TMT analysis: In this judgment, the High Court granted an application for two orders declining jurisdiction to hear and dismissing English defamation proceedings as a result of Norwegian proceedings which it held involved the same cause of action pursuant to Article 27 of the Lugano Convention 2007 (known as the lis pendens doctrine). In reaching its conclusion, the court confirmed that the lis pendens doctrine applies to tortious claims and it also considered what is the correct test for determining whether two sets of proceedings involve ‘the same cause of action’ in these circumstances.

FORTHCOMING CHANGES: At Budget 2025 on 26 November 2025, the government announced that it would make minor corrective amendments to the residence-based tax regime introduced in Finance Act 2025. Key points include: • qualifying new residents for the foreign income and gains (FIG) regime must be at least 10 years old at the beginning of the tax year • ensuring that claims for relief under the FIG regime can be deducted only from the foreign income, foreign employment income or foreign gains to which they relate • alignment of the qualifying asset holding company (QAHC) rules so that carried-interest-style returns connected with services to a QAHC qualify for relief under the FIG regime • correction to the capital gains tax (CGT) residence test for personal representatives to ensure that they are not UK resident where the deceased was UK non-resident but was a long-term UK resident for inheritance tax purposes • the requirement that an individual must file a tax return where they are not entitled

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court (Chancery Division) held that Joint Special Administrators of Argentex LLP would not incur liability (to be treated as an administration expense) either by not performing Trading Book contracts or by closing out customer contracts. Applying the Lundy Granite principle, mere non-performance of contracts does not create administration expenses without positive conduct showing election. The court's objective analysis found no benefit to the administration estate from closing out contracts. The judgment provides essential guidance on when liabilities become administration expenses, particularly clarifying that administrative convenience alone does not constitute sufficient benefit to the estate. Practical implications written by Aziz Abdul and Paddy Bird of Addleshaw Goddard.

Chapter 4 of the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) Conduct of Business sourcebook (COBS 4) contains the conduct of business requirements for communications (including financial promotions) made by authorised firms to their clients. This Practice Note explains how COBS 4 applies to firms in the UK and will help such firms to establish whether the rules apply to them and in what circumstances. Scope of this Practice Note The Financial Services Authority’s (FCA) rules in chapter 4 of the Conduct of Business sourcebook (COBS 4) apply generally to firms when communicating with a client or potential client when carrying on designated investment business or MiFID, equivalent third country or optional exemption business and when communicating or approving a financial promotion in relation to investment business. This Practice Note discusses chapter 4.1 of the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) Conduct of Business Rules (COBS 4.1) which sets out how, to whom, and where the COBS 4 rules apply. This Practice Note is part of a series that examines the rules in COBS 4 and should be read in conjunction with

FCA's Insurance Conduct of Business Sourcebook (ICOBS) contains the standards that apply to all non-investment insurance product sales (general insurance and protection policies). The COBS provisions apply to designated investment business, which is described in more detail below, the majority of which is outside the scope of this Practice Note but which includes certain life and long term insurance policies. Those communicating promotions relating to insurance policies must correctly classify the policy in question, to ensure they comply with the right conduct of business requirements. This note does not address the ICOBS requirements. It is also important that firms communicating or approving a communication or financial promotion know the intended recipient(s) of the communication, to enable them to tailor the communication accordingly and comply with the relevant rules in the relevant sourcebook. What types of insurance do the rules in COBS 4 apply to? COBS 4 applies to firms that communicate with clients or potential clients in relation to designated investment business. The designated investment in this context is a life policy.

Background to the regulation of cryptoasset promotions in the UK Following the establishment of the Cryptoassets Taskforce (CATF) in March 2018, in October 2018, the CATF published its final report. Chapter 4 of the report assesses the risks and potential benefits associated with cryptoassets. In relation to financial promotions, the report states: Advertising regarding cryptoassets, which is often targeted at retail investors, is not typically fair or clear and can be misleading. Adverts often overstate benefits and rarely warn of volatility risks, the fact consumers can both grow and lose their investment, and the lack of regulation. There are also examples of regulated firms marketing cryptoasset products without clarifying that this part of their business is not regulated. Following the publication of the report, the UK government started the process of consulting on legislation to bring certain promotions of cryptoassets within the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000) and therefore the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) remit. Simultaneously, the FCA started to consult on requirements that would apply to financial promotions

ARCHIVED: This Tracker lists a number of decisions of the English courts in which the Court of Justice decision in Owusu v Jackson has been considered. This includes Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and High Court decisions. The decision in Owusu held that the English courts could not apply the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens to stay proceedings in which a defendant was domiciled in an EU Member State. Supreme Court decisions Judgment Comment News Analysis Owusu applied/considered Vedanta Resources Plc v Lungowe [2019] UKSC 20 at paras [16] and [38]–[39] The Supreme Court held that the principle in Owusu applied when considering whether proceedings could be stayed against a defendant in England. Such a stay was not permissible when the defendant was domiciled in England. This was so even if the other competing jurisdiction was not an EU Member State. Supreme Court permits claim against foreign company in the UK in ‘curate’s egg’ judgment LNB News—10/04/2019 101Supreme Court rules English court has

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: A funeral plan provider in administration, which held plan subscription monies on trust, had insufficient funds to meet its obligations to plan members. A third party arranged funerals for certain plan members, initially for free but subsequently to be paid for out of the trust monies subject to court approval. Other plan members, whose dividends would be reduced as a consequence of the arrangement, argued that the general power of appointment of trust monies in the trust deed did not apply in an insolvency scenario and that the trust monies should be distributed pari passu. The court, in a detailed analysis of the terms of the trust deed, held that the arrangement with the third party fell within the trust powers. While emphasising the interpretative principle of adherence to the words themselves, the court construed the terms of the trust in a way that reflected the particular imperatives of the situation (including, for the question of whether living plan members would be prejudiced by payments being made to deceased plan members, considerations of ‘benevolence and humanity’ in the exercise of the powers). Written by Martin Young, associate at CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP.

Employment news analysis: The government will amend the Employment Rights Bill (ERB) to extend the right for those employed under a zero hours contract or ‘low hours’ arrangement to be offered a guaranteed hours contract to agency workers.

This Flowchart sets out the application procedure for development consent orders (DCOs) for nationally significant infrastructure

The Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) sets out a development consent regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) in the fields of energy, transport, water, waste water, and waste. Applications for development consent orders (DCOs) are decided in accordance with National Policy Statements (NPSs), which set out the national policy in relation to NSIPs. See Practice Notes: Permission for nationally significant infrastructure projects and National Policy Statements. Although the Secretary of State (SoS) bears legal responsibility for the decision, in practice, the government delegates responsibility for accepting and examining applications to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS). For an outline of the DCO application procedure, see: Development consent order (DCO) application procedure—flowchart. Importance of application preparation Applications that are poorly organised and presented or which are incomplete could be at greater risk of not being accepted for examination. Once an application has been submitted and accepted, the opportunity to submit any additional or amended information will be constrained within examination procedures. There is limited scope to make 'material' revisions to a scheme during the examination

Software in the receiver which interprets a set of commands telling it, for instance, where to display a graphic or other object on the screen. The API also allows the same applications to run on different receiver designs without the need for the application to be rewritten for each one.