T-Charter meaning

Checklist Use this Checklist when assessing online advertising terms and conditions, where a publisher (the owner of a website, app or other digital platform) sells advertising space on its platforms to advertisers (brands or advertising/media buying agencies acting for those brands) on a direct basis (Programmatic Direct). Where appropriate, this Checklist may operate as the starting point for straightforward, non-binding heads of terms. For direction on preparing these, see Precedent: Heads of terms—commercial contracts. For a specimen set of a publisher’s standard terms, see Precedent: Online advertising terms and conditions. As you work through the Checklist, the third column can be used to note observations or comments. Employ it to record notes while progressing through each item. Further information Notes (if any) Parties ☐ Verify each party’s legal status and whether the advertiser will contract in its own capacity or via an advertising agency. In some situations an advertiser will enter into the agreement itself; in others, it may appoint an...

This timeline outlines key developments in the UK regulation of central securities depositories, including under Assimilated Regulation (EU) 909/2014 (the UK Central Securities Depositories Regulation), from 2024 onwards. For earlier milestones, see Central Securities Depositories Regulation (CSDR)—timeline (Archived). 2026 26 January 2026 — IA: The Investment Association presents a roadmap for the move to T+1; IA: T+1 Settlement: Navigating the UK, EU and Swiss Transition [PDF]. UK Accelerated Settlement Taskforce Quarterly Review — Q4 2025: FCA welcomes the Accelerated Settlement Taskforce’s 2025 update on T+1 progress. The T+1 Accelerated Settlement Taskforce has issued its Q4 2025 progress review, detailing advances towards adoption of a trade-date-plus-one (T+1) settlement cycle, with 11 October 2027 as the current target. In tandem, the Investment Association (IA) released T+1 Settlement: Navigating the UK, EU and Swiss Transition, which sets out a proposed roadmap for shifting the UK and EU securities markets from trade-date-plus-two (T+2) to T+1. See: Progress report and roadmap published for transition to T+1 settlement cycle...

This Checklist outlines the matters to weigh up and assess when preparing real burdens and title conditions in dispositions in Scotland. It looks in particular at real burdens concerning restrictions on use, alterations and works, as well as personal real burdens. For detail on the nature of real burdens and how they are created and construed, see Practice Note: Real burdens in Scotland—creation and interpretation. For real burdens addressing maintenance duties, see Practice Note: Real burdens dealing with maintenance obligations in Scotland. In this Checklist, the land affected by the burden is called the ‘burdened property’ and the land that enjoys the burden is the ‘benefitted property’. Drafting considerations When preparing a disposition, first ask whether imposing real burdens is required. It might be adequate simply to depend on: common law, e.g. the common laws regarding boundaries planning law (which will have a significant effect on proposed land uses) the Tenement Management Scheme (brought in by section 4 and Schedule 1 to the...

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...

The Texas shoot out Also termed a Mexican shoot out, Tex Mex shoot out or sealed bids, this procedure can be initiated by either shareholder, including shareholder who did not cause the deadlock, by serving notice on the other shareholder, compelling both shareholders to submit sealed bids for other shareholder’s shares within a specified timescale as set...

Antitrust A fresh appeal has been filed before the General Court in Case T- 19/25, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe v Commission, challenging the Commission’s decision in Teva (Copaxone) (AT.40588) and requesting that the fine-imposing infringement ruling be annulled—see further, application A fresh appeal has been submitted before the General Court in Case T- 682/24, Red Bull and Others v Commission, brought against the Commission for failing to reimburse additional costs incurred due to the disproportionate prolongation of an inspection—see further, application NOTE—For all...

Antitrust The application in Case C-60/25 Livronsa has now been published, an Italian national reference asking whether national courts must regard the Euribor manipulation evidence confirmed by the Commission and the Court of Justice as conclusive, and whether the ensuing competition restriction applies only to the derivatives market or instead to all markets that use the manipulated Euribor benchmark—see also the application The General Court has recently issued an order in Case T-413/21 Feralpi v Commission, an action lodged against the Commission for failing to pay Default Interest as required by the General Court in Cases C-85/15 Feralpi v Commission...

State aid General Court dismisses appeals regarding Spanish aid for the acquisition of ships The General Court delivered its ruling in Joined Cases T- 29/14 Telefónica Gestión Integral de Edificios y Servicios (formerly Taetal) v Commission and T- 31/14 Banco Santander v Commission, brought against the Commission’s decision of 17 July 2013. That decision concluded that a Spanish scheme for purchasing ships, structured around leasing and financing through tax relief, involved unlawful State aid (SA.21233) (the Commission’s 2013 decision). The Court rejected the actions. Under that arrangement, a shipowner could have a new vessel constructed with a rebate applied to the price set by the shipyard. To benefit from the reduced price (net of the rebate), the shipping company was required to agree to acquire the vessel not directly from the shipyard, but from an economic interest grouping (EIG) created under Spanish law and established by a bank. The Commission’s 2013 decision has already been considered in earlier cases. The Commission’s 2013 decision has been the subject of previous...

This tracker monitors current Court of Justice appeals concerning State aid (Articles 107–109 TFEU) and other aid recovery actions. For concluded matters, consult Court of Justice State aid appeals—closed cases tracker. Note—closed appeals are transferred from this page to the closed trackers within seven days of the final ruling. For the Commission’s recent State aid decisions, see EU State aid decisions—ongoing cases tracker; for appeals pending before the General Court, see General Court State aid appeals—ongoing cases tracker; and for national references before the Court of Justice touching on State aid, see Court of Justice State aid national references—ongoing cases tracker. Appeals from the General Court Case C-306/26 P, LM v Commission — Appeal against the General Court’s order in Case T-261/25 declaring inadmissible an annulment action concerning parts of Commission decision SA.44944—Tax treatment of public casinos in Germany and SA.53552—Alleged guarantee for public casinos in Germany (Wirtschaftlichkeitsgarantie). Latest development: Lodged—07/04/2026. Case C-505/24 P, Condor Flugdienst v Ryanair —...

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...

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C-806/19 P and C-883/19 P ARCHIVED —this archived case hub records the state of play as at the judgment dated 24 September 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline: Appeal brought before the General Court challenging the Commission’s decision of 7 December 2016, which found infringements and levied fines on three banks that did not settle, due to their involvement in a cartel in the Euro interest rate derivatives (EIRD) market (Case AT.39914). Latest developments On 24 September 2019, the General Court delivered its judgment, largely confirming the Commission’s conclusion that HSBC Holdings plc took part in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU. Nonetheless, the General Court set aside the fine imposed on HSBC Holdings plc because the Commission provided ‘insufficient reasons’ for the methodology used to calculate that penalty...

Precedent T Precedent T is a costs precedent that came into force on 1 October 2020...

BUILDING A SUCCESSFUL TEAM Sets direction — clarifies why the team exists and why it matters (eg a clear charter or mission); steers the creation of precise, measurable targets. Shapes structure — defines member roles and duties; ensures the right steering, review and support mechanisms operate. Enables delivery — suggests effective procedures and workflows to hit team goals; secures resources and clears barriers to progress. Brings others in — listens carefully and actively involves colleagues in choices and actions; appreciates diverse strengths; sustains strong connections with remote and hybrid team-mates. Keeps the team informed — passes on timely, relevant updates to everyone. Demonstrates commitment — follows team norms and standards; meets obligations; shows personal dedication to collective success. BUILDING TRUST Acts with integrity — is honest; keeps promises; behaves consistently. Shares own stance — communicates thoughts, feelings and reasoning appropriately so others grasp where they stand. Stays receptive — hears people out; weighs alternative...

In the County Court at [ insert ] or in the High Court of Justice [ Specify division ] [ Specify Specialist court ] [ INSERT LOCATION ] District Registry Claim No: Between [ A B ] (Claimant) and [ X Y ] (Defendant) COUNTER SCHEDULE OF LOSS The Defendant reserves the liberty to revise, adjust, or supplement this counter schedule at any time up to and including trial. 1 General Damages 1.1 The dates put forward by the Claimant are accepted. 1.2 The Defendant relies upon the opinion of Mr. T. Magnum, Consultant Spinal Surgeon, that the notable decline approximately 12 months after the accident was probably not attributable to it. If there was any acceleration, Mr Magnum’s view is that it did not exceed two years. 1.3 The Defendant’s position regarding the accident’s effect on the Claimant’s employment is set out in section 2 below. As for leisure pursuits, the Claimant reported to Mr Magnum...

First West Yorkshire Ltd t/a First Leeds v Haigh The EAT found that fairness means a reasonable employer must give genuine consideration to any ill‑health retirement scheme before dismissing for long‑term sickness, consistent with overall fairness. In particular, where an employer offers an enhanced pension on retirement due to ill health, it will be expected to take reasonable steps to determine whether the employee is eligible for the benefit of ill‑health retirement under the relevant scheme in question...

Where a lease is silent, items left at the premises after expiry of the term remain owned by the tenant (or any other third-party owner). The landlord, as a result, becomes an involuntary bailee of those items. This can create difficulties for a landlord aiming to clear the space for re-letting or another purpose, and may involve additional expense. In particular, the landlord: cannot take or dispose of the items, and must act in a manner that is right and reasonable may face liability in conversion, or for wrongful interference with goods, if the items are sold, damaged or discarded These exposures can be managed by using the procedures in the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 (T(IG)A 1977), either by serving notice or asking the court for permission to sell the items. Serving notice is the route more often used in day-to-day practice in most cases overall...

It can sometimes occur that an employee has more than one employer, and their contract of employment expressly confirms this. Joint employment should be distinguished from arrangements like secondments, where the sole employer lends their employee’s services to a third party, or from sole employment where the contract terms permit the employer to direct an employee’s work to a third party. A joint employment contract should plainly set out the basis on which each joint employer exercises control over the employee, and may provide for an indemnity between the joint employers in the event of an employment tribunal claim...