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

A potentially exempt transfer (PET) is defined as a transfer of value made by an individual, which apart from section 3A of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984), would be a chargeable transfer. We shall examine each element of this definition as follows: • a ‘chargeable transfer’ is a transfer of value which is made by an individual but is not (by virtue of IHTA 1984, Pt II or any other enactment) an exempt transfer • IHTA 1984, s 3(1) defines a transfer of value as ‘a disposition made by a person…’ IHTA 1984, s 3(2) states that ‘For the purposes of subsection (1) above

6 April 2006, the date the ‘simplified’ pensions tax regime came into force under the Finance Act 2004.

Corporate fraud is any fraud committed against a business. Fraud impacting businesses can be both general frauds that target any and all businesses, or sector specific frauds. The impact of business fraud can be dramatic, particularly for small or medium-sized businesses, where the losses can ruin them. It is important to understand what the threats are and where they come from so you can take action against them. Report Fraud is the UK’s national fraud and internet crime reporting centre. It is the central point of contact for information about fraud and financially motivated internet crime. Its website includes an A-Z list of different types of cybercrime fraud. The Metropolitan Police separately provides helpful information on common types of business fraud and the steps you can take to protect yourself, your staff and your business—see: Met Police: Advice and information—Business fraud. This Practice Note contains details of frauds most relevant to and likely to affect businesses. It is taken from information published by various sources, including Report Fraud, the Met Police and the National Crime

This Practice Note is intended as a quick guide that outlines the main cyber threats commercial organisations face, and identifies some top tips for organisations in defending themselves. It should be read in conjunction with Practice Notes: Cybercrime prevention and Cybercrime incident management and the Cybersecurity subtopic generally. Threat What is it? Best defence/top tips Advanced persistent threat (APT) Attackers gain unauthorised access to a system and remain undetected for a prolonged period of time. They may carry out unauthorised transfers of sensitive data.Even when they are detected, they may leave several ‘backdoors’ open so they can return. Ensure user awareness of the risk and of basic account security procedures—see Precedent: Cybercrime awareness campaign.Use firewalls to inspect and filter traffic.Use antivirus software.Remember: protective software needs frequent updating so that it keeps up with the latest techniques cyber criminals use. Botnet Collection of infected computers remotely controlled by a hacker.The hacker can share or sell access to the computers to other cyber criminals to be used to distribute spam or overload