Underlying concepts A general overview of the law relating to adverse possession can be found in the Practice Note: Adverse possession—overview. The trustees of a charitable land will hold the legal title to any land on trust to apply it for the charitable purposes that are generally set out in the trust’s governing document. In order to first gain status as a charity, a trust needs to have an exclusively charitable purpose. It is also important to bear in mind that the Charities

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has led to unprecedented social distancing measures and lockdowns being introduced. This in turn has had a significant impact on the ability of the courts, and court users, to carry out their normal functions. In order to deal with specific challenges relevant to insolvency proceedings, a new Temporary Insolvency Practice Direction was introduced on 6 April 2020. It expired on 1 October 2020 and has been replaced several times (all in the same form), the most recent version of which, the Temporary Insolvency Practice Direction Supporting the Insolvency Practice Direction (TIPD), has effect from 30 June 2021 and expires on 30 September 2021. For further details on the Practice Direction on Insolvency Proceedings which the TIPD supports, see Practice Note: The Temporary

Are High Court Enforcement Officers exempt from certification? The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCEA 2007) states that a person may act as enforcement agent only if they fulfil the following criteria: • if they are certified under TCEA 2007, s 64, or • they are exempt by reason of being: ◦ a constable ◦ an officer of Revenue and Customs ◦ a court officer or staff appointed under section 2(1) of the Courts Act 2003 (CoA 2003) and are acting in the course of their duty as an officer of a government department • they

Disclosure under the pre-action protocol In addition to paragraph 8.4 of the Pre-Action Protocol for Professional Negligence (the Protocol), paragraph 10 of the Protocol deals with documents in more detail. It states that the early exchange of relevant information is encouraged so that issues in dispute can be clarified or resolved. The claimant should provide ‘key documents’ with the letter of claim, as should the professional with the letter of response, and both parties should provide any other documents that are reasonably requested. Paragraph 10 of the Protocol also states that the Protocol should not be used to justify a fishing expedition by either party and that no party is obliged to disclose any document which a court could not order them to disclose under CPR 31.16. Parameters of disclosure Clearly, the document

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court considered the consequences of the filing of a notice by administrators under paragraph 84(1) of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) in circumstances where those same administrators were removed and replaced by court order before the notice was registered under IA 1986, Sch B1, para 84(4). The court held that, notwithstanding the removal and replacement of the administrators, the office of administrator and the administration of the company will come to an end when the notice is registered by the Registrar of Companies. The case illustrates the difficulty in taking action in respect of an administration under IA 1986, Sch B1 if the relevant action cannot be completed before an administrator files a notice under IA 1986, Sch B1, para 84(1) that the company has no property to permit a distribution to creditors, which upon registration will trigger the three-month countdown to dissolution. Written by Nathan Webb, barrister at Forum Chambers.

NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in Paraguay and throughout the world are met, see further: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Paraguayan merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Paraguay? Since becoming fully staffed in 2016, the National Competition Commission (the CONACOM) has reviewed over 101 merger notifications,, approving all but one. At least eight of these approvals were subject to conditions. Notably regulatory developments include CONACOM’s publication of its Merger Guidelines on March 2021, which introduced detailed standards for merger regulation—eg defining thresholds for mergers, acquisitions of control and joint ventures. Nevertheless, CONACOM’s continues to recommend pre-filing consultations as a best practice. In May 2025, CONACOM issued a new resolution updating and modifying the Merger Guidelines and the requirements for filing merger notifications. The new Merger Guidelines, which repealed the previous version, introduced two types of merger notifications: (1) the Ordinary Notification Form and (2) the Simplified Notification Form. This distinction aims to streamline and adapt the

The term paralegal is used to describe an individual who is employed in a legal services firm under the supervision of qualified lawyers to carry out legal work.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case concerned an application for a stay of proceedings in the High Court for the disqualification of a director, Mr. Greensill. The stay was sought by Mr. Greensill on the basis that there were parallel proceedings pursued in private law in the Federal Court of Australia. The stay was refused and the court reiterated that, where a case management stay is sought on the grounds of parallel proceedings elsewhere, it is to be expected that it will only be in rare and compelling circumstances that, as a matter of fact, the relevant test has been met. The judge, looking at matter in the round, held that the relief sought by Mr. Greensill would be likely to lead to significant delay and complication in the final determination of all the disqualification issues against him, with insufficient material countervailing case management benefits. Accordingly, the application for a stay was dismissed. Written by Georgia Whiting, legal counsel at Ardmore.

An agreement between Project Co and the Construction Contractor or FM Contractor or their parent company which is outside the Construction Contract or FM Contract and is aimed at circumventing the prohibition on 'pay when paid' under Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 as amended by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

Following the end of the Brexit transition period on 31 December 2020 (IP completion day), the EU ‘one-stop shop’ principle ceased to apply to the UK meaning that mergers can now be subject to review by both the CMA and the European Commission (Commission) (see further, Brexit and IP completion day—implications for UK competition law). This tracker summarises all transactions which have been reviewed by the CMA which were also notified to the Commission since IP completion day. Ongoing Transaction Industry sector Date parallel review opened Commission decision CMA decision Saipem/Subsea7 Support activities for petroleum and natural gas extraction 16/06/2026 • Referred to phase II —22/07/2026 • Cleared at phase 1—04/11/2025 Diverging decisions Transaction Industry sector Date parallel review opened European Commission CMA Vandemoortele/Délifrance Manufacture of bakery and farinaceous products 30/10/2025 • Cleared, subject to conditions at phase I—18/12/2025 Cleared, subject to commitments at phase 2—20/08/2026 Paramount/Warner Bros. Discovery Publishing of video games 02/06/2026 • Cleared, subject to conditions at phase I—22/07/2026 • Cleared at phase 1–06/08/2026 2025 Identical decisions Transaction Industry sector Date parallel review opened European

Parallel imports typically occur when branded goods are imported into the EEA from countries where those goods are sold at a lower price which, in turn, can be sold at a reduced price in the EEA. The brand owner generally relies on its trade mark rights to prevent parallel imports and may pursue a trade mark infringement claim where it has not consented to such imports, ie where the trade mark rights have not been exhausted.

Parallel imports, or ‘grey market’ goods, are genuine goods that are placed on the market by, or with the consent of, the rights holder but are imported for sale into a particular market without the right holder’s consent. They are not counterfeit or 'black market' goods.