts of our 2019 trend report comprise: • IPOs in 2019—Main Market and AIM [Archived] • Secondary Offers in 2019—Main Market and AIM [Archived] • Risk factor disclosure in 2019 IPOs [Archived] • Legal and regulatory developments in Equity Capital Markets 2019 [Archived] Introduction to standard listings Prior to the harmonisation of certain key elements of capital markets regulation across the EU, the UK listing regime was divided into a system of primary and secondary listing. A primary listing was the main listing category available to both UK and overseas issuers able to comply with the high standards

Claim No.[insert claim number]. [IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [ [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY DIVISION OR KING’S BENCH DIVISION] [Insert court, list or sub-list and venue as appropriate] OR THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert location] [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY WORK] before [The Honourable Mr Justice OR The Honourable Mrs Justice OR His Honour Judge OR Her Honour Judge OR Master OR District Judge] [insert name] dated: [insert date] between: [insert Claimant’s name]        Claimant and [insert Defendant’s name]        Defendant _______________________________________ [ Draft ] multi-track standard directions _______________________________________ Warning: you must comply with the terms imposed upon you by this order, otherwise your case is liable to be struck out or some other sanction imposed. If you cannot comply you are expected to make formal application to the court before any deadline imposed upon you expires. [On [insert date] [Circuit Judge OR District Judge OR Master] [insert name] sitting at [[insert Court] OR [insert room number and name of court]] [considered the papers in the case and ordered that OR heard the solicitor for the Claimant and the solicitor for the Defendant and made the following Order OR considered the papers in the case and heard the solicitor for the Claimant

Claim No. [insert claim number]. [IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [ [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY DIVISION OR KING’S BENCH DIVISION] [Insert court, list or sub-list and venue as appropriate] THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert location] [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY WORK before [The Honourable Mr Justice OR The Honourable Mrs Justice OR His Honour Judge OR Her Honour Judge OR Master OR District Judge] [insert name] dated: [insert date] between: [insert name of Claimant]        Claimant and [insert name of Defendant]        Defendant _______________________________________ [ Draft ] Multi-track standard directions _______________________________________ Warning: you must comply with the terms imposed upon you by this order, otherwise your case is liable to be struck out or some other sanction imposed. If you cannot comply you are expected to make formal application to the court before any deadline imposed upon you expires. [On [insert date] [Circuit Judge OR District Judge OR Master] [insert name] sitting at [[insert court] OR [insert room number and name of court]] [considered the papers in the case and ordered that OR heard the solicitor for the Claimant and the solicitor for the Defendant and made the following Order OR considered the papers in the case and

Standard of care describes the level of skill, diligence and prudence that the law expects from a person in a given situation, commonly in professional negligence, clinical negligence, personal injury and contract claims. It is a benchmark against which a defendant’s conduct is assessed to determine liability for breach of duty.Across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, the concept is largely derived from case law rather than a single statutory definition. In negligence, the standard of care is usually that of the “reasonable person” in the circumstances, refined for specialists (for example, doctors, solicitors, engineers) by reference to a reasonably competent professional in that field. In medical and professional negligence, courts often apply variants of the Bolam/Bolitho approach or equivalent local jurisprudence.The standard of care is objective, though factors such as foreseeability of harm, seriousness of risk, cost and practicality of precautions, and any specific statutory duties are relevant to what is “reasonable”. Establishing the applicable standard of care, and evidencing whether it was met or breached, is a central issue in litigation strategy, expert evidence and risk management across all UK and Irish jurisdictions.

This Practice Note considers the obligation for contractors and consultants providing services under construction contracts to exercise reasonable skill and care. It looks at the implied term under section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (SGSA 1982) and express contractual requirements to exercise either ‘reasonable skill and care’ or ‘all reasonable skill and care’. It also considers what effect the word ‘diligence’ has if added to the standard of care, when the consultants or contractors have a strict liability obligation and issues around fitness for purpose. It contains links to other relevant content on standards to be met by contractors and consultants, including design obligations specifically, and fitness for purpose obligations. Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 SGSA 1982, s 13 provides that in a relevant contract for the supply of a service, where the supplier is acting in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the supplier will carry out the service with reasonable care and skill (see also the Consumer Rights Act 2015 where the

This Practice Note considers the standard of care in professional negligence claims, originally formulated in Bolam v Friern Hospital as being that of ‘reasonable skill and care’ and how the test is applied in practice; the relevance of the Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health ‘material risk’ question, the duty to warn and the relevance of industry opinion. It also considers some examples from the construction, financial services and accountancy industries and as regards the position of trade unions. Given the wealth of case law in this area, the standard of care expected of solicitors and barristers is considered in Practice Note: Standard of care—solicitors and barristers. Reasonable skill and care—the ‘Bolam test’ The 1957 decision in Bolam v Friern Hospital has long stood as the accepted standard of care in professional negligence cases, as being that of ‘reasonable skill and care’. In Bolam, McNair J said that: ‘…where you get a situation which involves the use of some special skill or competence, then the test as to whether there has been negligence or not

This Practice Note considers the standard of care expected of solicitors and barristers in the context of professional negligence claims (in contract and tort) which may be brought against them. It takes as its starting point the generic principles on the standard of care of all professionals, as set out in Practice Note: Standard of care in professional negligence claims and then considers some of the more specific examples relevant to the legal industry. Note, as set out in the above Practice Note: Standard of care in professional negligence claims, the support of a responsible body of professional opinion does not, however, often apply to claims against solicitors and barristers. This may be explained by the fact that judges feel able to take their own view on matters of legal practice (Edward Wong Finance v Johnson Stokes, Patel v Daybells). Solicitors and barristers—expected standard of care (general principles and illustrative examples) The standard expected of solicitors and barristers is that of ‘reasonable skill and care’ per Bolam v Friern Hospital. That

Family analysis: The court was concerned with the final hearing of the mother’s application under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989), where the respondent father had disengaged from proceedings following the pre-trial review. Notwithstanding this, Mr Justice Cobb was satisfied that he could continue in the absence of the father and held that the child’s disability and her corresponding financial needs were magnetic factors, and the father’s financial resources were such that those needs could be amply met by him. The court made a generous award, with the father ordered to provide, among other things, £3.65m for housing. Fiona Stewart, barrister at QEB, considers the court’s approach.

Matters requiring proof must be established to the appropriate standard, namely either on the balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt.

Arbitration analysis: Google Ireland challenged the jurisdiction of the Paris Economic Activities Tribunal over competition damages claims brought by a telephone directory enquiry provider, relying on an arbitration clause in its standard online terms. The Tribunal rejected the objection, finding insufficient evidence that the claimant had accepted those terms. Although it found an abuse of dominant position through discriminatory application of advertising restrictions, it dismissed the damages claims for want of causation. The decision highlights the importance of retaining reliable electronic records of consent to arbitration clauses, particularly where different group entities are involved. It also raises questions about the application of the negative effect of competence-competence, while leaving the arbitrability and scope of the clause unresolved. Produced in partnership with Julie Spinelli and Gabriele Ruscalla of Le 16 Law.

This flowchart sets out details of the pilot express financial remedy (EFR) procedure for financial remedy applications involving combined net assets of less than £250,000 (excluding pension rights), in effect from 7 April 2025 via the coming into force of Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), PD 36ZH. It considers eligibility for the EFR procedure and the documentation that must be filed and exchanged by the parties prior to the EFR first hearing. For practical guidance on