Subsisting rights meaning

In this issue: Leasing property Transferring property Property development Residential tenancies Key developments and horizon scanning Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Trackers New Q&As Leasing property Telecommunications Code—redevelopment In a comprehensive and engaging review of a range of inventive arguments deployed to oppose renewal of a subsisting code agreement under paragraphs 31(4)(a), (c) and (d) of the Electronic Communications Code, the Upper Tribunal in Vodafone Ltd v (1) Icon Tower Infrastructure Ltd (2) AP Wireless II (UK) Ltd [2025] UKUT 00058 (LC) held that the alleged grounds were not established. This update concentrates on grounds 31(4)(c) and (d)—the intention to redevelop—and the paragraph 21 public benefit test. See News Analysis by David Jones and Mark Barley, associate and partner at Womble Bond Dickinson: Telecommunications Code—redevelopment (Vodafone v Icon & AP Wireless). Transferring property Determining the true and ancient limits—why boundary agreements always...

EUIPO v Nowhere Co Ltd, Case C-337/22 P, ECLI:EU:C:2026:71 What are the practical implications of this case? The most immediate practical implication for parties in EUIPO contentious trade mark disputes is that the judgment finally lays to rest any reliance on UK-founded IP rights created before the Brexit transition ended on 31 December 2020 (IP completion day) as grounds of attack, whether in oppositions or invalidation actions. In effect, it ratifies the EUIPO’s choice to halt, at IP completion day, all unresolved contentious trade mark cases based solely on UK rights, drawing a clear procedural line. Its reach is broader, however. Where a right is not in force on the date the EUIPO issues its decision in contentious trade mark proceedings, it cannot sustain a challenge—be that because of Brexit, revocation, cancellation, or non-renewal. In truth, this largely reaffirms the EUIPO’s settled approach and draws a contrast with equivalent proceedings before the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO). On this point, the IPO and EUIPO have historically been slightly...

Groom v Maritime and Coastguard Agency [2024] EAT 71 What are the practical implications of this decision? This ruling confirms that the authorities do not recognise volunteering as a sui generis category, nor do they establish, as a point of law, that a volunteer necessarily renders services outside a contract. A central element in the EAT’s reasoning was the claimant’s entitlement to remuneration, and whether that right subsisted. The tribunal considered that the need to submit a claim, rather than receive automatic disbursement, did not affect the underlying right; it was merely the method by which payment was processed. Moreover, the circumstance that numerous other volunteers chose not to lodge claims was immaterial to whether the entitlement to pay existed, and could not defeat a subsisting entitlement. Practitioners should bear in mind that the terminology applied to the parties’ relationship is not conclusive; for instance, describing the claimant as a volunteer did not preclude him from being a worker, with the attendant rights arising from that legal status....

ARCHIVED : This archived Practice Note was prepared with reference to the earlier/old Electronic Communications Code (the previous Code) and addresses the distinctions between the general and special regimes under that earlier Code; however, its substance still bears on the transitional provisions contained in the new Code and therefore remains pertinent. It is not maintained and is provided solely as background information. The new Code (under Schedule 3A, Part 1 to the Communications Act 2003) took legal effect on 28 December 2017 and is now in force. The transitional provisions in the new Code, found in Schedule 2 to the Digital Economy Act 2017, state that although subsisting agreements under the previous Code (ie an agreement under paragraph 2 or 3 or a court order granting Code rights under paragraph 5 of the previous Code) continue to operate as an agreement under the new Code, they are subject to modifications, as necessary, including, in particular, regarding termination for certain subsisting agreements. Those transitional provisions also safeguard the operator’s or...

Defending a claim of copyright infringement In most copyright infringement cases, a defendant will first challenge the claimant’s position on copyright itself, contending either that no copyright exists in the work identified, or that any subsisting copyright is not owned by the claimant (and sometimes both). The next step is often to assert that, even assuming copyright does subsist, there has been no infringement. This may include arguing that the original work and the accused material lack sufficient similarity, or adducing evidence that the disputed work was created independently, i.e. that no copying occurred. Finally, there are specific statutory carve-outs to infringement, predominantly set out in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988). These are referred to as permitted acts. The range of permitted acts applying to copyright is extensive, with several also relevant to database right. Where other legal claims arise, such as breach of confidence, the permitted acts defence will not cover those causes of action. Permitted acts can be invoked in relation to...

This Practice Note examines how unjust enrichment intersects with contractual claims, with a particular focus on the notion of a ‘failure of basis’ as an ‘unjust factor’ when identifying the constituent elements of an unjust enrichment claim. It should be read alongside Practice Note: Unjust enrichment—elements of the claim, which outlines the background to the law and the core requirements for proving such a claim. As that Practice Note makes clear, the guidance here is intended to give a high-level orientation to a notably complex area of jurisprudence... The relationship between unjust enrichment and contracts Claims in restitution for unjust enrichment are distinct from contractual causes of action. The general rule is that, where the claimant and defendant are bound by contract, the agreement governs their rights and obligations, including the allocation of risk, until the contract is discharged or avoided (a question for contract law). See: Terminating contracts—how and when a contract ends—overview. This reflects the principle that restitutionary remedies concern the recovery of a defendant’s gain...

ARCHIVED: This Precedent, now archived, was prepared by reference to the former Electronic Communications Code (the previous Code). It also offered guidance on template notices and counter-notices issued by OFCOM under that earlier Code. Those precedent forms were produced by OFCOM for use with the previous Electronic Communications Code. Although superseded, the material still has relevance for the transitional provisions contained in the new Code. It is no longer updated and is supplied for background only. The new Code, in Schedule 3A, Part 1 to the Communications Act 2003, came into force on 28 December 2017. Under the transitional arrangements in the new Code, as set out in Schedule 2 to the Digital Economy Act 2017, existing agreements under the previous Code, namely agreements under paragraph 2 or 3, or a court order conferring Code rights under paragraph 5 of the previous Code, continue as agreements under the new Code. However, this continuation is subject to certain modifications, including changes to termination applying to some of those subsisting agreements...

Alleged infringer’s name and address [ Date ] Dear [ insert organisation name ] [ Insert name and description of copyright works ] We act for [ name of client ] of [ address ]. We write concerning your conduct and activities. [ Name of client ] [ Name of client ] operates in [ describe: the industry of operation, what the copyright owner does; who in the company produces the copyright works, if relevant how they are employed and what the copyright work is. Define or give the name of the copyright work ]. [ Insert name of client ] is the [ owner OR assignee OR exclusive licensee ] of copyright in [ Name and description of copyright works ] (the Work [ s ]), and a copy is [ enclosed for your attention OR available for inspection on request at our offices ]. Pursuant to section 11(2) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988), our client owns...

[ Alleged infringer’s name and address ] [ Date ] Dear [ insert organisation name ], [ Insert name and description of copyright works ] We represent [ name and address of client ] (‘our client’). We are contacting you regarding your activities, which amount to unauthorised use of our client’s copyright. [ Name of client ] Our client operates within [ describe: eg the computer games industry; what the copyright owner does; who in the company produces the copyright works, if relevant, how they are employed and what the copyright work is. Define or give the name of the copyright work ]. Our client is the [ owner OR owner-assignee OR non-exclusive licensee OR exclusive licensee ] of the copyright in the work. A copy of the work can be made available for inspection at our offices upon request. [ In line with section 11(2) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988), our client owns the copyright subsisting...

The Finance Act 2004 (FA 2004) sets conditions for pensions and lump sums to be authorised payments. Under FA 2004, a member’s pension from a registered pension scheme must not begin before they reach the normal minimum pension age, unless the ill-health condition is met. In the same way, most lump sums are not payable before that age. The normal minimum pension age was 50 when FA 2004 took effect on 6 April 2006, rose to 55 from 6 April 2010, and will increase to 57 from 6 April 2028, excluding uniformed services pension schemes (army, navy, air force, police and firefighters). Transitional provisions preserve members’ subsisting rights to draw scheme benefits before age 55; this is referred to as a protection pension age. The Pensions Tax Manual confirms that, to hold a protected pension age, the member must have an unqualified right to receive benefits before the normal minimum pension age, i.e. not dependent on another person’s consent (PTM062210)...