A scheme's liabilities are its future benefit payments and expenses. The scheme is in deficit if the current value of its liabilities is more than the assets, or in surplus if the liabilities are less.

The Court of Appeal has re-considered liability and contributory negligence following an appeal brought by the bus company, Rider Holdings, against a finding that they were liable for injuries and losses sustained by Mr Rehill in an accident when he was knocked down by a bus driven by one of their employees. At a county court liability trial Rider Holdings were found liable for the accident subject to a one third deduction for contributory negligence.

Pensions analysis: The Pensions Ombudsman has upheld a complaint about the investment of pension scheme assets. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.

The High Court has recently given judgment on liability in the case of Woodham v Turners of Great Barton which is a claim arising from a road traffic accident where a collision occurred between a motorcyclist and a coach. The coach was pulling out of a junction turning right through a gap in heavy traffic and collided with a motorcyclist which was overtaking the queue of traffic. The court gave judgment in favour of the motorcyclist, but with a deduction for contributory negligence.

EU Law analysis: The evolving landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) creates the need for a robust legal framework to address the unique challenges posed by AI-related products. This commentary explores three key areas: the current regime under the EU Product Liability Directive (PLD), the now abandoned AI Liability Directive (AILD), and the Revised EU PLD set to take effect on 9 December 2026. The current PLD framework has struggled to address AI-induced damages, highlighting the need for the current rules to be updated. The AILD proposal aimed to incorporate new rules that would help to bridge the gap between damage caused by AI-related products and more traditional products. These new rules had included a proposal to change the burden of proof rules by introducing a presumption of causality. These changes would have offered harmonisation and a lower burden on victims claiming compensation for damages for AI related products. Following the withdrawal of the AILD these gaps remain. The Revised EU PLD will expand to include AI, addressing defectiveness, responsibility within the value chain, and substantial modifications. Practical examples illustrate the new regime's application, while challenges for victims and impacts on the AI sector highlight the importance of risk mitigation strategies. Written by Susan Walsh, consultant, and Aoife Keenan, associate at William Fry.

This Practice Note considers when contractual obligations merge on completion of a property contract and remedies that may be available after completion. For contractual remedies in relation to property contracts generally, see Practice Notes: • Specific performance of property agreements • Notice to complete • Termination for breach of property contract • Repudiation of property sale contracts • Return or forfeiture of a deposit • Misrepresentation, misstatement and non-disclosure in property matters • Rectification—mutual mistake, and • Rectification—unilateral mistake The general rule At common law, there cannot be two agreements that cover the same ground. When a contract is completed by deed, insofar as they cover the same ground, the provisions of the contract merge into the completed deed and the terms of the contract are discharged. For example, a contract for the sale of land merges into the transfer or conveyance and a contract for an agreement for lease merges into the lease. This means that following completion the parties cannot bring an action for breach of a contractual

This Practice Note covers who is liable for business rates, the three categories of taxpayer identified by the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (LGFA 1988) (occupiers, owners and persons named in central rating lists), the definition of ‘hereditament’, rateable occupation and the position regarding tenant’s fit out works. LGFA 1988 identifies three categories of ratepayer: • occcupiers • owners, and • persons named in central ratings lists The principal source of guidance on business rates is the HMRC Valuation Office Rating Manual, notwithstanding that on 1 April 2026 the Valuation Office Agency ceased to exist as an executive agency and its functions became part of HMRC. The current local and central rating lists took effect on 1 April 2026 and are based on rental values at 1 April 2024. Occupiers An occupier is a person who, on any day in a chargeable financial year (ie a period of 12 months beginning 1 April), is in occupation of all or part of a hereditament that is shown for the day in

What are business rates? Business rates are a tax on property used for business purposes. They are charged on most non-domestic properties such as shops, offices and pubs. Business rates are also payable if you use part of a building for non-domestic purposes. For further reading on business rates generally, see Practice Note: Liability for business rates. Who is liable to pay business rates? In an insolvency context, the occupier of a property is liable to pay business rates. For a company to be rateable as an occupier, it must be in ‘actual possession’ and have a ‘sufficient measure of control to prevent strangers from interfering’. A company in an insolvency process may be considered to be in occupation depending on the actions of the office-holder. For example, it may be trading from the business while looking for a buyer. For further reading on what constitutes occupation, see Practice Note: Liability for business rates. A de minimis principle may sometimes be applied (see Wirral Borough Council v Lane). Plant and

Commercial analysis: According to Adela Williams, a partner at Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, the judgment in Sanofi Pasteur does not suggest that scientific and medical evidence is irrelevant or can be disregarded, but simply that scientific uncertainty is not fatal to a successful claim.

Employment analysis: Where the alleged perpetrator of harassment transfers under TUPE 2006, but the employee victim does not, the liability for the harassment does not transfer from the original transferor employer to the transferee employer, according to the EAT.

This Practice Note discusses when a party engaging an independent contractor may be subject to non-delegable duties or become vicariously liable in tort for the acts or omissions of their independent contractors. Remaining liable for acts and omissions of contractors Commercial entities often delegate obligations or services that they owe to third parties to contractors. Although this may be possible to an extent, an engaging party may remain liable for the acts and omissions of such contractors. This may arise in the context of contractual liability, agency, vicarious liability and non-delegable duties. It is therefore important when engaging independent contractors to understand the scope of any continuing liability to be able to advise on risk, limitation and exclusion of liability and insurance. This Practice Note focuses on vicarious liability and non-delegable duties when engaging independent contractors. The position in contract Contractual rights and benefits are (subject to express contractual provisions to the contrary) assignable, and contractual obligations or burdens are not. In certain circumstances contractual obligations or burdens may be performed by contractors or subcontractors. When permitted

Why an LPA/fixed charge receiver could be invalidly appointed An LPA/fixed charge receiver can be invalidly appointed for two main reasons: • first, if there is some invalidity in the security documentation which prevents the mortgagee from exercising its remedies • second, where the security is valid but the mortgagee fails to follow the correct procedures to trigger the power to appoint or there is some invalidity in the actual appointment of the LPA/fixed charge receiver Consequences of invalid appointment The consequences of an invalid appointment are potentially significant. The LPA/fixed charge receiver will have no status or authority if the appointment is defective for either of the reasons mentioned above. If they hold themselves out to be a receiver and receive rent or sell property, they do so without authority and the mortgagor would have a claim against the LPA/fixed charge receiver and the mortgagee. See John Smith & Co (Edinburgh) v Hill. The possible claims a mortgagor may have against an invalidly-appointed LPA/fixed charge receiver