Used in some jurisdictions to describe an on demand performance bond.

[TO BE PRINTED ON THE HEADED PAPER OF THE ISSUING BANK] To: [insert name and address of beneficiary] Date: [insert date] Dear [insert organisation name] Standby letter of credit number [insert number] 1 We hereby issue in your favour this irrevocable standby letter of credit (Standby Letter of Credit) by order of and for the account of [insert name of applicant] of [insert address of applicant] (the Principal Debtor). 2 Our maximum aggregate liability to you under this Standby Letter of Credit shall not exceed [insert maximum aggregate liability and currency]. 3 This Standby Letter of Credit expires at the close of banking hours at our offices on [insert expiry date] (the Expiry Date). We shall not be required to pay any claims made under this Standby Letter of Credit which are received by us after such time on the Expiry Date. 4 You

A panel providing expert advice for local authorities on the religious syllabus for maintained schools without a religious character.

The written rules formulated, agreed and codified by Parliament to regulate parliamentary business and proceedings. There are Standing Orders for both public and private business and they may cover, for example, how business is arranged and conducted, how time is to be allocated, and rules relating to the operation of parliamentary procedures and committees.

An important aspect of Parliamentary privilege is that each House has the privilege of controlling its own procedures. There are many rules and customs that affect how each House runs. Some of these are written down and are called Standing Orders. Standing Orders are written rules formulated by each House to regulate its own proceedings. They cover, for example, how business is arranged and conducted, the behaviour of MPs and members of the Commons or Lords during debates, and rules relating to committees. Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice is considered the authoritative source on parliamentary procedure. It provides details of observed 'rules' within each House, including those relating to Standing Orders. Standing Orders of the House of Commons The Standing Orders of the House of Commons codify much (but not all) of the procedure and practice of the House. Standing Orders do not always reflect the developments in the actual practice of the House, and cannot be read as an exhaustive code of Parliamentary procedure. They are however a mechanism for regulating parliamentary business

Public Law analysis: On 15 February 2022, the High Court handed down judgment in a judicial review claim brought by two public interest groups, the Good Law Project (GLP) and the Runnymede Trust, against an alleged government policy or practice of making appointments to coronavirus (COVID-19) taskforces without open competition. The claimants argued this gave rise to discrimination. The court did not consider that the alleged policy existed and the claim failed on grounds 1 (indirect discrimination) and 3 (apparent bias). The court nonetheless found that the specific appointments identified by the claimants (Baroness Harding as Interim Chair of the National Institute for Health Protection in May 2020 and Mr Coupe as Director of Testing for NHS Test and Trace in August 2020) breached the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), which requires public authorities to take reasonable steps to enquire about the potential impact of a proposed decision or policy on people with protected characteristics (as identified in the Equality Act 2010). However, only one of the claimants (the Runnymede Trust) succeeded on the PSED ground, as the court found that GLP lacked standing to bring any of the grounds of challenge, noting that it does not have a carte blanche to bring judicial review claims. The court dedicated one third of its judgment to the issue of GLP’s standing which, according to an earlier judgment, had been ‘ripe for review’. Written by Tom Cassels, Jonathan Jones, Alexander Fawke and Emma Kate Cooney of Linklaters LLP.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: In an unusual case on the facts, the Court of Appeal held that an unregistered transfer of shares was sufficient for the applicant to be treated as member of a company and, therefore, to be a contributory of the company for the purposes of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). As a contributory, the applicant was entitled to apply to the court for certain relief in its liquidation. The applicant held 0.02% of the company’s share capital (although his name had not been entered into its register of members). None of the other shareholders supported his proposals. The court confirmed that the wishes of the majority should be taken into account in applications of this kind and, accordingly, the applicant’s interest would be ‘drowned’ by the majority. The court also considered whether, on the basis of his technical standing as a contributory, the applicant could seek relief which would trigger certain pre-emption and/or option rights contained in agreements with the company’s shareholders. The court held that the rights under the agreements were unrelated to the applicant’s standing as a contributory, meaning that the applicant did not have standing to apply for that particular relief. The court dismissed the appeal. Written by Martin Young, senior associate at CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The judge considered the bankrupt’s standing to challenge the actions of his trustees in bankruptcy in relation to a settlement and sale they had entered into under section 303 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). Applying the principles the Supreme Court set out in Brake v Chedington Court Estate Ltd [2023] UKSC 29, the judge held that, on the facts of this case, the bankrupt did not have standing to pursue this challenge. Perhaps of more interest, the judge went on to consider, although it did not affect the outcome of the case and is therefore obiter, that the fact the trustees had had their release would not have prevented the bankrupt’s challenge from being pursued. Written by Hannah Drozdz, legal director PSL at Gateley Legal.

Why do some people push your buttons? Practice Note: Improving your assertiveness refers to Eric Berne’s theory on Transactional Analysis—see Improving your assertiveness—What drives your behaviour?. This Practice Note makes further reference to that work, as a basis for understanding why some people or situations push your buttons. If someone is having a tantrum or a sulk, they are typically displaying very childlike behaviours and that is how it is often described. Childlike behaviours can trigger parent behaviour, leading us to try to take control of the situation or placate the other person in some way. Of course it’s also possible that in some situations childlike behaviour triggers a childlike response, such as with claims along the lines of 'but they started it'. The key characteristic of child mode is a failure to take responsibility for your own actions. Similarly, behaving in a very parental manner can elicit a childlike response. Put simply, if you treat people like children, they will most likely behave like children. This is why overly controlling managers

Public Law analysis: Two campaigning organisations (the Good Law Project (GLP) and Runnymede Trust (RT)) bought judicial review proceedings against the policies and processes behind three public appointments. The appointments were not subject to open competition and were awarded to individuals known to the decision-maker. The claimants argued this was indirectly discriminatory, because the decision-makers were less likely to know non-white and/or disabled candidates, placing them at a disadvantage. They also alleged breaches of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), and in one instance, apparent bias. The court found neither claimant had standing to bring the indirect discrimination or apparent bias claims. They did not have a particular interest in the decisions nor were representative of an identifiable group in society affected by the decisions. In any event, each appointment process was shaped by its individual circumstances and the urgent need in the context of the pandemic. There were as a matter of fact no potentially discriminatory policies. RT had standing to bring the PSED challenge, and two of the appointment processes breached the PSED (the challenge to the third being time-barred). Written by Jack Castle, barrister at Henderson Chambers.

This Agreement is made on [insert day and month] 20[insert year] Parties 1 The Lenders (as set out in Schedule 1) (the Lenders); and 2 [insert name of debtor company] a company incorporated in [insert country eg England and Wales] under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at [insert address] (the Company); (each of the Lenders and the Company being a Party and together the Lenders and the Company are the Parties). Recitals (A) The Parties have entered into the following Finance Documents: [insert list of finance documents]. (B) As at the Commencement Date, the Parties are owed the amounts [listed in OR calculated in accordance with Schedule 2] under the Finance Documents. (C) The Lenders agree to a moratorium on enforcing their rights arising from any Event of Default or breach of covenant under the Finance Documents. (D) The Company will not be required to make the repayments set out in the Finance Documents during the Standstill Period. (E) The Parties will negotiate in good faith with a view to executing a Restructuring Agreement setting out an agreed plan to restructure the Company’s business and debts. (F) [insert any further recitals].

This Agreement is dated [insert day] of [insert month] 20 [insert year] Parties 1 [Insert full name and address of claimant who is seeking [increased] financial provision from the Estate] (Party A) 2 [Insert full name(s) and address(es) of individual personal representative(s) or company name, number and address of registered office of any trust corporation] (Party B) 3 [Insert full name(s) and address(es) of other defendants to the claim] (Party C) each a ‘Party’ and together the ‘Parties’ WHEREAS (A) The Deceased died on [date] domiciled in England and Wales and survived by [list of family and dependants] (B) The Deceased [left a final Will and testament dated [date] OR died intestate] (C) Under the terms of [the Will OR the intestacy rules as they apply to the Estate]: (a) [pecuniary legacies, (b) residuary estate, etc] (D) [No grant of representation to the Estate has been obtained OR A grant of [probate OR letters of administration OR letters of administration with will annexed] to the Estate was issued by the [name] Probate Registry to [name(s) of proving personal representatives] on [date]] (E) Under Section 4 a claim under the Act shall not, except with the permission