The term ownership denotes a wide array of rights over property.

Employees and contractors are increasingly working more from home. This has resulted in an increase in content being created at home and posted or shared online, for example by teachers to share with their pupils via video communications. When content is created at home in these circumstances, the ownership of IP rights, use of third-party material and infringement of third-party rights should be considered. For further information on issues raised by this Checklist, see Practice Notes: • Copyright—protectable works • Copyright—authorship and ownership • Copyright & associated rights—overview • Copyright infringement • Copyright—secondary infringement • Intellectual property—remedies • Copyright—permitted acts and defences • Joint ownership of intellectual property rights The third column can be used to record observations or comments as the Checklist is worked through. Checklist Further information Notes (if any) Copyright origination ☐ Identify the copyright work. Copyright is an unregistered right, it comes into being automatically on the creation of

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The Trustees in these proceedings sought a direction and a declaration that a painting known as the ‘Double Painting of the Cheek Sisters’ vested in them as Joint Trustees in Bankruptcy. ‘The Double Painting of the Cheek Sisters’ is a 1640 painting by Sir Anthony van Dyck which was purchased for the sum of £600,000. International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Judge Jones was asked to determine the ownership of the painting and to determine whether the property vested in the Estate of the Bankruptcy of Mr James Stunt, or alternatively was the property of his father Mr Geoffrey Lee Stunt who had provided the funds for the purchase. Written by Maria Mulla, barrister at Maitland Chambers.

Ownership in common describes co-ownership where two or more persons hold distinct, undivided shares in the same asset, usually land. Each co-owner is entitled to possession of the whole, but their beneficial share (which need not be equal) is separate, can be transferred or charged, and passes under will or intestacy; there is no right of survivorship.The expression is descriptive. In England & Wales and Northern Ireland it corresponds to a “tenancy in common”, recognised by statute and case law. The legal estate is held jointly on a trust of land (TOLATA 1996 in E&W; NI Order 1997), with beneficial interests held in common. In Ireland, the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 provides a similar trust-of-land framework and recognises tenancies in common. In Scotland, the equivalent is common property (pro indiviso shares) at common law.Key features and practice points:- Unity of possession, but separate, quantifiable shares.- No survivorship; shares are devisable and attachable by creditors.- Dealings with the whole generally require unanimity or court order.- Common contexts: declarations of trust, severance of joint tenancy, family and insolvency disputes, charging orders.- Remedies include sale/partition by court (E&W: TOLATA; Ireland: LCLRA 2009; Scotland: division and sale).

This Practice Note discusses the difference between highway land merely vested in the highway authority and highway land belonging completely to the authority. It summarises key cases and legislation including the Highways Act 1980 (HiA 1980) and the Local Government Act 1929 (LGA 1929), and explains that where the highway land is merely vested, the highway authority’s ownership extends physically to the top two spade-depths of the relevant land or as far down as is necessary for the construction and maintenance of the highway, including its drains. While such a vested ownership is usually sufficient, highway authorities may buy freehold estates in land under HiA 1980 for the construction of new or improved highways. Some highway land is merely vested in the highway authority and other highway land belongs completely to the authority. Vested land The key to an understanding of the ownership of highway land lies in its history. As Sydney and Beatrice Webb wrote in The Story of the King's Highway

This Practice Note briefly describes the legal and practical issues relevant to ownership of software and other information technology (IT) assets and discusses the alternatives in terms of co-ownership and licensing. There are also some practical tips for effectively managing and dealing with an organisation’s IT assets. Types of IT assets and associated intellectual property rights/other rights An organisation’s IT asset portfolio includes all of the IT systems, solutions, applications and technical know-how that the organisation uses to perform a particular business function or provide a service to its customers. At a more granular level, an organisation’s IT assets will include elements such as: • software • hardware and other infrastructure, eg servers, data centres and network equipment • platforms • networks These assets will sit behind the technology that a customer or other users will see when they, for example, access services or data via the business’ website or online database. Each of these assets (aside from any physical property) may comprise a number of forms of intellectual property rights (lPRs). For example,

An Oxford university alumnus has been sent back to jail to serve a default sentence of nine years for non-payment of a confiscation order. Evdoros Demetriou was convicted in November 2017 of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue, for running a fake ‘green’ investment scheme with four other Oxbridge graduates. The men told investors that their money would be used for research and development into carbon credits, however only £16m of a total £65m was spent on planting trees. Instead, the men stole £20m and laundered it via bank accounts and secret trusts to spend on luxury properties in London, Australia and Dubai. The men also failed to pay around £6.5m in tax. All four men were ordered to pay back over £20m to their victims, and in December 2019, a confiscation order was made against Demetriou for £4,682,613. Demetriou was given three months to pay, but only ended up paying £102,825 towards his order.

Enriched or natural uranium in the form of oxide UO2, or Mixed Oxide (MOX) used in many types of reactor. Pure metal fuels can also be used in other reactor designs (e.g. Magnox).

What is R22 gas? R22 (chlorodifluoromethane) is a refrigerant gas that is a hydrochorofluorocarbon (HCFC) and a type of ozone-depleting substance (ODS). ODS damage the ozone layer which protects life on earth from harmful UV radiation. The three main types of ODS are described in Table A. Table A—Main types of ODS Type of ODS Description Chlorofluorocarbon (CFCs) CFCs like R12 are the most harmful ODS and were banned in the 1990s. Halons Used mainly in fire protection systems and are only used for critical uses such as extinguishing fires from aircraft. These uses will be phased out when ODS alternatives are found. Hydrochloroflourocarbons (HCFCs) The largest remaining use of ODS. Used mainly in refrigeration and air conditioning equipment. R22 is an HCFC. R22 has a low ozone depletion potential and was originally developed to replace CFCs, however it is a powerful greenhouse gas and its global warming potential is 1,800 times higher than carbon dioxide. Sectors affected R22 was commonly used as an air conditioning refrigerant. The

What are ozone-depleting substances? Ozone-depleting substances (ODS) are man-made chemicals that cause damage to the stratospheric ozone layer, which protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation. They include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), carbon tetrachloride and methyl bromide. ODS have been used in refrigerators, air conditioners, fire extinguishers, aerosol propellants, solvents and blowing agents for insulation foams. Background to the GB ODS Regulation The UK is a party to the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The Vienna Convention is a framework convention, aimed at: • restricting activities likely to damage the ozone layer • co-operation in gathering and exchanging information on the effects of human activities on the ozone layer See Practice Note: Vienna Convention 1985 (protection of the ozone Layer)—snapshot. The Montreal Protocol creates a timetable for phasing out and eliminating the production and use of substances that deplete the ozone layer—see Practice Notes: Montreal Protocol 1987 (substances that deplete the ozone layer)—snapshot and Amendments to

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 5 August 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 (CA98) investigation into a capacity sharing agreement between P&O Ferries Holdings Limited and DFDS A/S (Case 51099). Latest developments On 5 August 2022, the CMA published its decision to accept the commitments proposed by the parties subject to an additional obligation for a monitoring trustee to be appointed to oversee compliance with one of the commitments (as set out below). Parties • P&O Ferries Holdings Limited (P&O Ferries) • DFDS A/S (DFDS) (together, the companies) Background In November 2021, the CMA launched an investigation into the companies’ capacity sharing agreement under Chapter 1 of the CA98. In March 2022, the CMA decided to proceed with the investigation. The companies’ capacity sharing agreement provides a ‘turn

The P.R.I.M.E. Finance Arbitration Rules were revised in 2021 and the 2022 edition came into force on 1 January 2022, applying to arbitrations commenced on or after that date (the P.R.I.M.E. Finance Rules; the Rules). The Rules also include model clauses and a model submission agreement. This Practice Note considers appointing, challenging and replacing the arbitral tribunal under the P.R.I.M.E. Finance Rules. The P.R.I.M.E. Finance Rules provide detailed rules for the nomination and appointment of the tribunal. They also deal with the process of constituting a tribunal, arbitrators’ duties of disclosure and the challenge and replacement of arbitrators. Composition of the arbitral tribunal Section III of the P.R.I.M.E. Finance Rules sets out the process by which an arbitrator or arbitral panel may be appointed. Section III also sets out the processes of challenging and replacing an arbitrator, and the duties upon potential arbitrators to disclose relevant background information. Number of arbitrators If, within 30 days of the commencement of arbitration, the parties have not decided on the number of arbitrators,