Law360, London: A London court ruled on 12 September 2025 that a businessman can sue a Luxembourg investment fund in England over allegations that he was partly responsible for the fund underselling a company by as much as £80m.

Law360, London: A businessman can intervene in a 194m Romanian leu (US$43m) debt claim he alleges is part of a fraudulent scheme to acquire his shares in a scrap-metal trading company for free, an appeals court has ruled.

But-for cause describes the basic factual causation test: would the claimant have suffered the damage but for the defendant’s act or breach? If not, the breach is a factual (but-for) cause; if the damage would have occurred anyway, causation fails.This is a case-law expression, not a statutory definition, and is used across negligence, clinical negligence, breach of statutory duty, delict (Scotland), contract damages, and some criminal law contexts. The claimant bears the burden on the balance of probabilities.Key features and limits:- Multiple causes: where the but-for test is too rigid, courts may accept material contribution to harm or disease, or treat concurrent causes cumulatively. Limited Fairchild/McGhee-type exceptions address material increase in risk.- Intervening acts (novus actus interveniens) can break the chain of causation.- Factual causation is distinct from legal causation/remoteness and scope of duty.- In contract, but-for analysis operates alongside remoteness and mitigation.Jurisdictions: England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland apply broadly consistent common-law principles. Ireland is similar but has shown greater willingness to recognise loss-of-chance reasoning in medical negligence in some circumstances, whereas England & Wales generally reject loss of a chance for physical injury.

A practical test for factual causation: would the damage have occurred but for the defendant’s act or omission? If not, the conduct is a factual cause; if it would have occurred anyway, causation fails. The but-for test is a case law formulation (not generally defined in legislation) used across negligence/delict, professional negligence, nuisance, misrepresentation, breach of contract (damages), and criminal law. The claimant/prosecutor must prove it on the balance of probabilities.Key features and practice points:- Identifies a necessary condition for loss, but does not by itself establish legal causation; scope of duty, remoteness/foreseeability, novus actus interveniens and apportionment may still limit liability.- Works straightforwardly with single causes; complexity arises with concurrent or overdetermined causes (e.g. multiple sufficient causes or evidential uncertainty).- Courts have recognised limited departures where strict but-for proof is impossible or inappropriate, such as material contribution to harm and (in some industrial disease cases) material increase in risk; specific contours depend on jurisdiction and context.Usage is broadly consistent across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland. In the UK, certain asbestos/mesothelioma rules have statutory and common law modifications; in Ireland, analogous principles are developed in case law. The test is central to pleadings, expert evidence, and dispositive applications on causation.

Law360: A major holiday resort is suing a number of its insurers, including Aviva and QBE, for failing to pay out on losses sustained when a vacation park was flooded, causing the closure of many of its lodges.

The purchase by the trustees of an occupational pension scheme of an insurance policy in the name of a member or other beneficiary. The purchase follows the termination of the member's pensionable service, and is in lieu of entitlement to benefits from the scheme.

To: [insert name of participant] We refer to the agreement that we entered into on [date] with you and [insert name of the Company whose shares are under the JSOP award] (the Company), under which we jointly acquired shares in the Company with you (the Deed). We have received written confirmation from the Company that the Sell

This Practice Note examines some of the key aspects of regulation applicable to ‘buy now, pay later’ (BNPL) including definitions and the applicable regulatory framework. It also tracks regulatory developments in this area, including the introduction on 15 July 2026 (Regulation Day) of a bespoke regime for deferred payment credit (DPC). Key points on BNPL and DPC are as follows: • BNPL schemes allow a customer to purchase an item now and defer full payment until a later date. Scheme terms vary, and the cost spreading period can range from 30 days up to three months • the BNPL market has grown significantly in recent years, from £0.06bn in 2017 to over £13bn in 2024. According to the FCA’s 2024 Financial Lives Survey, 20% of UK consumers (10.9 million adults) used it in the 12 months leading up to May 2024 • the term BNPL is a broad term and can include credit agreements that are already regulated as well as unregulated products. For the purposes of the FCA Handbook,

This was the payment of a state scheme premium to reinstate a member into SERPS or state second pension for the period a member was contracted out.

Trustees buy annuities or another investment from an insurance company as an investment which is appropriate to pay the benefits expected. The trustees and the trust however remain – unlike in a ‘buy-out’. Partial buy-ins (where only some of the scheme’s benefits are subject to the buy-in) are also possible.

A BIMBO is a buyout bringing out a change of management which involves a mixture of new and existing management. Internally, a group of managers will acquire enough share capital to ‘buy out’ the company from within. An outside team of managers will simultaneously ‘buy in’ to the company management. Both parties may require financial investment in order to achieve this end.

The purchase by the trustees of an occupational pension scheme of an insurance policy in the name of a member or other beneficiary.