Private Client analysis: Declarations were sought by NHS Trusts under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) that LV, a 20-year-old woman, lacked mental capacity to conduct proceedings and make decisions about her care and treatment, and that it was lawful and in LV’s best interests to undergo feeding whilst sedated within the Intensive Therapy Unit (ITU). LV was detained and receiving treatment under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MeHA 1983) on an eating disorder unit for anorexia nervosa, which included being restrained and force-fed with a naso-gastric tube. This treatment was not successful as, in summary, LV would regurgitate most, if not all, of the feed meaning that she was losing body weight. The medical evidence demonstrated that absent this step being taken, LV would die within days or weeks. This was an urgent application and there was insufficient time for the Official Solicitor to obtain LV’s wishes and feelings directly. The Official Solicitor had consented to the application after hearing the evidence which included oral evidence from four consultants. Written by Sophie Caseley, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.

EU law analysis: Miryam Boston, Senior Associate of Fieldfisher LLP considers the Court of Justice’s decision on Article 3(1) of the Directive (2001/29/EC) (EU Copyright Directive) regarding the scope of liability for communicating a copyright work to members of the public in Citadines v MPLC Deutschland GmbH (C 723/22). Boston also analyses the Court of Justice’s assessment and provides commentary.

A company subject to an employee ownership trust (EOT) may still grant share options, including in principle enterprise management incentives (EMI) options, company share option plan (CSOP) options and/or save as you earn (SAYE) scheme options, if it satisfies all of the respective relevant statutory conditions. In particular in this context, a company is treated as meeting the independence requirement for EMI purposes if it is subject to an EOT, and shares in a company which is subject to an EOT are eligible shares for CSOP and SAYE purposes. See Practice Notes: EMI—qualifying companies — Independence test, CSOP—qualifying companies and qualifying shares and SAYE—companies which qualify to operate an SAYE scheme. Where a controlling interest in a company is sold to an EOT that meets all of the statutory conditions (referred to in the legislation as the ‘relief requirements’), then certain tax benefits will be available,

Arbitration analysis: This case involved an application to Commercial Court of the City of St Petersburg and Leningrad Region (the ‘Russian Court’) to prohibit continuation of legal proceedings in a foreign court and in the international arbitration, seated outside RF. The claimant, a Russian company, commenced proceedings in the Russian Court against the respondent, a German bank, for breach of contract, despite the existence of the valid ICC arbitration agreement between the parties. The respondent, who commenced an ICC arbitration against the claimant, obtained an anti-suit injunction from the English court. However, the Russian Court proceeded to uphold the claimant’s claim, and, furthermore, awarded the claimant its application for an anti-suit injunction against the respondent, as well as ordered the respondent to pay punitive damages to the claimant in the event of non-compliance with the Russian Court’s order. Written by Irina Tymczyszyn FCIArb, arbitrator and counsel, Tymczyszyn Arbitration.

Arbitration analysis: The Svea Court of Appeal has declared an arbitral award between the Republic of Italy and investors invalid, as it was rendered in an investment dispute between a Member State (Italy) and investors from other Member State (Luxembourg and Denmark) and therefore deemed incompatible with the basic principles of the Swedish legal system. The judgment represents one of the most recent Swedish judgments concerning annulled arbitral awards and upholds previous rulings of the Swedish courts. Written by Andreas Johard, partner in Hammarskiöld’s team for litigation and arbitration, and Omar Cutuna, associate at Hammarskiöld’s team for litigation and arbitration.

Arbitration analysis: The Svea Court of Appeal has declared an arbitral award between the Kingdom of Spain and a Luxenbourg-based venture capital fund invalid, as it was rendered in an investment dispute between a Member State (Spain) and an investor from another Member State (Luxembourg) and therefore deemed incompatible with the basic principles of the Swedish legal system. The judgment represents the most recent Swedish judgment concerning annulled arbitral awards. However, it is anticipated that further similar judgments will emerge following the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (Court of Justice) rulings in Achmea, Komstroy and PL Holdings. Written by Andreas Johard, partner in Hammarskiöld’s team for litigation and arbitration, and Adam Runestam, associate at Hammarskiöld’s team for litigation and arbitration.

Arbitration analysis: The Svea Court of Appeal has declared invalid an arbitral award between the Kingdom of Spain and five companies, incorporated in Luxembourg, Italy and Denmark, (the ‘Investors’), as it was rendered in an investment dispute between a Member State (Spain) and investors from other Member States (Luxembourg, Italy and Denmark) and, therefore, deemed incompatible with the basic principles of the Swedish legal system (ordre public). The judgment represents one of the most recent rulings from Svea Court of Appeal in a series of intra-EU investment cases in which arbitral awards have been annulled due to incompatibility with Swedish ordre public. It can be noted that the Svea Court of Appeal continues to follow the Court of Justice rulings in Achmea, Komstroy and PL Holdings, and we can therefore expect further similar judgments with the same outcome. Written by Andreas Johard, partner in Hammarskiöld’s team for litigation and arbitration, and Mikaela Grimstig, associate at Hammarskiöld’s team for litigation and arbitration.

Tax analysis: The High Court dismissed the taxpayers’ claim for judicial review of partner payment notices (PPNs) given under schedule 32 to the Finance Act 2014 (FA 2014).

A formal pleading in divorce or dissolution proceedings filed by the Respondent in which he will set out his response to the allegations in the petition and giving reasons why the petition should be rejected.

The number of calls, having left the outgoing side of the exchange, that have been successful in returning an answer signal.

The factual background in response to that set out by the pursuer in their initial writ or summons, and the factual background to the orders sought by the defender.

A passive device designed to radiate and receive electromagnetic energy.