THIS PRACTICE NOTE APPLIES TO TRUST-BASED DEFINED BENEFIT OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEMES What is the balance of powers? In the context of a trust-based occupational pension scheme, the balance of powers is the term used to describe how the powers in the scheme's trust deed and rules are distributed between the trustees and the sponsoring employer. Powers may be held: • by the sponsoring employer alone • by the trustees alone • by the sponsoring employer and the trustees jointly • by a third party (eg the scheme actuary) Powers may also require agreement or consultation with another party. The balance of powers is usually determined by the sponsoring employer when the scheme is established and the trust deed and rules are drafted. Changes made to the trust deed and rules while the scheme is ongoing may alter the balance of powers between the trustees and the sponsoring employer. The balance of powers varies from scheme to scheme and some powers are more important than others. Powers which affect

POWER CLAUSE / RULE HELD BY REQUIRES AGREEMENT OR CONSULTATION WITH SUBJECT TO power of amendment power to wind up scheme power to defer winding up of scheme power to cease the future accrual of benefits power to close the scheme to new joiners power to readmit employees to membership of the

An account showing the assets of a company and its liabilities. Since the requirement for the inclusion of pension fund values and liabilities has been imposed, balance sheets can give a very misleading portrait of a company's value.

A balance sheet is simply a snapshot of the financial health of the firm at any given time, ie what the business is worth. It achieves this by showing:

Where liabilities exceed assets (see Insolvency Act 1986, s 123(1)(e)).

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Applying established principles, the court concluded that a company was balance sheet insolvent based on liabilities falling due in 2029. In reaching its conclusion, the court considered the law on the 'balance sheet' insolvency test and applied it in a scenario where the relevant liabilities related to loans which still had several years left until their respective maturity dates. The rationale set out by the court provides a reminder that the tests for insolvency under section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) are fact-sensitive and cannot be boiled down to simple mechanical equations. In reaching its conclusions on balance sheet insolvency, the court noted that it must ultimately be satisfied that a company cannot reasonably be expected to meet its liabilities. As such, the quality of evidence of solvency presented before the court will be carefully examined and will be key in determining whether a company is insolvent. Written by Aziz Abdul, legal director and Alasdair Terkatz-Cameron, associate at Addleshaw Goddard LLP.

A fund invested in a range of asset classes, particularly equities and bonds.

A manager who operates a fund or portfolio which is invested across a range of different asset classes where the manager seeks to add value by choosing between those asset classes, and by choosing the right shares or bonds within each class.

Candidate Name of person being assessed [Insert name] Date of assessment [Insert date] Assessor(s) [Insert name(s)] Partnership promotion criteria Criteria 1: Financial and technical skills Required skill or indicator Measurement Does the individual meet this criteria? Billable hours [Insert the required measurement for this skill/indicator, eg 1500 chargeable hours per annum] ☐ Yes☐ No Billable hours conversion rate [What percentage of billable hours do you expect to be converted into actual billing, eg 85%] ☐ Yes☐ No Legal knowledge [Insert the required measurement for this skill/indicator, eg Specific areas of expertise] ☐ Yes☐ No Matters handled [Insert the required measurement for this skill/indicator, eg Volume and consistency—compliments and complaints] ☐ Yes☐ No Ability to understand and interpret financial reports [Insert the required measurement for this skill/indicator, eg What reports are required, how have they been used in decision making?] ☐ Yes☐ No Ability to handle complex matters [Insert the required measurement for this skill/indicator, eg technical complexity and diplomatic sensitivity in trickier matters] ☐ Yes☐ No Amount of new business generated [Insert the required measurement for this skill/indicator, eg The role they played in winning new

Information Law analysis: Jose Saras, partner, and Xavier Prida, associate, of Preiskel LLP, consider the new ICO guidance on profiling tools for online safety and its articulation with Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR) and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 (PECR 2003).

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Defence surveillance operatives can make serious errors in producing surveillance footage and later give untrue evidence, signed by statements of truth. Nevertheless, given the evidence was probative and these failures were not part of a deliberate and dishonest attempt to provide a misleading picture, and given that the claimant had a fair opportunity to deal with the surveillance evidence, it was not appropriate to exclude the evidence from the case. Further, where Expert B (Dr Jarman), had referred to Expert A’s draft report (Dr Mullin), and expert B had complied with his duty to set out the substance of his material instructions and there was no basis to conclude that expert B’s statement of instructions was inaccurate or incomplete, there was no basis for ordering disclosure of expert A’s draft report. Written by Rob Weir KC, barrister at Devereux Chambers.

TMT analysis: The High Court has overturned a decision by OFCOM that two broadcasts on GB News' programme ‘Jacob Rees-Mogg's State of the Nation’, breached Broadcasting Code rules on due impartiality and accuracy in news reporting. This is the first time that OFCOM has lost a judicial review of its decisions relating to the Broadcasting Code. The court held that the presentation of news by a politician in the context of a hybrid news and current affairs programme is not a breach of rule 5.3 prohibiting a politician from being used as a newsreader, interviewer or reporting in any news programme, although it could breach the more general rule requiring ‘news, in whatever form’ to be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality under rule 5.1, but that would depend on a detailed contextual analysis of the particular broadcast. The decision has now been remitted back to OFCOM to undertake this more context-specific analysis. Written by Giles Crown, partner, and Charlotte Peach, senior associate, at Taylor Wessing LLP.