EU analysis: In a recent judgement of the Court of Justice, the court held: (i) Where an EU national and their family members had access to NHS, they have comprehensive sickness insurance (CSI) for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of the Citizens’ Directive; (ii) Once a self-sufficient child has acquired permanent residence, there is no need for either that child or the primary carers upon whom the child depends, to continue to have CSI. While the UK has long-held that access to the NHS would not suffice to cover the comprehensive sickness requirement, and therefore those residing without some sort of separate private or other insurance cover were not residing legally, this judgement overturns that requirement. Although the UK has now left the EU, this will have an impact both for those seeking to naturalise as British citizens later on, and on the historic entitlements to welfare benefits. Written by Sandra Akinbolu, barrister at The 36 Group.

Tax analysis: In joined cases (Various pension funds v Netherlands tax authorities), the Court of Justice held that for the fund management exemption to apply, benefits and entitlements provided to pension fund members must depend primarily on the investment results of the fund.

EU Law analysis: The Court of Justice has issued its judgment following a request for a preliminary ruling made by the Landgericht Erfurt (Regional Court of Erfurt, Germany) as to whether Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 (the EU Infosoc Directive), which covers the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes broadcasters from seeking fair compensation where their broadcasts are reproduced by natural persons for private/non-commercial use. The Court of Justice ruled in the affirmative in so far as any harm suffered by the organisations in question cannot be classified as minimal. Written by Fergus Brown, associate at AA Thornton IP LLP.

Introduction It is a sad fact that in many personal injury cases, particularly those involving the most catastrophic injuries, the injured person will have lost or will lose the capacity to deal with their own affairs. In many such cases, the injured person will lack the capacity to appoint an attorney to deal with their affairs or to set up a personal injury trust themselves. The involvement of the Court of Protection (COP) will usually be necessary in these cases. The court (either the COP or the court hearing the personal injury claim) may need to decide whether to approve the establishment of a personal injury trust or the appointment of a deputy. It should be noted that, even if the injured person has appointed an attorney under an Enduring or Lasting Power of Attorney, that appointed attorney(s) will not have the authority to create a trust to hold any award without authority from the court hearing the claim allowing them to establish a trust. Such authority would usually be recorded

The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (DDSA 2020) is in force from 6 April 2022. Proceedings issued by the court on or after 6 April 2022 are subject to the provisions of DDSA 2020 and the changes to procedure under the amended Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955. For further information, see Practice Note: Introduction to the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020. Proceedings issued by the court on or before 5 April 2022 will continue to progress under the pre-DDSA 2020 law, whether submitted on the digital system or via paper forms. Such applications will not be impacted by the coming into force of DDSA 2020, nor the consequential changes to procedure. This Practice Note covers the position for proceedings issued prior to 6 April 2022, the phasing out of the regional divorce centres and the introduction of the Courts and Tribunals Service Centre (CTSC). It also provides guidance on the de-linking of divorce and financial remedy applications. Legislative changes have been made as a consequence of

The Crichel Down Rules It is not uncommon for acquiring authorities to seek to dispose of land acquired by compulsory purchase. Often this is because the acquiring authority helped assemble land interests needed to bring forward a development, and will, subsequent to implementation of the compulsory purchase order (CPO), dispose of the land to a developer who will bring forward the development. However, sometimes land which was acquired through a CPO has become surplus to requirements. In such circumstances, an acquiring authority may want to, or be required to, dispose of the land. The Crichel Down Rules require that in certain circumstances, surplus government land that was acquired by, or under a threat of, compulsion, is offered back to former owners, their successors, or to sitting tenants. The Rules are non-statutory, although as explained below, the courts do expect adherence to them where they apply. In England, the Crichel Down Rules are contained in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Guidance on ‘The Crichel Down Rules’ (the English Rules). In Wales, the Crichel Down Rules

Arbitration analysis: The Supreme Court of Spain upheld the criminal conviction of a Sole Arbitrator who continued arbitral proceedings after his judicial appointment had been nullified due to defective service on a foreign sovereign. Despite being expressly required by the court clerk to cease acting, the Sole Arbitrator persisted, issued a preliminary award confirming jurisdiction, moved the arbitral seat from Madrid to Paris, and ultimately rendered the final award ordering the respondent State of Malaysia to pay approx. US$ 15bn. The Supreme Court held that the arbitral autonomy cannot justify disregarding a binding judicial decision declaring nullity of the arbitrator’s appointment. Once the appointment proceedings were nullified, the appointment decision was removed from ‘the legal world’ and, thus, the Sole Arbitrator lacked any valid mandate to continue arbitration. This judgment is significant for arbitration practitioners as it draws a line between legitimate resistance to judicial interference and defiance of court authority, which is not permissible. It may also imply potential criminal exposure for arbitrators in similar circumstances. Some observers may view the case as an intrusion into arbitral independence. However, the Supreme Court framed the issue not as judicial control over arbitration itself, but as enforcement of a binding judicial decision concerning the very existence of the arbitrator’s mandate. Written by Malgorzata Judkiewicz-Garvan, independent arbitrator & lecturer in Arbitration.

The Criminal Procedure Rules Committee (CPRC) has made rules governing the practice and procedure to be followed in the criminal courts in England and Wales since 2005. The current version of the rules are contained in the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025, SI 2025/909 (CrimPR 2025) which must be read in conjunction with the current version of the Criminal Practice Directions (CPD) and the Practice Direction (Costs in Criminal Proceedings) which can be found on the GOV.UK: Criminal Procedure Rules and Criminal Practice Directions webpage. See also Practice Note: Criminal Practice Directions. CrimPR 2025, SI 2025/909, r 2.3 provides that the rules are to be referred to as the 'CrimPR'. Updating the Criminal Procedure Rules The CrimPR are usually amended twice a year and the changes come into force at the start of April and October. Each revision is made by a statutory instrument amending the current set of rules. Every five years the CPRC consolidates the CrimPR which involved the revocation of the previous CrimPR and all amending statutory instruments and the reissue of the CrimPR in a consolidated

Corporate Crime analysis: The Criminal Procedure Rules 2025, SI 2025/909 (CrimPR 2025) come into force on 6 October 2025, marking the first full consolidation in five years. Liam Lane of Peters & Peters explains that while many of the changes introduced by the CrimPR 2025, SI 2025/909 are structural, the enhanced clarity and harmonised procedures will have practical implications for lawyers, reinforcing that compliance with the Rules remains compulsory and central to the smooth operation of criminal justice.

Cy-près definition Where a clear charitable intention has been expressed, but it will not potentially fail on account of the mode being incapable of execution, the cy-près doctrine allows the substitution of another mode which is as close as possible (hence the name of the doctrine) to the donor’s specified mode. The cy-près doctrine has been put on a partly statutory footing by Part 6 of the Charities Act 2011 (CA 2011). This note retains much of the pre-2011 material. A separate Practice Note addresses charitable schemes including cy-près schemes made under CA 2011, s 67. A useful definition of the cy-près doctrine was provided by the Restatement of the Law, Second, Trusts 2d: As Adopted and Promulgated by the American Law Institute at Washington, D.C., May 23, 1957, American Law Institute: ‘If property is given in trust to be applied for a particular charitable purpose, and it is or becomes impossible or impracticable or illegal to carry out the particular purpose..., the trust will not fail but the court will direct the application of the property

THIS PRACTICE NOTE APPLIES IN RELATION TO OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEMES The chair of pension schemes providing money purchase benefits must sign an annual governance statement commonly known as a 'DC chair's statement' (although it is verbosely referred to in legislation as an 'annual statement regarding governance'). The legislative and regulatory framework The legislative requirement to produce a chair’s statement was introduced on 6 April 2015 through the Occupational Pension Schemes (Charges and Governance) Regulations 2015, SI 2015/879 (the Charge and Governance Regulations 2015), which inserted this requirement in the Occupational Pension Schemes (Scheme Administration) Regulations 1996, SI 1996/1715, regs 23 and 26. The penalties for non-compliance are set out in the Charge and Governance Regulations 2015, SI 2015/879, reg 28—for further information, see Penalties for non-compliance below. The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has produced guidance on this requirement which can be found in the following documents: • its General Code of Practice, in particular the section on the Chair’s statement • its detailed guidance on Communicating with DC scheme members (first published in July 2016 and subsequently

Ireland—Employment analysis: This article, was written by A&L Goodbody’s Employment Team. It’s been impossible to escape reporting of the introduction by the new United States Government administration of a series of Executive Orders aimed at scaling back diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in the federal government and private sector.