Intention meaning

Checklist This Checklist outlines the details that must appear in a notice of intention of intention to make an award, or to finalise a framework agreement, with the Chosen Provider through the Competitive Process, intended for submission to the UK central digital platform, to satisfy the transparency requirements set and mandated by the Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023 (PSR Regs 2023), SI 2023/1348, reg 11(10), Sch 10...

This Checklist This Checklist explains the particulars that must appear in a notice to be submitted to the UK central digital platform to satisfy the applicable transparency duties imposed by the Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023 (PSR Regs 2023), SI 2023/1348, reg 9(4), Sch 3, following the direct award made of a health care contract under Direct Award Process C...

This is an illustrative timetable for a takeover structured as a scheme of arrangement. It sets out the typical stages of a scheme, spanning the necessary court procedures and the obligations arising under the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (the Code). In broad terms, it captures each step required in a standard scheme process. For schemes, Rule 31 of the Code, which governs the timing of an offer, does not apply; instead, timing matters are addressed principally in Section 3 of Appendix 7 to the Code. Because the court process must be accommodated, the Takeover Panel (Panel) permits greater flexibility on the scheme timetable than on an offer. Even so, the Code imposes certain constraints on the scheduling of a scheme, including: where the offeror’s firm intention announcement contains a statement from the offeree board that it intends to recommend the scheme, the scheme circular, combining an offer document and the offeree circular, must be posted within 28 days of the firm intention...

This Flowchart This Flowchart supports your decision on whether a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) is necessary when initiating a new project that involves personal data from the outset, helping you decide effectively. It sets out: three scenarios in which a DPIA is mandatory under Article 35(3) of Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679, UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR); and ten further processing activities for which the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) requires a DPIA to be carried out Where a DPIA is not needed, you should think about using a simpler form of review, which we call a privacy impact assessment (PIA) instead. The Flowchart enables you to determine which assessment—DPIA or PIA—best fits your project in practice. For additional guidance on DPIAs and PIAs, see Practice Note: How to complete a data protection impact assessment—DPIA...

Antitrust Commission issues SO to Meta over WhatsApp AI access limits; flags possible interim measures The Commission has delivered a statement of objections to Meta, outlining its preliminary assessment that Meta blocked third-party artificial intelligence (AI) assistants from accessing and engaging with users on WhatsApp, infringing Article 102 TFEU (AT.41034). The Commission considers that Meta’s behaviour risks preventing competitors from entering or growing in the rapidly expanding market for general-purpose AI assistants and has therefore indicated its intention to impose interim measures (subject to Meta’s rights of defence) to avoid serious and irreparable harm to competition. Background On 15 October 2025, Meta announced changes to its WhatsApp Business Solution Terms, effectively prohibiting third-party general-purpose AI assistants from the platform. Consequently, from 15 January 2026, Meta’s own assistant, Meta AI, has been the only AI assistant available on WhatsApp. On 4 December 2025, the Commission opened formal proceedings to examine whether this policy shift amounts to an abuse of dominance. The investigation covers the EEA, excluding Italy, where...

In this issue: Key DR developments Claims and remedies Costs and funding Litigation Case management Evidence and disclosure ADR Scottish Dispute Resolution New content Dates for your diary Useful information Daily and weekly news alerts Dispute Resolution Highlights 2025/2026 Key DR developments Alternative dispute resolution European Parliament adopts new rules to modernise out-of-court dispute resolution for consumers The European Parliament has approved refreshed measures to enhance consumer out-of-court complaint handling, updating the EU’s ADR framework for the digital landscape and cross-border disputes. The reforms delineate ADR’s reach to cover matters arising both before and after contractual agreements, and in specified circumstances enable involvement by traders from third countries. The directive will come into force 20 days following publication and will begin to apply 32 months thereafter. For more, see: Parliament adopts new rules to modernise out-of-court dispute resolution for consumers—LNB News 16/12/2025 Court information HMCTS update hearing...

In this issue: UK digital markets UK competition policy UK private actions EU antitrust Daily and weekly news alerts Caselex UK digital markets CMA opens first ‘SMS investigation’ under the DMCCA 2024 into Google’s general search and search advertising The CMA has begun an ‘initial SMS investigation’ under Part 1 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA 2024). This is the authority’s first SMS designation probe under the new DMCCA digital markets framework. The CMA’s power to designate undertakings with SMS, and potentially impose conduct requirements, took effect on 1 January 2025. The Investigation Notice states that Alphabet Inc, Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited and Google UK Limited (Google) provide general worldwide web search and information return (general search), and advertising to users of general search (search advertising). The CMA considers these meet the definition of a digital activity and can be treated as one activity. The Notice excludes specialised search service interfaces, such...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment of 7 December 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission’s readopted infringement decision of 17 December 2020, which imposed a reduced fine amounting to €9.4m (AT.39563). Latest development On 7 December 2022, the General Court delivered its judgment and dismissed the appeal in full. In particular, it found that: (i) CCPL grasped the Commission’s reasoning, and the material presented by CCPL was insufficient to overturn the presumption applied by the Commission that CCPL exercised decisive influence over entities within the CCPL group; and (iii) the Commission did not err in concluding that a fine reduction can only be warranted by the aim of preventing the undertaking’s economic viability from being irreparably endangered and its assets stripped of value, so the applicant’s intention to develop operating companies of the CCPL group cannot, in principle, justify such...

This Practice Note on economic torts This note summarises, at a high level, the key differences when pursuing claims for lawful means conspiracy, unlawful means conspiracy, the tort of unlawful interference, and procuring a breach of contract. Practice Notes: Civil conspiracy claims (economic tort) Lawful means conspiracy (civil action) Unlawful means conspiracy (civil action) Economic tort of unlawful interference The tort of procuring a breach of contract Closely connected to procuring a breach of contract is the so‑called ‘Marex tort’, a cause of action founded on an alleged deliberate infringement by the defendant of the claimant’s rights in a judgment debt; see Practice Note: The Marex tort (interference with a judgment debt). These claims may (though need not) involve a fiduciary or agent, including company directors. For further guidance, see: Claims against directors—key considerations for dispute resolution practitioners Agency disputes Fiduciary Duties Fiduciary duties—remedies for breach Such causes...

The Skilled Worker route The Skilled Worker route allows UK employers holding a valid sponsor licence to hire, or continue to employ, skilled individuals who are neither British nor Irish nationals. It is the principal route for entry to, and residence in, the UK for employment. The Practice Note: Sponsoring a Skilled Worker reviews the eligibility requirements connected to a sponsor issuing a Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS), including the necessary skill level and salary. Once a CoS has been issued, and provided the applicant meets all other criteria, they can apply for entry clearance or permission to stay...

ARCHIVED: [ insert name and address of claimant’s legal representative ] [ insert date ] Without prejudice save as to costs Dear [ insert organisation name ] [ Pre-action ] Part 36 offer [ Claimant v Defendant[ —Case number ] ] We write in relation to the above [ potential ] matter, in which we represent [ insert name of your client ]. [ Our client is satisfied that your client’s claim cannot be sustained OR Our client wishes to resolve this issue amicably OR Our client recognises the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules for parties to seek to settle their disputes ], and we are instructed to advance an offer pursuant to Part 36 of the CPR ('the Offer'). For the avoidance of doubt, the Offer is made with the intention that the consequences set out in Section I of Part 36 shall apply...

To: The Directors[ insert company name ] Limited[ insert address of company ][ insert date ] Special notice: [ insert company name ] Limited (the Company). [ I OR We ], as the holder[s] of [ insert class of shares ] shares with a nominal value of [ insert value ] pence each in the Company’s capital, hereby give notice, in accordance with sections 312 and 515 of the Companies Act 2006, of [ my OR our ] intention to table the following ordinary resolution at the Company’s forthcoming general meeting: That [ insert name of auditor ] be [ appointed as ] the auditor of the Company until the close of the next period for appointing auditors; and that [ their remuneration be a fee of £[ insert figure ] OR the directors of the Company be authorised to determine their remuneration ]. Date: ………………………………… Shareholder name Signature [ insert name of shareholder ] ………………………………….................................................…………………. [ insert...

TO: [ insert full name of tenant ] of [ insert address ] (the ‘Tenant’) [ together with [ insert full name of recognised tenant’s association ] of [ insert address ] (the ‘RTA’) ] FROM: [ insert full name of landlord ], being the [ freehold OR long leasehold ] proprietor of the building known as [ insert address ] (the ‘Landlord’) RE: NOTICE OF INTENTION DATED [ DATE OF NOTICE OF INTENTION ] (the ‘Notice of Intention’) [ THE LANDLORD, OR WE [ NAME OF SOLICITORS OR AGENTS ], ACTING AS [SOLICITORS AND] DULY AUTHORISED AGENTS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE LANDLORD, ] HEREBY GIVE[S] NOTICE IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS: The relevant period stated in the Notice of Intention ended on [ insert date ]...

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...

In responding to this Q&A, the following assumptions are made: the land is not a residential property the land is registered the period of possession occurred after October 2013 and the 'new rules' apply to it Definitions used for clarity: the owner is 'the registered proprietor' the third party is 'the squatter' For a squatter to pursue an adverse possession claim against the registered proprietor, the squatter must demonstrate, for the requisite period of ten years, that both of the following are satisfied: the claimant enjoyed uninterrupted factual possession of the land for that period ('factual possession'); and the claimant intended to possess the land throughout that period ('intention to possess') These elements must be established across the whole of that period. Factual Possession To establish factual possession, the squatter must have exercised a sufficient degree of exclusive physical control over the land. What amounts to...

Parental leave Parental leave (meaning unpaid parental leave, and not to be confused with Shared Parental Leave) is regulated by the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 (MAPLE Regs 1999), SI 1999/3312. The default position under the MAPLE Regs 1999, SI 1999/3312, Sch 2, requires employees to: give notice of their intention to take parental leave, specifying the dates the leave will begin and end; and give at least 21 days’ notice of the date on which the parental leave is to start. MAPLE Regs 1999, SI 1999/3312, Sch 2, also sets out that the minimum period of leave that can be taken at any one time is a week, and that leave must be taken in weekly blocks, not individual days (assuming the child in question is not disabled)...