The United Kingdom. Each Dealer represents and agrees that:
The United Kingdom. In relation to each issue of Notes, the Dealer purchasing such Notes represents, warrants and undertakes to the Issuer that:
The United Kingdom. (a) The parties acknowledge that the transfer of the Purchased Assets, including the transfer of the UK Business Employees in accordance with this Agreement, constitutes a relevant transfer for the purposes of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 as amended (“UK TUPE Regulations”) and that the contract of employment between Halyard Health UK Limited (“UK Subsidiary”) and each employee deemed to be transferring as identified as UK Business Employees in Section 6.02(a) of the Seller Disclosure Schedule (“UK Business Employees”) (except for any provisions or Liabilities arising under or in connection with any occupational pension scheme and excluded from transfer under the UK TUPE Regulations) will have effect from the Transfer Date (which shall be the “time of transfer” for the purposes of the UK TUPE Regulations) as if originally made between Buyer or one of its Affiliates and each UK Business Employee.
The United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is a dualist State,155 where common law is applied by English Courts. The interpretation of law is historically governed by three rules: the Mischief Rule, the Golden rule and the Literal Rule.156 However, even before the ratification of the 1969 Vienna Convention in 1971,157 English Courts regularly acknowledged that principles other than domestic interpretations should be applied with respect to the 1929 Warsaw Convention.158 155 See, for the 1929 Warsaw Convention: Carriage by Air Act 1932 – with a translation in English of the 1929 Warsaw Convention in the Schedule; for the 1999 Montreal Conven- tion: The Carriage by Air Acts (Implementation of the Montreal Convention 1999) Order 2002. 156 See, The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, The Interpretation of Statutes, 9 June 1969, points 23-28, Source: <xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx/ files/3912/7989/6877/rep11.pdf> (accessed 3 July 2019): ‘The classic statement of the mischief rule is that given by the Barons of the Court of Exchequer in Heydon’s Case [(1584) 3 Co.Rep. 7a]: “And it was resolved by them, that for the sure and true interpreta- tion of all statutes in general (be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the Common Law), four things are to be discerned and considered: 1st. What was the Common Law before the making of the Act,
The United Kingdom. In relation to each issue of Notes, each of the Dealers subscribing to such Notes represents, warrants and undertakes to the Issuers and the Guarantor (in the case of a Subsidiary Issuer) that:
The United Kingdom. Tax Obligations This provision supplements Section 7 of the Agreement: Without limitation to Section 7 of the Agreement, the Participant hereby agrees that the Participant is liable for all Tax Related Items and hereby covenants to pay all such Tax Related Items, as and when requested by the Company, or the Employer, or by Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (“HRMC”) (or any other tax authority or any other relevant authority). The Participant also hereby agrees to indemnify and keep indemnified the Company and, if different, the Employer, against any Tax Related Items that they are required to pay or withhold or have paid or will pay to HMRC (or any other tax authority or any other relevant authority) on the Participant’s behalf.
The United Kingdom. Each ECP Dealer represents, warrants and agrees with the Issuer that:
The United Kingdom. In short, this case concerned a blasphemous video depicting a nun, intending to represent St Xxxxxx, acting erotically towards Xxxxx Xxxxxx.628 The video was submitted by Xxxxxxxx to the British Board 624 European Court of Human Rights, 20 September 1994, 13470/87, par. 55 (Xxxx-Xxxxxxxxx-Institut v. Austria). 625 European Court of Human Rights, 20 September 1994, 13470/87, par. 56 (Xxxx-Xxxxxxxxx-Institut v. Austria). 626 European Court of Human Rights, 20 September 1994, 13470/87, par. 56 (Xxxx-Xxxxxxxxx-Institut v. Austria). 627 European Court of Human Rights, 20 September 1994, 13470/87, par. 56 (Xxxx-Xxxxxxxxx-Institut v. Austria). 628 European Court of Human Rights, 25 November 1996, 17419/90, par. 9 (Wingrove v. the United Kingdom). of Film Classification to be supplied to the general public.629 This submission was required as under the Video Recordings Act 1984 it was an offence ‘for a person to supply or offer to supply a video work in respect of which no classification certificate has been issued.’630 However, the British Board of Film Classification rejected the application. At the time, the United Kingdom had an blasphemy law, that read: ‘Every publication is said to be blasphemous which contains any contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God, Xxxxx Xxxxxx or the Bible, or the formularies of the Church of England as by law established. It is not blasphemous to speak or publish opinions hostile to the Christian religion, or to deny the existence of God, if the publication is couched in decent and temperate language. The test to be applied is as to the manner in which the doctrines are advocated and not to the substance of the doctrines themselves.’631 Given the ‘mingling of religious ecstasy and sexual passion’ and the fact that, in the words of the Board, ‘the wounded body of the crucified Xxxxxx is presented solely as the focus of, and at certain moments a participant in, the erotic desire of St Xxxxxx’ the Board held that ‘a reasonable jury properly directed would find that the work infringes the criminal law of blasphemy.’632 Xxxxxxxx appealed this decision to the Video Appeals Committee,633 which rejected the appeal. The (majority of the) appeals committee ‘considered the over-all tone and spirit of 629 European Court of Human Rights, 25 November 1996, 17419/90, par. 11-12 (Wingrove v. the United Kingdom). 630 European Court of Human Rights, 25 November 1996, 17419/90, par. 23 (Wingrove v. the United Kingdom). 63...
The United Kingdom. Bodies - Central Blood Laboratories Authority, - Design Council, - Health and Safety Executive, - National Research Development Corporation, - Public Health Laboratory Services Board, - Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, - Commission for the New Towns, - Development Board For Xxxxx Xxxxx, - Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx, - Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, - Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx Housing Executive, - Scottish Enterprise, - Scottish Homes, - Welsh Development Agency. Categories - Universities and polytechnics, maintained schools and colleges, - National Museums and Galleries, - Research Councils, - Fire Authorities, - National Health Service Authorities, - Police Authorities, - New Town Development Corporations, - Urban Development Corporations. The following is added to Annex I 'Lists of bodies and categories of bodies governed by public law referred to in Article 1 (b)':
The United Kingdom. The option to elect to receive new ordinary shares instead of the final, and relevant, dividend is not being offered to, or for the account of, any North American Person. “
