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.

Law360, London: Major music publishers already suing Anthropic for copyright infringement filed a second, USD 3 billion claim against the artificial intelligence (AI) company on 29 April 2026, a move they say is necessary to hold Anthropic accountable for 'brazen', newly discovered mass infringement of sheet music and songbooks.

Law360, London: Anthropic PBC has asked a California federal judge to find that its use of materials in which copyright subsists to train its tool Claude is 'transformative' fair use under copyright law, comparing Claude's learning to how humans learn from reading and internalising the themes of various works.

Agreements and concerted practices between two or more undertakings (or associations of undertakings) which may affect trade and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition.

A party may wish to obtain an anti-arbitration injunction where an arbitration has been commenced by a counterparty in breach of an agreed dispute resolution process, for example, by commencing the arbitration in the wrong seat, or where the parties had agreed to refer disputes to the exclusive jurisdiction of specific national courts. This Practice Note considers the approach of the courts of England and Wales (England and English are used for convenience) to the granting of anti-suit relief in this context. For guidance on anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration, see Practice Note: Anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration (England and Wales). The court's jurisdiction to grant an anti-arbitration injunction The court's jurisdiction to grant an anti-arbitration injunction arises from its inherent powers under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981) (Elektrim v Vivendi; Minister of Finance v IPIC) and the jurisdiction under sections 44 and 72 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), as amended by the Arbitration Act 2025 (AA 2025). Generally speaking, the jurisdiction

Arbitration analysis: In G v CNG, Madam Justice Mimmie Chan granted an anti‑arbitration injunction (AAI) restraining CNG from pursuing a new HKIAC arbitration (HKIAC/25187, the ‘25187 Arbitration’). In the 25187 Arbitration, CNG sought to (i) rescind the SPA/SHA (defined below) underlying the parties’ Hong Kong‑seated Original Arbitration (defined below) and (ii) avoid or set aside earlier partial final awards and restrain their enforcement, relying on newly alleged bribery and fraud claims. Her Ladyship also dismissed CNG’s stay summonses seeking to stay execution of Hong Kong enforcement orders granting leave to enforce Partial Final Award 1 (PFA1) and Partial Final Award 3 (PFA3). The decision upholds the finality of arbitral awards. It reaffirms that section 81 Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) (AO) provides the exclusive recourse against a Hong Kong‑seated award. The three‑month statutory limit to set aside an award is absolute, even if fraud is allegedly discovered after the deadline. Consequently, attempts to circumvent this regime by re‑casting a late challenge as a fresh arbitration were condemned as an impermissible collateral attack and an abuse of process. Written by Min Li, partner, Reed Smith Richards Butler LLP; Max Lam, associate, Reed Smith Richards Butler LLP.

Arbitration analysis: This case involved an appeal against the decision of the Moscow City Arbitrazh (Economic) Court, which issued an anti-arbitration injunction (AAI) and imposed substantial fixed penalties amounting to EUR 7.5bn for breaching the injunction. The injunction aimed to prevent Wintershall Dea GmbH, its legal representatives, and the appointed arbitrators from continuing an arbitration against the Russian Federation (RF) under the Energy Charter Treaty at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague, Netherlands. The appeal did not seek to overturn the original court's decision but aimed to supplement it with findings regarding the lack of independence and impartiality of the appointed arbitrators and the impossibility of the RF obtaining a fair trial at the PCA. The Moscow District Arbitrazh (Economic) Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance. However, the court also determined that the arbitrators lacked independence and impartiality, and that there were no prospects of the RF receiving a fair trial at the PCA due to political reasons. Additionally, the court confirmed that a sanctioned Russian entity, against which a court or arbitration claim is initiated outside of the RF, has the right to apply for an anti-suit injunction (ASI) or AAI in the RF without the need to provide evidence that its access to justice in a foreign jurisdiction is restricted. Written by Tatiana Menshenina, partner at Fladgate LLP and Julia Filippova, senior associate at Fladgate LLP.

Arbitration analysis: This case involved two applications before the court—an application for a stay for arbitration, and an application for an anti-arbitration injunction. The case is unusual in that it concerned two reinsurance contracts covering the same risk, period and parties, agreed only eight days apart. The first contract specified English law as the substantive law and contained an English courts’ exclusive jurisdiction clause. The second contract applied New York law, and contained a New York arbitration clause. The defendant, Partner Reinsurance, sought a mandatory stay for arbitration. The claimant, Tyson, sought an anti-arbitration injunction in respect of arbitration proceedings that had been commenced in New York some six months earlier. The court held that the parties had agreed as a matter of contract that the New York arbitration clause replaced the English jurisdiction clause, and there was therefore no basis for granting an injunction, and that in any event, the application came too late. Written by Brandon Malone, advocate, barrister and arbitrator at Quadrant Chambers and Arbitra International.