IP analysis: The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) dismissed a copyright infringement claim brought by Professor Boghossian, who argued that she was a joint author of an academic paper published by IOP Publishing Ltd (IOP) in 2017. The paper was written by Dr Djokic, a postdoc researcher employed in her lab and supervised by Professor Boghossian. Contributions to a work of joint authorship are not limited to textual contributions; they can consist of contributions of skill and labour in other ways, provided they are expressed in the final work (deletions are not relevant contributions). To be considered an authorial contribution, there must be elements which are the expression of the author’s own intellectual creation. This case is of interest because it examines the important difference between authorial contributions and editorial changes in the context of joint authorship. Written by Georgina Straughan and Rebecca Hamilton at Bird & Bird.

Refugee Legal Support (RLS), the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA), legal professionals and members of the Afghan community have written a joint letter to the new UK Prime Minister, Rt Hon Keir Starmer, calling on the new government to honour the UK’s commitments to Afghan allies and prevent further loss of life following its operations in Afghanistan and subsequent withdrawal which it states left thousands of Afghans in peril. The letter highlights the severe delays, critical errors and other failures of current resettlement schemes, the urgent need to resettle (15,592 of the 100,000 applications were relocated by May 2024), and increased Channel crossings of Afghans as a result of delays (554 arrivals in 2020 and 5,662 in the year ending March 2024). Recommendations for improvement include: increasing processing times, introducing an ‘exceptional circumstances’ mechanism to expedite applications, and a process for applicants to challenge substantial delays. The government are urged to act now to provide safe routes and ensure the resettlement of these individuals.

Defined under the EU GDPR and UK GDPR as one of two or more controllers that jointly determine the purposes and means of the processing of personal data.

Joint custody describes arrangements where separated parents share ongoing rights and responsibilities for their child, particularly in relation to residence, care and major decisions about upbringing. In UK and Irish practice it is a descriptive, non‑technical term; legislation instead refers to “parental responsibility” (England & Wales, Northern Ireland), “parental responsibilities and rights” (Scotland) and “guardianship”/“custody” (Ireland).It commonly refers to both parents being involved in day‑to‑day care (shared care or shared residence) and/or in making key decisions about education, medical treatment, religion and relocation (joint decision‑making). It does not necessarily mean equal time with each parent.In England & Wales and Northern Ireland, the closest formal concept is a child arrangements order providing for shared residence and joint exercise of parental responsibility. In Scotland, joint custody is usually understood as shared residence and joint exercise of parental responsibilities and rights. In Ireland, the term overlaps with joint custody and/or joint guardianship orders under the Guardianship of Infants Act.Joint custody is significant in disputes concerning residence, contact, relocation, child maintenance and international child abduction, and must be assessed by reference to the child’s best interests.

A joint defendant is a person or entity sued together with one or more others in the same legal proceedings, usually because they are alleged to be jointly or jointly and severally liable for the same wrong or obligation. The term is descriptive rather than formally defined in legislation, but is widely used in civil and criminal practice across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland with broadly consistent meaning.In civil litigation, joint defendants commonly arise in claims for breach of contract, professional negligence, personal injury, construction disputes and contribution or indemnity claims, where responsibility or causation is contested between multiple parties. The status of joint defendant affects issues such as case management, disclosure, apportionment of liability, contribution between wrongdoers, costs orders and enforcement of judgments.In criminal proceedings, joint defendants (or “co‑accused” in Scottish practice) are individuals charged on the same indictment or complaint, often where joint enterprise, common purpose or conspiracy is alleged. Their joinder has procedural implications for admissibility of evidence, severance applications and directions to the jury.Rules on adding, removing or substituting joint defendants are governed by court rules (for example, CPR, RSC, Rules of the Court of Session) and relevant case law in each jurisdiction.

This Practice Note looks at whether an employee can have two or more employers for the same job at the same time ie joint employment (also known as dual employment or multiple employment). It looks at the general presumption, the question of vicarious liability, and the situation of agency workers, office-holders and teachers. It also considers the context of collective bargaining, the impact of TUPE 2006, and the tax issues that can arise. Finally, it looks at the considerations that apply to written contracts involving multiple employers. Quick view Joint employment is usually discussed in the context of vicarious liability, eg for negligence (see: Vicarious liability, below). In the context of an individual’s employment rights, it seems relatively clear that the general presumption that an employee cannot have more than one employer for the same work at the same time can be displaced in the following situations: • where an employee has two jobs with separate employers and those jobs are compatible, and • where an employee has two or more employers acting together in a partnership or joint venture See:

A joint enterprise arises where two or more persons embark on the commission of an offence.

This Practice Note is concerned with secondary liability, sometimes called accessory liability: the liability that attaches to parties to a joint enterprise. In criminal law, where two or more parties embark on a joint enterprise, as either a principal or secondary party, each will be liable for acts committed in pursuance of that joint enterprise with the necessary intent, unless the principal goes beyond the scope of what was agreed. In the 2016 cases of R v Jogee and Ruddock v The Queen, the Supreme Court clarified and restored the test for the mental element of intent which must be established when a defendant is accused of being a secondary party to a crime, see News Analysis: Supreme Court rules on ‘joint enterprise’. Historically, a secondary party could be held responsible for a crime committed by a primary party if the secondary party foresaw the possibility of the primary party committing the crime. This was known as parasitic accessory liability (PAL). Following R v Jogee, PAL no longer applies

The International Swaps and Derivatives Association, the Association for Financial Markets in Europe, the Futures Industry Association, the Global FX Division and the International Capital Market Association have submitted their responses to the European Securities and Markets Authority’s (ESMA) call for evidence on streamlining transaction reporting. The industry bodies advocated for eliminating duplicative reporting, implementing single-sided reporting and developing machine-executable logic. Their submissions seek to improve reporting efficiency while maintaining robust regulatory oversight. ESMA plans to publish its final report in Q1 2026, incorporating the feedback received.

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (LTA 1987) provides that qualifying leaseholders in a building containing flats have the right (subject to various exceptions) to require that a freeholder (or superior landlord) who is intending to dispose of their interest in the property to a third party, instead transfer it to them at the same proposed price. The LTA 1987 also allows qualifying tenants to require the transfer of the freehold (or superior interest) to them if it has been disposed of to a third party in breach of its formalities. It is therefore a powerful piece of legislation, which freeholders ignore at their peril. The provisions of the LTA 1987

The Refugee Council has released a letter addressed to the Home Secretary, co-signed by 148 signatories including faith leaders, various trade organisations and members across the refugee, migrant and children sectors. The letter urges the Home Secretary to reconsider the recent decision to effectively ban refugees who arrived through unofficial routes from obtaining British citizenship. The letter argues that this policy risks creating a 'second class' of individuals, potentially creating division and playing into narratives against refugees. The letter highlights the importance of citizenship in fostering integration and community cohesion, citing the previous Labour government strategies that encouraged refugee naturalisation. The letter calls for a reversal of this policy change and advocates for a focus on welcoming refugees and creating integrated communities across the UK.

the3million, Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, Rights of Women and other organisations have written a joint letter to the Home Office raising concerns about the proposed reliance on travel data to assess continuity of residence. The letter, dated 11 February 2026, follows the Home Office’s indication that from March 2026 it will begin curtailing pre-settled status where individuals are considered to no longer be resident in the UK.