The European Commission has announced that seven proposals for AI Factories have been submitted under the EuroHPC Joint Undertaking, following a call announced in September 2024. Finland, Luxembourg, Sweden, Germany, Italy and Greece, with the participation from other EU Member States, have proposed to build an AI Factory around an existing or a new supercomputer adapted to AI needs, while Spain, with the assistance of Portugal, Romania and Turkey, is expected to prepare a proposal imminently. The submitted proposals will now be evaluated and the selection of the first AI Factories is expected to be announced by the EuroHPC Joint Undertaking in December 2024.

The 17th edition of the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG) has been published two years after the 16th edition. The JCG is usually the starting point for practitioners and courts when valuing general damages (PSLA) for personal injury and clinical negligence claims. The figures in the 17th edition reflect the general increase in inflation since the last edition.

The issue of severance normally arises in an enforcement application where the court has upheld a jurisdictional challenge or decided that there has been a breach of the rules of natural justice, but only in respect of part of the adjudicator’s decision. The question, therefore, is whether some parts of the adjudicator’s decision be severed and enforced, even if other parts were made without jurisdiction/in breach of natural justice. The issue of severance can also arise where the court has determined (eg in Part 8 proceedings) that the adjudicator’s reasoning on a particular point was flawed (see, for example, Willow Corp v MTD Contractors). For guidance generally on breach of natural justice, the grounds for jurisdictional challenges, and Part 8 proceedings, see Practice Notes: Breach of natural justice in adjudication, Grounds for a jurisdictional challenge in an adjudication and Adjudication and Part 8 proceedings. Cantillon v Urvasco Guidance on the ability to sever a decision was given by the court, on an obiter basis, in Cantillon v Urvasco. There the adjudicator had

A severable contract is one where the parties’ obligations can be divided into distinct parts, so that non‑performance of one part does not necessarily discharge or invalidate the entire agreement. In practice, this often arises in supply, construction, services and framework agreements, where price, delivery and performance are structured in separate stages, milestones, lots or call‑offs.Across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, severability is primarily a matter of contractual interpretation rather than detailed statutory definition. Courts examine the wording, commercial context and pricing structure to decide whether the contract is entire (all‑or‑nothing) or severable (partially enforceable). Clear drafting identifying separate obligations, separate consideration and independent timeframes is crucial.A severable contract allows a party to terminate or claim damages for a defective or undelivered element while preserving the remainder. It can limit the risk of a fundamental breach bringing down the whole agreement and affects remedies, limitation, set‑off and repudiation analysis. Severability clauses, severable obligations and divisible consideration are therefore important tools in commercial contract drafting and dispute resolution throughout the UK and Ireland.

Co-ownership of land Although beneficial interests in co-owned land can be held either on the basis of a joint tenancy or a tenancy in common, where property is registered the legal estate can only be held on a joint tenancy and by no more than four of the co-owners, see: section 34(2) to the Law of Property Act 1925. If there are more than four individuals with an equitable interest in a property consideration should be given to the identity of the registered proprietors, ie who should become legal owners of the property on the title register (albeit as trustees for them all). Note that the interests of a person in actual occupation (which typically, but not exclusively, will involve a person who is,

Several liability arises where two or more persons make separate promises to another.

A person who is severally liable with others may remain liable for the whole claim even where judgment has been obtained against the others.

Severance is the process by which a joint tenancy is converted into a tenancy in common. It is a matter of evidence whether severance has occurred. There are limitations: • there can be no severance by will • only a beneficial/equitable interest can be severed—a legal estate must be held by way of joint tenancy (see section 36(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) and Practice Note: Establishing a beneficial interest (joint ownership)). The consent of the other joint tenants is not required for an individual co-owner to sever a joint tenancy. Any joint tenant can sever the tenancy at any time. Severance by statutory notice It is usual to consider whether a joint tenancy should be severed when advising on relationship breakdown. Severance may be effected by statutory written notice under LPA 1925, s 36(2). This is the method most commonly used. The notice need not be in any particular form; it need not even use the term severance provided that it shows an immediate intention to terminate the joint tenancy.

Pensions analysis: The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman has upheld a complaint about a serious ill-health benefit. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.

Tax analysis: The Court of Appeal, by a majority of two to one, held that the investment management services, which had been made by the supplier while it and the Appellant were part of the same VAT group, were treated as supplied when invoiced (which was after the supplier had left the VAT group) and were subject to VAT. The decision proved to be a difficult balancing exercise of the VAT grouping rules under section 43 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (VATA 1994) and the time of supply for continuous services under the Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 (VAT Regulations 1995), reg. 90. The decision also offers a valuable insight into how the Court of Appeal assesses whether its previous decision in another case remains binding on it where there are subsequent decisions of the House of Lords/Supreme Court in other cases that may appear inconsistent with that original decision of the Court of Appeal. Written by Julia Glukhikh, barrister and Helen McGhee, partner at Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP.

Law360, London: Britain is facing a 'widening gap' in its ability to dispute cyber threats and must improve its defences to combat the increasing severity and scale of hostile threats, the head of the country's top cyber security agency said on 3 December 2024.

This Practice Note focuses on the legal framework governing discharges from sewers and drains, including environmental permitting and private law liability in nuisance and trespass. It should be read alongside related Practice Notes covering the wider regulation of the sewerage system, the operation of sewage treatment works, and the statutory duties and powers of sewerage undertakers, including: • Sewers and drains—sewerage undertakers’ core duties and powers • Sewage disposal—regulation of the sewerage system • Sewage disposal—regulation of sewage disposal works • Sewers and drains—key definitions • Sewers and drains—maintenance and protection of sewers For an overview of the regulatory framework governing the sewerage system as a whole, including the role of the Environment Agency and Ofwat, see Practice Note: Sewage disposal—regulation of the sewerage system. Right to discharge The absence of a general statutory right to discharge must be considered in the context of the statutory duties imposed on sewerage undertakers under the Water Industry Act 1991 (WIA 1991) to provide and maintain sewerage services. For further detail on those duties and powers, see Practice