Insurance & Reinsurance analysis: On an application for third party disclosure made in the Russian aircraft coverage litigation, the High Court held that third party brokers can disclose insurance policies taken out by Russian aircraft lessees to non-Russian lessors without offending the sanctions regime restricting the provision of financial and brokering services with Russian connections. Mr Justice Butcher’s persuasive but not definitive judgment provides aircraft lessors chasing third party disclosure with obiter authority and useful analysis of the application of the sanctions regime to the voluntary disclosure of Russian aircraft lessees’ insurance policies.

Tax analysis: What changes are being made to the VAT avoidance disclosure rules (VADR) from 1 September 2017? Ray McCann, partner at Joseph Hage Aaronson and vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, and Katy Howard, tax barrister associate, also at JHA, discuss the two sets of draft regulations published on 20 March 2017 and the likely impact on disclosures.

Arbitration analysis: The High Court England and Wales, ordered disclosure of documents relating to an arbitration in Moscow to which the respondent (Edelweiss) was party. Although the applicable arbitral rules imposed confidentiality on the arbitration, (i) there were exceptions to the confidentiality; and (ii) in any event, there was no prospect of criminal prosecution for disclosure. The confidentiality considerations were outweighed by the potential risk to Edelweiss’ assets from an arbitration award, particularly given the policy in favour of enforcement of arbitral awards under the New York Convention. Written by Jennifer Haywood, barrister, arbitrator and mediator at Serle Court.

This Practice Note outlines the requirements on directors to disclose their interests in shares under the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) and the UK Market Abuse Regulation (including the requirements for disclosure of share dealing by directors and other persons discharging managerial responsibilities (PDMRs) of listed companies). This Practice Note does not consider the disclosure obligations of companies. Register of directors' interests in shares—continued relevance for all companies Under the Companies Act 1985, companies were required to maintain a register of directors' interests in shares of the company. Companies no longer need to maintain such a register as there is no equivalent requirement in CA 2006. In practice, however, companies (in particular public companies) are likely to maintain a register of directors' interests to keep track of any notifications made, eg disclosures made by PDMRs under the UK Market Abuse Regulation (see Disclosures by PDMRs under the Market Abuse Regulation below). A company may need to disclose details of directors' interests in certain circumstances (eg in the context of a takeover offer). Maintaining a

In Scotland, there is a duty on the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) to disclose all material which it holds to the defence. This duty to disclose information applies to cases being prosecuted under both summary and solemn procedure. For an explanation of the criminal investigation and prosecution policy in Scotland, see Practice Note: The investigation and prosecution of criminal offences in Scotland. For information on summary procedure in Scottish criminal proceedings, see Practice Note: Summary procedure in Scottish criminal proceedings and Scottish summary criminal procedure—flowchart. For information on solemn procedure in Scottish criminal proceedings, see Practice Note: Solemn procedure in Scottish criminal proceedings and Scottish solemn criminal procedure—flowchart. Background The Crown’s obligation to provide the defence with all material information which it holds stems from the accused’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The parameters of the Crown’s duty of disclosure were first set out in McLeod v HM Advocate. The obligations on the Crown were clarified in a series

Members (and other interested parties) are entitled to information in respect of their scheme.

The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, and the Chief Coroner, Her Honour Judge Alexia Durran, have published a new protocol and good practice model the— 2025 Protocol and Good Practice Model: Disclosure of information between coroners and the Family Court in cases involving fatality which takes effect from 24 March 2025 in cases involving the death of a child or adult where the circumstances of the death may be relevant to, and/or have the potential to inform, the assessment of risk concerning the subject children in family proceedings. The protocol is a guide to best practice for Family Court judges and coroners where there are parallel proceedings. It provides guidance on the flow of information between the two jurisdictions, and on dealing with requests for testing of the deceased to establish paternity. It also explains how Family Court judges and coroners can work together to seek expedited post-mortem examination evidence, in cases where care and welfare decisions for surviving children cannot be made until the cause of the deceased’s death is determined.

This table summarises the key disclosure requirements applicable to trustees of occupational pension schemes before 6 April 2014, under the Occupational Pension Schemes (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 1996, SI 1996/1655. Note that those regulations were repealed with effect from 6 April 2014 and so, are no longer in force. INFORMATION WHEN DISCLOSE? TIME LIMITS SOURCE Scheme's governing documents On request Within two months of request SI 1996/1655, reg 3 Basic scheme information and changes to it —Automatically for new joiners and when changes were made to the scheme —Information also available on request Within one month of the scheme receiving the member's jobholder information (for auto-enrolment purposes) or otherwise within two months of joining—Changes to the scheme had to be notified to all members and beneficiaries within three months —Information

Disclosure of interests and dealings The disclosure of shareholdings and dealings prior to and during a takeover offer is the subject of substantial and overlapping statute and regulation. The Panel on Takeovers and Mergers (Panel) describes such disclosure as necessary to uphold the General Principle in the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (Code) that all parties to an offer must avoid the creation of false markets in the securities of an offeror or offeree. In practice, the requirement to disclose interests and dealings during a takeover bid primarily seeks to deter the practice of stakebuilding, whereby a person accumulates and warehouses, without public disclosure, a significant shareholding in another company. Building a substantial stake in an offeree in this manner may deprive: • the offeree board of appropriate opportunities to prepare a defence or manage their relationship with a new major shareholder • offeree shareholders of the opportunity to receive an appropriate bid premium on the sale of their shares on a change of control • market

Environment analysis: The Information Rights Tribunal has refused an appeal to overturn a decision of the Information Commissioner (ICO) under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FIA 2000) that a legal opinion relating to a controversial planning application should not be disclosed. The ICO had found that disclosure could be refused by Kirklees Council on the basis of Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR 2004), reg 12(5)(b), ie that disclosure would adversely affect the course of justice, the ability to receive a fair trial or the ability of a public authority to conduct an inquiry of a criminal or disciplinary nature. In balancing the presumption in favour of the public interest in disclosure vs. allowing the Council to rely on the exception provided at regulation 12(5)(b), the ICO had taken into account the importance of legal professional privilege; that the legal advice was still relevant to future scenarios; and that other mechanisms for public scrutiny already exist in planning law. The Tribunal broadly agreed. Written by Sarah Ellington, partner at Watson Farley & Williams.

Private Client analysis: This Court of Appeal decision clarifies the approach to non-party access to Court of Protection documents in proceedings conducted under transparency arrangements. Although position statements may constitute court records capable of disclosure, the court emphasised that disclosure is not automatic and requires judicial authorisation. Reaffirming that Court of Protection proceedings remain private by default, even where hearings are held in public, the court held that open justice must be balanced against the Article 8 rights of P and others. The judgment establishes a structured approach to disclosure applications, highlights the importance of proportionality and redaction, and provides significant guidance for practitioners navigating transparency issues in capacity proceedings. Produced in partnership with Lynne Counsell of Addington Chambers.

Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes rules oblige scheme promoters, taxpayers or their advisers to inform HMRC about certain arrangements for avoiding tax.