IP completion day meaning

ARCHIVED: This Flowchart has been archived and is not maintained. Retained EU law is a concept introduced by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (EU(W)A 2018) as part of Brexit preparations, establishing a new category of domestic legislation. It denotes the collection of EU‑derived rules preserved and converted into UK law under the EU(W)A 2018 (as amended) at the end of the post‑Brexit transition period (IP completion day). For background on the transition period, and what it means for retained EU law, see: In the context of Brexit, what is meant by the ‘transition or implementation period’? For further background reading on the underlying legislation, see: Practice Note: Brexit—key legislation explained News Analysis: What does IP completion day mean for the status of EU law in the UK? What is retained EU law? Retained EU law is a broad, complex legal term defined by the EU(W)A 2018. It covers anything that continues to form part of domestic law on or...

Checklist (Archived) This Checklist sets out key checks for facility and security documentation after the Brexit implementation period. ARCHIVED: This Checklist has been archived and is not maintained. When that period ended, EU law was transposed into UK law as retained EU law under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (as amended by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020), in most cases with only minor adjustments. See Practice Note: Retained EU law and assimilated law. Read this alongside Practice Notes: Brexit—documentary implications for facility agreements [Archived] and Brexit—impact on finance transactions [Archived]. The focus is on documentary issues and it does not capture every potential consideration for finance transactions following the end of the implementation period. For a fuller overview, see Practice Notes: What does IP completion day mean for lending lawyers? [Archived] and Brexit—impact on finance transactions [Archived]. Loss of passporting rights Issue: Loss of passporting rights Question: There is an EU27 borrower under the facilities agreement. What steps should be...

This Checklist offers practitioners a route map through the array of cross-border issues to consider when proceedings feature an international element, for example a defendant domiciled outside the jurisdiction or a contract that designates the courts of another country as having jurisdiction. Structured as a table, it poses key questions and links to underlying materials that address them. The UK’s departure from the EU has consequences for practitioners handling cross-border matters involving not only EU Member States but also contracting states to the Lugano Convention 2007 and to the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. Consequently, this Checklist also connects to pertinent Brexit content within the cross-border topic in view, and examines several Brexit-specific cross-border issues. For guidance where Brexit is not in play, see: Cross border considerations-checklist. Brexit-transition/implementation period The UK is no longer an EU Member State, following its exit at 11 pm on 31 January 2020 (exit day). Two time periods are pertinent for dispute resolution practitioners: after IP completion...

ARCHIVED: 11 pm (GMT) on 31 December 2020 signalled the conclusion of the Brexit transition/implementation phase that followed the UK’s exit from the EU. At that moment in time (known in UK legislation as ‘IP completion day’), the principal transitional provisions finally ceased. From IP completion day, the UK is unable to take an active role in the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), as EAWs apply solely to Member States...

Background to and scope of this flowchart An individual who conducts a regulated activity in the UK in the course of business, where no relevant exclusion or exemption applies, must be authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000). For details and context on the consequences of carrying on a regulated activity without authorisation, consult Practice Note: The general prohibition and implications of its breach. For an explanation of what it means to carry on business in the UK, see Practice Notes: What does 'by way of business' mean? and Territorial scope of the general prohibition. For guidance on exemptions and exclusions that may apply in particular circumstances, refer to Practice Notes: Regulated activities—exempt persons and Exclusions and exemptions relating to the general prohibition—an introduction...

Flowchart This Flowchart sets out the questions to consider when deciding the applicable law in employment matters, namely which legal system governs an employment contract or employment relationship, and guides the assessment to identify the applicable rules in such cases. Brexit has no significant practical effect in this field. The reason is that Article 66 of the Withdrawal Agreement preserves the existing Rome I and Rome II framework beyond IP completion day (11 pm on 31 December 2020), ensuring continuity of approach. That position is implemented domestically by the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019/479, which took effect on IP completion day and applies for employment cases...

What is the WTO government procurement agreement (GPA)? The WTO GPA is a voluntary, plurilateral pact that obliges its parties to grant one another access to their respective government contracting and public purchasing markets on a reciprocal basis. Through its EU membership, the UK participated in the WTO GPA; the EU constitutes one of the 20 current participants. The UK has now sought independent accession to the GPA in its own right, and a further 22 jurisdictions hold observer status. Signatories are not free to design procurement systems without constraint; foundational principles are embedded within the Agreement and, indeed, many of these shaped the drafting of the current EU procurement rules. What are the key features of the regime? As noted, the GPA is more than a minimal framework. It comprises the Agreement’s main body together with members’ coverage schedules. While the Agreement articulates core commitments to openness, fairness and transparency, obligations apply only to the extent defined in each party’s coverage schedule for each member country....

In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Copyright & associated rights Patents Designs Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Trade marks/passing off Supreme Court rules Sky filed trade marks in bad faith (SkyKick UK Ltd v Sky Ltd) The Supreme Court has aligned with the High Court in holding that Sky pursued certain trade mark applications in bad faith, and that the approach taken at first instance was not unfair, thereby overturning the Court of Appeal’s conclusions. However, it also agreed with the Court of Appeal that, in light of the narrowed list of goods and services, Cloud Migration, SkyKick’s email migration product and service, does not infringe Sky’s trade marks. The judgment further clarifies that Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (the EU Trade Mark Regulation) retains direct effect for proceedings that were already pending before a UK court designated as an EU trade mark court prior...

Editor’s note Welcome to the 2024 Public Law case law quarterly’s third issue, reflecting developments from the year’s third quarter in full. We open with the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lipton, where the Justices, in obiter remarks, expressed differing positions on if the post‑Brexit retained EU law and assimilated frameworks govern claims predating IP‑completion day, or not. Next comes the Court of Justice’s decision in Alchaster, addressing how Member State courts are to approach fundamental rights, more broadly, when considering extradition to the UK. We also feature, in particular, the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Northumbrian Water, confirming there is no public law ‘duty of prescription’ at all concerning the publication of policies, and rejecting any reading of the Supreme Court’s decision in Lumba as having created such an obligation in law...

This Practice Note presents a concise overview of the principal areas where UK and EU product regulation have diverged since the UK’s departure from the EU on 31 December 2020 (IP Completion Day). It examines differences relating to product liability, product safety, remedial measures (including product recalls), and standards and conformity marking for general consumer products. Background Before the Brexit transition ended, UK product regulation was largely aligned with the EU, as significant domestic rules on product liability and product safety originated from EU law, including: the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA 1987), which implemented Directive 85/374/EEC on liability for defective products (the EU Product Liability Directive or EU PLD) into UK law the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 (GPSR 2005), SI 2005/1803, which implemented Directive 2001/95/EC on general product safety (the EU General Product Safety Directive) into UK law Since IP Completion Day, divergence has increased as the EU has advanced new legislation, while UK law has not progressed in...

Brexit Financial Services Legislation Status Guide This guide outlines high-level information on the status of EU laws regulating the payments sector, namely: the second Electronic Money Directive (Directive 2009/110/EC) (2EMD) the Cross-Border Payments Regulation (Regulation (EC) 924/2009) (CBPR) as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/518 (CBPR2) the Regulation establishing technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro and amending the CBPR (Regulation (EU) 260/2012) (SEPA Regulation) the Payment Accounts Directive (Directive 2014/92/EU) (PAD) the recast Payment Services Directive (Directive (EU) 2015/2366) (PSD2) the Interchange Fee Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2015/751) (IFR) This Practice Note should be read alongside the following Practice Notes: Impact of Brexit: Payment services and electronic money directives—quick guide [Archived] Impact of Brexit: SEPA Regulation—quick guide [Archived] Impact of Brexit: Payment accounts—quick guide [Archived] Impact of Brexit: Interchange Fee Regulation—quick guide [Archived] During the implementation period from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2020...

This quick guide to e-commerce and financial services outlines current UK law and retained EU law on financial services e-commerce obligations that were changed and/or cancelled by the Electronic Commerce and Solvency 2 (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019/1361 (the E-Commerce Exit Regulations), together with other measures made at the end of the implementation period after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The summary below explains the Brexit arrangements for onshoring EU rules applicable to e-commerce financial services providers following Brexit. Overview of onshored and preserved EU-derived law post-IP completion day The E-Commerce Exit Regulations 2019 were laid on 25 March 2019. They sit within HM Treasury’s programme of statutory instruments under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 EU(W)A 2018, addressing contingency planning for a ‘no deal’ Brexit. These Regulations contribute to domesticating EU law so that legal continuity is maintained at the moment the UK leaves the EU. EU(W)A 2018 ‘onshores’ and keeps in force most EU and EU-derived legislation as it existed immediately before...

The Contract comprises the completed Standard Building Contract Without Quantities for use in Scotland 2016 published by the SBCC subject to the following amendments: Recitals and Articles updated: contractor to provide a master programme and Schedule of Information Requirements; CDP responsibility accepted; Principal Contractor duties priced; arbitration deleted; Schedule of Amendments prevails; Third Party Agreements duties. Contract Particulars: arbitration entries removed; Rectification Period set at 12 months; fluctuations and certain PII/guarantee entries deleted. Conditions: key definitions revised (Practical Completion, Copyright Material, Design sub‑contractors, Funder, Site); Scottish jurisdiction; approvals mean principles only; entire agreement; variations in writing. Design/materials/programming: contractor accepts ER/CP; quality and non‑deleterious materials; programme reporting; site risk; drawings/info supply; tighter discrepancy notices. Time/defects: mitigate and advise on delay; narrower Relevant Events; Practical Completion clarified; stronger rectification, consequential damage and indemnity; phased as‑built/occupation information. IP/confidentiality/BIM: broader licence, moral rights waivers and delivery; confidentiality reinforced; BIM where adopted. Management/sub‑contracting: access, approved Site Manager, meetings; prescribed sub‑contracts; collateral warranties/third‑party rights; CDM duties; insurance...

The Contract comprises the completed Standard Building Contract With Approximate Quantities 2016 published by the JCT subject to the following amendments: This Contract adopts JCT SBC/AQ 2016 with extensive modifications to reflect design responsibility, building safety and commercial controls. Recitals: Contractor to provide a master programme and Schedule of Information Requirements; confirms site due diligence and accepts full CDP design liability. Articles: Dutyholder Regulations added; Tender Price covers Principal Contractor duties; arbitration removed; Schedule of Amendments prevails; strict protection of Third Party Agreements. Definitions/governance: new and revised terms (Building Safety Regulator, HRB, Practical Completion, Copyright Material, Design Sub‑contractors, Dutyholder Regulations); several deletions; English court jurisdiction. Design/materials/information: skill‑and‑care design and coordination; only new, compliant, non‑deleterious materials; golden thread storage; monthly programme reporting; site risks at Contractor’s risk. Procedures/controls: tighter instruction, testing, defects and as‑built duties; enhanced confidentiality and IP licences; HRB assistance; CDM/Dutyholder competency confirmations. Sub‑contracting/rights: prescribed sub‑contracts, insurances and delivery of collateral warranties/third‑party rights; limits on assignment. Payment/commercial: 28‑day final...

ARCHIVED This Precedent is archived and no longer maintained. It, together with its drafting notes, may still be used for proceedings begun in the courts of England and Wales at any time, provided the related case in an EU Member State court was issued on or before 31 December 2020 and the transitional jurisdiction provisions in Articles 67 or 69 of the Withdrawal Agreement are satisfied. For guidance on whether Brussels I (recast) applies, see Practice Note: Brussels I (recast)—application to the UK post IP completion day (jurisdiction) [Archived]. Related precedents For a supporting witness statement, see Precedent: Witness statement in support of application for stay under art 30 of recast Brussels Regulation. For draft orders, see: Court order for an application to stay proceedings under art 30(1) of Brussels I (recast) or Court order for an application to stay proceedings under art 30(2) of Brussels I (recast). General points The application should be brought within the period allowed by...

BREXIT At 11pm (GMT) on 31 December 2020—known as ‘IP completion day’—the transition/implementation period entered into following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU came to a close. From that point onwards, key transitional arrangements came to an end and wide‑ranging changes started to take effect across the UK’s legal regime. This document provides guidance on subjects affected by these changes. Before continuing your research, see: Brexit and financial services: materials on the post‑Brexit UK/EU regulatory regime [Archived]. This Q&A assesses the impact of Brexit on passporting in the insurance sector, outlines the options available to insurers to continue to access the European Economic Areas (EEA), and highlights the factors for insurers to take into account in their contingency planning. This Q&A is produced in partnership with Clare Swirski at Clifford Chance. What are the main aspects of passporting under Solvency II?...

The question considered by the Supreme Court in Lipton, and the Interpretation Act (or accrued rights) analysis In Lipton v BA Cityflyer, the UK Supreme Court, speaking obiter, examined the temporal reach of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (EU(W)A 2018). The issue was whether the provisions on retained EU law (REUL) must be applied by courts to disputes founded on facts predating IP completion day at the end of 2020, and to rights and liabilities that had already crystallised by that point. For ease of reference in this Q&A, matters turning on facts from before IP completion day are called ‘pre-Brexit cases’, while those arising from facts after that date are termed ‘post-Brexit cases’. On one interpretation, the response is that the EU(W)A 2018 provisions concerning REUL and assimilated law have no application to pre-Brexit cases. The temporal operation of REUL and of assimilated law is straightforward: before IP completion day, the UK’s domestic law operated insofar as it implemented the UK’s EU...