FORTHCOMING CHANGE: On 28 October 2026, as part of Budget 2026, a number of changes were announced to CSOP and EMI schemes. (1) CSOP is to be known as “EMI2” with effect from 28 October 2026; (2) with effect from 6 April 2027, the CSOP/EMI2 individual option limit will be increased from £60,000 to £120,000; (3) from 6 April 2027, the maximum period for exercising CSOP/EMI2 options while retaining tax advantages will be extended from 10 years to 15 years, and it will be possible to amend CSOP options granted before that date to benefit from this without losing tax advantages, provided that this is done in line with the legislation; (4) the interaction between the EMI and CSOP/EMI2 individual option limits will be removed, allowing eligible employees to use the full £250,000 EMI limit and £120,000 CSOP/EMI2 limit independently and increasing the maximum value of tax-advantaged options that an eligible employee can hold across the two schemes from £250,000 to £370,000; (5) with effect from 6 April 2027, the grace period within which EMI

The actions of an adviser or a client taking advantage of a piece of information to the financial detriment of the life company.

The Scheme's arrangement for the selection and appointment of member-nominated trustees requires that, where there are more nominations than vacancies for a member-nominated trustee, a ballot will be held. Following the request for nominations to fill [insert number of vacancies] vacant member-nominated

This Practice Note considers the different forms of construction contract which are available and which contracts are more suitable for particular types of work, taking into account factors such as the procurement method being used, the sector to which the works relate and the size and complexity of the works. There have been standard forms of building contracts in the UK for over 100 years and their use is extremely widespread. There are numerous forms that the parties to a construction project can choose to adopt—the range of contracts that has developed over the years reflects the different procurement methods that now exist, different risk profiles, the variety in size of projects and the varying demands/expectations of those who own and use/occupy buildings. Construction projects are complex, both in terms of the rights and obligations of the employer and the contractor who will carry out the work, and also in terms of what will physically occur on site. The contracts that govern these projects and the relationships associated with them therefore need to be clear and

IP analysis: In a closely watched dispute over mRNA vaccine technology, the Court of Appeal upheld the validity of European Patent (UK) No 3 590 949 (‘EP949’), Moderna’s patent for mRNA molecules with all uracil nucleotides replaced by N1-methylpseudouridine–a modification at the heart of COVID-19 vaccine development. Pfizer/BioNTech’s challenge failed on both novelty and obviousness: the court found that the prior art (the UPenn patent application) did not clearly and unambiguously disclose Moderna’s specific combination, and that inventive step cannot be denied simply because a modification is “obvious to try” without a concrete expectation of success. For patent practitioners, the judgment reinforces that selection inventions are protected where prior art lacks a direct pointer, and that robust, practically relevant expert evidence is essential in complex biotech litigation. The decision sets a high bar for invalidating foundational patents in fast-moving scientific fields, especially where the technology is central to public health innovation. Written by Ruby Zahra, associate at Shoosmiths LLP.

The selection process begins with the shortlisting or sifting of applications to determine which applicants should be invited to participate in the next stage of the recruitment process, usually interviews. Up to this point, the recruitment process is concerned with inviting applications from the broadest possible spectrum of applicants. The shortlisting stage begins the process of eliminating less suitable candidates by matching each applicant's skills and experience to the job description and person specification, and in so doing narrowing down the field to the point where (after interview) the most suitable applicant can be offered the job. The general prohibition against unlawful discrimination in the arrangements an employer makes for the purposes of determining who should be offered employment also applies to the shortlisting and selection process. An employer should therefore avoid assessing applications on grounds of an applicant's personal characteristics unless an occupational requirement has been identified for the role, and should ensure that selection criteria are not discriminatory. Employers should also bear in mind the general prohibition on asking questions about an applicant’s

A closed network designed to protect brands where products can only be sold by the manufacturer itself and by its appointed distributors and the manufacturer will usually impose on its appointed distributors the obligation not to sell those products to non-approved distributors.

A system whereby only appointed distributors and retailers are permitted to purchase and resell the producer's goods.

Where a supplier agrees to supply only approved distributors who meet particular minimum criteria, and the distributors themselves agree only to supply end users or other distributors or dealers within the approved network.

This Agreement is made on [insert date] Parties 1 [insert name of party] [of OR a company incorporated in [England and Wales] under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (Manufacturer) and 2 [insert name of party] [of OR a company incorporated in [England and Wales] under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (Distributor) (each of the Manufacturer and the Distributor being a party and together they are the parties). Background (A) The Manufacturer [manufactures and] supplies the [ [luxury OR premium OR top of market] ] Products which are [associated with [high OR the highest] standards of quality in their field]. (B) The image of, and standard of service associated with, the Products are of [the highest] importance to customers and to maintain them the Manufacturer only appoints distributors in the Territory which meet the Requirements. (C) The Distributor is able and willing to meet the Requirements and on that basis to distribute [and support] the Products in the Territory in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. The parties agree: 1 Definitions 1.1 In this Agreement: Active Sales • has the meaning given in Article 8(7) of VABEO; Affiliate

This Agreement is made on [insert date] Parties 1 [insert name of party] [of OR a company incorporated in [England and Wales] under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (Manufacturer) and 2 [insert name of party] [of OR a company incorporated in [country] under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (Distributor) (each of the Manufacturer and the Distributor being a party and together they are the parties). Background (A) The Manufacturer [manufactures and] supplies the [ [luxury OR premium OR top of market ] ] Products which are [associated with [high OR the highest] standards of quality in their field]. (B) The image of, and standard of service associated with, the Products are of [the highest] importance to customers and to maintain them the Manufacturer only appoints distributors in the Territory which meet the Requirements. (C) The Distributor is able and willing to meet the Requirements and on that basis to distribute [and support] the Products in the Territory in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. The parties agree: 1 Definitions 1.1 In this Agreement: Active Sales • has the meaning given to it in Article 1(1)(l) of VBER; Affiliate

Commercial analysis: On 8 May 2026, the Court of Appeal (CoA) overturned a Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) decision concerning Deckers’ selective distribution system (SDS) for HOKA running shoes. The CAT had previously ruled that the terms and conditions of Deckers’ SDS amounted to unlawful resale price maintenance, but the Court of Appeal found the law had been incorrectly applied and quashed this finding. The CoA judgment clarifies the legal approach to by object infringements, emphasising the need to consider the economic context and allowing for a more pragmatic, ‘common sense’ analysis. In this briefing, Rona Bar-Isaac, Karoline Phillips and Victoire Binchet of Addleshaw Goddard, revisit the background to the case and explain the CoA’s main findings, before pulling some key takeaways for businesses who operate SDSs or are considering doing so in the future.