Featured documents
Lucasfilm did not benefit in any way at Tyburn Film Productions Ltd's expense, counsel said to the appeals court there on 3 December 2025, in part because it already possessed rights over Cushing's likeness and an agreement and consent from the Cushing estate to 'resurrect' him as Grand Moff Tarkin. Tyburn contends it earlier made an agreement with the late actor then, at the time, granting the company a veto over any use of his image prior to his 1994 death. That contract concerns a TV series titled 'Heritage of Horror', which never aired. Tyburn further asserts the deal permits it to effectively 'resurrect' Cushing using stand-ins and CGI to ultimately finish the programme then if the actor were to die whilst filming remained in progress...
Irish telecom operator Eircom’s damages lawsuit against BT Group over a public-sector contract must be carefully managed to trial to deal with confidentiality issues and other matters, a UK judge told the parties today. At the High Court in London today, a judge said Eircom’s damages action against BT over a public-sector contract needs tight case management through to trial to address confidentiality and related concerns. Eircom brought the claim after Ofcom in 2020 penalised BT for its behaviour during a tender. Speaking to both sides, Judge Adam Johnson urged them to resolve any confidentiality flashpoints themselves and signalled he had no wish to step in unless it became unavoidable. He also expressed confidence that parties would do everything possible to keep confidential designations to a minimum, noting this was necessary to maintain control over the conduct of the trial. He framed this as the
The following document is attached: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/274 dated 5 February 2026, revising Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1981, establishing a final anti-dumping levy on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware produced in...
Justice Richard Arnold granted AstraZeneca leave to appeal and permitted lorries carrying about 175,000 packs of Glenmark’s generics to move on to wholesalers, provided they did not reach pharmacy shelves while the case continued at any point during those interim proceedings. In this way, Glenmark could keep its first-to-market advantage, while causing only minimal detriment to AstraZeneca should the Court of Appeal later be persuaded to issue an injunction against supply. The judge said this approach maintained the status quo with the least possible prejudice to Glenmark’s position overall. The hearing was arranged at short notice, just days after the High Court refused AstraZeneca an injunction to block the diabetes generic from sale while the court considered whether the patents supporting the branded medicine were valid in law. Glenmark, Generics (UK) Ltd and Teva Pharmaceuticals have each begun proceedings in the UK to set...
Most recent News
Mergers General Court dismisses action against Commission’s decision to investigate, under Article 22 EUMR, Brasserie Nationale/ Boissons Heintz merger The General Court has handed down its ruling in Case T‑289/24, Brasserie Nationale and Munhowen v Commission, which contested the Commission’s decision of 14 March 2024 in Case M.11485 Brasserie Nationale/ Boissons Heintz. Through that decision, the Commission took up a referral from Luxembourg under Article 22 EUMR to review Brasserie Nationale’s proposed acquisition of Boissons Heintz. The Court rejected the application. Background Brasserie Nationale, a Luxembourg-based drinks manufacturer, owns Munhowen, a distributor active in Luxembourg and neighbouring regions. On 22 December 2023 and 10 January 2024, Brasserie Nationale informed the Luxembourg Competition Authority ( LCA) of plans for Munhowen to obtain exclusive control of Boissons Heintz, another Luxembourg drinks distributor. The deal did not meet the EU turnover thresholds for merger control, and...
MH Site Maintenance Services Ltd and another company v Watson [2025] EWCA Civ 775 What are the practical implications of this case? Insurers, and the solicitors representing them, will recognise the recurring problem: multiple requests for details, evidence, or progress updates go unanswered or are simply ignored, with the result that the defendant remains in the dark about the case it must confront, even years after promptly admitting liability. A further, and troubling, hallmark of these matters is their tendency to inflate in value, having been ‘incubated’ under the Protocol while a stay persists for months, or even years, as the claimant continues to secure medical evidence to strengthen their position. It is expected that this ruling sends a firm message to claimants that the prevailing habit of delay, coupled with a presumed right to a stay that can be rolled over time and again...
Aryan ( SEA) Private Ltd and Pure Group ( Singapore) Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 99 What are the practical implications of this case? When to press ahead with a statutory demand and when to wait Singapore courts remain aligned with the more generous An An approach when asked to restrain winding up applications. So long as a respondent advances a substantial defence or puts forward a cross-claim, and the dispute falls within an arbitration clause, the courts will grant an injunction to halt a winding up application, provided there is no abuse of process. This stands in clear contrast to the position elsewhere, such as the Privy Council’s recent decision in Sian Participation, which requires the debtor to show the liability is disputed on genuine and substantial grounds. In Aryan, the High Court viewed itself as bound by the Court of Appeal’s ruling in An An, and...
Original news Mr S ( CAS-98051- N8F9) —24 February 2025 Summary The Pensions Ombudsman dismissed an allegation that the Pension Protection Fund ( PPF) deliberately kept back details of early retirement conditions to secure a financial advantage. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld at all. It found the PPF had met its legal duties and could not be held accountable for actions by external parties occurring before its role in the scheme commenced. The PPF was under no requirement to alert the complainant to the implications of retiring early. The decision underlines the Ombudsman’s general hesitancy to place an advisory duty on scheme members... What were the facts? ......
Osmond and Allen v HMRC [2025] UKUT 183 ( TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? The UT’s ruling reinforces the separation between a transaction’s inevitable outcomes and its underlying objective, aligning with advisers’ long‑held view that the TIS rules were never engaged where a transaction principally sought to mitigate capital gains tax ( CGT), and did not principally aim to reduce income tax. Delivered alongside other judgments underscoring the weight of taxpayers’ subjective aims, the ruling confirms that merely bringing about unavoidable tax results does not, by itself, defeat the main purpose test; something additional is required (as Lady Justice Falk explained in Blackrock Hold Co 5 v HMRC [2024] STC 740 ( Blackrock)). It illustrates that proof indicating a subjective main purpose is indispensable and cannot be avoided, even when the tax effects are tightly intertwined with the act itself. In...
On 30 June 2025, TPR reacted to the FCA’s consultation on a new targeted support framework for pensions and investments, pressing trustees to actively participate directly and submit responses so targeted support genuinely serves DC pension members. TPR’s appeal to scheme trustees came after the FCA unveiled what it calls a “once-in-a-generation” drive to narrow the advice gap across retirement saving. The FCA is worried that millions of UK savers, including DC members, are nearing retirement without obtaining financial advice. It is seeking pension providers, insurers, wealth managers and advisers to deliver more focused financial guidance to bridge that shortfall. The FCA’s attention is chiefly on DC arrangements, spanning workplace and non-workplace pensions. Defined benefit schemes will not be affected directly by targeted support, as there is far less room for consumers to choose how they build up benefits or draw them down. The focus...
What is the background to the consultation? IP rights confer exclusive monopolies on their owners. Ordinarily, those protections stop others from selling, trading in, or importing products that infringe the monopoly. Exhaustion The principle of exhaustion curbs that exclusivity for items already placed on the market with the rights holder’s consent. Once goods are put on the relevant market with permission, the IP proprietor cannot object to their sale, subsequent dealing, or import. A central issue within exhaustion is identifying the relevant market; by placing goods into that market, the proprietor’s rights are exhausted. This matters especially when considering the entitlement to import products covered by IP rights. Many rights holders aim to command premium prices in high-income territories, yet they also wish to supply lower-income markets that cannot bear such premiums. The difficulty arises when those lower-priced goods reach...
Marlborough DP Ltd v HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 796 The dispute involved Marlborough DP Ltd ( MDPL), a dental practice owned outright and managed by Dr Thomas, which adopted a promoted tax avoidance arrangement using payments to an RT. Those payments, broadly matching MDPL’s yearly profits, were subsequently advanced to Dr Thomas as loans. The exclusive aim was to withdraw MDPL’s profits in a manner that avoided tax exposure while permitting MDPL to claim a deduction for those amounts when computing the profits of its dental trade. HMRC issued corporation tax closure notices, PAYE determinations and NIC decisions, all of which MDPL challenged. Before the First-tier Tax Tribunal ( FTT), the company accepted that the planning failed and acknowledged that, if the sums were not taxable as employment income, no corporation tax deduction arose. It therefore did not deliver the intended tax outcome or any...
What are the practical implications of this case? When proposing an MVL, directors must ensure their advisers receive every pertinent detail. If a liability is overlooked or contested, the MVL will almost inevitably have to switch to a CVL unless that sum is settled in full within 12 months, or any shorter timeframe set out in the directors’ declaration. The liquidator has no latitude to prolong this window. Under IA 1986, s 95, the liquidator is under a duty to effect conversion from MVL to CVL within seven days of concluding that the 12‑month cut-off (or any shorter period specified by the director(s)) will not be achieved. Once an MVL is underway, creditors of the company gain the advantage in any dispute because the 12‑month MVL deadline cannot be lengthened. Directors should also note that disputed sums are treated no...
JPMorgan Chase Bank NA v HMRC [2025] UKUT 188 ( TCC) At issue on appeal was how VAT should properly apply to services provided by JPMorgan Chase Bank NA (‘ CBNA’) to JPMorgan Securities plc (‘ SPLC’). The companies formed a VAT group; ordinarily, intra‑group supplies are generally ignored for VAT purposes, but not in this instance because the services were ‘bought‑in’ and therefore fell squarely within the anti‑avoidance rules in section 43(2A) and (2B) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994......
On 19 June 2025, the Medical Device Coordination Group ( MDCG) issued fresh guidance ( MDCG 2025-6) on how Regulation ( EU) 2017/745 (the Medical Devices Regulation, MDR), Regulation ( EU) 2017/746 (the In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation, IVDR), and Regulation ( EU) 2024/1689, the EU AI Act, interrelate. The document supplies a first set of answers to the most frequently asked questions on the joint application of the EU AI Act and the MDR/ IVDR for manufacturers of AI systems used for medical purposes ( MDAI). The MDCG guidance clarifies a few points: manufacturer vs provider and user vs deployer The MDCG explains that references to ‘manufacturer’ within the meaning of the MDR/ IVDR should be understood as referring to ‘provider’ in accordance with the EU AI Act......
Eraaya Lifespaces Ltd v Elara Capital Plc and other companies [2025] EWHC 1506 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment confirmed that, when a settlement agent or comparable intermediary receives monies from bondholders destined for an issuer, and lacks any unfettered authority to deal with those monies, being obliged instead to follow another party’s directions, that intermediary will typically hold the monies on trust, for the bondholders or alternatively the issuer, pending distribution to the intended recipient in due course. Depending on the facts, the trust may take the form of an express trust or a Quistclose trust; it is immaterial whether documentation or written terms explicitly describe it as a trust, or whether the intermediary has been told it is holding the funds on trust. The court must decide, on the evidence, the character of the trust and the...
Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Persons with an Immediate Right to Possess Goods and others [2025] EWHC 1346 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Although most abandoned goods will today be sold pursuant to T( IG) A 1977, s 12 and s 13, this judgment supplies a useful restatement of the common law principles of abandonment and involuntary bailment, which continue to apply in respect of any goods bailed before 1 January 1978. The decision indicates that such involuntary bailees will typically find it easier to rely on the rule in Da Rocha- Afodu v Mortgage Express Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 454—namely, proving that they took reasonable steps to notify the original owners of the goods—rather than the approach in Robot Arenas Ltd v Waterfield [2010] EWHC 115 ( QB), which seems to require a relatively high...
Mergers The CMA approved the proposed takeover by Aviva plc of Direct Line Insurance Group plc...
HMRC v Dolphin Drilling Ltd [2025] UKSC 24 Dolphin hired the Borgsten on charter from a related entity to act as a tender support vessel ( TSV), delivering tender assisted drilling ( TAD) operations to the Dunbar oil installation under a contract with the platform’s operator, Total. Beyond the TAD scope, and in addition to delivering those services, the Borgsten also served as living quarters for approximately sixty members of Total’s workforce engaged on Dunbar, alongside the company’s own crew based on the Borgsten. HMRC took the view that the hire restriction in section 356N of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 ( CTA 2010) was in point; however, the company contended that the carve‑out in CTA 2010, s 356LA(3) applied, on the basis that it was reasonable to assume the Borgsten’s use for housing Total personnel was ‘unlikely to be more than...
Octopus Renewables Infrastructure Trust plc stated that the 32.6 megawatt Irishtown site will be the sixth asset the company holds within the Ballymacarney solar farm. The firm noted it is acquiring the site through a forward purchase agreement. This structure permits completion of the acquisition in full once the project has then successfully finished its operational testing......
Launched in October 2024 Unveiled in October 2024, the review is led by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in partnership with sanctions departments and agencies — HM Treasury ( HMT), the Department for Business and Trade ( DBT), the Department for Transport ( Df T), HM Revenue and Customs ( HMRC) and the National Crime Agency ( NCA). It advances recommendations designed to facilitate compliance with UK sanctions, strengthen deterrence against breaches, and refresh the cross‑government sanctions enforcement toolkit. In our analysis, we examine these recommendations and determine that they are unlikely to fulfil the UK government’s ambitions, as articulated in the review: to ‘support the private sector to understand and comply with sanctions’ while ‘punish serious breaches with large fines or criminal prosecution’......
Mergers The Commission authorised: the acquisition granting sole control of Skechers USA, Inc. by 3G Capital Partners LP ( M.12016) after a phase I investigation—see further, Midday Express the acquisition conferring joint control of Avid Xchange Holdings Inc. by TPG Inc. and Corpay, Inc......
The International Union of Aerospace Insurers reported that 64% of survey participants cited war or linked perils as their chief worry. These findings were released after the High Court later decided insurers were responsible for the multi‑billion‑dollar loss of aircraft left grounded in Russia since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine. Tom Hughes, director of underwriting at the International Underwriting Association and chair of the aerospace insurers’ union, noted that aviation underwriters are carefully tracking the rise of new technologies and nascent threats. However, when invited to specify the......
Mergers The Commission approved: the purchase of joint control of Greenlink S.à r.l. by Equitix Holdings Limited and Baltic Cable AB ( M.11971) following a phase I review—see also Midday Express the purchase of joint control of the Port of Nigg business by Mitsui and Co. Europe Ltd and Mitsui O. S. K.......
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
