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

“Although cost was an important factor, our relationship with LexisNexis, their responsiveness, flexibility, and the integration available with other products were key factors.”

Irwin Mitchell

Access all documents on ERL

ERL meaning

Published by a LexisNexis Energy expert
What does ERL mean?
Emergency Reference Levels (ERLs) describe the projected radiation dose to an individual that responders aim to avert by taking protective actions during a nuclear or radiological emergency (for example, sheltering, evacuation, stable iodine administration, decontamination or food and water restrictions). They are used in practice to justify and optimise countermeasures by comparing the avertable dose with the risks, benefits, proportionality and practicability of the action. ERLs are a descriptive, guidance-based concept rather than a statutory definition. In Great Britain, they are reflected in guidance supporting the Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2019 (REPPIR 2019); Northern Ireland has equivalent arrangements. In Ireland, analogous approaches are applied under legislation transposing the EU Basic Safety Standards and in national nuclear emergency plans. Related terms include “reference levels” (for emergency exposure situations) and “operational intervention levels”. Set in advance by competent authorities and reviewed during an incident, ERLs are expressed as avertable dose, vary by countermeasure and exposure pathway, and inform off-site emergency plans, protective action zones and real-time decision-making for releases at nuclear facilities and other radiological sources. Usage is broadly consistent across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland.
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 Practice Notes about ERL

PRACTICE NOTES
Competition Appeal Tribunal finds dominance but no abuse; dismisses Churchill Gowns’ Chapter II and Chapter I claims over exclusivity in official supplier agreements and commissions in UK academic dress market

ARCHIVED - this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 15 July 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline of the CAT’s judgment concerning a standalone damages claim alleging abuse of a dominant position in the UK market for the sale and hire of academic dress for graduation ceremonies, said to result from exclusivity agreements. Latest development On 15 July 2022, the CAT handed down its judgment. The two applications before the CAT related to follow-on damages claims concerning the infringement identified in the Commission’s 2016 decision. The application brought by the claimants was filed on 26 June 2020. Parties Claimants Churchill Gowns Limited Student Gowns Limited (together, Churchill) Defendants Ede Ravenscroft Limited (ERL) Radcliffe & Taylor Limited (R&T) WM. Northam & Company Limited (Northam) Irish Legal and Academic Limited (ILA) (together, the E&R) Background...

Read More Right Arrow