The trust period should be defined in the Will and, in the case of a Will trust, will start from the date of death. For Wills executed after 6 April 2010, the trust period will normally be 125 years from the date of death. The following extract from Tolley’s Administration of Estates might be helpful in defining the administration period and, in the case of trusts established under the Will, explaining when the income and gains from trust property stops being taxed in the hands of

Invitations to attend an interview under caution on a voluntary basis are routine in regulatory crime investigations. Volunteers are defined in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) as a person who, for the purpose of assisting with an investigation, attends a police station voluntarily or at any other place where a constable is present, or, who accompanies a constable to a police station or such other place without having been arrested. Volunteers are entitled to leave at will unless they are placed under arrest and, in accordance with PACE Code C, have specific entitlements whilst they are attending an interview conducted under PACE 1984. For information about voluntary attendance at interviews under caution under PACE 1984, see Practice

It is possible to apply to the court for an order rectifying or amending a decree nisi and/or a decree absolute of divorce It is not possible to use the ‘slip rule’ (the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 29.16) for this purpose in the circumstances described as the rectification involves an error of substance. See Practice Note: Application for decree nisi in divorce (pre-DDSA 2020), in particular the section on ‘Rectification of decrees’. The correct procedure is to apply to the court on notice to

Before serving a notice claiming a right to collective enfranchisement, the qualifying tenants may need to obtain information such as who owns the superior interests in the premises, whether previous notices have been served and so on. Sections 11–12 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) provide qualifying tenants with the right to obtain that necessary information. Duty of the recipient of the Notice under s 11 Where a person has been served with a notice under LRHUDA 1993, s 11 requiring him to give information, or has been required to supply a list of documents, permit inspection, or supply copies, he must comply within 28 days of the notice (LRHUDA 1993, s 11(7)). Sanctions for non-compliance There

STOP PRESS: an amended version of the Technology and Construction Court Guide was published on 13 October 2022. For further information, see News Analysis: Technology and Construction Court Guide—updated October 2022. Content and links to the Technology and Construction Court Guide in Lexis+® UK will be updated shortly. For a PDF comparison (unofficial) version showing the amendments, see: Note: • this Practice Note gives specific guidance on matters proceeding in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) under the provisions set out in CPR 60, CPR PD 60 and the TCC Guide. As these provisions are additional to the general provisions set out elsewhere in the CPR, this Practice Note should be read in conjunction with general guidance on preparing for and attending trial including that in Trial—overview which, in turn, links through to detailed guidance on specific aspects of preparing for and attending trials • shorter and flexible trials schemes—claims started on or after 1 October 2015 in the TCC may be suitable for and/or

Arbitration analysis: The Court of Appeal in The Hague (Court of Appeal) dismissed an appeal by NIOC in which it sought to challenge the Supreme Court’s precedent established in Rosneft v. Yukos, by appealing an exequatur granted to Crescent before the Rotterdam District Court. The Court of Appeal declared NIOC’s appeal inadmissible, holding that there was no reason to depart from the Supreme Court’s established case law on the impossibility to appeal such an exequatur. Written by Hans Biezenaar, senior associate at Houthoff.

Arbitration analysis: On 22 April 2025, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal granted Poland’s request for an order prohibiting a Dutch investor from pursuing a claim for expropriation in London-seated arbitral proceedings administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). The court’s order is immediately enforceable and requires the Dutch investor to cooperate in a joint request to the arbitral tribunal to terminate the ongoing arbitral proceedings within two weeks of the judgment date. A penalty of €100,000 per day will become payable to Poland for every day the Dutch investor fails to comply with this order. The court further declared that the offer to arbitrate contained in the Dutch Polish Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) was invalidated by the Court of Justice decision in Slowakische Republik v Achmea BV Case C- 284-16, and the joint statement of EU Member States on 15 January 2019, which stated that any offer to arbitrate intra-EU investment disputes violates EU law. The court order, effectively blocking an intra-EU investment arbitration, is a first for the Dutch courts. Written by Hetty de Rooij, lecturer and external PhD researcher at Leiden University.

The European Data Protection Board has announced that the Dutch Data Protection Authority (DPA) has fined Clearview AI Inc €30.5m for breaches of various articles of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (EU GDPR). The Dutch DPA found that Clearview processed personal data without a legal basis to do so, in contravention of Article 5(1) of the EU GDPR, processed special category personal data of data subjects within the territory of the Netherlands, contrary to Article 9(1) of the EU GDPR, and failed to respond to two subject access requests, in violation of Article 12(3) of the EU GDPR. The Dutch DPA also imposed four orders subject to a penalty for non-compliance.

The Dutch Data Protection Authority (DPA) has imposed a €290m administrative fine on Uber for transferring EU drivers' personal data to the US without sufficient protection, which breached Articles 44, 46 and 49 of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (EU GDPR). This decision followed an investigation initiated after over 170 French Uber drivers lodged complaints, leading to the discovery of a two-year period where Uber transferred data without proper safeguards. The DPA's findings were influenced by the Court of Justice's 2020 ruling that invalidated the Privacy Shield, highlighting the inadequacy of Uber's data protection measures.

The Dutch Data Protection Authority (AP), in cooperation with the Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL), has fined Uber B.V. and Uber Technologies Inc. €824,990,000 in relation to automated individual decisions concerning drivers on the Uber platform. The enforcement action concerns Article 22 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)), which governs automated individual decision-making. The fine concerns the automatic deactivation of driver accounts for suspected fraud and low customer ratings. The AP considered these to constitute automated individual decisions due to the absence of human intervention in the decision-making process and found that they significantly affected drivers, as blocked accounts prevented them from making rides and generating revenue. The proceedings followed a collective complaint received by CNIL from La Ligue des droits de l'Homme on behalf of more than 170 Uber platform drivers. The AP was competent to conduct the investigation on the basis that Uber's main establishment is in the Netherlands, with CNIL cooperating throughout the procedure under the GDPR one-stop-shop procedure.

The Dutch Supervisory Authority (SA) has imposed a €4.75m fine on Netflix for failing to adequately inform customers about its data processing practices in its privacy statement, violating several General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (EU GDPR), provisions, particularly those under Articles 5, 12, 13, and 15. The decision, made on 26 November 2024, followed an investigation initiated by complaints from an Austrian NGO. The Dutch SA found that Netflix's privacy statement lacked clarity regarding the purposes and the legal basis for data collection and use, the extent of data sharing with third parties, data retention periods, and safeguards for international data transfers. The matter was handled as a cross-border case under the One-Stop-Shop procedure.

Law360: The Supreme Court of the Netherlands has affirmed that a decade-old US$1.3bn arbitral award issued to a satellite communications company can be enforced against a commercial division of India's space agency, despite the award being set aside in India.