ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. In October 2013, the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey each signed inter-governmental agreements (IGAs) with the UK to implement the automatic exchange of tax information. These agreements are sometimes referred to as ‘UK FATCA’ as they closely follow the disclosure provisions and timetable of the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. Under the IGAs, financial institutions in the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey are required automatically to report financial information on UK resident individuals, partnerships and companies to HMRC from January 2015. Information for the 2014 and 2015 calendar years must be reported by 30 September 2016 and, from then on, reporting is due within nine months of the end of the relevant calendar year. These agreements are due to be replaced by the Common Reporting Standard. See Practice Note: Automatic exchange of information—the Common Reporting Standard: a summary—Automatic exchange of information in the British Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories. The Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey disclosure facilities

The Crown Estate in collaboration with the Crown Estate Scotland has launched the Marine Energy Taskforce (MET), to develop a 12-month roadmap for unlocking UK’s marine energy potential. The initiative will focus on site development, financing, innovation, and supply chain growth, addressing the vast opportunities presented by over 25 gigawatts (GW) of accessible wave energy and 11GW of tidal stream energy, with marine projects currently involving over 80% UK supply chain content. The initiative is part of a broader effort to break down barriers, unlock investment and stimulate coastal community growth in the clean energy sector. A report by the University of Edinburgh highlighted the potential economic benefits, estimating a £50bn contribution to the economy and the creation of over 90,000 jobs by leading the global marine energy market.

The Crown Estate has announced its first major partnership under the Crown Estate Act 2025, entering into a £24bn joint venture with Lendlease. The partnership, enabled by the Act's expanded investment powers, will develop commercial and residential projects across the UK including 26,000 homes and 10m square feet of workspace. The venture represents the first significant implementation of the Crown Estate's new statutory authority to undertake large-scale property development partnerships, marking a substantial shift in its operational scope under the 2025 legislation.

The role of the Crown Estate In many jurisdictions, the licensing of offshore activity is dealt with by the state or by a single state body or authority which grants licenses for offshore renewables activity. The UK system splits out the statutory consenting process from the leasing process. A developer must obtain a statutory consent for its scheme through the relevant application process (for offshore wind projects of any scale this will be a Development Consent Order (DCO)) and must separately secure a Crown Estate lease. This is consistent with the position onshore where a developer would need to secure the land rights for its scheme from the relevant landowner and separately secure a planning permission (or similar consent). The role of the Crown Estate is as a landowner which actively manages its estate, including its offshore and marine interests (which are described in detail below). It is a body corporate established by statute and has certain statutory duties set out in the Crown Estate Act 1961, including duties to maintain and enhance the value of

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 12 July 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into a cartel concerning sales of metal cans and closures in Germany (AT.40522). Latest development On 12 July 2022, the Commission fined Crown and Silgan a total of €31.5m for breaching Article 101 TFEU by unlawfully exchanging sensitive business information and co-ordinating their commercial strategies in relation to the sales of metal cans and closures in Germany. Parties • Crown Cork & Seal Deutschland Holdings GmbH and Crown Holdings Inc (together, Crown)• Silgan Holdings Austria GmbH, Silgan Holdings Inc., Silgan International Holdings B.V., Silgan Metal Packaging Distribution GmbH, and Silgan White Cap Manufacturing GmbH (together, Silgan) Background The Commission's investigation started upon request of the German Competition Authority (Bundeskartellamt). Following an initial investigation, the Bundeskartellamt referred the case to the Commission as the German law applicable at the time did not

Public Law analysis: A decision by National Saving and Investments, a Crown body, to revoke its Welsh language scheme was held to be unlawful on a judicial review brought by the Welsh Language Commissioner. Although the power implied into the Welsh Language Act 1993 (WLA 1993) for a Crown body to adopt such a scheme also carried with it an implied power for that body to withdraw or revoke the scheme as a matter of statutory interpretation, a failure to consult the Commissioner contravened the Commissioner’s legitimate procedural expectation that she would be consulted in respect of any proposed change. Written by Martin Jones, Head of Regulatory at Hugh James.

A Crown copyright work is a work made by Her Majesty or by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his or her duties, which will qualify for copyright protection and Her Majesty is the first owner of any copyright in the work.

Historical and policy context Crown copyright protection was introduced to stop the piracy of government publications, such as ordnance maps, during the 19th century. Statutory Crown copyright started with the Copyright Act 1911, and established Crown copyright in government works. It was accepted that the general taxpayer should be protected against the commercial interests of a few who would obtain private profit by unrestricted freedom to produce 'official matter'. The legend 'Crown copyright reserved' was first used in 1912. Under the transparency agenda of the 2010–15 Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government, there was a recognised need to make government more open, in order to: • strengthen public accountability • support public service improvement by generating more comparative data and increasing user choice, and • stimulate economic growth by helping third parties develop products and services based on public information Given the government promotion of open data and transparency, the use and re-use of Crown copyright material is encouraged, and for this reason the Open Government Licence was developed. See Practice Note: Open Government Licence. What

The term used to describe an employee who is a servant of the crown, such as a civil servant.

The Crown can use a patent, under a form of compulsory licence, where the use is for the services of the Crown.

Financial Services analysis: On 27 September 2024, Mr Justice Foxton handed down his judgment in which the lead claimants obtained a significant victory in a complex, long running fraud group action claim arising out of a multi-million-pound property investment scheme. The lead claimants were successful in their claims for deceit and unlawful means conspiracy. The lead claimants also obtained a declaration that certain investments were unenforceable under section 26 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000) on the basis that they constituted unregulated collective investment schemes. It was the first step in the claimants obtaining redress from the defendants. The judgment, which followed a ten-week trial in the Commercial Court, provides an interesting commentary on deceit and unlawful means conspiracy in the context of fraudulent misrepresentation and FSMA 2000. The judgment also considers a number of practical issues relating to witness evidence and disclosure that litigants must consider when approaching complicated disputes involving fraud. Written by Meera Solanki, associate and Trowers & Hamlins.

IP analysis: The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by Dairy UK Ltd and reinstated a declaration made by the UK Intellectual Property Office that Oatly AB's trade mark ‘POST MILK GENERATION’ was invalidly registered for oat-based goods. The court of appeal followed the ruling in VSW v TofuTown,and held that trade marks would fall within the definition of ‘designation’ under Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 (the ‘Regulation’) on labelling of agricultural products. Both the Regulation and VSW v TofuTown being assimilated law pursuant to the Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products Framework (Miscellaneous Amendments, etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The trade mark ‘POST MILK GENERATION’ containing the term ‘milk’ shall be used exclusively for dairy products derived from animals. The court found that the trade mark was not of such a nature as to deceive the public, however, it failed to describe any characteristic of the oat-based products in question and was invalidly registered. Written by Andrew Rigden Green, partner, head of International Arbitration at Stephenson Harwood (Hong Kong).