What is Alternative Dispute Resolution? Alternative Dispute resolution (ADR) is a collective term for various methods of resolving disputes other than by litigation. ADR is an increasingly popular way of resolving life sciences disputes. This Practice Note will highlight some of the advantages and limitations of various forms of ADR in resolving disputes that arise in this area and will provide some practical tips on how to take advantage of the different systems. For information on ADR more generally as well as detailed comparison of different ADR processes, see Practice Note: What is ADR? The advantages of ADR for life sciences disputes Life sciences disputes are varied and often involve widely different technical subject matter. However, there are a number of features that are common to many life sciences disputes that makes ADR suitable in appropriate cases. Disputes are multi-jurisdictional The life sciences industry often involves multi-jurisdictional collaborations with parties based in Asia, Europe and North America. Disputes can sometimes arise

Introduction—a pure theory or a dead practice? For a number of years, Islamic financing has been offered by both Islamic financial institutions (IFIs), as well as conventional banks. As discussed in Practice Note: The structure and elements of a Musharaka transaction, the principle of profit and loss sharing is a fundamental concept in Islamic finance as it is rooted in one of Shari’ah’s main principles: risk taking. The primary reason is that Islamic finance deems any financing method based on riba (interest) to be non-Shari’ah-compliant due to the fact that contractors or parties (together the Partners) do not share in the elements of profit and loss, meaning that there is no element of equitable risk sharing in such a venture (with one party assuming more risk than the other). Musharaka (the Shari’ah-compliant profit and loss sharing partnership instrument) is, alongside mudaraba, one of the few instruments of Islamic finance that is almost exclusively based on the profit and loss sharing model.

Family analysis: In Re H (Step-Parent Adoption: Human Rights), the court exercised its jurisdiction under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) in relation to an application brought by a step-parent (the applicant step-father) to adopt his step-child by reading down section 51(2) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002). By doing so, the court could make a step-parent adoption order in the applicant step-father’s favour, despite the fact the child’s mother, (the only parent with parental responsibility for him) had died. ACA 2002, s 51(2) is written in the present tense and provides that an application for adoption by one person can be made if the applicant is the partner of a parent of the person to be adopted. The step-father was no longer a partner of the child’s mother as she was deceased, hence the issue and the requirement to rely on the parties’ human rights. The court did consider whether the applicant step-father could make the application as a single applicant under ACA 2002, s 51(1) but concluded that this was not satisfactory as it would have severed the legal relationship that the child had with his mother and maternal family. Shaili Gohil-Desai, solicitor at Burgess Mee Family Law, sets out the issues.

Residual value agreements are a tool for allocating the residual value risk in an aircraft. The key reasons for using residual value agreements are: • to provide additional security for the financing parties in the context of an aviation finance transaction • in operating leases, to minimise the exposure of a lessor to residual value risk, and • to provide an airline with comfort as to the value of its investment in a fleet of aircraft There are different types of residual value agreements. They allocate risk in different ways and to different parties. What is a residual value agreement? Residual value agreements are used in the context of aviation finance transactions to allocate the residual value risk in an aircraft among different parties, or to transfer that risk to a third party such as an insurer. In the context of an aircraft which has been purchased by a lessor: • the residual value of the aircraft would be the value of an aircraft that cannot be recovered by the lessor

Introduction A tax indemnity enables an employer to recover amounts of income tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs) from an employee, usually in a variety of different ways to provide flexibility for both parties. In the share scheme context, they are particularly important as an employer may well have to account for significant liabilities to HMRC which could leave the employer exposed without an enforceable means of recovery. Where an income tax liability arises in relation to employment related securities or securities options, even though no cash benefit is received, an employer may still have an obligation to account for that income tax to HMRC. In general, the obligation arises if the employment related securities are 'readily convertible assets' (RCAs) or deemed RCAs at the time of the taxable event, or if the employee receives cash or RCAs in connection with them. For further details of when shares will be RCAs, see Practice Note: Share options and readily convertible assets. In addition, there will be an obligation for the employer

Public Law analysis: This judgment looks at the way that claims for unlawful means conspiracy can be brought in the context of procurement disputes. In particular, the case raises questions around the decision of Greater Glasgow Health Board to abandon an existing procurement exercise and to extend the existing contract to allow time for the necessary re-procurement. The judgment was made in the context of an ongoing disclosure process and the court was required to consider whether such a pleading of unlawful means conspiracy was relevant in the circumstances of the case. The court considered that the pleading was relevant on the facts of the case and that the loss resulting from the extension of the existing contract was more than foreseeable. An evidential hearing will be required to establish liability in due course. However, this case highlights the issues that contracting authorities face in taking abandonment decisions and agreeing correlating extensions if these are not undertaken with due regard to the risk. Written by Charlotte Clayson, partner and Suad Abdulkadir, intern at Trowers & Hamlins LLP.

There is a general presumption in English law that the owner of land abutting a non-tidal river is entitled to the soil of the river so far as the middle thread of the water (see generally, Commentary: Presumption as to the riparian owner: Halsbury's Laws of England [530], para [397], cited eg in Pearson v Foster)). Such an owner of a riparian property, is entitled ‘to access to the water in contact with [the] frontage, and to have the water flow to [the owner] in its natural state in flow, quality and quantity so that [the owner] may take water for ordinary purposes in connection

This Practice Note discusses the purpose and benefit of an applicant obtaining a Norwich Pharmacal order so as to allow it to bring a claim against an alleged wrongdoer whose identity was unknown to the applicant prior to making the application for the order. Given the cost likely to be involved in making the application, including preparing evidence, the guidance considers the questions that a potential applicant needs to be satisfied about prior to deciding to apply. What is a Norwich Pharmacal order? Described by one judge as an exceptional jurisdiction with a narrow scope, a ‘Norwich Pharmacal order’ takes its name from the case of Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners. Allowing an appeal from a Court of Appeal bench including Lord Denning, the House of Lords upheld a judge’s order requiring the respondent to the application, the Commissioners, to disclose information in their possession so that the applicant, the company, had the ability to know who had infringed its patent. Shrugging off arguments that this meant that a ‘mere witness’

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) refused to give summary judgment for the claimant, Henry Construction Ltd (Henry Construction), in its Part 7 claim for enforcement of a ‘true value’ adjudication, started before the conclusion of a prior ‘smash and grab’ adjudication brought by the defendant, Alu-Fix (UK) Ltd (AluFix). In rejecting the claimant’s position the court considered the authorities on commencing a true value adjudication in the context of associated smash and grab adjudications and gave what is thought to be novel guidance on when reliance might successfully be placed on the decision of an otherwise premature true value adjudication.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Co-funding in the litigation funding market is on the rise. This is only a surprise for those who see litigation funding through a narrow legal lens, but it is a natural evolutionary stage in the growth of any financial market and litigation funding is no different. Tets Ishikawa, managing director of LionFish Litigation Finance (UK) Ltd, looks at this development.

Key legislation The UK water industry is heavily regulated, but key legislation covering water companies in England and Wales relevant for R&I lawyers has been updated and includes: • the Water Industry Act 1991 (WIA 1991)—sets out the main powers and duties of the water and sewerage companies, defines the powers of the Director General of Water Services (now the Office of Water Services (Ofwat)) and creates the right to appoint special administrators • the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (Commencement No 10) Order 2024, SI 2024/35 (in force from 12 January 2024)—paved the way for the introduction of rescue and hive down provisions for water industry companies in special administration by adding the objective of rescue and new hive down tool to enhance transfer scheme powers in WIA 1991 (see: LNB News 12/01/2024 25); previously only a direct transfer was permissible • the Water Industry Act 1991 (Amendment) Order 2024, SI 2024/204 (in force from 23 February 2024)—amends WIA 1991 to permit a transfer scheme in special administration to be implemented by using a hive

Family analysis: Does genetic tie trump the welfare factor in a surrogacy arrangement? Claire Wills-Goldingham QC, barrister at Colleton Chambers, examines the decision in Re M where the Court of Appeal concluded that the welfare of the child remains paramount and the application of the welfare check list is the key component.