Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
CASE STUDY

“We have to become more agile as our clients' expectations and requirements change. The only thing we know is that tomorrow is going to be different and we must be prepared. With LexisNexis, I feel more confident of that we're ready every time.”

Wolverhampton County Council

Access all documents on ARM

ARM meaning

Published by a LexisNexis Energy expert
What does ARM mean?
ARM (availability, Reliability, Maintainability) describes the performance characteristics that safety‑critical plant and systems are expected to achieve in practice, and which legal documents and safety cases commonly specify and measure. It is not defined by statute or case law; it is a widely used engineering and regulatory expression adopted across sectors (notably nuclear, energy and transport) in England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland. In the nuclear context, ARM targets help underpin the safety case by evidencing that key systems will be available when required, sufficiently reliable (e.g., probability of success on demand), and maintainable within set limits (e.g., maximum repair time/MTTR). ARM requirements are typically set as target performance levels in design, procurement and operating arrangements. They drive system architecture choices (redundancy, diversity and independence) and maintenance planning. Failure to meet targets may necessitate design changes, increased maintenance, operational restrictions or regulatory challenge. ARM targets also inform the EMIT Schedule (Examination, Maintenance, Inspection and Testing) for ongoing compliance (see EMITS). Usage of ARM is broadly consistent across the UK and Ireland, though specific numeric targets are set by project requirements and regulator guidance rather than legislation.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

View the related News about ARM

NEWS
UPC long-arm jurisdiction tested: Düsseldorf Local Division asserts power over UK patent acts in Fujifilm v Kodak, raising strategic implications for enforcing European patents in non-UPC EPC states

Fujifilm Corporation v Kodak Holding GmbH and others, UPC_CFI_355/2023 Case background Fujifilm Corporation has brought proceedings against a number of Kodak entities, alleging breaches of multiple European patents covering offset printing technology. Two suits were commenced in the UPC’s Mannheim Local Division, and a further action (ACT_578607/2023; UPC_CFI_355/2023) was lodged with the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning the purported infringement of EP3594009. In that latter matter, Kodak responded with a counterclaim seeking revocation. At the time, the European patent was effective in Germany and the UK, and all litigants were domiciled in Germany, a UPC contracting member state. Decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division Ruling on the dispute, the Düsseldorf Local Division held the European patent invalid under the European Patent Convention (EPC), after refusing Fujifilm’s proposed amendments. It acknowledged it lacked competence to set aside the UK part of the patent—so that portion remains in force—whereas the German part of the patent was revoked...

Read More Right Arrow
NEWS
Hiscox reserves US$28m for MV Dali Baltimore Key Bridge collapse; exposure via Lloyd’s syndicate and International Group P&I reinsurance; claims may approach US$2bn

On 7 August 2024, the insurer—listed on the London Stock Exchange yet domiciled in Bermuda—confirmed the loss would be borne by both its Lloyd’s of London syndicate and its reinsurance arm within the group. The MV Dali container vessel struck the Francis Scott Key Bridge soon after its departure from the Port of Baltimore on 26 March 2024, bringing down part of the structure and leading to fatalities. Specialists now forecast it will count among the priciest marine insurance catastrophes for the market overall...

Read More Right Arrow
NEWS
English High Court asserts jurisdiction over Aon v Howden staff-poaching conspiracy; Brazilian forum rejected; claim against ex-Aon Brazil chief stayed

The High Court dismissed Howden’s contention that the matter should be determined in Brazil, where the claim accuses the broker of deploying Aon’s own staff as in-house recruiters to lure personnel from its Brazilian arm. Master John Dagnall found the bulk of the alleged misconduct is rooted in England, as Aon says London-based Howden leaders orchestrated matters as ‘puppet masters’ to prompt the raiding of its workforce. He added that the supposed actions of Howden’s UK operation serve as an ‘anchor’, keeping the entirety of the claims within this court’s reach. He stayed proceedings against Antonio Rodrigues, the then chief executive of Aon’s Brazilian reinsurance unit, whom Aon identified as the catalyst for 11 of its staff moving to Howden. The judge observed there is ‘no real commercial need’ for Aon to pursue Rodrigues, although, should it choose, it could bring action in Brazil’s labour court...

Read More Right Arrow

View the related Practice Notes about ARM

PRACTICE NOTES
Archived UK CMA Phase 2 (2017): Cygnet/Cambian adult services merger cleared subject to East Midlands male long-term mental health rehabilitation divestment

CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the decision date of 16 October 2017 and is no longer being maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline: UK merger inquiry into the completed purchase by Cygnet Health Care Limited of Cambian Group plc’s adult services arm. Latest developments On 16 October 2017, the CMA published its final report and approved the deal subject to remedies. The CMA concluded the merger resulted in an SLC regarding the supply of male mental health rehabilitation services in the East Midlands. The merger was cleared in every other originally assessed area, including the West Midlands, where the provisional findings had flagged potential concerns about services for female patients. As a remedy, the parties must sell one of their hospitals in the East Midlands to a CMA-approved buyer. Parties Cygnet Health Care Ltd (Cygnet) is owned by Universal Health Services, Inc, a US-based company operating more than 240 acute care hospitals and behavioural health...

Read More Right Arrow
PRACTICE NOTES
Inside investment banks: front, middle and back office roles—and how in-house banking and finance lawyers work with tax, compliance, risk and treasury

Roles and responsibilities within a financial institution This Practice Note outlines the principal roles within a financial institution, the responsibilities linked to each, and how and when an in-house lawyer may engage with them. Financial institutions include investment banks, retail banks, private wealth banks, or other investment arms—including asset managers or funds. It is primarily aimed at in-house banking and finance lawyers working at investment banks. Front office The front office is the client-facing arm of a bank that generates revenue. Typical activities undertaken by front-office professionals include: pitching fresh trading strategies and concepts to investors assisting clients in addressing their financing challenges creating and/or distributing investment products trading in secondary market instruments arranging debt issuance through the debt capital markets providing commercial lending, and producing research reports Within an investment bank, sales and trading work in close alignment. Sales teams generally approach potential investors with suggested trading ideas and then relay investor feedback to...

Read More Right Arrow
PRACTICE NOTES
EU IP jurisdiction and forum shopping: Brussels I (recast), EUTMs, EU designs, copyright, patents, the UPC and Hague Conventions

Practice Note This Practice Note sets out the method to be adopted in practice when deciding whether the EU courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate an IP dispute, with principal reference to the scheme contained in Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I (recast)). It carefully examines the overall position across disputes about IP rights and then describes specific, practical questions for patents, trade marks, copyright and design rights, including the dedicated regimes for EU trade marks (EUTMs) in Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 and for EU designs in Regulation (EC) 6/2002 (as amended by Regulation (EU) 2024/2822). IP rights are secured on a national or regional territorial basis; however, the character of the subject matter (eg inventions, written works, etc) enables virtually immediate cross-border transmission, particularly in today’s modern digital age. Working out whether a given court has jurisdiction is, accordingly, a potentially intricate and often fact-sensitive issue. This Practice Note also outlines the strategic considerations that parties ought to evaluate when contemplating commencing proceedings. For more information on court jurisdiction and IP...

Read More Right Arrow

View the related Precedents about ARM

PRECEDENTS
Law firm Attendance Review Meeting (ARM) plan and checklist: sickness absence, medical evidence, Occupational Health, reasonable adjustments and risk assessment

Action Notes Review earlier RTWI/ARM paperwork to identify: the employee’s health condition(s); treatments currently underway; medicines being taken; advice from the most recent RTWI/ARM; arrangements for a GP medical report; arrangements for any private medical examination; commissioning of an Occupational Health report; conclusions from medical reports/examinations; the medical practitioner’s longer-term prognosis; reasonable adjustments made or proposed; how those adjustments affect the firm; any risk assessment completed; results of that risk assessment; how outcomes have been applied to the employee’s role. Examine absence data and confirm: the employee’s present absence rate; comparison with the firm’s target absence rate; the expected change in absence going forward (considering the practitioner’s prognosis). Consult firm records regarding: the effect of the employee’s absence on their work and the firm; the firm’s capacity to manage the absence now and in future. ...

Read More Right Arrow
PRECEDENTS
Gifts, hospitality and engagements with public officials: anti‑bribery FAQs and policy guidance

We conduct our business with integrity. Together, we must protect our business from bribery and corruption. This FAQ, central to that effort, sets out how we can pursue our objectives while staying true to our pledge to counter bribery and corruption. 1 Who is a government or public official? A public official is any person who occupies a legislative, administrative or judicial role of any sort, whether appointed or elected. It also covers anyone carrying out public duties within any arm of national, local or municipal government of a country or territory, or performing a public function for a public agency or a state-owned enterprise—such as professionals employed by public health bodies and officers discharging public functions in state-owned companies. The term also includes an official or agent of a public international organisation, for example the United Nations or the World Bank. 2 Why do we need a policy relating to government or public officials?...

Read More Right Arrow
PRECEDENTS
Precedent employer’s County Court defence to HAVS: limitation (Limitation Act 1980, incl. s33), liability/causation denied, contributory negligence; ERRA 2013 s69 (England and Wales)

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [ INSERT LOCATION ] CLAIM NO. [ INSERT NUMBER ] Between X Y Claimant - and - A B Defendant It is accepted that the Claimant commenced employment with the Defendant as a [ insert job title ] on [ insert date ]. On [ insert date ], the Defendant provided the Claimant with its Codes of Safe Working Practice, covering the operation of assorted machinery. The meaning and intent of those Codes were explained to [ him OR her ]. On [ insert date ], the Claimant received the Defendant’s Guide to Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome. It contained written guidance on the cause, identification, prevention, and treatment of HAVS. By the end of the 1970s, hand/arm vibration syndrome was widely recognised. From the time [ he OR she ] was given the above Guide, the Claimant understood the risks of hand/arm vibration syndrome arising from using any vibrating tools in [ his OR her ] work and what [...

Read More Right Arrow

View the related Q&As about ARM

Q&As
Pedestrian rights of way: safe crossing beside security barriers

The straightforward answer to this question is no, provided the security barrier is deemed safe for those on foot. A security barrier is generally a gate, featuring either a rising arm or a horizontal swing from a fixed hinge. Although it can be feasible for a barrier to be safe for both vehicles and pedestrians, they are commonly designed to suit only one of these two uses. A barrier intended to stop vehicles is not well suited to preventing pedestrians from passing through. Because cars and people differ markedly in scale and movement, it is usually simpler to install two different gate types. From a security standpoint, a basic vehicular gate will not exclude pedestrians. More importantly, a gate meant for vehicles can pose a significant risk to pedestrians...

Read More Right Arrow