Habitual residence should be given the same meaning in all domestic statutes, except where a specific statutory definition is provided. The concept has a community-defined meaning under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980, and other international conventions, and must be interpreted in those instances in accordance with the community jurisprudence. Habitual residence has been interpreted differently for the purposes of divorce, legal separation, and marriage annulment (applying a centre of interest test), and in the context of parental responsibility (applying a degree of integration test). A person cannot be habitually resident in more than one country at the same time. Habitual residence is therefore highly fact-specific and not a legal concept such as domicile. Habitual residence is to be contrasted with residence. A person may be resident in more than one place at a time, but not habitually resident in more than one place at any one time.

What is a hackathon? A ‘hackathon’ is typically a 12–48-hour event where cross-functional teams of coders, developers, strategists, data scientists, subject-matter experts and innovators collaborate to intensively solve a challenge in a condensed timeframe. The goal is to develop new ideas, tools or platforms; often culminating in a working prototype or conceptual pitch Hackathons have historical roots in tech culture. The first official hackathon occurred in 1999 in Calgary, but informal collaboration events date back to groups like the Homebrew Computer Group, in the 1970s, where the first Apple computer was introduced. Hackathons today span diverse industries and objectives and not all are tech orientated. One of the most inspiring hackathons run by the author was a game jam (a game development focussed hackathon), whose aim was to accelerate cures for cancer by gamifying cancer data analysis; producing scientifically accurate results thanks to water tight algorithms. The principles and format of hackathons remain broadly the same regardless of the subject matter. In the legal sector, they have gained traction as a tool for innovation, access to justice, and

Corporate Crime analysis: International legal cooperation and human rights concerns were weighed against one another in a recent decision that computer hacker and activist Lauri Love should not be extradited to face trial in the USA. Gavin Irwin, barrister at 2 Hare Court, outlines what this means for a trial of Love in the UK, and the use of the forum bar.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has reported that Adrian Kwiatkowski has been jailed after being found to have stolen unreleased music from famous musicians and sold it in exchange for cryptocurrency. According to the CPS, Kwiatkowski offered to sell two unreleased songs by Ed Sheeran and 12 unreleased songs by Lil Uzi Vert on illegal web sites in exchange for bitcoin after hacking the performers’ digital accounts. A search of the defendant’s laptop uncovered 565 audio files. Kwiatkowski pleaded guilty to three charges of unauthorised access to computer material, 14 charges of making for sale an article infringing copyright, one charge of converting criminal property and two charges of possession of criminal property. He also admitted receiving bitcoin cryptocurrency for the songs. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison at Ipswich Crown Court.

'Hacking' is unauthorised access to computer material.

Narration of the words and deeds of the Prophet Mohammed.

Family analysis: The judgment is a helpful illustration of how the Family Court at first instance is applying Hadkinson principles after recent development in the senior courts. General enforcement applications (made via the D50K form) regarding maintenance arrears are in practice often met with downward variation or discharge applications in reply. While not itself a method of enforcement (per Assoun v Assoun (No 1) [2017] EWCA Civ 21 at para [3]), a Hadkinson order (where the court refuses to hear from a person who has not complied with obligations under a previous order until that person purges their contempt) is nonetheless a useful and flexible case management order that (when made) serves to focus minds on the underlying non-compliance of the debtor ex-spouse, typically the payment forthwith of the maintenance arrears as a prerequisite to the variation application being allowed to continue. This, along with the addition of a number of costs orders made against the respondent ex-husband to the terms of the Hadkinson order, is precisely what happened in the judgment. In total, the husband was ordered to pay £93,774.22 as a pre-condition to being heard on his variation application (para [31]). Also of note to practitioners will be the district judge’s willingness to equate the creditor ex-spouse’s position regarding unpaid maintenance (in the appropriate case) to being similar to an unpaid legal services order insofar as it may be seen to deprive such an individual of access to suitable legal representation (para [25]). David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis (who were instructed by the wife), examines the issues.

The court has discretion to refuse to hear, or to impose conditions on, a person who is in contempt and has not purged their contempt. This is known as a Hadkinson order. On considering an application for such an order the court will consider whether the respondent is in contempt, whether there is there any impediment to justice, and if there is any other effective means of securing compliance with the court's orders. The court will also consider whether it should exercise its discretion to impose conditions, having regard to whether the contempt is wilful, and if so, what conditions would be proportionate. Such an order is a remedy of last resort and exercised judicially, sparingly and proportionately. The court must make a proper investigation to produce a fair and accurate judgment, as to restrict one party from participating may potentially to lead to injustice. An application for a Hadkinson order is made under the FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 18 procedure (per Assoun v Assoun).

Family analysis: The court was concerned with the failure of one party, the husband, to comply with a legal services payment order (LSPO) made in favour of another party, the wife, in order to fund her representation on appeals made by the husband and the second respondent (IBB). The husband and IBB appealed a first instance decision in a financial relief matter and the wife secured a LSPO against the husband for representation during the appeal proceedings. The husband did not comply with that order and the wife applied for an unless order or Hadkinson order to be made to enforce the LSPO. The court declined to make an unless order as it was disproportionate to immediately dismiss the husband’s claim. The court did make a Hadkinson order (per Hadkinson v Hadkinson), which was considered more proportionate and the conditions in de Gaffori v de Gaffori for making such an order were satisfied. Anastasia Gilfillan, barrister, and Emily Lennon, pupil, at 1 Hare Court, consider the decision.

IP analysis: The Patents Court rejected Pfizer’s revocation action against uniQure’s patent EP(UK) 3,581,650 (EP 650) which protects a ‘Factor IX polypeptide mutant and a method for its production’ and forms the basis for uniQure’s haemophilia drug ‘Hemgenix’. Consequently, Pfizer may not currently launch its own haemophilia gene therapy drug ‘Beqvez’ (approved by the European Medicines Agency on 24 July 2024) in the UK, but has indicated that it intends to appeal the decision. Pfizer, while admitting infringement should EP 650 be found valid, sought to argue that EP 650 was invalid. Pfizer’s case was that the specific amino acid substitution used in EP 650 was obvious and lacked an inventive step over a single piece of prior art. In reaching its findings, the Court was strongly influenced by ‘secondary evidence’ relating to what real world research teams were doing at the relevant time and was somewhat critical of Pfizer’s experts. Written by Fergus Brown associate, solicitor and Dan Byrne partner, barrister at Venner Shipley LLP.

This Practice Note considers how the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005 which contains regimes for determining court jurisdiction as well as rules for recognition and enforcement of judgments will apply in the UK following the end of the Brexit implementation period from the perspective of both the UK and the EU Member States. The convention is specific to exclusive choice of court agreements. Definitions This Practice Note uses the following definitions: • Hague Convention—Convention on Choice of Court Agreements concluded on 30 June 2005 at The Hague • ECA 1972—European Communities Act 1972 • EU(W)A 2018—European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 • EU(WA)A 2020—European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 • exit day—is defined in EU(W)A 2018, s 20 • implementation period—is defined in EU(WA)A 2020, s 1. ‘Implementation period’ is the UK’s preferred term. The EU’s preferred term for this period is the ‘transition period’. The two terms are used interchangeably in this Practice Note depending on the underlying reference cited • IP completion day—is defined

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has published a notification pursuant to Article 34 of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. The notification highlights that the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements will enter into force for the Republic of Albania on 1 October 2024.