Free-standing additional voluntary contribution scheme (FSAVCS) is established by a pension provider or the trustees of an approved centralised scheme for non-associated employers to which the employer does not contribute and which provides benefits additional to those provided by a scheme to which the employer does contribute.

Television or radio programmes broadcast to any person with appropriate receiving equipment, without charge or subscription.

A television service which can be received in a given area without charge to the viewer. Some free-to-air services may be broadcast in scrambled form in order to limit access to viewers in a specific geographic area. Other free-to-air services may be broadcast in the clear ie unscrambled.

[Insert the correspondence address, including postcode, of the person making the Freedom of Information request] [Direct communications unit 2 Marsham Street London SW1P

Freedom of disposition describes a person’s ability to choose who receives their property on death, usually by making a will, and to make inter vivos gifts as they wish. In practice, it refers to the general principle that owners are free to dispose of their assets, subject to statutory and common law limits.Across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, the concept is recognised but not exhaustively defined in legislation; it is a descriptive term used in succession law, trusts and estate planning.Key restrictions include forced heirship–style rules and family protection provisions. In Scotland, legal rights for surviving spouses, civil partners and children significantly qualify testamentary freedom. In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) legislation allows the court to vary dispositions that fail to make reasonable financial provision. In Ireland, the Succession Act 1965 confers fixed rights on spouses and potential provision for children.Freedom of disposition underpins advice on wills, trusts, lifetime gifting, tax planning, and challenges to estates, and is central when assessing the validity and effect of testamentary and donative intentions.

Information Law analysis: This judgment concerned a successful application for an interim injunction to prevent a party using confidential information. Among other things, there were arguments made about the relevance of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) and a party’s right to freedom of expression in relation to an injunction limiting the use of confidential information. It also considered the impact of a clause dealing with the parties’ entitlement to an injunction on the court’s application of the test in American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396. Written by Nicole Bollard, Barrister at 3PB Barristers

EU Law analysis: The Court of Justice held that freedom of expression may constitute ‘due cause’ for use of a reputed trade mark, but merely invoking that freedom is insufficient. The user must identify specific grounds connected with freedom of expression and show that they take precedence over the trade mark proprietor’s rights and interests. National courts must conduct a fact-sensitive balancing exercise, considering, among other matters, the user’s good faith, any contribution to a public-interest debate, the commercial context and the consequences for the proprietor. Of particular practical significance is whether use may imply the proprietor’s endorsement of a political message. The judgment provides important guidance for brand owners and those using well-known marks for political or other expressive purposes. Produced in partnership with Robert Dickens of White & Case LLP.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Did costs orders infringe newspaper publishers’ rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)? Aidan Wills, barrister at Matrix Chambers, discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in three conjoined appeals (Times Newspapers Ltd v Flood).

IP analysis: IKEA’s trade marks were used within a political presentation. Questions were referred to the Court of Justice regarding whether ‘due cause’ can be used to reconcile the fundamental rights to property and freedom of expression and, if so, what are the relevant factors and their respective weights. A party with ‘due cause’ will not be liable for infringing a trade mark with a reputation even where that use takes unfair advantage, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the mark. Advocate General Szpunar explains that freedom of expression can come into play to demonstrate ‘due cause’. However, to succeed on this argument, the use of the reputed mark will need to be aimed at furthering a debate of public interest, rather than merely seeking to exploit the mark’s reputation to disseminate more broadly materials relating to that debate and/or promote the author of those materials more widely. Written by Robert Dickens, associate at White & Case.

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note is not maintained and is for background information only. STOP PRESS: on 1 August 2023, the Cabinet Office published three new standard contract document collections, containing updated templates and guidance for the government’s Model Services Contract, Mid-Tier Contract and Short Form Contract. Further guidance on the adoption of the standard contracts is provided in a supplementary Procurement Policy Note (PPN). PPN 08/23: Using Standard Contracts applies to central government departments, executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies, which have been urged to adopt the standard contracts ‘as soon as practicable’. Other public sector bodies are also encouraged to apply the approach set out in PPN 08/23, which advises the adoption of the standard contracts for all relevant procurements, instead of using bespoke contracts, unless there is an existing government framework or industry standard contract in place (eg for construction projects). The adoption of the standard contracts, where appropriate, aligns with guidance provided in the Sourcing Playbook. We are reviewing this content accordingly. In the meantime, for more information,

The freedom of information case archive records and summarises key decisions and case law rulings relating to enforcement of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FIA 2000) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR 2004), SI 2004/3391. For background reading on this subject, see: • Freedom of information—overview • Environmental information regulation—overview The archives under each heading below record previous decisions of the following: • Court of Appeal (CA) • Upper Tribunal (UT) As well as setting out key details of each decision, wherever possible, this archive contains links to news analysis and commentary from the Freedom of Information Journal, which is available to Lexis®Library subscribers. For more recent FIA 2000 and EIR 2004 decisions, see Practice Note: Freedom of information case tracker. For more archived decisions, see archived Practice Notes: • Freedom of information case tracker [Archived] • Access to environmental information case tracker [Archived] Court of Appeal (CA) Citation Summary Willow v Information Commissioner & Ministry of Justice [2017] EWCA Civ 1876CA22 November 2017 Factors relevant to determining what

The freedom of information (FOI) case tracker records and summarises key decisions and case law rulings relating to the enforcement of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FIA 2000) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR 2004), SI 2004/3391. For background reading on this subject, see: • Freedom of information—overview • Environmental information regulation—overview The trackers under each heading below highlight recent decisions of the following: • Supreme Court (SC) • Court of Appeal (CA) • Upper Tribunal (UT) As well as setting out key details of each decision, wherever possible this tracker contains links to news analysis and commentary from the Freedom of Information Journal, which is available to Lexis®Library subscribers. For archived decisions, see: • Freedom of information case tracker [Archived] • Access to environmental information case tracker [Archived] Supreme Court (SC) Citation Summary Department for Business and Trade v Information Commissioner [2025] UKSC 27 Supreme Court Endorses Cumulative Public Interest Test under FIA 2000. Abstract: In this case, the Supreme Court held that, under FIA 2000, s 2(2)(b), public authorities may