This Practice Note deals with negligence, occupiers’ liability, trespass against the person and nuisance in the context of claims involving animals. For guidance on claims brought under the Animals Act 1971 (AA 1971), see Practice Notes: Liability under the Animals Act 1971—dangerous species and Liability under the Animals Act 1971—all other animals. This Practice Note will consider the other possible causes of action. For an overview on which causes of action may be applicable, see Practice Note: Types of claim involving animals. Negligence The normal principles of negligence apply to people who own or control animals. All people in charge of their animals are under a duty to take reasonable care to prevent injury to others. Actions in negligence are still important as it can be difficult to satisfy the conditions required for liability under the AA 1971. The scope of any duty of care depends on the particular circumstances including the previous behaviour of the animal, its capacity to harm and the circumstances of the

This Practice Note considers the issues that can arise in personal injury claims arising from dog attacks and dog bites, focusing on liability under the Animals Act 1971 (AA 1971) and in common law negligence. It highlights the importance of evidence of a dog’s previous behaviour, specific considerations for guard dogs and key issues when assessing eligibility for a Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) award. Dog’s previous behaviour For most canine claims, the dog’s behaviour in the past is all-important. In a claim in negligence, the claimant must prove that the defendant should have foreseen the risk of injury and taken reasonable steps to prevent it. If the owner had no reason to anticipate the behaviour, it will not be possible to establish liability. The dog’s history will also be important in a personal injury claim brought under AA 1971, s 2(2) where it is alleged that the dog has displayed behaviour that is abnormal for the dog’s species. Unless there is evidence that the defendant keeper (or keeper’s employee or member of the keeper’s

The Weeds Act 1959 (WA 1959) regulates injurious weeds. It applies to England, Wales and Scotland (as amended), but does not extend to Northern Ireland. This Practice Note covers England and Wales only. What are injurious weeds? Injurious weeds are those prescribed in WA 1959: • Common ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) • Broad-leaved dock (Rumex obtusifolius) • Curled dock (Rumex crispus) • Creeping or field thistle (Cirsium arvense), and • Spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare) They are all native or naturalised species that grow naturally across much of the UK. WA 1959 may also apply to such additional injurious weeds as may be prescribed by the minister by regulations. Guidance on the identification of injurious weeds prescribed in WA 1959 is available from Defra. The regime under the WA 1959 should be distinguished from the separate regulatory framework governing invasive non-native species. The injurious weeds listed in the 1959 Act are native or long-established species and are regulated solely to prevent harm to agriculture. By contrast, non-native

This Practice Note provides practical guidance on the determination of injury margins in anti-dumping and countervailing investigations. It sets out the steps and gives an example for each of the two methods usually employed by investigating authorities, namely price undercutting and price underselling. Introduction Both the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (Anti-dumping Agreement) and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) allow for the imposition of a lesser duty than the calculated dumping margin or the subsidy amount. Article 9.1 of the Anti-dumping Agreement and Article 19.2 of the SCM Agreement caters for this possibility. However, both the Anti-dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement merely make it desirable to impose a lesser duty. It is, therefore, not an obligation although many investigating authorities do impose a lesser duty. Both Agreements do not provide any guidance. Below we will look at two methods most commonly used by investigating authorities, namely calculating the injury margin based on price undercutting or price underselling. Price

An award of compensation made by an Employment Tribunal.

This refers to HMRC's restrictions on the accrual and payment of benefits prior to A-day.

Pensions analysis: The Court of Session in Scotland has confirmed that where a business is transferred from one partnership to another, but continues to trade to the outside world as the same entity, there is a legal presumption under Scottish law that the liabilities of the old partnership transfer with the business to the new one. This decision is the latest judgment supporting the Trustees of the Scottish Solicitors' Staff Pension Fund (the ‘Fund’) in their recovery of pension contributions due by law firms which employed members of the Fund. The defenders, Marshall Ross & Munro (MRM), had previously successfully argued at first instance that MRM was, in fact, a series of distinct partnerships, with any liability of one partnership to the Fund dying when that partnership ceased to exist (ie when a partner joined or left). The defenders therefore argued that the firm known as MRM, which the pursuers had sued, was not the same firm on which liability fell. Frances Ennis, senior associate at Pinsent Masons, who acted for the Trustees, sheds further light on the decision.

The Law Society of Scotland has announced that the Inner House of the Court of Session has affirmed that a servitude right of access to one site cannot be used to park on that site with a view to onward travel to an adjoining site. The ruling was given by Lord President Carloway, Lord Brodie and Lord Malcolm, which refused a ‘reclaiming motion by Iain Hawthorne and others, proprietors of Bieldside Lodge, Aberdeen, against the Lord Ordinary's decision to allow proof before answer in an action by Maren Ruddiman, proprietor of the neighbouring Bieldside House, for declarator and interdict against the defenders regarding their anticipated use of the driveway to Bieldside House’.

This is a misrepresentation made without fault on the part of the person making the representation.

Innocent publication is a specific application of due diligence and applies where an offence has been committed by a person by reason of their publication of an advertisement that contravenes CPUTs 2008.

These are terms where it cannot be predetermined whether they are conditions or warranties; it depends on the effect of any breach.

Innovate UK is currently leading the Innovation Accelerator pilot programme, which supports three city-regions–Glasgow, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands– to become major, globally competitive centres for research and development. This includes the Modular Chemical Robot Farms for Chemical Manufacturing initiative in Glasgow that has attracted over £28m of private investment, aiming to pave the way for groundbreaking advancements including artificial intelligence-driven chemistry to accelerate the discovery of non-addictive opioids. The pilot programme continues until 2025.