The fruits of research carried out under a joint agreement and so available to be exploited by parties to the joint venture.

The Foreign Affairs Committee has published its Third Report of Session 2024–26, From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future. The report examines the government’s approach and progress on reset of UK relations with the EU. The report is intended to inform parliamentary consideration of the next phase of UK-EU engagement while negotiations with the EU and internal government work continue. It concludes that while the May 2025 Lancaster House summit provided a foundation for renewed cooperation, the reset lacks overall direction, definition and sustained political drive, with several negotiating strands proceeding without clear timelines, milestones or published strategic objectives. Among its recommendations, the Committee calls for a White Paper on the future of the UK-EU relationship, to clarify the approach and inform objectives for the next UK-EU summit and beyond. It also seeks clarity on the extent and impact of proposed dynamic alignment between UK and EU law and the future role of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The report also calls for early publication of the Dynamic Alignment Bill for implementation of the relevant arrangements so that these may be scrutinised ahead of time.

The Foreign Affairs Committee has concluded that Peter Mandelson was not a ‘fit and proper person’ to serve as UK Ambassador to the US, finding that the appointment was made at speed, without proper process and before appropriate security vetting had been completed. It describes Mandelson’s appointment as ‘disastrous from start to finish’.

The Foreign Affairs Committee has issued a call for evidence regarding the UK's sanctions strategy, with a particular emphasis on parliamentary scrutiny. The inquiry aims to assess whether Parliament should have increased oversight of the UK's sanctions policy, balancing this against the need for swift action. The Committee is examining the current process in comparison to pre-Brexit scrutiny mechanisms, where Parliament had a more formal role. Key areas of focus include the effectiveness of scrutiny, optimal timing for parliamentary consultation, aspects of sanctions policy that would benefit from open discussion, potential concerns about increased scrutiny, and international comparisons. Written evidence submissions are due on 17 March 2025.

The Foreign Affairs Committee has announced a new inquiry examining the extent and effectiveness of the UK's soft power strategy. The inquiry will scrutinise the government's forthcoming soft power strategy, the newly established soft power council and the ongoing soft power review. It aims to assess the UK's soft power strengths, explore measurement methodologies and compare the UK's offering to that of other nations. The Committee is seeking written evidence, due by 3 March 2025, on various aspects of soft power, including its importance, objectives and interaction with foreign policy. This long-running inquiry is expected to produce multiple outputs and continue until the end of the current Parliament, reflecting the complex and multifaceted nature of soft power in the UK's international relations.

The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee has been scrutinising the security vetting of Lord Mandelson in connection with his appointment as British ambassador to the United States. Transcripts and videos of evidence sessions have been published, together with key correspondence.

This Practice Note considers the application of the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 (FLPA 1984). It discusses the general rule that English law is to be automatically applicable when determining limitation periods in proceedings that have an international element. It considers when and how FLPA 1984 is applied in practice and explains exceptions under the Act such as the public policy and undue hardship exceptions. It also explains how sections 1, 2 and 4 of the Act may be disapplied under Article 8. This area was heavily impacted by the UK leaving the EU. For guidance, see Practice Note: Applicable law—a guide for dispute resolution practitioners. Note: the courts of England and Wales are referred to as the English courts and the laws of England and Wales as English law in this Practice Note for reasons of brevity. For general guidance on limitation periods under English law, see: Limitation—overview. Note: section 1A of the Act is omitted. This section, which previously dealt with the extension of time limits in certain cases in which a cross-border

This Practice Note considers the application of the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 (FLPA 1984) to overseas armed forces tort actions. It explains when FLPA 1984, s 1ZA applies, its effect, the meaning of an overseas armed forces tort action and the circumstances in which the six-year period is modified. FLPA 1984, s 1ZA restricts the application of foreign limitation law in such actions and was inserted by the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 (OO(SPV)A 2021). It came into force on 30 June 2021 under the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 (Commencement) Regulations 2021, SI 2021/678. For general guidance on the FLPA 1984, see Practice Note: Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984. Temporal scope of FLPA 1984, s 1ZA FLPA 1984, s 7(3A) expressly provides that FLPA 1984, s 1ZA applies to an action commenced in England and Wales on or after 30 June 2021, whenever the events to which the action relates took place. Accordingly, the provision may apply even where the underlying events occurred

Arbitration analysis: The High Court of Australia considered whether India’s ratification, without more, of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (‘New York Convention’) constituted a waiver of foreign State immunity from jurisdiction, or submission to jurisdiction, in proceedings in Australian courts to recognise and enforce a foreign arbitral award against India. The High Court held unanimously that it did not. The High Court held that any waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unmistakable. It must be derived from the express words of the agreement, including necessary implications from those words. The High Court strongly rejected any analogy between the ICSID Convention and the New York Convention in this regard, finding that ‘At every point, the asserted analogy fails’. Written by Marina Kofman, principal at Kofman Arbitration.

Background The Foreign Subsidy Regulation (FSR) was proposed by the European Commission (Commission) on 5 May 2021. Following the ordinary legislative procedure, the final text of the FSR was adopted on 10 November 2022 by the European Parliament and on 28 November 2022 by the European Council. The FSR The aim of the FSR is to address distortions to the EU’s internal market caused by subsidies granted by non-EU countries (foreign subsidies) to companies active in the EU. According to the Commission, the FSR closes an important ‘regulatory gap’, as such foreign subsidies have escaped its control thus far, whilst subsidies granted by EU Member States are subject to stringent EU State aid rules. In contrast to foreign direct investment (FDI) rules (which remain within the competency of Member States), the Commission will be the sole enforcer of the FSR. Where a foreign subsidy is found to distort the internal market, the Commission can impose wide-ranging redressive measures and commitments to address their effects. The FSR introduces three tools: • A notification-based tool to investigate

Law360, London: On 21 November 2023, the UK Supreme Court handed down its decision in Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Fisher on the scope of the UK’s transfer of assets abroad (TOAA code) finding unanimously for the taxpayers on every point.

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: On 21 May 2026, the government published a policy paper containing plans to make the foreign branch exemption mandatory for UK-resident companies that conduct part of their business through foreign PEs and on 13 July 2026 draft legislation for the measure was published. For accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2027, companies will be required to calculate their total taxable profits on the basis that a foreign branch exemption election has been made. The draft legislation also includes (i) restrictions on the future use of carried-forward losses attributable to foreign PEs from periods before the new regime takes effect and (ii) a targeted anti-avoidance rule (effective from 13 July 2026) to counteract tax advantages arising from arrangements designed to accelerate losses or circumvent the commencement or operation of, or exploit shortcomings in, the new regime. This note only deals with the foreign branch exemption anti-diversion rules that apply to accounting periods commencing on or after 1 January 2013. For a description of the anti-diversion