Belonging to another meaning

In this issue: Spring Statement 2025 Advertising, marketing and sponsorship Agency and distribution Consumer protection Contracts International Supplier management New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q&As Spring Statement 2025 Spring Statement 2025—key Commercial announcements On 26 March 2025, as part of the Spring Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, set out the government’s programme to restore stability, ramp up investment, and stimulate economic growth. The initiatives revealed are intended to move the government closer to meeting the principal milestones in the Plan for Change, released in December 2024. See: LNB News 26/03/2025 52. Advertising, marketing and sponsorship Meta settles UK lawsuit over use of personal data for advertising MLex: Meta Platforms has concluded a UK claim and agreed to stop using personal data belonging to Tanya O’Carroll, a campaigner who contended the firm’s targeted advertising practices were not compliant with...

Factual background Zhou Hui Ming v Kwokping Sun and another [2025] HKCFI 1503. The matter concerns the award creditor, Zhou Huiming (Zhou), moving to enforce four Mainland Chinese arbitral awards (Awards) against the award debtors, Sun Kwokping (Sun) and 挪信新能源科技（南通）有限公司 (Nuoxin). Zhou promptly secured ex parte permission to enforce the Awards. On that same ex parte footing she also obtained: (1) leave from the Hong Kong court to enforce; (2) a worldwide Mareva freezing order against the award debtors; and (3) a Chabra injunction directed at Zhang, whom the court regarded as holding two private companies belonging to the award debtors. Zhou then encountered the familiar, classic problem of recalcitrant debtors. The respondents appeared to be taking active and deliberate steps to render themselves ‘judgment-proof’. The evidence clearly indicated an apparent coordinated and concerted plan to dissipate assets. In particular, the shares in the award debtors’ two companies were passed to Zhang for nominal or no consideration. That transfer bore every hallmark of a gratuitous disposition designed ultimately to...

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and not kept up to date. Practical implications of West Tankers In short, the current position arising from the West Tankers saga (so far) is: Any EU Member State court seised of proceedings must rule on its own jurisdiction to determine the dispute. Under Brussels I and Brussels I (recast), courts of another Member State cannot remove that competence from it. An arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction to award damages for breach of an obligation to arbitrate. Where jurisdiction is disputed (as it often is), consider advising clients to obtain a standalone final award addressing jurisdiction at the outset, and then seek to have it recognised and enforced by the court (the application would be made under the procedure set out in CPR 62). This should prevent a conflicting court judgment taking precedence, on the basis of issue estoppel. Thereafter, the parties can proceed to the liability and quantum issues within the arbitration. West Tankers—the...

This Practice Note addresses the regulated activity of managing investments... Definition Managing investments is a regulated activity under article 37 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, SI 2001/544 (RAO). It entails exercising discretion over assets that beneficially belong to another person, where those assets consist of, or include, any investment categorised as a ‘security’, a ‘structured deposit’ or a ‘contractually-based investment’. For further detail on what constitutes a ‘security’, a ‘structured deposit’ or a ‘contractually-based investment’, see Securities, structured deposits or contractually-based investments below)... The exercise of discretion This regulated activity only arises where the investment manager exercises discretion. Where portfolio management is non-discretionary—for example, the manager purchases shares strictly on client instructions, or simply receives and forwards client orders—the work is more likely to fall within another regulated activity, such as ‘dealing in investments, either as principal or agent’ (RAO SI 2001/544, arts 14 and 21) or ‘arranging deals in investments’ (RAO SI 2001/544, art 25)...

Damage to property caused by fire is charged as arson A person who, without lawful excuse, destroys or harms another’s property by fire, intending that outcome or being reckless as to whether it occurs, commits arson under section 1(3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (CDA 1971). For guidance on criminal damage generally, see Practice Note: Criminal damage. In R v Booth, the omission of any reference to arson in the particulars led the court to treat the indictment as a nullity. The point was considered again in R v Drayton, where the court held that the allegation must, at the very least, be identified as ‘damage by fire’, ensuring the defendant is in no doubt that fire damage is alleged, an accusation carrying a harsher sentence than straightforward criminal damage. This is because arson attracts sterner penalties than simple criminal damage, by clear comparison. Simple arson, where no risk to life is alleged, is an either-way offence. Where the damage relied upon amounts to ‘significant damage by fire’,...