Featured documents
R (Greyhound Board of Great Britain Ltd) v Welsh Ministers [2026] EWHC 670 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling reinforces the constitutional divide between the courts and the legislature. It explains that the scheme and framework of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GWA 2006) embody that separation of powers, and that any judicial attempt to recognise and enforce a common law obligation on Welsh Ministers to consult prior to introducing legislation in the Senedd would trespass upon that boundary. This is not a departure from established principle; case law has already upheld comparable rules for lawmakers in Scotland and at Westminster. However, this is the first express confirmation of the position for Welsh lawmakers, and the first time this dimension of the GWA 2006 has been analysed in such depth. The court examined earlier
The solution arrived through the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), a quasi‑judicial body handling mass claims, created under UN Security Council Resolution 687. By addressing environmental harm—most notably via its ‘F4’ claim class—the UNCC set a seminal benchmark shaping how international law and contemporary arbitral panels allocate financial responsibility for wartime ecological devastation. With present-day wars in areas such as Eastern Europe and the Middle East bringing dam breaches, strikes on chemical facilities, and the burning of farmland, the UNCC’s legacy endures as an essential reference point for states, global investors, and companies engaged in post‑conflict arbitration. The F4 claims: Quantifying the unquantifiable Prior to the 1990s, mechanisms in international law for war reparations overwhelmingly favoured property loss, foregone earnings, and bodily injury. The natural world was commonly treated as a mute, non-compensable victim of armed hostilities...
Understanding the farming business as a business Many farms still use long-standing structures that arose by habit, not strategy. Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common. While once effective, such setups can cause major issues around succession, tax planning and involving the next generation. A corporate team can take a fresh, business-led view of the farm, asking: Who owns the land and other critical assets? Who manages daily operations? Who carries the risk and who enjoys the return? What is the enduring plan for succession? From this review, the team can confirm whether the current setup is fit for purpose or if an alternative — for example an updated partnership agreement, a company, a limited liability partnership, or a blended model — would better meet the family’s aims. Tax efficiency through joined-up advice Tax sits at the centre of most
Most recent News
RTL Television GMBH v Grupo Pestana SGPS SA ECLI- EU- C-2022-643 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling clarifies the breadth of the cable retransmission right within the Sat Cab Directive and underlines the narrow situations in which broadcasters in Member States may contest the satellite distribution of television or radio programmes. Even where a retransmission of TV or radio output satisfies the technical features in Article 1(3) of Directive 93/83/ EEC (the Sat Cab Directive) and lacks the broadcasting organisation’s authorisation, the broadcaster must, before commencing proceedings, determine whether the retransmitter qualifies as an operator of a traditional cable network. If that party is not a cable operator, broadcasters cannot invoke the cable retransmission right under the Sat Cab Directive. They may, however, still rely on copyright or neighbouring rights, or on any separate cable transmission rights afforded by national...
Safarov v Azerbaijan 885/12 What are the practical implications of this case? In its ruling, the ECt HR held that where domestic courts fail to secure effective protection of intellectual property, there is a breach of human rights—specifically, the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the ECHR. As to the damages claim grounded in IP rights, the outcome amounts to little more than a Pyrrhic success for the applicant, since the Court granted only a small slice of the sum he had initially sought. Nevertheless, the judgment underscores that copyright violations constitute a deprivation of property and therefore engage human rights. It foregrounds the European human rights architecture for IP and demonstrates the weight IP holds within it. The ECt HR also clarified that states must adopt appropriate steps to safeguard IP even in...
The pioneering role of the gaming industry Virtual goods and digital assets now originate, are bought and exchanged entirely online. They commonly mirror real-world products and services—virtually any item or offering found offline can be conceived in a digital guise. Unlike physical counterparts, however, a virtual item can be upgraded, altered and enriched with fresh functionality. Within gaming, such goods have long appeared as in‑game items: skins, outfits, accessories, gear and weapons for avatars. With blockchain, these assets can be made unique and their allocation or ownership recorded transparently, preventing double sales, enabling trading beyond a single game’s closed economy, and streamlining monetisation by tracking royalties on secondary transactions. Studios are already committing serious resources to tokenised assets. In up‑and‑coming worlds like Decentraland and The Sandbox, players can purchase, sell and develop parcels of virtual land with digital buildings. Ubisoft is rolling out NFTs in its...
The EU plans to reinforce its cybersecurity regime through a second Network and Information Security Directive ( NIS2) (see: LNB News 03/12/2021 49). Alongside this, the UK’s Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport ( DCMS) is consulting on legislative updates intended to bolster the UK’s cyber resilience (see: LNB News 21/06/2022 41). What are the key changes proposed by the EU for NIS2? The current Network and Information Systems Directive, Directive ( EU) 2016/1148 ( NIS1), applied in the EU (including the UK) from May 2018. NIS1 focuses on boosting resilience and raising cybersecurity standards for organisations delivering essential services across sectors (for example, energy), and also oversees certain digital service providers, though to a lesser extent. Within the EU, NIS2 will supersede NIS1. The Council of the EU has released a press statement outlining the principal changes put forward by NIS2, as...
Banco Santander, SA v JAC and MCPR ( Case C-410/20) The Court of Justice of the European Union ( CJEU) has issued its ruling in Banco Santander, SA v JAC and MCPR ( Case C-410/20). That decision stems from a request for a preliminary reference addressing, among other points, how to interpret the EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive 2014/59/ EU ( EU BRRD). The reference arose from a dispute between investors in Banco Popular Español SA ( Banco Popular) and Banco Santander SA, which had succeeded to Banco Popular, concerning Santander’s potential liability for inaccuracies in the Banco Popular prospectus prepared under the Prospectus Directive 2003/71/ EC, on the strength of which those investors acquired Banco Popular shares. The CJEU determined that investors in Banco Popular are barred from bringing proceedings for liability against Banco Santander under Article 6 of the...
Fuhrmann-2- Gmb H v B Case C‑249/21 What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Justice held that, when assessing compliance with Directive 2011/83/ EU (the EU Consumer Rights Directive), only the wording displayed on the order confirmation button itself counts in showing that, at the moment of ordering, the consumer clearly accepts that their action entails an obligation to pay. Consequently, traders must take particular care with the precise text used on any button that signifies a payment commitment... The European Commission’s latest guidance on the EU Consumer Rights Directive further clarifies that the order button on a website must be clearly labelled, with the relevant indication placed on the button or directly alongside it. Examples that express the required message include: buy now pay now confirm purchase By contrast, expressions such as: register confirm order...
DM v CTS Eventim AG & Co KGa A Case C‑96/21 What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling makes clear that customers lack a withdrawal right from agreements for cultural or sporting events fixed for a specific date where attendance is limited, irrespective of whether they reserved directly or through a middleman. Note too that Directive 2011/83/ EU (the EU CRD) is being amended by Directive ( EU) 2019/2161, the EU Omnibus Directive, which applies from 28 May 2022; the European Commission has therefore revised its guidance, and that guidance aligns with this outcome. That guidance mirrors the decision and reinforces that approach for such events in the Commission's materials. Although an EU judgment, it remains pertinent to UK businesses, as UK courts may have regard to EU case law, and UK companies sell to consumers across the EEA. What was the...
Judgments in Joined Cases Azurair and others, Cases C-146/20, C-188/20, C-196/20 and C-270/20, Airhelp, Case C-263/20, and Corendon Airlines, Case C-395/20 What are the practical implications of these cases? These rulings carry two key practical consequences for operating carriers governed by Regulation ( EC) No 261/2004 (the Regulation): Airlines must scrutinise timetable alterations, not only where they plan to push departures back (i.e. a delay for the purposes of the Regulation) but also where they intend to set off more than one hour earlier than scheduled, so as to avoid exposure to cancellation compensation. Article 5 of Regulation ( EC) No 261/2004 sets out compensation for cancelled flights and requires payment unless passengers are actually told in advance (and receive that notice), which may prove expensive if overlooked. Carriers are likewise reminded to provide passengers with clear information on their...
Under the most recent draft prepared by Slovenia, which will steer legislative negotiations in the Council of the EU through the very end of this year, the remit is set to be expanded to also cover regional and local public authorities formally marked by national governments as critical, as any interruption to their operations or services could seriously affect public safety and security. The update to Directive ( EU) 2016/1148, the NIS Directive, tabled by the European Commission in December 2020 aims to harmonise national cybersecurity approaches, to foster the exchange of threat information between countries and to mandate a baseline of security obligations for companies whenever they fall......
What are the practical implications of these cases? These joined references give the Court of Justice another chance to examine how certain car makers have fitted engines with so‑called ‘defeat devices’. Such software and hardware alter readings for particular pollutants, making a vehicle seem to meet environmental thresholds far more frequently than it truly does. The Court has only lately clarified what amounts to a prohibited defeat device under Regulation ( EC) No 715/2007, and the present matters concern the application of that interpretation to highly sophisticated systems which curtail emissions‑control depending on the temperature and the altitude at which the car is operated. The Advocate General adopts a firm, purposive reading of the Regulation and underlines its role within the European Union’s broader aims and objectives of securing a high level of environmental protection, a key element of which is the...
Top System SA v Belgium Case C-13/20 What are the practical implications of this case? Practitioners already recognise that software licensing terms cannot bar decompilation where it is indispensable to obtain information needed to secure interoperability between computer programmes, provided the conditions in the relevant Software Directive are satisfied. Beyond this (limited) carve‑out, it was commonly thought that decompilation could be prohibited by a software licence (see the Opinion of AG Szpunar of 10 March 2021, point 82). Indeed, the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988 ( CDPA 1988) states that copyright is not infringed when a programme is copied or altered, so long as those steps are necessary for the licensee’s lawful use and are not excluded by contract ( CDPA 1988, s 50C). In practice, software licences often expressly ban decompilation. Yet the Court of Justice held that...
Joined cases Vodafone Gmb H v Bundesrepublik Deutschland Case C-854/19; Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände— Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e V v Vodafone Gmb H Case C-5/20; and Telekom Deutschland Gmb H v Bundesrepublik Deutschland Case C-34/20 What are the practical implications of this case? Zero tariff, or zero rating, has long been contentious because it deliberately favours some app providers, clashing with net neutrality principles—the idea that the internet should be open to everyone and free from unequal treatment. Under these offers, a customer buys a data bundle but can use specified apps without that usage counting against their allowance. In other words, usage of named services does not reduce the volume of data included in the plan. These carve‑outs are determined by the ISP. The ISP chooses which apps are exempt and, typically, these are those linked to particular partnerships. In the Telenor ruling last year, the Court of...
The Software Incubator Ltd v Computer Associates UK Ltd Case C‑410/19 What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Justice has issued the most recent ruling in a protracted dispute first considered by the High Court in 2016, arising out of an agreement that was terminated in 2013. The case will now return to the Supreme Court which, pursuant to Articles 86 and 89 of the UK/ EU Withdrawal Agreement, is obliged to give effect to that judgment. Although the Supreme Court’s final position is still awaited, the decision is expected to carry major consequences for software resellers who, acting as commercial agents, may rely on the protections and remedies provided by the Commercial Agents Regulations, SI 1993/3053, irrespective of the format or medium through which software is supplied to customers. It is likewise important for principals that deploy...
Mincione v Gedi Gruppo Editoriale Sp A [2021] EWHC 2006 ( QB) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling offers practical insight for practitioners on procedure and substance. On the procedural front, it intimates that a defendant may contest the court’s jurisdiction under CPR 11(1) in relation to only part of a claim, not merely the whole. Although, on a literal reading, CPR 11(1) does not appear to authorise such a partial challenge, the notes in Civil Procedure 2021 ( Volume 1) (the White Book) suggest—albeit without authority—that it can be done. Tipples J voiced reservations because of the wording of CPR 11(1), particularly when contrasted with a provision like CPR 24.2(a). Nevertheless, as the claimant did not take the point, the court proceeded on the footing that jurisdiction existed. The judgment also addresses timing. Where the...
According to the European Commission, the EU will table its proposal to overhaul the World Customs Organization ( WCO), recognised as the global forum......
‘ CV- Online Latvia’ SIA v ‘ Melons’ SIA Case C-762/19 What are the practical implications of this case? Across the EU, when a website or online database provides a search tool that automatically draws into its results information sourced from third-party databases, this will typically infringe database right. There can, however, be circumstances where the practice is lawful if it can be shown that using data from those third-party databases does not prejudice the maker’s investment—for instance, where the data is deployed in a wholly unrelated market that the maker neither foresaw nor competes in. Nonetheless, in most situations it will be necessary to obtain permission from the maker of any third-party databases employed to produce an aggregated search result. What was the background? A jobs website ( Melons) offered a search engine that queried several websites hosting job...
Germany, presiding over gatherings of the EU’s member-state governments in the latter half of the year, plans to table an updated draft for the 11 November 2020 session, potentially opening the door to a common position among EU capitals. Should ministers settle on a deal, negotiations with the European Parliament may commence; the Parliament endorsed its own take on the e Privacy Regulation back in October 2017. The Commission first put the proposal forward in January 2017. Berlin has elevated the contentious e Privacy Regulation to a headline file for its six‑month stint at the helm of the EU Council, seeking a mandate to open talks with the European Parliament. Progress has been blocked by disputes about aligning the plan with the EU’s flagship General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation ( EU) 2016/679; about the treatment of ‘cookie walls’ (pop‑up prompts that deny entry to sites until a...
Privacy International v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and others Case C‑623/17 What are the practical implications of this case? From a legal standpoint, the ruling requires the UK to re‑evaluate how and when it acquires bulk communications data from internet and telecoms providers, and to define firmer constraints on its monitoring powers. Existing approaches that involve transferring such data on a blanket and non‑targeted basis are at odds with EU law. Careful consideration must be given to the thresholds that must be satisfied before issuing notices to transfer data under the Telecommunications Act 1984 ( TA 1984), together with the material and procedural safeguards that will regulate the onward transfer and use of that information. Notably, there will probably need to be an explicit nexus between the necessity for the particular datasets sought and the protection of National...
Remondis Gmb H v Abfallzweckverband Rhein- Mosel- Eifel Case C-429/19 ECLI: EU: C:2020:436 What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Justice has persisted with a narrow reading of exemptions in the Public Procurement Directive ( Directive 2014/24/ EU) and took a purposive stance when construing a contract said to be exempt. The Court of Justice confirmed the degree of collaboration needed for reliance on the Hamburg exemption, insisting that cooperation must be genuinely set up or carried out to have effect. This maintains a strict view of derogations and emphasises demonstrable, substantive collaboration in practice. To rely on the exemption, contracting authorities should think carefully about how they frame, evidence, and deliver joint strategies and mutual advantages when entering a Hamburg-exempt arrangement. If they neglect this, and cannot show real collaboration in practice, disgruntled private sector operators...
Tim Sp A— Direzione e coordinamento Vivendi SA v Consip Sp A, Ministero dell’ Economia e delle Finanze Case C-395/18 What are the practical implications of this case? General implications This ruling is expected to trigger reconsideration of national procurement laws across EU Member States that impose automatic, rather than discretionary, exclusions. Under Article 57(4) of Directive 2014/24/ EU, contracting authorities may choose to bar tenderers shown to be unreliable—for example due to breaches of environmental or social duties, including accessibility rules for disabled persons ( Article 57(4)(a)). Member States may transpose these grounds with differing levels of rigour, provided the conditions align with general EU law (paras [33] and [34]). The Court of Justice delineated the scope of that discretion by confirming that Member States may require contracting authorities to exclude bidders for infringements of social and labour law committed by their nominated...
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
