Life of Another meaning

Original news MT Højgaard a/s v EON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd and another [2015] EWCA Civ 407 The parties entered into a contract for the design and installation of offshore wind turbines. Defects arose in the foundations, prompting a dispute over who should bear the cost of remedial works. At first instance, the judge decided the claimant contractor had breached a warranty that the foundations would provide a 20‑year service life, but had not breached other clauses alleged by the defendant employers. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant’s appeal, finding there was no such warranty. The defendants’ cross‑appeal also succeeded, as the claimant had failed to comply with a provision concerning testing of the designs. What was this case about? The dispute centres on a specific design issue of fundamental concern to the various stakeholders involved in the design and construction of offshore wind farms. For context, it is helpful to grasp the technical set‑up—an offshore wind farm is, in...

Modernatx, Inc v Pfizer Ltd and other companies; Pfizer Inc and another company v Modernatx, Inc [2024] EWHC 1695 (Pat) Note that the issues concerning Moderna’s undertaking not to enforce its patents were separated into their own proceedings at a case management conference. That question was determined in a distinct High Court judgment by Judge Jonathan Richards, also delivered on 2 July 2024, which found that Pfizer and BioNTech cannot rely on Moderna’s pandemic-era non-enforcement pledge to avoid the consequences of any infringement. For additional detail on both matters and the background, see Practice Note: Life sciences cases tracker—UK. See also Law360 News Analysis: Pfizer, BioNTech infringed Moderna’s mRNA vaccine patent. The connected case citation is Pfizer Inc v Modernatx, Inc; Modernatx, Inc v Pfizer Ltd [2024] EWHC 1648 (Pat). What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling is notable as it represents the first patent dispute relating to coronavirus vaccines to reach the courts. The litigation was complex, both in terms of case management...

In this issue: Medical devices Intellectual property Data protection and life sciences Pharmaceuticals—regulatory framework Research and development Competition in life sciences Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Trackers Useful information Medical devices Government supports new UK medical device rules following consultation The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has issued the government’s concluding response to its consultation on planned updates to medical device legislation, setting out future pathways to market for medical devices. The government will advance three principal changes: adopting an international reliance framework, removing the UKCA marking requirement once devices carry unique device identification (UDI), and revising the classification of in vitro diagnostic (IVD) devices. Collectively, these measures are intended to modernise oversight while promoting innovation and protecting patient safety. See: LNB News 23/07/2025 14. AI developers, users see EU’s guidelines on general-purpose AI models MLex: On 18 July 2025, the European Commission released guidance...

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’,...

The principal rules for imposing fines after conviction sit in sections 118–132 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (SA 2020), also called the Sentencing Code. On conviction, a court may order a monetary penalty in place of, or in addition to, another sentence where the offence allows a fine, and this can occur in either the Crown Court or the magistrates’ court. Any financial penalty must reflect the seriousness of the conduct and may not exceed any statutory maximum attached to the offence. A fine is inappropriate where the gravity of the offence demands immediate custody, and it must not be used where a mandatory sentence applies (for example, life imprisonment for murder). See: A-G’s Reference (No 41 of 1994) (1995) 16 Cr App Rep (S) 792 (not reported by LexisNexis®). Where an offence sets a ceiling for the amount, the court is bound by that cap. Maximum fines Magistrates’ court Certain criminal offences heard in the magistrates’ court have an upper limit on fines prescribed by statute...

ARCHIVED: This tracker is archived and no longer updated. For an overview of Court of Protection cases from 2025 onwards, see: Court of Protection—table of cases. P, Re (Property & Affairs Deputyship: Jurisdiction) [2024] EWCOP 77 (T2) Court of Protection determines it has jurisdiction to consider whether P’s mother should continue as property and affairs deputy The proceedings related to P, an adult who sustained a brain injury in an accident and had a substantial personal injury claim. His mother had been appointed by the Court of Protection as his property and affairs deputy, and the present decision addressed an application seeking to revoke that appointment. The litigation had been protracted. Earlier, the court permitted ‘closed material’ to be withheld from P’s parents to facilitate capacity assessments; for a summary of that ruling, see here. Despite that step, neither the Official Solicitor nor the court gained clarity about P’s condition or even his location. It was reported that P was now residing in Italy. HHJ Burrows concluded that...

1 Introduction This policy provides a summary of the Company’s measures to help workers remain healthy and safe when carrying out their duties on the Company’s premises throughout the ongoing coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Government advice indicates that COVID-19 will remain part of daily life for the foreseeable future, so we must adapt, live alongside it, and control the risks to ourselves and those around us as far as possible. It adds, but does not supersede, the Company’s health and safety policy. This policy is not incorporated into any employment contract, and Company reserves the right to change it at any time. This policy covers all Company employees, workers and contractors. Coronavirus spreads primarily through droplets and aerosols that reach the eyes, nose or mouth, that are breathed in by another person, or that are transferred via touch and contaminated surfaces from one individual to another easily. Overall, the likelihood of contracting or transmitting COVID-19 is greatest when you are in close physical proximity to...

For this Q&A, it is taken that the property serves as the principal private residence of the life tenant within the trust arrangement. Principal private residence relief The trustees and the life tenant alike might qualify to claim principal private residence (PPR) relief on gains realised from the eventual sale of the property concerned...