In many cases the court will serve the order. Where the applicant is to serve, the precise requirements for serving the order are likely to vary according to the terms of the order granted and any undertakings given by the applicant. In most cases, the order itself will stipulate when it is required to be served by the applicant. There is no specific guidance in the CPR, practice directions, authorities or Court Guides providing a deadline as to when an order made subsequent to a without notice application must be served with the exception of the following: • if dealing with proceedings in the Chancery Division, a court practice note sets out the procedure to be applied but does not stipulate any specific time limits. However, it does state that if the order is picked up from a collection tray at court then the law firm has a responsibility to make sure that it is served promptly. See Chancery Division order, effective 2 January 2015. which

Capitalised terms used in this Q&A follow the defined terms used in the ISDA Master Agreement. What is an Event of Default? Events of Default are events which give one party the right to terminate any outstanding Transactions under an ISDA Master Agreement. A decision to declare an event as an Event of Default will result in all Transactions between the parties being terminated, not just a Transaction to which a particular default might relate. As a result of such serious consequences, it is no small decision for a Non-defaulting Party to declare an Event of Default. Events of Default are set out in Section 5(a) of the ISDA Master Agreement. These are: • Failure to Pay or Deliver • Breach or Repudiation of Agreement • Credit Support Default • Misrepresentation • Default under Specified Transaction • Cross Default • Bankruptcy, and • Merger Without Assumption What is a Termination Event? Termination

This Q&A focuses on the protection of confidential information involving more than one entity in either the disclosing group or the recipient group. Ownership of confidential information Generally, a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) would be entered into between a party disclosing confidential information and a party receiving the information. Before drafting an NDA, it is necessary to consider which of the legal entities within the discloser’s group own the confidential information that needs to be protected. Secondly, consider which legal entities within the recipient’s group will be privy to that confidential information. If there will be more than one entity receiving the confidential information (such as different companies within the same group), consider whether all of the entities should

As a matter of principle, the choice of jurisdiction is a matter for negotiation between the parties. The purpose of a jurisdiction clause The purpose of including a jurisdiction clause is to enable the parties to choose which courts will hear any disputes arising under the contract. It should be noted, however, that a jurisdiction agreement does not guarantee that one of the parties will not start proceedings in a court other

Judicial separation is an alternative form of separation to a divorce, whereby parties will be formally separated as sanctioned by the court, but they will still be married to each other. This can be used by parties who have moral or religious objections to divorce, or who wants to resolve their financial issues but do not yet meet the criteria for a divorce, for example if they have not yet been married for one year. The procedure for applications in matrimonial and civil partnership

It is assumed that the question relates to the requirement for the outgoing party to sign a novation agreement. Novation occurs when an outgoing party 'transfers' its obligations and rights under the agreement to an incoming party, so that the incoming party 'steps into the shoes' of the outgoing party and forms a contractual relationship between the remaining party and the incoming party. The effect of a novation is to extinguish the original contract, and substitute it with a new contract, under which the same rights and obligations are to be enjoyed and performed but by different parties, and with the outgoing party released from all future liabilities under the contract. For a valid novation, there must be: • consideration, and • consent The consent of all the relevant parties is required for novation.

It is automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee by reason of redundancy during pregnancy or maternity leave, or an additional period after her maternity leave has ended, without complying with the special rules that provide the employee with enhanced protection from redundancy, set out in the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regs 1999 (MAPLE 1999), SI 1999/3312, reg 10. Where, during this protected

Arbitration analysis: This case involved a dispute between Garuda Indonesia’s French subsidiary, Garuda Indonesia Holiday France (Garuda France), which faced financial difficulties due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, and one of its aircraft lessors, Greylag Goose Leasing 1446 Designated Activity Company (Greylag). Greylag sought US$43,635,485, for unpaid rent and most of the maintenance reserves owed. While the dispute was subject to arbitration proceedings conducted under the rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), Greylag sought to initiate parallel recovery proceedings against Garuda France. This application was however dismissed by the Paris Commercial Court on 25 November 2022. The Paris Court of Appeal rejected Greylag’s appeal from this decision on 14 December 2023. Considering the requirement, under French law, that a claim must be certain for a creditor to commence recovery proceedings, the judge inferred from the ongoing arbitration proceedings that Greylag’s claim remained uncertain. Written by Sara Nadeau-Seguin, partner at Teynier Pic.

Grounds for opposing a lease and meaning of landlord Practice Note: Grounds of opposition: ground (g)—landlord's intention to occupy sets out when a landlord may oppose an application for the renewal of a lease under section 30(1)(g) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954): '...on the ground that on the termination of the current tenancy he intends to occupy the holding for the purposes, or partly for the purposes, of a business to be carried on by him, or as his residence. He need not show that he intends to make physical use of the whole of the premises comprised in the holding.' Business to be carried out by the landlord If all individuals

For the purposes of this answer it is assumed that reserved matters are reserved. Outline and reserved matters conditions vary widely and considerations which apply to the example given, tree protection measures, may not necessarily apply to other conditions. The answer will vary depending on the actual subject of the condition that the local planning authority tries to address at reserved matters stage. Summary The basic principle is that conditions at reserved matters should relate directly to those reserved matters and conditions outlining or restricting the scope of the permission should be imposed at outline stage. An argument could be made that an authority should impose a condition which indicates that trees will be retained at the outline stage, as in the model conditions, even if it does not know which trees they are because it does not have the layout but generally it is only at reserved

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The claimant suffered a hypoxic brain injury when her aorta was pierced during open heart surgery. It took 24 minutes to establish a cardiopulmonary bypass. The court held that the piercing of the aorta was not in itself negligent, but the operating surgeon failed to take appropriate mitigating measures in the preparation of the operation, given the medium to high risk of aortic damage. The court considered competing expert evidence on mitigating measures that might have been taken, surgical risks and informed consent. Written by Howard Elgot and Megan Crowther, barristers at Parklane Plowden Chambers, who appeared for the successful claimant.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Manolete Partners Plc (Manolete) failed to establish that payments from the company to its former director were either preferential payments contrary to section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) or transactions at an undervalue contrary to IA 1986, s 238. ICC Judge Barber found that the payments were properly made during a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) and that they represented repayments of a director’s loan in lieu of salary, following the CVA supervisor’s advice to save on the company’s PAYE and NIC costs. The preference claim failed as there was no preference in fact, and the presumption to desire was rebutted; the transaction at an undervalue claim failed as Manolete failed to discharge the burden of proof. The case is another useful reminder of the relevant principles of such claims and a salutary reminder of what to do, or perhaps what not to do, when bringing such claims. Written by Dale Timson, barrister at Enterprise Chambers.