Where a public electronic communications network is connected to a customer’s network or apparatus (at the Network Terminating Point) the network and the customers system must each be able to understand the technical operation of the other in order for services to inter-operate across the connection boundary. The customers system and the network must both provide an interface at the point of connection and only where these interfaces are matched will there be interoperability. The technical characteristics that allow for that understanding is the customer-network interface.

Allows roamed customers to access the value added services of their home network, even if the visited network does not support those services.

This Practice Note provides practical guidance on how to classify a product in the Harmonised System nomenclature. It provides guidance on the sections, chapters, headings and sub-headings. It also provides guidance n the general rules for interpretation of the Harmonised System nomenclature. A step-by-step guidance is provide for clarifying a product. Introduction All goods are classified. When a good is classified it is generally referred to as a customs or tariff classification. All goods are classified according to the Harmonised System (HS) nomenclature code. The HS code is defined by the World Customs Organization (WCO). It allows for all goods to be classified uniformly. This allows all World Trade Organization (WTO) Member States, of which there are some 166, and some non-Member States to trade uniformly with one another. Customs classification facilitates trade as all goods are classified via the same rules. This ensures that, for example, a fresh peach (HS 080930) is not classified as a preserved peach (HS 200870). This is important as the tariff classification of a product determines: • the relevant customs duty payable on importation

This Practice Note provides practical guidance on the customs procedures and trade facilitation commitments applied by Australia and the United Kingdom under the Australia and United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement (Aus-UK FTA). Introduction As a free trade agreement, Aus-UK FTA not only regulates tariffs on goods traded between these two parties, but it also addresses other aspects that are required to trade in goods or that may be regarded as non-tariff barriers to trade. This includes: • rules of origin. For guidance on rules of origin under the Aus-UK FTA, see Practice Note: Rules of origin of the Aus-UK FTA. For guidance on claiming origin under the Aus-UK FTA, see Practice Note: How to claim preference under the Aus-UK FTA • technical barriers to trade. For guidance on technical barriers to trade under the Aus-UK FTA, see Practice Note: Technical barriers to trade under the Aus-UK FTA • sanitary and phytosanitary measure. For guidance on sanitary and phytosanitary measures under the Aus-UK FTA, see Practice Note: Sanitary and phytosanitary measures under the Aus-UK

Cy-près doctrine describes the court’s power in charity law to redirect charitable gifts or trusts that cannot be carried out exactly as intended, so they are applied “as near as possible” to the donor’s original charitable purpose. It is typically engaged where a charitable purpose is impossible, impracticable, ineffective or has failed (for example, a charity has ceased to exist or its purposes have become obsolete).In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the doctrine is principally governed by charity legislation (including the Charities Act 2011 and the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008) and developed through case law. In Ireland, it is reflected in the Charities Act 2009 and earlier equitable principles. Scottish charity law recognises a broadly similar concept, applied by the Court of Session and the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator under the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005.In practice, the cy-près doctrine is central to charity restructuring, schemes, mergers and modernisation of outdated charitable purposes, allowing variation of trusts or bequests while respecting donor intent and maintaining exclusively charitable application of assets.

Where a settlor or testator had expressed a general intention to devote property to charity, and the manner in which he wished that intention to be carried out was impossible or impracticable, the court could direct the property to be applied cy-près, that is, as nearly as possible to the manner specified.

Private Client analysis: The Court of Appeal has given important guidance about the cy-près doctrine, in a case concerning a £600m trust fund with an unusual history. In 1928, a private donor settled a trust fund to be applied eventually to repay the National Debt. The ‘National Fund’ has since accumulated, but so has the National Debt. Experts agreed that the likelihood of the fund ever being large enough to discharge the National Debt is ‘vanishingly small’. The Attorney General issued proceedings seeking immediate application of the fund to reduce the National Debt. The trustee, arguing that such a reduction would be negligible, presented an alternative scheme, whereby the fund would be applied to make grants for general charitable purposes in the UK. The Court of Appeal found for the Attorney General. Written by Harmish Mehta, pupil barrister, and Daniel Burton, barrister both at Radcliffe Chambers.

Law360, London: The cyber insurance market is expected to more than double by 2030 at an annual growth rate of over 10% despite slow growth since 2023, German multinational reinsurance company Munich Re said on 4 April 2025.

What is cyber insurance? Cyber insurance has evolved rapidly from a narrow coverage aimed at liabilities anticipated as a result of the introduction of the Californian Data Security Notification Law passed in 2002, to a sophisticated product offering a blend of first and third party coverage, aimed primarily at helping insureds deal with cyberattacks and indemnifying them against resulting first-party losses and liability exposure. There is no single definition of cyber risk. For insurance purposes, it is commonly regarded as the risk of harm, loss or legal liability resulting from damage or unauthorised access to information systems. Common causes of loss include both accidental losses (eg physical damage to equipment hosting data, unavailability of cloud services or utilities, or system misconfiguration) and deliberate attacks (eg ransomware, business email compromise, distributed denial-of-service attack). These may lead to a range of significant incident response and remediation costs and expenses; first party loss; third party liabilities and the cost of responding to regulatory investigations. Coverage available As a relatively new class of business, there

Law360: The global IT outage that disrupted air travel, financial institutions and thousands of businesses on 19 July 2024 could result in billions of dollars of losses and potentially major claims against insurance companies, analysts are warning.

Commercial analysis: Adidas, The North Face, Cartier and Victoria's Secret are the most recent names to join the ranks of retailers—Marks & Spencer, Harrods, and the Co-op—to be hit by cyber-attacks in recent months. Rich in customer data, with significant resources and a strong reputation to protect, a large retailer is an attractive target for cyber criminals. Complex digital supply chains also increase the potential entry points for attackers—the attacks on Adidas and Marks & Spencer emanated from supply chain vulnerabilities. For businesses in the retail sector (and beyond) that are sensibly reviewing and reinforcing their cyber readiness plans, these recent attacks demonstrate the importance of managing cyber risks across your supply chain—from cloud service providers, POS system providers, app suppliers, to IT and customer service helpdesks. Louisa Chambers, head of technology & commercial transactions, James Longster, partner, and Helen Reddish, knowledge counsel, set out five tips to help businesses avoid and manage cyber-attacks.

Introduction to cyber security and why it’s important for pension schemes Cyber risk is one of the greatest risks for the pensions industry today. Cyber incidents affect all organisations—from the companies supplying services to pension schemes to pension trustee boards themselves. It is not a question of if but rather when an organisation will experience an incident of some kind. Cyber preparedness can make a huge difference in the size and scale of an incident and the impact it has on an organisation. It is important, and legally necessary, for the pensions industry to understand and manage cyber risk to minimise the risk of cyber incidents and be able to deal with them when they occur. Many pension schemes outsource operations to third-party providers, eg benefit administration. Cyber security is just as important for the trustee as it is for any of the suppliers as trustees are ultimately responsible for the data under trust law, even if the incident occurs at the supplier level. The Pensions Regulator (TPR) expects trustees