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

“It's hard to quantify, right now. But at a guess, I'd say it's probably more than 50% faster, at times. It's literally that quick. We've found to be an essential practical tool. We're very satisfied.”

Walsall Council

Access all documents on DRAGON

DRAGON meaning

Published by a LexisNexis Energy expert
What does DRAGON mean?
Dragon (or the Dragon reactor) is the proper name of the former experimental high‑temperature gas‑cooled reactor at the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) Winfrith site in Dorset. In legal practice it is used to identify that specific nuclear installation in nuclear site licences, decommissioning agreements, radioactive waste documentation and regulatory correspondence. It is not a defined statutory term; usage is descriptive and contextual across nuclear regulation and environmental law materials. The reactor is permanently shut down and undergoing decommissioning. Related liabilities and activities sit within the UK civil nuclear decommissioning programme led by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and regulated by the Office for Nuclear Regulation, with environmental regulation by the Environment Agency. Usage of the term is consistent across England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, though the installation itself is in England. In Ireland, references typically arise only in cross‑border environmental assessment, radiological monitoring or emergency planning materials that refer to UK nuclear sites. Where a contract, licence or permit refers to DRAGON, confirm it denotes the Dragon reactor at Winfrith and check the scope of associated assets, records, waste streams and any nuclear third‑party liability allocations (for example under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965).
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 DRAGON

NEWS
EU competition law round-up: BASF/Harbour Energy Phase I clearance, merger notifications, Iberdrola/BP JV decision, and CJEU hearing on leniency confidentiality (5 June 2024)

Mergers The Commission approved BASF SE’s acquisition granting sole control of Harbour Energy Plc and, indirectly, selected assets of Wintershall DEA AG (M.11470) following a phase I review—see further, Midday Express The Commission received notifications in: VTTI/Shell/Dragon LNG (M.11572) (simplified merger procedure) EFMS/Permira/Universidad Europea (M.11549) (simplified merger procedure) The Commission issued the public version of its decision in Iberdrola/BP/JV (M.11128)—see further, decision NOTE—For all live merger investigations before the Commission, see further, EU mergers—ongoing cases tracker Antirust The Court of Justice held a hearing in Case C-2/23 FL und KM Baugesellschaft and S, a national reference from Austria seeking clarity on whether information from leniency statements and settlement submissions should be protected from criminal enforcers and damages actions—see further, application NOTE—For all live national references before the Court of Justice, see further, Court of Justice national references—ongoing cases tracker Upcoming dates For...

Read More Right Arrow
NEWS
Jellycat v Aldi: High Court of England and Wales registered design infringement claim over 'Dexter Dragon' soft toy; injunction and delivery up sought; cites M&S gin ruling

Jellycat asserts that the German supermarket chain has been selling a lookalike of its ‘Dexter Dragon’ soft toy in shops across the UK since late April, as stated in its High Court claim. In submissions on 13 June, now public, the company argued the designs are so alike that an informed user would not gain a different overall impression. The soft toy maker maintains that Aldi’s dragon teddy replicates both the shape and stance of Dexter Dragon. According to the claim, both versions show a dragon resting on its stomach with four legs outstretched and ‘protruding, scalloped ears’. The two dragon toys are also said to have comparable scales along their spines and scalloped wings...

Read More Right Arrow

View the related Practice Notes about DRAGON

PRACTICE NOTES
Hong Kong: court powers to stay proceedings and grant interim measures in support of arbitration; application procedures, Mainland China arrangement, and emergency arbitrator enforcement

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and is not maintained. Under the Arbitration Ordinance, Chapter 609 (AO), the Hong Kong court may grant a range of interim measures in aid of arbitration proceedings. Such measures are principally intended to uphold the arbitral process, avoid frustration of the award, regulate how the parties conduct themselves, and protect assets or evidence. The arbitral tribunal also has corresponding powers to grant interim measures under AO, s 35. Note: the Hong Kong judgments below are not reported by LexisNexis® UK. Power of the court to stay court proceedings in favour of arbitration Where a party so requests, the court can stay its proceedings and refer the parties to arbitration if the action is brought in a matter that is subject to an arbitration agreement, unless that agreement is invalid, inoperative, or incapable of being performed (AO, s 20). When deciding whether to grant a stay, the court may adopt the four-staged test laid down in Tommy CP Sze v Li &...

Read More Right Arrow
PRACTICE NOTES
Hong Kong courts’ powers supporting arbitration: stays, interim injunctions, asset/evidence preservation, receivers and security—legal tests and procedures for court applications, including emergency arbitrator relief and anti-suit injunctions

The court may, under the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) (AO), order a variety of interim relief to support arbitration proceedings. These measures are chiefly intended to ensure the arbitral process is respected, prevent any award from being frustrated, regulate the behaviour of the parties, and preserve assets or evidence. It should also be noted that the arbitral tribunal has corresponding powers to grant interim measures under AO, s 35. Note: Hong Kong judgments below are not reported by LexisNexis®. Power of the court to stay court proceedings in favour of arbitration Under AO, s 20, the court may stay proceedings and refer the parties to arbitration on a party’s request where the action is the subject of an arbitration agreement, unless the arbitration agreement is invalid, inoperative or incapable of being performed. In Hong Kong, the courts consistently uphold the primacy of the arbitration agreement once it is shown that the matter falls within such an agreement (Polytec Overseas Ltd (保利達國際有限公司) v Grand Dragon International Holdings Co Ltd...

Read More Right Arrow