For information generally: • on contractual redundancy payments, see Practice Note: Contractual redundancy payments • on maternity leave and pay, see Practice Notes: Maternity leave and Maternity pay • on the special protection available to an employee under the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 (MAPLE 1999), SI 1999/3312, reg 10 where a redundancy situation arises during her maternity leave, see Practice Note: The right to return to work after maternity leave, in particular section: Redundancy during pregnancy or maternity leave Can statutory maternity pay (SMP) be paid as a lump sum? The

Arbitration analysis: The Supreme Court of India in Nagreeka Indcon Products Pvt Ltd v Cargocare Logistics (India) Pvt Ltd held that an arbitration clause providing that disputes ‘can’ be settled by arbitration did not constitute a binding arbitration agreement. The court emphasised that arbitral jurisdiction is founded on clear mutual consent and that permissive wording denotes only a future possibility of arbitration rather than a mandatory obligation. The decision reinforces the importance of precise drafting in dispute resolution clauses and confirms that courts, even at the limited prima facie stage under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, will refuse to compel arbitration where contractual language does not unequivocally evidence a binding intention to arbitrate. Produced in partnership with Shaneen Parikh and Rahul Mantri of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas.

We do not have a Precedent which matches your precise requirements. However, the general rule is that a legacy which does not indicate a specific amount may nonetheless be valid provided that there is a formula or method which clearly identifies the amount of the legacy. In the present case, relevant facts are likely to include: • the date on which the testator of the other estate died • the date of their Will • the names and addresses of the

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: In this case, trustees in bankruptcy successfully obtained judgment under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) against a bankrupt’s former business partner and his son. The court held that John Jones had gifted £3m to his son, Adam Jones, (the gift) with the purpose of keeping the money out of the hands of Mr Hamilton, to whom John Jones owes over £2m following previous litigation in April 2019. The gift was accepted by all parties to be a transaction at undervalue and the main focus of the trial was on John Jones’ purpose in giving the gift. The defendants relied on a deed of gift and John Jones’ financial capacity to satisfy any judgment as evidence negating any IA 1986, s 423 purpose. The judgment also sets out the applicable law on IA 1986, s 423 cases, as distilled in Ethos Solutions Ltd; Purkiss v Kennedy and others, Lord Justice Newey at para [18]. Written by Stefan Ramel, barrister, at Guildhall Chambers, assisted by Jennifer Edwards, pupil barrister at Guildhall Chambers.

IP analysis: In this decision, the Court of Justice’s weighed in on important principles and the EU-wide harmonisation of international copyright law. The Court of Justice confirmed the Advocate General (AG) Szpunar’s opinion that EU Member States do not have any discretion to limit EU copyright protection by applying the material reciprocity test enshrined in the Berne Convention, which provides that works of applied art originating in countries where they are only protected as designs (eg the US) may not, in other signatory countries eg Belgium and the Netherlands), also be granted copyright protection. In this context, the Court of Justice emphasised that a work shall enjoy protection under EU copyright law if it is ‘original’, regardless of its geographic origin within or outside the EU. The Court of Justice’s judgment can be expected to significantly impact the harmonisation of copyright laws within the EU, ensuring broader protection for works of applied art and potentially influencing future legislative developments. Written by Alexander Hofmann, attorney-at-law at Baker McKenzie Austria, and Marlies Kittinger, junior associate at Baker McKenzie Austria.

Local Government analysis: The Upper Tribunal in Kevin Prosser KC v Andrew Ricketts deals with the question of whether barristers’ chambers, comprising barristers’ rooms, clerking rooms, etc, room should be treated as a collective, single unit for the purposes of national non-domestic rates, or whether occupancy of individual rooms, was exclusive to the individual barrister, such that they ought to be separately rated. The Upper Tribunal held that the separate occupation of rooms by individual members of Pump Court Tax Chambers (PCTC), did not mean that they were in rateable occupation of their separate rooms because such did not undermine the joint occupancy arrangement of all members. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Written by Katherine Traynor, barrister at Landmark Chambers.

Construction analysis: The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision on the interpretation of the termination provisions in the Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) Design and Build Contract 2016. The court held that a contractor cannot terminate under clause 8.9.4 for a repeated ‘specified default’ unless it has an accrued right to terminate under clause 8.9.3 (ie, where an earlier specified default had continued for the period for cure). The Supreme Court considered that this interpretation was consistent with the objective, natural meaning of the words of clause 8.9.4—and that, to find otherwise could lead to ‘extreme’ outcomes, enabling the contractor to terminate for relatively slight breaches.

CASE HUB See further, timeline and relevant/related cases Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into a joint venture between Lufthansa, United Airlines and Air Canada on transatlantic routes to/from several EEA airports (the ‘A++ transatlantic joint venture) (Case 40940). Latest developments On 27 February 2025, the Commission announced it had closed its interim measures proceedings against Lufthansa on the basis that not all of the legal conditions for ordering interim measures were met. This comes without prejudice to the ongoing investigation in the main proceedings (see further below). Parties • Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Lufthansa): Lufthansa, headquartered in Germany, is a global full-service carrier with domestic and international operations in passenger and cargo air transport. It operates a network with hubs at Frankfurt, Munich, Brussels, Zurich and Vienna airports. Lufthansa is a member of the A++ transatlantic JV and the Star Alliance. • United Airlines Inc (United Airlines): United Airlines is the largest US airline, formed through the merger of United Airlines and Continental Airlines in 2010. United Airlines operates hubs at Chicago

Although A is intending to apply to be appointed as B’s deputy, this appointment will not provide A with the authority to act as a trustee on B’s behalf in relation to the sale of the property. A separate application should be made under section 36(9) of the Trustee Act 1925 for permission for A and C to appoint A, or in the alternative a third party, D, to act as trustee in B’s place. The court will then consider the application and decide whether to appoint A or, if it considers

This Q&A assumes that: • A, B and C are not in a partnership, and • A makes supplies above the VAT registration limit An option to tax is personal and does not generally bind anyone other than the person who has exercised the option to tax. It is possible for co-owners of a property (including tenants in common) to register and account for VAT separately, in which case they would each need to exercise the option to tax separately (as if only some of them opted, the occupational tenants might need to pay VAT on only part of the rent). A pragmatic solution

We refer you to Q&A: Can a debt in the name of a sole individual be secured by way of a voluntary charge against a property which is jointly owned as tenants in common? Does the other party (not responsible for the debt) have to consent to the charge being registered and do they have to sign

In answering this Q&A, we have made the following assumptions: • A’s Will accurately and fully reflects A’s wishes with respect to the residential property • B had a qualifying interest in possession (QIIP) in the property within the meaning of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984). • B occupied the property at some time as his residence For an introduction to the residence nil rate band (RNRB), also known as the residential nil rate band or the additional threshold, see Practice Note: IHT—residence nil rate band. The RNRB is only available where a qualifying residential interest (QRI) is ‘closely inherited’ on the deceased’s death. It applies to deaths on or