Lock-out agreement meaning

The employer and its advisers ought to reflect on the following matters: Preparatory steps From the employer, gather: a copy of the departing employee’s latest employment contract and any other documents setting out contractual terms (note: these might sit within a staff handbook) particulars of the employee’s contractual benefits pertinent details about the employee’s pension entitlements information on any shares/share options held by the employee; review the Articles of Association, any relevant shareholder agreement, and share scheme documentation. See also Shares and share options below Status of negotiations Will discussions occur directly between the parties, or via their respective legal advisers? How robust is the employer’s bargaining position? How credible are the employee’s existing or potential claims? For any dismissal, is there a fair reason and has a fair procedure been followed? Is the employer in repudiatory breach? What is the employer initially...

This Checklist sets out the key points to consider when advising a prospective claimant on a potential breach of warranty claim arising from a share purchase agreement (SPA). The same broad approach will apply to an asset purchase agreement (APA). For additional guidance on breach of warranty claims, see the related content links on the right-hand side. Read this Checklist together with Practice Note: Starting an SPA breach of warranty claim—a practical guide... Action Comments Review the SPA Check the: governing/choice of law provisions — is the agreement governed by English law? jurisdiction provisions — do the English courts have jurisdiction? warranty provisions and warranty limitation provisions — does the issue fall within the warranties and are you within the time limit to bring a breach of warranty claim? Note all deadlines in the agreement that could be relevant to any potential warranty claim... Review the disclosure letter Confirm that the issue has not been disclosed against...

Checklist This Checklist outlines the IP matters that commonly require attention when drafting share purchase agreements (SPAs). It also considers points to address when carrying out the related IP due diligence and structuring around such transactions. For information on the corporate elements of these deals, see: Share purchase agreement—overview. For guidance on key provisions and issues relating to IP in the context of a share purchase, see Practice Note: IP issues to consider in share purchase contracts. For information about IP due diligence, see: Precedent: IP due diligence questionnaire; and Checklist: Intellectual property due diligence in share purchase transactions—checklist This Checklist covers technology only to a limited degree. If IT represents a principal asset of the target company, more detailed warranties should be included in respect of, eg, IT systems and core software...

Flowchart This Flowchart sets out the questions to consider when deciding the applicable law in employment matters, namely which legal system governs an employment contract or employment relationship, and guides the assessment to identify the applicable rules in such cases. Brexit has no significant practical effect in this field. The reason is that Article 66 of the Withdrawal Agreement preserves the existing Rome I and Rome II framework beyond IP completion day (11 pm on 31 December 2020), ensuring continuity of approach. That position is implemented domestically by the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019/479, which took effect on IP completion day and applies for employment cases...

Introduction This Flowchart sets out the procedure for securing the court’s approval of a settlement in a child’s case. It steers practitioners from the point of a proposed agreement to the approval hearing, covering when to commence proceedings, the paperwork needed for approval, how to address future losses and periodical payments, and how the court evaluates if the compromise is fair and reasonable...

Checklist Many family-run enterprises often begin with a largely informal governance arrangement; relatives share a tacit grasp of duties and relationships, and decisions are taken swiftly at the kitchen table. By their nature these businesses are flexible and informal, with priorities typically guided by doing what is best for the family in line with the family’s values, rather than being driven solely by owners’ profit. However, as the business develops and more family members and other employees come on board, managing operations in this ad hoc way becomes progressively harder, as what was once straightforward to coordinate across a small group becomes complex to control as headcount and responsibilities increase. The pros and cons of formalising the family business are addressed in Practice Note: Family businesses. This checklist sets out questions an adviser can put to the family (or that the family can consider themselves) to help design an effective structure for the family business. The same questions will also help identify the matters to be covered in any...

In this issue: Employment Rights Act 2025 Benefits Protected characteristics Confidentiality, duties and restrictions: enforcement Europe-EU New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Employment resources on Lexis+® LexTalk®Employment: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Employment Rights Act 2025 Welsh Government consults on establishment of a Social Care Negotiating Body The Welsh Government has opened a consultation on creating a Social Care Negotiating Body (SCNB) using powers in the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025). The SCNB would be responsible for setting Fair Pay Agreements for Wales’s social care workforce. Feedback is invited on the organisation’s design, role and anticipated effects. Responses will inform the government’s understanding of sector perspectives on the SCNB, including the bargaining approach, who and what it should cover, dispute resolution, roll-out, as well as compliance and enforcement. The consultation closes on 28 April 2026. The exercise does not invite comments on the specifics...

Oswin v Otila; and Ondray Claim No ARB 032/2025 What was the background? This matter arose from a falling-out between Oswin (the Claimant) and Ondray (the Second Defendant) over how to run their joint venture company, Otila (the First Defendant). Oswin owned 49% of the First Defendant’s shares and Ondray 51%. The board could act only by unanimous vote, while shareholder resolutions required a 75% super-majority. When they were unable to agree on management and operations, the company became deadlocked. Their relationship was governed by a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) dated 12 March 2019, which included an arbitration clause calling for DIFC-seated proceedings under the DIFC-LCIA Rules. The Claimant also operated a medical and hazardous waste facility under an Operations and Management Agreement due to expire on 21 August 2025. On 15 August 2025, the Claimant issued a Dispute Notice under clause 21.2 of the JVA, alleging that the Second Defendant was assuming strategic decision-making without proper authority—covering directions on renewal of the O&M Agreement, instruction of external...

In this issue Company, disclosures, records and registers Equity capital markets Share purchase agreement Restructuring and insolvency for corporate lawyers Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Company, disclosures, records and registers Companies House publishes guidance on ACSPs and identity verification standards Companies House has issued three pieces of guidance covering the registration of Authorised Corporate Service Providers (ACSPs), what ACSPs do, and the identity verification obligations. The first note explains how to use Companies House’s service to enrol as an ACSP (also referred to as a Companies House authorised agent). Applications open on 25 February 2025. The second clarifies the functions and responsibilities of an ACSP. The third sets out how to meet Companies House identity verification standards when confirming someone’s identity. From 25 March 2025, ACSPs will be able to notify Companies House of identity checks that have been completed. Further, from spring...

For many years, virtually every disagreement about agricultural tenancies was sent to arbitration at the outset. The rationale was that questions concerning agricultural holdings often have a strong practical dimension, so arbitration was thought a more suitable forum than the courts. This reflected the earlier assumption that practical considerations predominated in such cases, making a court reference less apt back then. Over time, however, matters of considerable legal intricacy also came before arbitrators. With the enactment of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 (AH(S)A 2003), policy shifted, and the main route for resolving disputes about agricultural tenant issues is now referral to the Scottish Land Court. At the same time, arbitration procedures were streamlined, and alternative processes, eg mediation, were enabled. Although the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 (AH(S)A 1991) still sets out distinct mechanisms for dispute resolution, AH(S)A 2003 has substantially reshaped them, so that the arrangements for resolving disputes under 1991 Act Tenancies are, in large part, aligned with those for 2003 Act Tenancies...

What is a CVA? A company voluntary arrangement (CVA) is a form of insolvency that permits a company to enter a binding agreement with its creditors to compromise unsecured debts or otherwise agree how its affairs are handled. The directors continue to run the business, under the oversight of an insolvency practitioner. Retailers, particularly those with extensive property portfolios, frequently adopt so‑called ‘landlord CVAs’ to reset rental commitments and shut loss‑making stores. This note outlines how property law and landlord and tenant considerations may emerge under such a CVA. It highlights provisions commonly included in CVAs and explains how they tend to work in practice. Nevertheless, each CVA will vary according to the precise terms proposed. It is therefore vital to examine the CVA proposal carefully to assess its effect on creditors. This note does not provide detailed guidance on the mechanics of approving and implementing a CVA. For Practice Notes addressing the CVA procedure, see: Company voluntary arrangements—an introductory guide The CVA proposal and...

What does this Practice Note cover? This Practice Note outlines the principal provisions that apply to both the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement (Multicurrency—Cross Border) (the 1992 Agreement) and the 2002 ISDA Master Agreement (the 2002 Agreement), together with their accompanying schedules. Unless indicated otherwise, any reference here to the master agreements (the ISDA master agreement) should be read as a reference to both the 1992 and 2002 Agreements. For a comparison of the two forms, see Practice Note: ISDA documentation—comparison of the 1992 and 2002 master agreements; for the broader ISDA documentation framework, see Practice Note: Derivatives—ISDA documentation framework. The key concepts underpinning the ISDA master agreement The ISDA master agreement rests on three core concepts, outlined briefly below: single agreement flawed asset close-out netting Single agreement Under ISDA’s documentation architecture, every derivative transaction between a pair of counterparties is captured under one overarching agreement (implemented through multiple layers of documentation), as provided in Section 1(c) of the...

The Schedule 1 Definitions 1.1 In this Schedule: Adequate Procedures – must be interpreted in line with BA 2010 and any guidance issued under it; Associated Person – means any or all of: (a) the officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, subsidiaries, and individuals Associated With a party (Associates); and (b) persons Associated With any of those Associates, in every instance engaged in carrying out services for, or on behalf of, that party, the Services, and/or this Agreement; and Associated With – where used: (a) in paragraph 2 and in relation to bribery, is to be construed in accordance with BA 2010 and guidance issued under it; (b) in paragraph 4 and regarding the facilitation of tax evasion, is to be construed in accordance with Part 3 of CFA 2017 and guidance issued under it; (c) in paragraph 5 and as regards fraud, is to be construed in accordance with Part 5 of ECCTA 2023 and guidance issued under it; BA 2010 – means the...

Agreement concerning [ insert brief details of the works/project ] at [ insert address of works ] (incorporating, among other things, the JCT Standard Building Sub-Contract Agreement 2024 (SBCSub/A 2024) and the JCT Standard Building Sub-Contract Conditions 2024 (SBCSub/C 2024), each as amended and supplemented as set out in this Agreement and in the Schedules to it). This Agreement is dated the [ insert number ] day of [ insert month ] 20[ insert year ] Parties [ insert name of the Contractor ] (company registration number [ insert number ]), whose registered office is at [ insert address of the Contractor ] (“the Contractor”) [ insert name of the Sub-Contractor ] (company registration number [ insert number ]), whose registered office is at [ insert address of the Sub-Contractor ] (“the Sub-Contractor”) Now it is agreed that: 1 Interpretation In this Agreement, words and expressions carry the meanings respectively attributed to them in the JCT SBCSub/A 2024 and...

1 Definitions and interpretation 1.1 Within this Agreement: Affiliate – refers to any entity that, whether directly or indirectly, Controls, is Controlled by, or is under shared Control with, another entity; Business Day – means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday, or a bank or public holiday in Scotland; Control – signifies [ the beneficial ownership of more than 50% of a company’s issued share capital, or the lawful power to direct, or to cause the direction of, the company’s management OR has the meaning assigned in the Corporation Tax Act 2010, s 1124 ], and Controls and Controlled shall be construed accordingly; Dispute Notice – has the meaning set out in clause 2.2; Force Majeure – has the meaning set out in clause 6.1...

Lease or licence? In Street v Mountford, the House of Lords set out the core indicators of a tenancy. These focus on the substance of the arrangement rather than the label attached to it: exclusive possession of specified premises Although the payment of rent may suggest a tenancy, it is not essential. Whether the proposed arrangement is a lease or a licence turns on the agreement taken as a whole; where the parties in reality confer exclusive possession, that result cannot be avoided by calling the document something else. What counts is the essence of the bargain, not its outward form or chosen description. Even where the paperwork is properly framed at the outset as a true licence, the parties’ subsequent behaviour may alter the character of the arrangement so that a tenancy is later created. For further discussion, see Practice Note: Leases and licences of land—key features and differences, together with the commentary in Hill and Redman’s Division A from paragraph...

The court holds comprehensive jurisdiction to sanction or decline a financial remedy consent order embodying the parties’ bargain (see section 33A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) and the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 9.26). Yet the court is neither ‘a rubber stamp’ nor a ‘bloodhound’ or ‘forensic ferret’ (see Pounds v Pounds and L v L). Its jurisdiction cannot be excluded. The court undertakes an autonomous and independent evaluation to enable it to discharge and fulfil its statutory duties by reference to the relevant factors set out in the MCA 1973, s 25...

Amendments to the International Tax Compliance Regulations 2015 (2015 regs), SI 2015/878, introduced by the International Tax Compliance (Amendment) Regulations 2025, SI 2025/740, have brought in a compulsory Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI) registration obligation for certain trusts treated as ‘specified non-reporting financial institutions’. Under the 2015 regs, SI 2015/878, reg 24(1), a specified non-reporting financial institution is ‘a non-reporting financial institution which is a trust within the meaning of Section VIII(B)(1)(e) of the CRS or paragraph II(D) of Annex II to the FATCA agreement’. Set out below is a concise overview of the components of that definition. Financial institution (IEIM400610) The FATCA and CRS frameworks recognise four common categories of Financial Institution: custodial institution depository institution investment entity specified insurance company Where a private trust satisfies any Financial Institution definition, it will most commonly be treated as an Investment Entity...