Viability Assessment meaning

Checklist Intensifying geopolitical conflict — including open hostilities, regional volatility, cyber interference and closure of sea lanes — can exert rapid, multifaceted strain on energy-sector contracts. This checklist offers a structured, practical approach to evaluating force majeure (FM) risk in an active conflict or war setting, and to judging whether FM can be effectively invoked under English law. It also maps how that assessment intersects with frustration and contractual termination rights, and sets out drafting considerations for parties to weigh in future transactions so that FM provisions expressly address war risks. It is intended for legal and commercial teams operating across oil and gas, LNG, trading, infrastructure and energy supply chains, where disruption frequently stems from direct physical impossibility at the point of delivery, or indirectly via upstream or downstream domino effects. The objective is not solely to test the viability of an FM claim, but also to enable informed, risk-aware choices in rapidly evolving conflict environments. This checklist focuses on FM arising from war-related physical and operational disruption....

In this issue: Brexit highlights Brexit SIs Post-Brexit transition guidance Public procurement Equality and human rights Constitutional and administrative law Judicial review Information law Subsidy control and State aid LexTalk®Public Law: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Brexit highlights Court of Appeal rules on judicial review of Bulb Energy transfer (R (British Gas Trading Ltd) v Secretary of State for ESNZ) In R (on the applications of British Gas Trading Ltd and other companies) v The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and others [2025] EWCA Civ 209, the Court of Appeal considered a challenge to the Divisional Court’s refusal to grant permission for judicial review of decisions by the Secretary of State relating to the transfer of Bulb Energy Limited’s business to Octopus Energy Group Limited. The Court of Appeal rejected...

In this issue: Judicial review Education Environmental law and climate change Public procurement Children's social care Social care Governance Licensing Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Judicial review High Court rules it has no jurisdiction to reconsider refusal of judicial review (R (Karim) v Upper Tribunal) The High Court has delivered its judgment on a judicial review brought against an Upper Tribunal decision dated 6 October 2022, by which permission to appeal from a First-tier Tribunal ruling of 26 June 2022 was refused. The June 2022 ruling had dismissed the Claimant’s appeal against the Home Secretary’s decision of 26 March 2021 refusing indefinite leave to remain. The proceedings turned on the procedural consequences of a statutory ouster of judicial review, drawing a fundamental distinction between what a claimant must establish to succeed and which judge, or judges, are tasked with determining the matter. In this claim, the court was asked...

Key provisions of Part III of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs) and a Nature Restoration Levy Part III proposes Environmental Delivery Plans and a Nature Restoration Levy to accelerate development by aggregating environmental mitigation. Rather than meeting bespoke ecological obligations for each project, developers would pay into a collective fund. Natural England would then deliver conservation actions using those monies. This marks a significant shift from the existing framework, which requires stringent case-by-case evaluations, consents tied to individual sites, and specific licensing for protected species. Approving EDPs—the ‘Overall Improvement’ test EDPs may relate to any defined land area and can address some or all environmental features within that boundary. To bring an EDP into force, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government must decide it satisfies an ‘overall improvement’ test—namely, that the conservation measures proposed are likely to outweigh the negative environmental effects of development occurring in the EDP area. Setting the Nature Restoration Levy Each EDP must...

This analysis considers the main changes to the Immigration Rules (the Rules) set out in HC 1919 HC 1919 was published on 7 March 2019, together with an Explanatory Memorandum. It addresses: the launch of the Start-up and Innovator routes in Immigration Rules, Appendix W, for applicants aiming to establish a business in the UK. These fresh routes replace Tier 1 (Graduate Entrepreneur) and Tier 1 (Entrepreneur). A key feature of both is endorsement by trusted UK organisations—such as business accelerators, seed competitions, government agencies and higher education providers—who will evaluate business proposals for innovation, viability and scalability revisions to Tier 2 (General) under the Points Based System, including: eligible Tier 4 students switching to Tier 2 may apply up to three months before the anticipated completion of their course, rather than waiting until they have finished updates to the appropriate salary rates in the Appendix J codes of practice, using the latest available pay data for each...

STOP PRESS: This Practice Note cites a previous iteration of the UK Corporate Governance Code, not the latest edition issued on 22 January 2024. For more details, see Practice Note: The UK Corporate Governance Code. In the wake of the 2007–2008 worldwide financial turmoil, significant debate arose over the type and calibre of disclosures companies give investors about their financial health and capacity to endure pressures in the short to medium term. Consequently, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) commissioned an inquiry chaired by Lord Sharman (the Sharman Inquiry), commencing in March 2011. The FRC’s objectives in initiating the inquiry were to capture the lessons of the crisis, spread leading practice widely, and develop, as needed, its guidance on going concern and liquidity risks. The Sharman Inquiry’s remit was to pinpoint lessons for companies and auditors addressing going concern and liquidity risks and to recommend measures to enhance the existing reporting framework and guidance concerning those risks. It produced five recommendations, and the FRC considered how best to implement them through...

CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline A national reference from the Netherlands asks whether broad and narrow parity clauses qualify as an ancillary restraint for the purposes of Article 101(1) TFEU. It seeks clarification from the referring court on that issue. Latest developments On 6 June 2024, Advocate General Collins delivered his opinion, suggesting that Article 101(1) TFEU should be read as indicating that wide and narrow price parity obligations an online travel agent (OTA) seeks to place on hotels through its terms of business are not ancillary restraints, unless they are necessary and proportionate to preserve the OTA’s economic viability; that inquiry is for the referring court, without prejudice to any assessment under Article 101(3) TFEU. Parties Applicants: Booking.com BV Booking.com (Deutschland) GmbH Defendants: 25hours Hotel Company Berlin GmbH and Others Markets Online travel agents. Background to reference Background Booking.com BV, a company...