Notification by a member to their pension scheme of how they wish their lump sum death benefits to be paid.

In the context of investment treaty arbitration, expropriation occurs when a state has taken a foreign investor’s property for which compensation is required.

A definition of expropriation In the context of investment treaty arbitration, expropriation occurs when a state has taken a foreign investor’s property for which compensation is required. One of the core protections provided by nearly all bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and multilateral investment treaties (MITs) is the protection against expropriation (or nationalisation) without adequate compensation. However, the language used in treaties often provides little express guidance on what specifically is understood to constitute expropriation. As a result, many investment treaty arbitration tribunals have grappled with defining the limits of what constitutes a 'taking' of property and the minimum requirements of what constitutes 'adequate' compensation. The task of providing a clear definition is further complicated by the fact that the provisions found in BITs are similar, but not identical. These subtle drafting differences have become the focus of detailed analysis in a number of investment treaty awards. This Practice Note will use the UK Model BIT to explore these issues in further detail. Practice Notes: Investment treaty arbitration—an introduction and Protections for foreign investors and investment treaty arbitration

IP analysis: The Patents Court has held that a UK and European patent for an extendable hose are invalid for lack of inventive step over a US patent application, McDonald. However, had the patents been valid, Hozelock’s expandable garden hoses, the Superhoze 1 and Superhoze 2, would have infringed them.

Where collective licensing takes place, relevant licensing bodies tend to represent the majority of rights holders in the sector. An Extended Collective Licensing scheme is one where a relevant licensing body, subject to certain safeguards, is authorised to license specified copyright works on behalf of all rights holders in its sector (including non-members), and not just members who have given specific permission for it to act.

[Insert details of proceedings] Extended Disclosure

Environment analysis: As of 1 January 2025, there are two new sets of guidance on electrical waste of which to be aware, as well as changes to Extended Producer Responsibility. Dr Anna Willetts, partner at Gunnercooke, explains the new guidance documents, requirements, and implications for the industry.

This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Civil restraint orders which deals with general information on civil restraint orders (CROs) that is common to all types of CRO. Also see Practice Notes: Limited civil restraint orders, General civil restraint orders and Civil proceedings orders against vexatious litigants for information on other orders that can be made against vexatious litigants. What is an extended civil restraint order (ECRO)? An extended civil restraint order (ECRO) may be made where a party has persistently issued claims or made applications which are ‘totally without merit’ (CPR PD 3C, para 3.1). It prevents the party from making further applications or claims in specified courts which relate to the matters being dealt with in the current proceedings, without the prior permission of the court (CPR PD 3C, para 3.2). The Court of Appeal has indicated that the court should be more willing to make ECROs to curb the increasing nuisance caused by vexatious litigants as per Lord Phillips in Bhamjee v Forsdick (No 2). An example of

This Practice Note explains extended civil restraint orders (ECROs). It covers the effect of such orders and the consequences of any breach. It also explains how to make an application using the procedure under Part 18 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), the duration and extension of such orders and applications for permission. Introduction An ECRO can be made where a party has persistently made applications that are totally without merit, meaning ‘bound to fail’. The precise boundaries of ‘totally without merit’ have received considerable attention in the context of applications for judicial review. In the context of orders made under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), SI 1998/3132 ‘persistently’ is taken to mean having made at least three earlier claims or applications that were totally without merit. An ECRO can be made by a judge of High Court level or above, a Designated Family Judge (DFJ) or a deputy DFJ. Effect of ECRO Where the court makes an ECRO, the party against which the order is made: • will be restrained from making

Immigration analysis: From 1 October 2026 the scope of the existing right to work civil penalty regime will be significantly extended, so as to incorporate certain other work arrangements beyond the traditional employment relationship, and to extend potential liability up contractual chains. In this context, engaging persons under workers contracts, sub-contractors, and via online matching services and substitution arrangements, will be treated as ‘employing’ them and therefore will be caught within the extended civil penalty regime. James Lamont, associate solicitor at Vanessa Ganguin Immigration Law, examines how the new arrangements may operate in practice.

Law360: The government's plan to mandate right to work checks on self-employed gig economy workers is unlikely to trouble giants such as Deliveroo and Uber Eats, but the change will create confusion and legal uncertainty for smaller companies, lawyers predict.

Coronavirus (COVID-19): The COVID-19 Clinical Negligence Protocol (2020) (last updated in June 2021) was created to adapt clinical negligence claims handling and litigation processes during the coronavirus (COVID-19) situation. The protocol covered limitation and extensions of time, communication, service, medical examinations, exchange of evidence, interim payments, settlement meetings and mediations, BACS payments, costs budgeting and hearings (including adjournments). This Protocol was superseded with effect from 27 August 2024 by the Clinical Negligence Claims Agreement 2024 which builds on the previous Protocol with various practices now adopted into everyday claims management. The new Agreement is not contractually binding but places an emphasis on collaborative working between the parties. The limitation period Section 11 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) provides that the limitation period in personal injury and clinical negligence cases is three years from the date the cause of action accrued, or the date of knowledge (for the purposes of LA 1980, s 14) of the injured person, if later. If the claimant is a minor, the three-year