A period when stock market prices are high.

A sterling-denominated bond issued by an overseas organisation in the UK.

(1) An investment strategy for bonds which involves concentrating holdings in one area of the yield curve; (2) The payment of capital at the end of the period of the loan.

Repayment of all the principal in one lump sum at maturity.

An investment strategy under which a manager holds a bond portfolio with maturities that are highly concentrated at one point of the yield curve.

Repayment of a loan in a single instalment at maturity.

An order for costs against the applicant in favour of a second respondent whereby the applicant recovers the costs from the first respondent.

This Practice Note examines the practice in redundancy situations known as ‘bumping’, which occurs where an employee (who is not apparently redundant) may be dismissed as redundant because of a diminished need for another employee’s work and becomes entitled to a redundancy payment. It sets out the circumstances in which a bumping redundancy dismissal may arise and can be a potentially fair reason for dismissal. It also examines whether an employer faced with a potential redundancy situation has a duty to consider bumping in every case and the relevant factors for the employer to consider. An employee is entitled to a redundancy payment if they are dismissed by reason of redundancy, where they have been continuously employed for the statutory qualifying period (see Practice Note: Entitlement to statutory redundancy payment), or they are entitled under a contractual redundancy scheme (see Practice Note: Contractual redundancy payments). An employee is dismissed by reason of redundancy if (amongst others) the reason for their dismissal is that there is an actual or anticipated cessation or diminution in ‘the requirements of the business for employees

Local Government analysis: The Upper Tribunal (HESC Chamber) set aside the decision of the First-tier tribunal, in relation to an appeal by RP against her two sons’ Education Health and Care Plans (EHCPs). The appellant’s argument that errors in bundle pagination made it difficult her to navigate the hearing thus putting her at a disadvantage, was accepted and considered to amount to procedural irregularity. Additionally, the First-tier tribunal had accepted that the EHCPs required changes to be made for clarity, but had not ordered the required changes to be made on the basis that they would be made at an anticipated review. That amounted to an error of law. Written by Tamara Dasht, associate at Browne Jacobson LLP.

The rules'>Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955 set out the requirements in relation to the contents and the filing of court bundles in family proceedings in FPR 2010, PD 27A, with effect from 22 April 2014 (with further amendments to FPR 2010, PD 27A in effect from 31 July 2014 and 23 July 2018). Notably, FPR 2010, PD 27A provides that, unless the court specifically directs otherwise, the bundle must be contained in one A4-size ring binder or lever arch file limited to no more than 350 sheets of A4 paper and 350 sides of text. Amendments, in place from 23 July 2018, introduced page limits for certain types of documents, requirements in relation to bundles of authorities, and various provisions that make it clear that FPR 2010, PD 27A applies, with certain modifications, to electronic as well as paper bundles. Guidance has also been issued as to electronic bundles.

The tying of one service or product to the supply of others including some situations where the supply of services are linked through the use of discounts. See also full-line forcing.

Construction analysis: This case concerned a typical construction dispute between dissatisfied homeowners and an unpaid builder. The homeowners argued that the building work was defective, while the builder argued that the work was merely incomplete. The dispute encompassed a range of legal issues which commonly arise in such disputes. The judgment therefore provides helpful insight into the ways in which the courts approach such matters as contract formation, agency and undisclosed principals, misrepresentation, ascertainment of contract terms, variation, repudiation and the quantification of damages, all in the challenging context of an informal, largely oral and multiply varied agreement between the parties. In summary, Her Honour Judge Sarah Watson, sitting in the Technology and Construction Court in Birmingham, held that the defendant builder, Mr Pattar, was not in breach and that the claimant homeowners had repudiated the agreement by failing to—(i) make payment to the defendant, and (ii) invite the defendant to resume his building work. The claim was dismissed and the defendant was awarded judgment on his counterclaim in the sum of £18,642. Written by Callum Monro Morrison, barrister, at Keating Chambers.