We are not aware of any legal authority which stipulates a particular period of time beyond which personal representatives (PRs) do not need to make any enquiries; rather, it is likely to depend on the circumstances of the particular case. However, in determining the nature and extent of the investigation which the PRs should undertake, the following points should be noted: • first, the primary duty of an executor is set out in section 25 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 which provides that PRs must collect and get in the deceased’s estate and administer it according to the law. Therefore, if the disposals create a potential tax liability of the estate, the executors are under a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate the scope of that liability, in order to fulfil their obligations to beneficiaries and creditors of the estate • second, a failure to exercise reasonable care in preparing

In a claim for copyright infringement two elements must be present: • sufficient objective similarity between the infringing work and the copyright work, and • the copyright work must be the source from which the infringing work is derived. For the purposes of this Q&A we have limited our research to cover the elements that make up copyright infringement. The Court of Appeal in Baigent & Leigh v The Random House Group Ltd, (per Mummery LJ) set out a non-exhaustive list of issues which are likely to require consideration in a typical literary copyright case. This included: ‘(2) …What access, direct or indirect, did the author of the alleged infringing work have to the original copyright work? Unless there was some evidence from

Financial Services analysis: Why is the EU concerned about investment-based crowdfunding? Alia Ali, the head of A City Law Firm’s commercial department, discusses its key concerns and what actions law firms should be taking in light of the new guidance.

This Checklist is intended for in-house lawyers. It is designed to help you assess your understanding of the key finance and accounting concepts you are likely to encounter in your day-to-day work, and how these apply to the business. It should be used to identify gaps in understanding (both technical and as applied to the business) and to prioritise what to focus on next in order to contribute more effectively to commercial discussions. Use this Checklist to assess your current comfort level. Be honest—this will help you identify where to place your focus in developing your understanding. Some questions target awareness of the concepts, others how you’ve applied this knowledge practically. Use both to target your development. If several of these feel uncomfortable, that’s normal and fixable. See Practice Notes: Introduction to business finance and accounting—financial accounting and external performance and Introduction to business finance and accounting—management accounting and internal decision-making for guidance on the essentials of business finance and accounting, and why this matters for in-house lawyers. See: Improving your financial

Law360: On 1 September 2025, the UK will implement the new corporate criminal offence of failure to prevent fraud (FTPF), meaning companies should consider their potential for UK exposure and assess their compliance programs in light of that risk. Under FTPF, organisations may be criminally liable for fraud committed by their associated persons if the fraud was committed for the organisation's benefit. This will require a shift for companies whose compliance programs may have focused historically on prevention of inward fraud, where the company is a victim, rather than outward fraud, where the company will benefit. The offence is intended to have wide jurisdictional reach and cover conduct outside the UK, so UK authorities may seek to apply it broadly to companies in the US and around the world. In this article, we look at what US and global companies need to know about the new offence, and set out some key considerations from the statutory guidance issued in November 2024.

Law360, London: On 6 November 2025, HM Treasury shared a consultation on anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF) supervision reform.

The document from which you submitted your query, Practice Note: International jurisdiction—allocating employment cases between national courts and tribunals pre-1 January 2021 [Archived], has been updated to take account of Brexit. For information on the impact of Brexit on determining jurisdiction in employment cases, see in particular the section entitled: Brexit impact. The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA 1982) (as amended by the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019/479) determine jurisdiction for proceedings instituted from 1 January 2021 onwards. These provisions are considered in detail in Practice Note: International jurisdiction—the

In relation to Precedent: Framework services agreement—single contract with call-off orders—pro-supplier, we confirm that the Precedent has been updated to accommodate considerations stemming from the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA 2020) which introduced the new section 233B to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), (as have any other Commercial Precedent agreements similarly impacted). In particular within that Precedent, we refer you to: • the introductory drafting notes under the heading 'Statutory controls to protect supply of goods and services to customers subject to an insolvency procedure' which alerts the user that CIGA 2020 may impact the supplier's ability to rely on certain provisions in the Precedent

Practice Management analysis: As technology continues to change the face of the legal industry, Joanne Frears, partner at Blandy & Blandy, Kitty Rosser, associate at Birketts, and Anna Cook, consultant at Bristows, look at how technology has changed the roles of fee earners over the past few years.

What are the awards the court can make under CPR 36.17(4)? Where a claimant obtains a judgment which is 'at least as advantageous' as the terms of its Part 36 offer, then, unless it is unjust to do so, the court must order the defendant to pay: • interest on some or all of the sum awarded to the claimant at up to 10% above base rate for some or all of the period since the end of the Relevant Period (CPR 36.17(4)(a)) • the claimant’s costs (including any recoverable pre-action costs) on an indemnity basis from the end of the Relevant Period (CPR 36.17(4)(b)) • interest on those costs, at up to 10% above base rate, and (CPR 36.17(4)(c)) • an additional amount, which shall not exceed £75,000, calculated by applying the Prescribed Percentage set out below to the amount which is, on a money claim, the sum awarded to the claimant by the court

Historically, section 72(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) provided an exception to the right of communication to the public. It allowed organisations that did not charge for admission to show television broadcasts (in public) without needing permission from the owners of some of the rights in those broadcasts. In particular, it meant that such organisations did not need permission from owners of film copyright. The historical CDPA 1988, s 72 wording led some commercial premises to attempt to rely on the exception to show exclusive subscription television broadcasts without paying for the required commercial licences. This made it difficult, though not impossible, for copyright owners to take legal action to enforce the use of commercial subscriptions, distorting the market between, for example, pubs which pay for commercial subscriptions, and those that use comparatively cheaper unauthorised systems. Following

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) gives the copyright owner exclusive rights in the UK to do the following restricted acts: copy the work, issue (distribute) copies of it to the public, rent or lend it, perform, show or play it in public, communicate it, and adapt it, or do any of the above restricted acts in relation to an adaptation. A person who does, or authorises someone else to do, a restricted act without the copyright owner's permission, infringes copyright. To avoid infringement, the potential infringer will usually seek permission from the right holder by way of paying a licence fee. Communication to the public The restricted act of communication to the public is relevant to your query. Practice Note: Copyright infringement and in particular the section titled ‘Restricted act “communicating