Codified meaning

Search orders Formerly known as Anton Piller orders, search orders are frequently made in conjunction with a freezing order and permit an applicant to attend at the respondent’s premises to search for and safeguard evidence that might otherwise be disposed of, concealed, or destroyed. The order may only be served by a supervising solicitor and is subject to very strict requirements as set out in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955. The adoption of Anton Piller relief, now codified within FPR 2010 as search orders, gained prominence in family proceedings through two authorities on disclosure and self‑help (L v L and Tchenguiz v Imerman; Imerman v Imerman). The courts have issued a firm caution against self‑help in preference to pursuing the proper court‑based remedies; see Practice Note: Procedural aspects of disclosure in financial proceedings—Disclosure of documents belonging to the other party. Great care should be exercised when drafting the terms of the order. A standard form search order has been produced—see Precedent: Standard order 3.2—search order—family...

In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Know-how/R&D Patents Designs IP and technology Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Trade marks/passing off In Iconix v Dream Pairs [2025] UKSC 25, the Supreme Court confirmed that confusion arising after a purchase can constitute an actionable trade mark infringement, and need not be examined only in a further transaction. The Court also dismissed the contention that external, post-sale factors must be ignored when comparing a mark with a sign. Although it identified those submissions as legal errors, the Supreme Court still allowed the appeal. It held the Court of Appeal erred in branding the trial judge’s findings irrational, and had no proper basis to replace the judge’s multifactorial assessment on similarity and the likelihood of confusion with its own. This ruling entrenches post-sale confusion as a recognised head of infringement, and underscores the limits on...

This change in UK consumer law will: hand the CMA powers of direct enforcement, making it faster and simpler for the CMA to enforce consumer law broaden the tools available to the CMA (and the courts) to tackle consumer law issues, including significant fines further widen the list of codified breaches in UK consumer law These new powers stem from the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which is expected to take effect in Autumn 2024. The shift to a new model of UK consumer enforcement—what has changed? Under the previous enforcement approach, while the CMA (and some other public bodies) could investigate breaches of consumer law, the authority to find a breach, halt the conduct and impose remedies rested with the UK courts. That route was often slow and uncertain, so the CMA usually sought voluntary undertakings from parties—though with constrained bargaining power, given the ultimate need to go to court...

What challenges do deepfakes present for celebrities and people in the public eye? For those in the spotlight, the surge of deepfakes—and figuring out how to prevent the exploitation of their image—has become increasingly acute as generative AI and broader technologies evolve at pace. The pressure is sharper in the UK, where the absence of a codified privacy regime or recognised image rights means individuals must piece together protection from a mosaic of statutory and common law claims to restrain unauthorised uses of their likeness. Among the registered tools being deployed to counter deepfakes are trade marks: a host of well-known figures have secured figurative marks of their faces to exert some control over how their profile and image are used. Historically, people have turned to actions such as passing off and defamation. Yet the real effectiveness of trade marks in this context is still unsettled, leading the government to state in March 2026 that it would examine whether creating a new digital replica or personality right would be...

This Practice Note deals with the application of the residence rules to people leaving the UK after 5 April 2013. The UK introduced its first codified individual tax residence test—the statutory residence test (SRT)—with effect from 6 April 2013. For detailed guidance on the SRT, refer to the Residence after 5 April 2013 Practice Note. Prior to that date, an individual’s UK tax residence was assessed by reference to a patchwork of narrow statutory provisions, case law, established practice and HMRC guidance. Status for any period before 6 April 2013 must therefore still be established under those earlier rules. Application of the SRT looks in part at whether a person was UK resident in the preceding three tax years, meaning residence outcomes for 2010/11, 2011/12 and/or 2012/13 matter when assessing residence from 6 April 2013. Although the pre‑2013/14 years remain governed by the old law, an individual may choose to have their residence in one or more of those years determined under the SRT, solely for the purpose of...

Background and introduction to SEPA After the euro was introduced in 11 EU countries in 1999, it became evident that domestic and cross-border retail payment services did not deliver comparable service levels. In September 1999, the European Central Bank (ECB) issued a report on enhancing cross-border retail payment services (the ECB 1999 Report). The report recognised that cross-border credit transfers within the euro area lagged significantly behind domestic credit transfers, even though a single currency environment called for a Single European Payment Area (SEPA). To initiate the debate and send a clear signal to the banking and payment systems industry, the Eurosystem (consisting of the ECB and the national central banks of countries that had adopted the euro) set out seven objectives for the industry to meet: Improved systems/services to be in place by 1 January 2002 Place priority on cross-border credit transfers Substantially lower the price of cross-border credit transfers Ensure settlement times are comparable for domestic and cross-border payments As...

This Practice Note sets out the principal amendments to the environmental impact assessment (EIA) regime introduced by Directive 2014/52/EU in 2014. For the complete, amended framework, see Practice Note: EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive—snapshot. Evolution of the EIA regime At EU level, environmental impact assessment was first regulated by Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, which came into force on 3 July 1985, with a transposition deadline of 3 July 1988. From 1997 to 2009, the 1985 Directive underwent a series of major amendments. Following a 2009 review of the regime’s effectiveness, those changes were codified and consolidated for clarity and coherence in Directive 2011/92/EU (the EU EIA Directive). Directive 2014/52/EU (the 2014 Amending Directive) took effect on 15 May 2014 and made significant revisions to the EU EIA Directive. It sought to: enhance environmental protection streamline the rules for assessing the potential effects of proposed developments on the environment cut the administrative burden Member States had until 16...