Japanese knotweed was introduced to the UK in the 19th century as an ornamental garden plant. It had been used in Japan to stabilise sand banks and there have been suggestions that it was similarly employed to stabilise embankments in the UK. Lacking the competitors, diseases and animals that keep it in check in its native range, Japanese knotweed’s uncontrolled and invasive nature quickly allowed it to become a pest in the UK. As only female plants were introduced, no pollen was available from male plants to allow fertile seeds to develop. Consequently, almost all knotweed in the UK has spread from small fragments of plant material (mainly roots) that have been transported to new locations in knotweed-contaminated soil. Knotweed grows rapidly underground and pushes up annual shoots each spring. The roots and shoots are capable of exploiting gaps in buildings and hard surfaces such as concrete and tarmac, which can cause significant damage to them over time. The root system of knotweed can be very deep (a few metres) and spread several metres from the aboveground stems. Not

Jari Sotka, a Helsinki attorney has published a blog post examining arbitration in Finland and the proposed reform of the Finnish Arbitration Act. The blog post outlines the distinction between institutional arbitration administered by the Arbitration Institute of the Finland Chamber of Commerce (FAI) and ad hoc arbitration and examines how the proposed new Arbitration Act would modernise Finnish arbitration law and align it more closely with the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. The post highlights proposed reforms including removal of the written-form requirement for arbitration agreements, express recognition of competence-competence and separability, tribunal-ordered interim measures, remote hearings, electronic awards, rules on multi-party and multi-contract disputes and abolition of the current nullity regime. The reforms are expected to enter into force in 2027.

MLex: Jazz Pharmaceuticals has agreed to buy biotech firm Chimerix for $935m in cash. The transaction has been approved by both companies and is expected to close in the second quarter of 2025.

The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Robert Jenrick, has welcomed the Spring Budget 2021 which included measures to help the UK ‘build back better’ following coronavirus (COVID-19), level up communities and help families purchase homes.

Private Client analysis: Keith Dixon, partner, and Elizabeth Le Guillou, head of wills and probate at Carey Olsen LLP explore the recent development of a new exception to the revenue rule in Re Representation of Viberts Executors Limited and Ross Badge.

Private Client analysis: The Jersey Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the Royal Court and confirmed that, as a matter of Jersey law, a saisie judiciaire can be granted which prevents a specified person from dealing with property which is situated outside Jersey. Written by Charles Sorensen, an English barrister and advocate of the Royal Court of Jersey, and a senior associate at Baker & Partners in Jersey.

Private Client analysis: In an important judgment, the Royal Court in Jersey has recently confirmed, in Representation of Equiom Trust (CI) Ltd re Estate of Constantin Mattas that, as a matter of Jersey law, where a trust looks to provide for a mix of both charitable and non-charitable purposes, the non-charitable purpose can invalidate the charitable purpose; however, if the non-charitable purpose is itself invalid, the entirety of the trust property can be held for the charitable purpose. The court's decision arose in the context of proceedings to determine whether the ultimate disposal of a testator's residuary personal estate was valid, or whether there was, in fact, a partial intestacy. In reaching its conclusions, the court considered matters such as: whether there was an intention to create a trust within a will; certainty of objects; sovereign immunity; whether trusts of indefinite duration were permissible in Jersey law prior to the enactment of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984; the requirements for the formation of a charitable trust; and the circumstances in which a valid charitable trust may be held to exist notwithstanding the existence of invalid non-charitable dispositions. Notably, the court for the first time confirmed that the English common law rule on perpetuities applies to Jersey trusts established prior to the coming into force of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984. Written by Fritha Fordpartner and Bradley Gibb, associate of Collas Crill LLP (Jersey).

Private Client analysis: The Royal Court of Jersey considered whether to bless a trustee’s decision to settle hostile fee litigation with a former trustee, and whether it could also approve a decision not to pursue a potential breach of trust claim. Applying established Jersey principles, the court reaffirmed that the correct test is one of rationality, not whether the court would itself have reached the same decision. It indicated that the proposed settlement was within the range of reasonable decisions, but adjourned approval due to a technical defect in the consent order. The court refused to bless the trustee’s decision to abandon investigation of a potential claim, emphasising the continuing duties of a trustee.

Introduction It is common for a person who is not domiciled in Jersey, but who has movable assets in Jersey, such as an offshore investment or bank account,, to put a separate Jersey Will in place to govern the succession of these assets on their death. While it is not mandatory for a person in this situation to make a separate Jersey Will, it makes the administration of these assets post death, much more straightforward. If a person passes away leaving assets in Jersey which have a value of over £30,000, the asset holder is legally obliged to request that a Jersey Grant of Representation (being a Grant of Probate if the deceased left a Will, or a Grant of Letters of Administration if they did not) (the "Jersey Grant") be produced to them before they can release these assets. The Jersey Grant confirms who is legally entitled to administer the Jersey assets of the deceased person. If a person has a Jersey Will in place to govern the succession of their

This table summarises all completed investigations by Jersey’s competition authority (the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority—the JCRA) into alleged cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions since 2011. Note—only investigations that have been made public are included in this table. 2021 Investigations under Article 8 of the Competition (Jersey) Law 2005 The JCRA did not issue any decisions under Article 8 in 2021 Investigations under Article 16 of the Competition (Jersey) Law 2005 The JCRA did not issue any decisions under Article 16 in 2021 2020 Investigations under Article 8 of the Competition (Jersey) Law 2005 The JCRA did not issue any decisions under Article 8 in 2020 Investigations under Article 16 of the Competition (Jersey) Law 2005 The JCRA did not issue any decisions under Article 16 in 2020 2019 Investigations under Article 8 of the Competition (Jersey) Law 2005 The JCRA did not issue any decisions under Article 8 in 2019 Investigations under Article

Private Client analysis: The wife had applied to the Royal Court of Jersey to be added as a beneficiary in her own right of a trust settled by her husband, in order to ensure that she retained a right to benefit from the trust following her divorce from the husband. Although the court set aside the decision of the trustee not to add the wife as a beneficiary, on the basis that no trustee could reasonably have concluded that it was the correct decision, it did not grant the wife’s application to be appointed a beneficiary of the trust, holding that in circumstances where the trustee had not surrendered its discretion to the court, that was not the role of the court, either in the context of Article 51 of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 as amended, or at all. Written by Simon Franckel, advocate and partner at Oben.

Private Client analysis: The Royal Court of Jersey has criticised the approach of a trustee to its application for approval of two momentous decisions involving settlement of English court proceedings and a proposed distribution and termination of the trust. The court said that fresh proceedings should have been brought and that all the relevant beneficiaries with an interest in the outcome should have been convened. While the court was prepared to approve the settlement, the trustee was forced to withdraw the remainder of the application. Written by Sam Williams, group partner at Collas Crill LLP (Jersey).