Gray meaning

Corporate Rescue and Insolvency The June 2025 issue of Corporate Rescue and Insolvency is now accessible via Lexis +® UK (subscription required). This edition features the following new articles: Restructuring plan round-up: key developments in the High Court (2025) 3 CRI 63 by Caroline Platt, senior associate and Rob Gray, associate, at Freshfields LLP Norwich Pharmacal Orders: marking the boundaries (2025) 3 CRI 65 by James Morgan KC and Zachary Kell, barristers practising at Radcliffe Chambers Reframing the rule in Ex p....

In this issue: Data protection Financial sanctions Financial crime Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers New and updated content Data protection King's Speech 2024—key information law announcements On 17 July 2024, during the first State Opening of Parliament of the newly elected government, His Majesty King Charles III set out the administration’s programme and legislative priorities. For Information Law, the principal measures highlighted are the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill alongside the Digital Information and Smart Data Bill. Commentary on the King’s Speech 2024 is provided by Rhiannon Webster, partner and head of UK data privacy and cybersecurity at Ashurst, Jason Raeburn, partner at Paul Hastings, and Edward Machin, counsel at Ropes & Gray. See: LNB News 17/07/2024 62...

Saipem SpA v Petrofac Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 821 As only the third appellate ruling under the Companies Act 2006, Part 26A, on restructuring plans, this Court of Appeal case offers material direction for practitioners. Patrick Schumann, partner; Jonathan Swil, partner; and Ben Gray, trainee, all at King & Spalding International LLP, examine the far‑reaching consequences of this seminal ruling for restructuring law, particularly the standards of fairness in corporate reorganisations and how courts will assess future plans. The court reiterates that the core function of the cross‑class cramdown is to neutralise an unwarranted veto by hold‑out creditors; it is not a mechanism for supportive creditors to capture an inequitable portion of the restructuring upside. Petrofac, a worldwide oilfield services group employing over 8,000 people, operates via more than 100 entities in 30 jurisdictions. Before proposing the plans, it had come under intensifying financial strain after a succession of developments, including a major Serious Fraud Office probe and the coronavirus pandemic. In essence, Petrofac’s plans contemplated an injection of...

If the answer is yes, the defendant may have a complete defence to the claim. This defence is called ‘ex turpi causa non oritur actio’, commonly shortened to ‘ex turpi causa’. In practice, it is comparatively rare. Its exact scope is uncertain; however, the following guidelines should be considered. Claimant’s responsibility has been diminished but not removed The cases of Clunis and Gray dealt with claimants guilty of manslaughter due to diminished responsibility. In Clunis, the Court of Appeal determined that a plea of diminished responsibility accepts that mental responsibility was substantially impaired, but it does not remove liability for the criminal act, so the claimant is taken to have known what they were doing and that it was wrong. In Gray, the House of Lords ruled that the claimant’s action was barred by the defence of illegality because the damages claimed stemmed from the sentence imposed by the criminal court and/or from the claimant’s own criminal act of manslaughter...

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained Keeping abreast of case law that shapes a practitioner’s specialism, or influences civil litigation procedure generally, is a persistent challenge for those working in dispute resolution. This Practice Note distils the leading appeal authorities—decisions of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, and, where relevant, selected judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)—that we have reported, giving users straightforward access to those rulings. Use the table of contents in the left margin to browse, or locate items quickly with [CTRL]+[F]. It also sets out a selection of forthcoming appeals, where known, to aid horizon scanning. The material is not intended to be a comprehensive catalogue of every appeal and/or significant decision for dispute resolution practitioners. Key forthcoming appeal cases—2019 Terminating contracts—frustration Canary Wharf (BP4) T1 Ltd v European Medicines Agency [2019] EWHC 921 (Ch)—Court of Appeal: permission to appeal granted in the lower court...

ARCHIVED : This case tracker is archived and no longer maintained. It presents a selection of key pensions judgments issued in 2016. This Practice Note also cites case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union. In summary, EU decisions delivered on or before 31 December 2020 remain binding on UK courts and tribunals (even if the EU courts later change course) until UK courts choose to depart. Generally, EU judgments given after that date are not binding in the UK, though UK courts and tribunals may still have regard to them where relevant. For fuller guidance on the handling of EU case law, see Practice Note: Retained EU law and assimilated law. Engel v Ministry of Justice Case Name and Reference Number Decision Representation Court and Judgment Date Citation Engel v Ministry of Justice: The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, refused the Applicant’s renewed request for permission to appeal, as it was not shown that...