Material contribution meaning

According to TPR’s press release, the sum recovered acts as compensation for monies removed from Dundee-based packaging firm Discovery Flexibles Ltd (Discovery Flexibles) while its pension scheme was in deficit. The monies exited Discovery Flexibles via management charges and dividends, or as loans to other companies, across the period 2008 to 2019. TPR confirmed that extracting monies from Discovery Flexibles caused ‘material detriment’ to its pension scheme — the Danapak Flexibles Retirement Benefits Scheme (the Scheme). Discovery Flexibles was transferred to new owners in 2019. In the press release, Gaucho Rasmussen, Executive Director of Regulatory Compliance at TPR, stated that this case reflects their commitment to protecting savers and safeguarding the integrity of the pensions system...

Rehman v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and others [2026] EWHC 6 (KB) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment reinforces judicial hesitation to let COVID-19 infection claims advance. In contrast to Edwards v 2 Sisters Food Group Ltd [2025] EWHC 1312 (KB), the claimants framed causation purely by alleging a material contribution to injury and a material increase in risk. However, the real-world evidential difficulties in identifying the route of infection were sufficient to bar reliance on material contribution. The Master also held that the same evidential gaps prevented the claims from fitting within the Fairchild exception of a material increase in risk of injury, drawing a clear line between COVID-19 and mesothelioma. Policy considerations plainly influenced the outcome. The Master observed that permitting a Fairchild-based claim here would open the floodgates, since it would require only that a claimant demonstrate a non-negligible uplift in circulating viral particles attributable to a tortious act or omission. Or, ...

What are the practical implications of this case? There are three areas of broader relevance, each connected to one of the five tests for issuing a CN under PeA 2004, s 38 (outlined below): As to the ‘material detriment test’, where (as here) the scheme remains in operation and the employer continues to trade and support it, it may seem challenging to show that a step has adversely affected the likelihood of the scheme delivering promised benefits. Surely any negative funding effect could be rectified by future employer contributions, enabling benefits to be paid? The UT held otherwise, stating the test involves qualitative as well as quantitative evaluation, and observing that the cash drawn from the employer’s finance facility equated to about one-third of its total net assets at the time. That, together with the scheme’s significant deficit, meant the act ‘greatly increased the risk’ of benefits not being funded...

PI & Clinical negligence horizon scanner—July 2025 [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and is not maintained. It summarises the principal legal developments relevant to personal injury and clinical negligence practitioners as at July 2025. For developments predating this horizon scanner, see PI and Clinical Negligence horizon scanning and key cases—overview. Key PI and clinical negligence developments The personal injury discount rate—a review In late 2024, the Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood MP, revealed the outcome of her five‑month review of the discount rate, initiated in July 2024. One month after the new +0.5% discount rate took effect, Thea Wilson (barrister at 12 King’s Bench Walk) assesses its impact on cases, the responses from claimant and defendant representatives, and the consequences of the change for legal practitioners. See News Analysis: The personal injury discount rate—a review. MoJ announces reduction in CFO’s interest rates The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has announced lower interest rates for the Courts Funds Office’s (CFO) special and basic accounts...

Practice Note This Practice Note consists of two strands created to help dispute resolution practitioners remain up to date with developments in case law that affect their field, or which influence civil litigation procedure more generally: selected forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court are highlighted below; see Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 summaries of significant appeal decisions in England and Wales (ie rulings of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and, where appropriate, certain judgments of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Justice of the European Union), and ECtHR, which we have covered; see: Key forthcoming appeal cases—2022 You can navigate this content using the table of contents in the left-hand margin. Alternatively, search this tracker using [CTRL]+[F]. This material is not intended to be a comprehensive register of every appeal or major decision relevant to dispute resolution practitioners. Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 Tort and negligence ...

For guidance on causation in clinical negligence matters, refer to Practice Note: Causation and material contribution in clinical negligence claims. Did the breach cause the injury to the claimant? The baseline for proving causation is the ‘but for’ test: but for the defendant’s breach of duty, would the claimant have suffered the harm in question? In a personal injury claim alleging negligence or breach of statutory duty, the claimant must show the defendant owed and breached a duty, and that this breach resulted in loss or damage. It is helpful to consider the claim in key components: did a duty of care exist? was that duty breached by the defendant? is there a causal link between the breach and the loss or damage? what is the nature and scope of the loss or damage? The claimant bears the burden of proving the breach caused the damage by establishing that, but for the breach, the damage would not...

Effective from [ insert date ], this statement of investment principles applies. 1 Statement of investment principles 1.1 Purpose of statement This document outlines the principles that steer decisions on investing the assets of the [ insert name ] Pension Scheme (the Scheme). It is published by the Trustees of the [ insert name ] Pension Scheme (the Trustees) to meet the requirements of the Pensions Act 1995, s 35. 1.2 Review The statement will be assessed each year. The Trustees may conduct an ad hoc review at any time if they consider there has been a material change in investment policy, or any other circumstances affecting the Scheme. 1.3 Advice The Trustees have received and evaluated written advice on the contents of this statement in a letter from [ insert name of investment consultant or actuary ]. [ insert name ] have confirmed to the Trustees that, through their ability and practical experience in financial matters, and with appropriate knowledge...

This policy sets out how the company uses free and open-source software (FOSS), ensuring adherence to every software licence that governs its use. All employees must complete the actions described in this policy before commencing any work that involves a FOSS product or component. Typical scenarios where this policy is required include: Using FOSS to create, maintain, or otherwise administer software applications, systems, servers, or networks Including FOSS in proofs of concept, evaluations, pilot initiatives, or tools for network monitoring or debugging Employing FOSS to implement a material upgrade or modification to an existing vendor product Linking FOSS to the company’s network, or accessing FOSS from the company’s network Rolling out any major upgrade or new release of previously approved FOSS, or applying FOSS to a use case different from that previously approved Conducting due diligence on a prospective acquisition target (or an asset), or preparing for the sale of an entity (or an asset) What is FOSS?...

[ IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [ INSERT ] OR IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ] [ [ Specify division ] ] [ [ Specify Specialist court ] ] [ [ Insert location ] ] Claim No: [ Insert claim number ] Between [ Insert name and details of the Claimant ] Claimant and [ Insert name and details of the Defendant ] Defendant and [ Insert name and details of the Third Party ] Third Party Defendant's Additional Claim against Third Party The Claimant seeks damages in accordance with the Particulars of Claim from the Defendant. The Defendant intends to contest the proceedings in line with the Defence. At all material times, the Third Party served as the Defendant’s sub-contractor. Throughout the relevant period, the relationship between the Defendant and the Third Party was governed by a written agreement, a copy of which is attached (‘the contract’)...