Nominated court meaning

Stage 1—preparing to bring a claim and pre-action matters Guidance on UK trade mark infringement, offences, passing off, interim injunctions, running IP disputes, privilege, dispute resolution (mediation and arbitration), and the Disclosure Scheme; plus checklists and forms (injunction, application, hearing) Stage 2—Letter before action alleging infringement Notes on infringement, passing off, unjustified threats and drafting; includes a trade mark letter of claim precedent Stage 3—commencing proceedings Procedure, defences and exceptions, IPEC flowchart, pleadings and initial disclosure precedents, and CPR/Part 36 forms Stage 4—case management Procedure and Disclosure Scheme notes, court guides (Chancery, Patents Court, IPEC and Small Claims), and case management questionnaires, Disclosure Review Document, Certificate of Compliance, budgets and directions Stage 5—disclosure and evidence Surveys and witness evidence (PD 57AC), privilege, disclosure (including electronic) and flexible trials; witness statement and Extended Disclosure precedents; affidavits, applications and certificates Stage 6—trial...

Tim SpA—Direzione e coordinamento Vivendi SA v Consip SpA, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze Case C-395/18 What are the practical implications of this case? General implications This ruling is expected to trigger reconsideration of national procurement laws across EU Member States that impose automatic, rather than discretionary, exclusions. Under Article 57(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU, contracting authorities may choose to bar tenderers shown to be unreliable—for example due to breaches of environmental or social duties, including accessibility rules for disabled persons (Article 57(4)(a)). Member States may transpose these grounds with differing levels of rigour, provided the conditions align with general EU law (paras [33] and [34]). The Court of Justice delineated the scope of that discretion by confirming that Member States may require contracting authorities to exclude bidders for infringements of social and labour law committed by their nominated sub-contractors, so long as the exclusion is not automatic. Implications for UK public procurements In keeping with the UK’s ‘copy out’ method for transposing Directive 2014/24/EU, the...

In this issue: Education Social care Children’s social care Social housing Healthcare Governance Public procurement Local government finance LexTalk®Local Government: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content New Q&A Education Dismissal of appeal against SSE’s prohibiting order on teaching issues concerning Christian faith and use of pronouns for students (Sutcliffe v SSE) The Administrative Court in Sutcliffe v Secretary of State for Education [2024] EWHC 1878 (Admin) permitted the appellant additional time, yet dismissed his appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to issue an order preventing him from teaching on matters where his Christian convictions clashed with his professional responsibilities towards the children in his class. The proceedings arose from conduct by a teacher who knowingly used female pronouns for a transgender male pupil (A) in lessons and later on national television, doing so in a way that resulted in A being ‘outed’, with no...

ELA USA, Inc v The Republic of Estonia 2018-42 PCA The tribunal’s award was sent to the parties on 21 February 2025. Its online release was publicised on 30 March 2025 in a press statement issued by claimant ELA USA Inc. The tribunal was made up of Judge Bruno Simma as presiding arbitrator, Professor Hélène Ruiz Fabri, nominated by ELA, and Judge Peter Tomka, nominated by Estonia. Seaport investment From around 1996, ELA, a commodities trading enterprise, began investing in a seaport in Tallinn, Estonia, known locally as Lennusadam, via four partly indirect subsidiaries. Having used other Estonian ports for its trading, ELA considered it could grow by obtaining a port of its own. In 1997, it concluded two 20-year leases for the seaport’s use. Around that period, Estonia contended that the seaport had become state property after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and in 1997 commenced court proceedings in Estonia asserting title to the seaport. Over the ensuing years, ELA continued to commit funds to...

Arbitral Tribunal’s jurisdiction Separability The Arbitral Tribunal is entitled to decide its own jurisdiction, including any objections concerning the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. In doing so, it will have regard to the following principles (Rule 26.1): an arbitration agreement incorporated within a contract is separable from the contract’s other provisions; a finding that the contract is null and void will not, of itself, invalidate the arbitration agreement Jurisdictional challenge A party may mount a jurisdictional challenge even if it nominated the arbitrator being challenged, or asked the President of the AIAC Court to appoint or confirm the Arbitral Tribunal (Rule 26.4)...

This Practice Note sets out the principal regulatory considerations when replacing the trustee of an authorised unit trust (AUT), covering the steps to implement the change, the approach to selecting a new trustee, and the related disclosure and notification obligations. What is an authorised unit trust An AUT is an investment fund and, under section 237(3) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000), means a unit trust scheme authorised by an order made under section 243 of FSMA 2000. an undertaking for the collective investment of transferable securities (UCITS) a non-UCITS retail scheme (NURS) a qualified investor scheme (QIS) a long term asset fund (LTAF) a charity authorised investment fund In some respects, the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) rules for AUTs vary according to classification. For more information, see Practice Note: Authorised unit trusts (AUTs)—What is an AUT? Changing the trustee of an AUT In limited circumstances, the FCA may apply to the...

Appointing authority This Practice Note outlines the automatic designation of the Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) as the appointing authority under the PCA Arbitration Rules 2012 (the PCA Rules), the specific manner in which a tribunal is formed under the PCA Rules, and the procedures for both challenging and replacing arbitrators. It further addresses the exclusion of liability for the tribunal and any persons it appoints. Under PCA Rules, art 6(1), the Secretary-General of the PCA is designated to act as appointing authority under the PCA Rules. The appointing authority’s central and primary function is to facilitate the constitution of an appropriate tribunal, by resolving difficulties that occur in putting the tribunal in place, for example when the parties fail to agree on a nominee for a sole or presiding arbitrator. In that capacity, the PCA Secretary-General may select an arbitrator if the parties do not reach agreement within a set period. The Secretary-General also keeps a roster of PCA Members of the Court, nominated by...

Company number: [ insert number ] [ insert company name ] [ plc OR Limited ] Minutes of the meeting of the board of directors (the Meeting) of [ insert full name of company ] (the Company) Conducted at [ insert location of meeting, eg the offices of the Company ] On [ insert day, month and year of the meeting ] at [ insert time of meeting ] [ am OR pm ] Present: [ Insert names of the director(s) physically present ] [ [ Insert names of any directors present by telephone as permitted by the Company's articles of association ] (by telephone) ] [ [ Insert names of any directors present by other means permitted by the Company's articles of association ] (by [ insert other means ] ] In attendance: [ [ Insert name of anyone in attendance, who does not count towards the quorum for the Meeting (eg the company...

Compulsory acquisition of landlord’s interest by tenants of flats Under Part III of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (LTA 1987), qualifying long-lease flat owners may compel transfer of the landlord’s interest to a nominated person where: the landlord has breached duties to repair, maintain, insure or manage the building; or the building has been managed for at least two years by a manager appointed under LTA 1987, Part II. For criteria and procedure for an acquisition order, see Practice Note: Compulsory acquisition of landlord’s interest by tenants of flats. When deciding to bring an acquisition order as a standalone claim or within a defence and counterclaim, CPR 20.9 applies. The court considers whether to permit an additional claim, dismiss it, or require it be determined separately from the claimant’s claim. Factors may include: the connection between the additional claim and the claimant’s claim against the defendant; whether the additional claimant seeks substantially the same remedy...