Attempt meaning

Applying for a website blocking order This Checklist summarises the key matters to consider when seeking a website blocking order (WBO). A WBO can be a practical option for rights holders where a site has been identified that infringes copyright, registered trade marks or other rights, but the website owner/operator cannot be identified and/or is outside the jurisdiction. WBOs provide notable flexibility: if the site owner/operator tries to evade the blocks applied by internet service providers (ISPs), the ISP can be notified and the measures adjusted to address that attempt without needing a further court order. No prior finding of infringement against the website owner/operator is required. The owner/operator also does not need to be joined as a party to the proceedings. For additional guidance, use this Checklist alongside Practice Note: Website blocking orders. The third column can be used to record observations or comments as the Checklist is worked through. Checklist — Further information — Notes (if any) Considerations before applying Consider whether the...

Links to useful intercreditor materials This table sets out the principal checks a junior lender should make when assessing a simple intercreditor agreement between senior secured lenders, junior secured lenders and unsecured subordinated creditors. It is designed for readers with limited familiarity with intercreditor arrangements. The table highlights the core, commonly encountered points in a straightforward secured bilateral corporate loan and does not attempt to capture every potential negotiation issue, nor matters arising in specialist or more complex deals such as those in the leverage finance market. What is reasonable will vary with the nature of the transaction, the identity of the lender and the parties’ relative bargaining power. For specialist intercreditor topics, see the materials referenced below... Introductory materials Practice Note: Introductory guide to Intercreditor Agreements, covering typical provisions found in intercreditor agreements. Practice Note: How to draft and negotiate intercreditor arrangements in loan transactions, offering introductory guidance on drafting and negotiation. Precedent: Intercreditor deed-single company, a precedent suitable for a straightforward...

This Checklist This Checklist outlines the principal terms within an IT services contract. It summarises the essential points a customer should weigh up when engaging a supplier for both implementation and day‑to‑day IT services. Such agreements may span a wide array of services, from straightforward website build and support arrangements to sophisticated technology outsourcing engagements. Which terms matter, and the level of detail required, will hinge on the particular services at issue and circumstances of the engagement at hand too. The Checklist is not comprehensive, but reviews a selection of common provisions worth considering for inclusion. Equally, certain suggested provisions may prove unsuitable or superfluous for a given contract. This Checklist is directed chiefly at customers. Its purpose is to provide a snapshot of the key terms a customer would typically seek to include in an agreement covering both implementation IT services and operational IT services. A supplier may refuse some of these terms, or attempt to negotiate a watered‑down variant. It is common for consultancy, application development and...

The EAT ruled on 31 July 2025 that the government was not responsible for indirect discrimination against Louise Askester and 126 other care home employees simply for having published guidance on who could be excused from the jab, because that guidance did not exceed what statute demanded. Auerbach HHJ observed that, given its balanced and accurate statement of the law, and the consistent emphasis on advising employers about what was required to ensure compliance with the law, it was not realistically arguable that a tribunal could properly judge it fair, reasonable or just to hold the Secretary of State or the Department of Health and Social Care to account. In 2021, fresh UK rules mandated vaccination against COVID-19, for care home staff, save where a medical exemption applied under the relevant regulations at the time...

Wesson (Chair of Friends of Mill Road Bridge) v Cambridgeshire County Council [2024] EWHC 1068 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? Two practical themes arise. The first concerns procedure for challenges under RTRA 1984, Sch 9, para 35, where the court delivered two generally applicable points. On summary judgment, the discussion at paras [7]–[11] culminates in a caution at paras [10]–[11]: in many instances the correct course is to proceed straight to a substantive hearing. It is a clear indication that using a summary judgment application in para [35] matters as a surrogate for a judicial review permission stage is inappropriate. The second point reiterates that an Order impugned under para [35] will only be quashed if, in accordance with RTRA 1984, Sch 9, para 36, the applicant has suffered substantial prejudice (see paras [126]–[127]). On that basis, the claimant’s first ground was struck out because no substantial prejudice was shown—a reminder of the hurdle that prospective challengers must meet...

Collins and others v Wind Energy Holding Ltd [2025] EWHC 40 (Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling reinforces the formidable threshold that section 68 challenges must clear. Section 68 functions as a longstop safeguard for cases where a tribunal has seriously mishandled the arbitration in one of the ways identified in section 68(2). Court intervention is reserved for situations that are far removed from what could reasonably be expected of the arbitral process. The judgment also reconciles section 33 duties: on one side, ensuring each party a fair chance to put its case and answer the other’s arguments; on the other, preventing unnecessary delay or expense. Whether a tribunal has discharged these obligations is a context-specific question in every matter. It is a stringent standard, triggered by exceptional departures from proper process. The inquiry is fact-sensitive and context‑dependent. Here, the court found the claimants had adequate opportunity to address issues concerning the freezing order and to obtain legal representation, yet made no genuine...

This Practice Note provides an overview of the process of making a rights issue in CREST It does not attempt to introduce CREST or uncertificated securities, nor does it offer practical steps for transferring shares through CREST. For guidance on those topics, including a summary of key terms, refer to Practice Note: CREST and uncertificated shares—an introduction. For a synopsis of how various shareholder and company actions are carried out within CREST, see Practice Note: CREST—shareholder and general corporate actions. For a guide to conducting an open offer in CREST, consult Practice Note: CREST—open offers. For how to accept a takeover offer via CREST, see Practice Note: CREST—takeover offers. The general mechanics of undertaking a rights issue fall outside the remit of this Practice Note. It addresses solely the aspects that differ, or merit specific comment, where a rights issue is implemented through CREST. For broader information on rights issues and the matters that listed or AIM companies should evaluate when proposing a rights issue, see Practice Notes: Rights...

This Practice Note outlines a standard schedule for starting civil claims in practice. A vertical comparison likewise offers direction on the steps parties should weigh when considering issuing proceedings in the courts of England and Wales. It highlights usual sequencing and the principal considerations for parties preparing cases. Typical timeline in civil proceedings Notes Note 1 Cause of action When evaluating the strength of the dispute, court litigation is a route to secure a remedy against the other side, and neither statute nor contract compels a different path. Note 2 Pre-action Parties are urged to attempt settlement before issuing, including by using alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Observance of a pre-action protocol is required (eg sending a letter of claim). Considering pre-action measures, such as freezing injunctions or pre-action disclosure applications, is also available. Note 3 Issuing proceedings The claim form and particulars of claim are commonly issued electronically and served on the defendant(s) by a method mandated by the Civil Procedure Rules...

This Practice Note outlines the key criminal offences and civil protections against unlawful eviction affecting certain tenants and licensees. Unlawful eviction and harassment—criminal offences A landlord commits a criminal offence under section 1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (PEA 1977) if they: unlawfully exclude a residential tenant or occupier from possession of the premises, or any part of it, or attempt to do so (it is a defence to have believed, with reasonable cause, that the occupier had stopped living in the premises), or carry out acts likely to disturb the peace or comfort of the residential tenant or any member of their household, or persistently cut off or withhold services reasonably required for occupation of the premises as a home. The landlord must either intend to induce the occupier to give up occupation or to refrain from exercising any right or remedy, or know, or have reasonable cause to believe, that the conduct will have that effect. It...

Behaviour red flags are situations that should prompt you to probe further. Though they can be hard to spot, many scenarios can indicate the presence of anti-competitive conduct. This awareness tool highlights potential competition law warning signs, indicators, traits or behaviours to be especially alert to at all times. Even a single red flag may suggest anti-competitive conduct. 1 Cartel behaviour Any attempt to fix prices. Any attempt to engage in bid-rigging. ...

Delete clause 3.6 of Precedent: Consultancy agreement—company and individual—pro-client and replace it with the following clauses 3.6 and 3.7: 3.6 How you organise your work is for you alone to determine, and you shall perform your duties as data protection officer (DPO) (as described in the Schedule) in an independent and self-directed manner at all times. You will not be given (and the Company [ and its Group Companies ] will not attempt to give you) any directions or instructions whatsoever concerning the performance or exercise of those duties. 3.7 Subject to clause 3.6, you shall give proper consideration to the reasonable requests of the [ Board OR Chief Executive ] from time to time and, where reasonably practicable, as appropriate, properly work and co-operate with any employee, worker, agent or other consultant of the Company [ or any Group Company ] in the provision and delivery of the Services. Insert the subsequent provisions in Precedent: Consultancy agreement—company and individual—pro-client as new clauses 3.14 and 3.15...

IT IS ORDERED that: 1 Allocation 1.1 Allocation to Multi-Track This claim is assigned to the multi-track. 1.2 Allocation to Management Track This claim falls within the following management track: Case managed by a Master with the trial before a Judge Case management and the trial to be conducted by a Judge (full docketing) Case management and trial to be undertaken by a Master Case management shared between Judge and Master, with the trial before a Judge 2 Alternative dispute resolution This claim is stayed until [ date ] to allow the parties to attempt settlement through alternative dispute resolution or other means. At the end of that period, the parties must notify the Court in writing whether a settlement has been reached. At the same time, they must lodge either: (if settled) a draft consent Order signed by all parties; or (if not settled) ...

This Q&A This Q&A explores the steps administrators should take to contest a landlord’s attempt to forfeit a lease by peaceable re-entry, carried out unaware of an interim moratorium triggered by lodging a notice of intention to appoint administrators (NOI). An NOI is to be lodged by the directors or the company in advance of making an out of court appointment pursuant to Schedule B1, paragraph 22, of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). This Q&A does not address a case where no NOI has been lodged. Where a company or its directors intend to appoint an administrator via the out of court route, they begin by filing an NOI, which imposes an interim moratorium under IA 1986, Sch B1, paras 44(2), 44(4). After the NOI is placed before the court, notice must also be served on the ‘prescribed persons’, including any party known to have levied distress against the company or its assets (Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, SI 2016/1024, r 3.23(4); IA 1986, Sch B1, para...