Author meaning

Existence and validity of trusts Provincial Equity Finance Ltd v Dines (née Breda) [2023] EWHC 103 (Ch) News Analysis: A literary epigraph—‘By prosperous voyages I often made… and the great care of goods at random left’—introduces a consideration of resulting trusts and the scope of express trusts. The decision underscores the practical obstacles in proving a resulting trust where a disorganised deceased ran bank accounts for mixed ends, and confirms that an express trust can override the presumption of a resulting trust even if the contributor of funds is not a party to the express trust. Author: Nicholas Holland, McDermott Will & Emery UK LLP Jurisdiction: England & Wales Attorney General v Zedra Fiduciary Services (UK) Ltd and others [2022] EWHC 102 (Ch) News Analysis: The court sanctioned a cy près scheme for a £600m charitable trust to be used towards reducing the National Debt, addressing the suitable application of the National Fund. The judgment considers...

Who was the report commissioned for? Your client may have no entitlement to rely on a report that was not commissioned for them. If it was prepared for a different party, review the report’s terms and conditions, or the consultant’s appointment, to identify any express provision: authorising third parties to rely on the report, or mandating a collateral warranty or reliance letter to be issued in a pre-agreed form Where neither an express term nor a pre-agreed collateral warranty exists, consider seeking: a bespoke collateral warranty extending reliance to your client an assignment transferring the report to your client a reliance letter addressed to your client the report to be readdressed to your client, on clear terms and conditions to rely on the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, unless its operation is excluded in the terms and conditions It is also essential to confirm for whom the report was commissioned,...

What is the background to TPR’s guidance? As funding positions strengthen and market innovations come through, trustees and employers are encountering a wider suite of financial, governance and insurance tools to meet their schemes’ long-term aims. Insurer buy-out was once viewed as the definitive DB endgame, yet TPR has now confirmed it is not the only route. The guidance is intended to help trustees steer through emerging options, judge their suitability, and make informed choices that improve financial outcomes, strengthen governance and bolster member security. It also emphasises the relevance of scheme-specific circumstances and the importance of obtaining professional advice. What are the key points, aspects, and themes of the guidance? The guidance is framed around several core themes. Endgame planning is no longer a single-track journey, and trustees are encouraged to explore a spectrum of outcomes: aiming for self-sufficiency, continuing to run on the scheme, transferring to consolidators such as superfunds, or insuring benefits via buy-ins and buy-outs. Each route carries distinct characteristics, risks and benefits,...

In this issue: Copyright & associated rights Trade marks/passing off Patents IP and technology General IP LexTalk®IP: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Copyright & associated rights Injunction granted against Craig Wright (Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright; Wright v BTC Core) In High Court proceedings brought by Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) against Craig Steven Wright, the court found squarely and decisively against Dr Wright’s assertions that he created Bitcoin as ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’. On the final day of the hearing earlier this year, Mr Justice Mellor stated the evidence was overwhelming and unequivocal: Dr Wright is not the author of the Bitcoin White Paper, did not act under the name Satoshi Nakamoto between 2008 and 2011, did not devise the Bitcoin system, and did not write the early iterations of the Bitcoin software at all. The recently issued...

Could AI tools be used to draft witness statements? The rule that statements must be recorded in a witness’s 'own words' makes it improbable that a witness could simply feed prompts into an AI platform and present the resulting text as their personal wording. Generative AI, by its essence, draws on innumerable bodies of writing, fusing and compressing them into prose that belongs to no single author. The product of such systems is, by design, not the voice of any particular user. In addition, PD 57AC requires (i) transparency about how the statement was put together and (ii) that it captures the witness’s own knowledge, raising doubts about how a court would view a statement created with AI support. Once drafting is automated, an intermediary stands between the witness and the text, severing the direct link from first-hand recollection to the eventual draft...

What is a hackathon? A hackathon is usually a 12–48-hour sprint where multidisciplinary teams—coders, developers, strategists, data scientists, subject-matter specialists and innovators—work intensively to tackle a defined problem in a short window. The aim is to generate fresh concepts, tools or platforms, often ending with a functional prototype or a concept pitch. They trace their lineage to tech culture: the first officially recognised hackathon took place in 1999 in Calgary, though collaborative meet-ups go back to the 1970s with groups such as the Homebrew Computer Group, where the first Apple computer was unveiled. Today, hackathons cut across many sectors and goals, and are not exclusively technology-focused. The author once ran an inspiring game jam—a game development focussed hackathon—designed to speed up cancer cures by turning cancer data analysis into gameplay, delivering scientifically robust outputs thanks to watertight algorithms. Whatever the topic, the core principles and structure are largely consistent. In law, they are increasingly used to drive innovation, widen access to justice, and connect with legal...

This Practice Note sits within a multi-jurisdictional guide that covers the key elements of establishing particular business entities worldwide. Leading firms in the Multilaw global network respond to core questions on the subject. This guide outlines the principal issues when setting up a private limited company in Cambodia. Current as of 23 July 2024. Author: Jay Cohen and Mealtey Oeurn, Tilleke & Gibbins, a Multilaw member firm... Common entities What form of entity is the subject of this questionnaire? Which other commonly used entities in this jurisdiction are dealt with in another questionnaire? Private limited company (Kromhoun Elachon Tortoul Khos Trov Mean Komrith) (subject of this response)... Identify other entity types in your jurisdiction that exist but are not covered by a questionnaire at this time: General partnership (Kromhoun Sahakkramaseth Toutov) Sole proprietorship (Sahakreas Ekbokkol) Branch (Sakha Kromhoun) Representative office (Kariyealy Tamnang Peanechchokam) Public limited company (Kromhoun Mohachun Tortoul Khos Trov Mean Komrith) Limited...

Why use artificial intelligence in design? As AI technologies, in particular generative AI, become more widespread and accessible, almost every sector is experiencing changes, opportunities and challenges, and design is indeed no exception. Employed for brainstorming, ideation and early concept development, AI can serve as a powerful aid, helping designers move past creative blocks and investigate a much wider range of visual possibilities. It can also raise efficiency: with generative AI, designers can quickly produce numerous variants and multiple design options at scale. That pace can accelerate the creative process and encourage further experimentation, potentially yielding highly innovative results. Nevertheless, bringing AI into design workflows introduces several legal risks that cannot be ignored. This Practice Note examines how IP practitioners advising design clients should respond to the rising use of AI across the industry by identifying and discussing these risks in detail. It considers ownership of IP rights in computer-generated designs and works lacking a human author, difficulties in protecting designs created wholly or partially by AI, and the...

On [ insert date ], this Agreement is hereby formally entered into by the following named (each a ‘party’ and collectively the ‘parties’): Parties 1 [ insert Company name ], a company duly incorporated in England and Wales whose registered number is [ insert Company number ] and whose registered office is at [ insert registered office ] (the Company); and 2 [ insert Author name ] of [ address ] (the Author). Background (A) The Author owns the worldwide copyright in the literary work issued by [ name ] entitled [ title ] (the Work). (B) The Author has agreed to grant an option and assign to the Company certain rights in and relating to the Work, subject to the conditions and for the consideration stated in this Agreement herein...

This Agreement is entered into on [ insert date ] Parties [ insert licensor name ], a company registered in [ England and Wales ] with company number [ insert company number ] and registered office at [ insert registered office ] ( Licensor ); and [ insert licensee name ], a company registered in [ England and Wales ] with company number [ insert company number ] and registered office at [ insert registered office ] ( Licensee ). Each of the Licensor and the Licensee is a party and, together, they are the parties. Background The Licensor is the [ author and ] [ exclusive ] owner of certain rights in works protected by copyright. The Licensee is [ insert description of Licensee’s background/the background to the licence or relevant transaction ]. The Licensor has agreed to grant the Licensee a licence, and the Licensee has agreed to accept that licence on the terms...

This Agreement is made on [ insert date ] Parties [ insert licensor name ], a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ], whose registered number is [ insert company number ] and whose registered office is at [ insert registered office ] (Licensor); and [ insert licensee name ], a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ], whose registered number is [ insert company number ] and whose registered office is at [ insert registered office ] (Licensee). Each of the Licensor and the Licensee is a party, and together the Licensor and the Licensee are the parties. Background The Licensor is the [ author and ] [ exclusive ] proprietor of certain rights in works protected by copyright. The Licensee is [ insert description of Licensee’s background/background to licence or relevant transaction ]. The Licensor has agreed to grant a licence to the Licensee, and the Licensee has agreed to accept a...