As part of the new measures provided for under Part 3 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, the Domestic Abuse Protection Order (DAPO) pilot commenced on 27 November 2024 initially for one year, in Greater Manchester, Croydon, Bromley and Sutton. The British Transport Police are also able to apply for a DAPO. On 27 November 2024, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the Home office published new DAPO and Domestic Abuse Protection Notice (DAPN) guidance. The guidance provides information on what DAPNs and DAPOs are, how to apply for a DAPO and what it means if a DAPN or DAPO is applied for or made on behalf of a party. The guidance also sets out where a DAPO can be applied for under the pilot. DAPNs and DAPOs are only available if the perpetrator lives in a piloting area. A DAPO application can be made regardless of where the victim of domestic abuse lives, so long as the perpetrator lives in a piloting area.

A German index constituting the largest 30 companies listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange.

Defined benefit (DB) consolidation is the idea of pooling various elements of managing a DB pension scheme (eg liabilities, investments, actuarial services) to create economies of scale and reduce risk. There are multiple models of DB consolidation. One of these models, DB superfunds (also known as DB consolidators), has been the subject of intense scrutiny as the DWP, the Pensions Regulator, the Pension Protection Fund and others decide how to regulate them. The purpose of this Practice Note is to provide an overview of DB consolidation, including information on consolidation models, the development of a regulatory framework for DB superfunds and the definition of DB superfunds. This Practice Note also describes the legal structure of two emerging DB superfunds to the market, the ‘Pensions SuperFund’ and ‘Clara Pensions’. For information on the DWP’s proposed permanent regime for the regulation of DB superfunds, see Practice Note: The DWP’s permanent regime for DB superfunds. For information on the interim regime developed by the Pensions Regulator, pending the development of a permanent regime,

THIS PRACTICE NOTE APPLIES IN RELATION TO SCHEMES THAT WERE CONTRACTED-OUT SALARY-RELATED (COSR) SCHEMES BEFORE 6 APRIL 2016 Contracting-out on a salary-related basis (also known as defined benefit (DB) contracting-out) was abolished on 6 April 2016. Schemes that were contracted-out salary-related (COSR) schemes immediately before that date therefore ceased to be so on that date. However any contracted-out benefits accrued on a salary-related basis during periods of contracted-out employment continue to exist. This Practice Note covers the statutory requirements that were applicable to COSR schemes before 6 April 2016. For information on the DB contracting-out requirements applicable to former COSR schemes on and from 6 April 2016, see Practice Note: Legal regime applicable to Section 9(2B) rights and GMPs from 6 April 2016. Legislative framework before 6 April 2016 Pre-abolition, the various contracting-out requirements in respect of COSR schemes were set out, among other things, in: • Pt III of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (PSA 1993), and • the Occupational Pension Schemes (Contracting out) Regulations, SI 1996/1172 (the Contracting-out Regs) HMRC

Law360: The funding surplus of defined benefit (DB) retirement savings plans rose to £475.5bn at the end of July 2024, according to figures released by the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) on 14 August 2024, even as experts warned of the need to hedge against fresh interest rate cuts.

Law360: Trustees of defined benefit (DB) pension schemes might use data from the next official insurance stress test when they come to decide on buying out their liabilities, experts said on 18 November 2024.

The March 2018 White Paper on defined benefit (DB) pension schemes identified a lack of accountability and clarity on what a good funding strategy is, giving rise to concerns that this could lead to poor scheme funding and investment decision making sometimes focused on the short term. The government therefore announced a package of measures designed to improve the clarity, security and sustainability of DB scheme funding, while retaining the strengths of a flexible scheme-specific approach. The government’s headline change is to set the scheme funding objective in line with a long-term funding objective. Reflecting this, the annual funding statement published by the Pensions Regulator (TPR) in March 2019 also set out TPR’s expectation that trustees and employers of DB schemes should agree a long-term funding target. The package of measures announced consist of: • making legislative reforms through changes to: ◦ primary legislation, namely the Pension Schemes Act 2021 (PSA 2021)—see The Pension Schemes Act 2021, below, and ◦ secondary legislation, namely the Occupational Pension Schemes (Funding and Investment Strategy and Amendment) Regulations

The table sets out the step-by-step process for trustees of occupational pension schemes to follow once they receive a request from a member to transfer defined benefits (DB benefits) or safeguarded-flexible benefits (ie DC benefits with a guaranteed or promised element) to a defined contribution (DC) pension scheme, ie once the member applies for a statement of entitlement (also known as a transfer quote). More specifically, it shows the interaction between the requirements of: • the Pension Schemes Act 1993, s 99(2) • the Occupational Pension Schemes (Transfer Values) Regulations 1996, SI 1996/1847, reg 6 • the Pension Schemes Act 2015 (Transitional Provisions and Appropriate Independent Advice) Regulations 2015, SI 2015/742, regs 6, 8, and • the amendments to the Advice Regulations referred to immediately above introduced by the Pension Schemes Act 2015 (Transitional Provisions and Appropriate Independent Advice) (Amendment) Regulations 2017, SI 2017/717, reg 4, made with effect from 6 April 2018 • the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Conditions for Transfers) Regulations 2021, SI 2021/1237 (Conditions for Transfer Regs) as well as the recommendations

Pensions analysis: In the Pensions Ombudsman determination of Dr R, CAS-53517–H3N1, the Ombudsman rejected a complaint that a scheme wrongly insisted a member take advice before transferring safeguarded rights. The trustees were therefore correct in concluding that a defined benefit (DB) underpin in a defined contribution (DC) plan constituted safeguarded rights and, where these rights are valued over £30,000, required advice to be taken by the member before the trustees may pay a transfer. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.

This checklist will help assess whether a damages-based agreement (DBAs) for employment tribunal matters complies with relevant legislation and regulatory requirements. It can also be used to assess whether a process for employment DBAs meets regulatory requirements. There are separate checklists for general litigation (including PPI claims) and personal injury/clinical negligence. A: General requirements Complete section A for all damages-based agreements (DBAs). If you answer ‘no’ to any question, the proposed DBA may be unenforceable and/or may breach SRA requirements. Requirement Compliant? Additional information Agreement is in writing Yes/No The agreement must be in writing DBA relates to advocacy, litigation or claims management services in an employment matter Yes/No DBAs are permitted only for advocacy, litigation or claims management services. The definition of proceedings includes any sort of proceedings for resolving disputes (and not just proceedings in a court), whether commenced or contemplated.An employment matter is a matter that is or could become the subject of proceedings before an employment tribunal (see Practice Note: Damages-based agreements—employment tribunal matters—What constitutes an ‘employment matter’) The DBA does not

Dispute Resolution analysis: In its judgment handed down on 14 January 2021, the Court of Appeal has unanimously upheld the validity of a Damages Based Agreement (DBA) which included a clause providing that (in the event of early termination of the DBA by the client) the client was liable to pay the solicitors’ time charges at an hourly rate for time spent working on the claim together with the costs of instructing third parties (such as counsel) and other disbursements. Christopher Snell, counsel for the respondent and barrister at New Square Chambers, considers the judgment.

A: General information Matter reference Client name Date of cause of action Type of claim, eg unfair dismissal, discrimination Brief description of claim Is the claim one of several similar claims? B: The opponent/third party Can we identify the opponent/third party? Yes/No Name of opponent/third party Type of entity(eg partnership, PLC, company, individual) Do we have a current address for the opponent/third party? Yes/No/Not known Does the opponent/third party have insurance to pay the damages our client is claiming? Yes/No/Not known Does