The Electricity Supply Pension Scheme (ESPS) is a trust-based scheme established by the Electricity Council by a resolution dated 20 January 1983 as an industry-wide pension scheme for employees in the nationalised electricity industry. It remained a single scheme on privatisation on 31 March 1990 but was then divided into various sections or ‘Groups’. The scheme rules are not publicly available. For further information on the statutory protections for ESPS members following privatisation, see Practice Note: The Electricity Supply Pension Scheme—Protected Persons. Each principal electricity company participating in the ESPS forms its own Group. There are currently 23 Groups. Some Groups have only one participating employer, other Groups have multiple participating employers. Each Group is actuarially independent and the assets and liabilities of each Group are assessed separately. While there was a common scheme-wide benefit structure at the time of privatisation, since then each Group has been able to provide different benefits for its members. The ESPS rules are structured as a core set of

Statutory Framework The obligations relating to the treatment of 'Protected Persons' are set out in the Electricity (Protected Persons) (England and Wales) Pension Regulations 1990, SI 1990/346 (the 'Regulations’), which were made under the Electricity Act 1989, Sch 14. There are parallel regulations governing the position in Scotland. The purpose of the Regulations is to ensure that the pension arrangements in the Electricity Supply Pension Scheme (ESPS) continue to be available to employees in the electricity industry following privatisation in 1990. The obligations in the Regulations are overriding and apply despite any contrary contractual arrangements contained, for example, in a business sale agreement. It remains possible for individuals to agree other arrangements through their contract of employment, for example. For further information on the ESPS, see Practice Note: The Electricity Supply Pension Scheme. Protected Persons Protected Persons fall into two categories: • Protected Employees—these, broadly speaking, are employees who were active members of the ESPS on 31 March 1990. This category

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: The Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 (PSTIA 2022) is partly in force. Further provisions will come into force on a date to be appointed by regulations. PSTIA 2022 amends aspects of the Code and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954), principally concerning rights to share apparatus, valuation in a renewal under LTA 1954 and unresponsive occupiers. The existing and prospective changes are referred to in the Practice Note below. The Code The Electronic Communications Code (the ‘Code’) is set out in sections 106–119 and Schedule 3A Pt 1 to the Communications Act 2003 (CA 2003). It replaced the previous Electronic Communications Code, set out in Schedule 2 to the Telecommunications Act 1984 (TA 1984) as amended by CA 2003 (the ‘previous Code’). This Practice Note sets out the extent of Code rights, how they arise, (by agreement between the parties or imposed by court order), provisions as to assigning, sharing and upgrading, and how consideration and compensation is determined. It also examines how pre-existing Code agreements are

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: The Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 (PSTIA 2022) is partly in force. Further provisions will come into force on a date to be appointed by regulations. PSTIA 2022 amends aspects of the Code and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, principally concerning rights to share apparatus, valuation in a renewal under LTA 1954 and unresponsive occupiers. The existing and prospective changes are referred to in the Practice Note below. For more information in respect of the Code, see Practice Note: The Electronic Communications Code—code rights. The Code The Electronic Communications Code (the ‘Code’) is set out in sections 106–119A and Schedule 3A to the Communications Act 2003 (CA 2003). It replaced the previous Electronic Communications Code, set out in Schedule 2 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (TA 1984) (the ‘previous Code’). This Practice Note sets out whether an agreement falls within the Code or the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954), how Code rights can be terminated, modified or renewed, how to serve Code notices,

This Practice Note looks at the Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) scheme, which was introduced in a staged way from October/November 2023, and has been fully operational as of 2 April 2025. Carrier’s liability legislation is amended from 20 March 2026 to make the scheme fully enforceable (although this commenced operationally from 25 February 2026). Broadly, the scheme requires prior permission to travel in the form of an ETA to be obtained by non-British or Irish persons who want to visit the UK and do not already have a visa, and who are not required to obtain one. There is a short and cheap application process, and many decisions will be automated. Prior to the introduction of the scheme, persons of some nationalities were not required to obtain prior permission to come to the UK as a visitor or short-term Creative Worker if they were from a list of specified countries (non-visa nationals) and are not intending to come to the UK for longer than six months. As such, since the roll out, prior permission to

Employment analysis: On 10 October 2024, the government published the Employment Rights Bill 2024. The Bill sets out the rights and policies, previously set out by the Labour government in its ‘New Deal for Working People’ and in the Labour Manifesto, which it intends to introduce. The Bill is a broad piece of legislation which strengthens a number of existing working rights in addition to introducing some new rights and policies. This includes changes to zero hour contracts, fire and rehire practices, the unfair dismissal qualifying period, sick pay, parental leave, probationary periods, flexible working, protections for new mothers, industrial action and trade union recognition. This analysis contains an overview of the incoming legislation and commencement dates as well as a brief summary of each new right.

The Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015 (MEES Regs 2015), SI 2015/962 make provision for minimum energy efficiency standards in the rental sector. This includes commercial rental premises. From 1 April 2018 if the relevant premises has an EPC rating of F or G, a landlord will be unable to let the premises on a new tenancy or let the property on such a tenancy as a result of an extension or renewal of an existing tenancy, unless an exemption applies or has been registered, or there are no relevant energy

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Introduction to the Energy White Paper On 14 December 2020, the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) published details of the long awaited Energy White Paper. The paper seeks to build on existing policy commitments set out in the Prime Minister’s ten-point plan for a Green Industrial Revolution (the ‘ten-point plan’) and the National Infrastructure Strategy, both of which were published in November 2020, and presents a vision of how the UK intends to make the transition to net zero by 2050. BEIS estimates that the measures in the paper could reduce emissions across power, industry and buildings by up to 230 MtCO2e in the period to 2032 and support up to 220,000 jobs per year by 2030. For more information on the ten-point plan and the National Infrastructure Strategy, see: LNB News 18/11/2020 25 and News Analysis: The National Infrastructure Strategy—infrastructure commitments and planning reforms. This Practice Note provides a summary of the policies and proposals set out

Arbitration analysis: The Czech Republic sought to set aside a US$750m investment treaty arbitration award on multiple grounds under sections 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The award was rendered on 18 May 2022 (the ‘Award’) by a London seated arbitral tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’) appointed under the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic-Switzerland bilateral investment treaty (the ‘BIT’). The arbitration was conducted under the UNCITRAL Arbitral Rules 2010. Mr Justice Foxton had in an earlier judgment, dated 8 March 2024 (the ‘March Judgment’), already dismissed the majority of the Czech Republic’s section 67 and section 68 challenges. In the present judgment, which is the second substantive judgment on Czech Republic’s challenge of the Award, Foxton J dismissed the three surviving section 67 challenges and one remaining section 68 challenge. Written by Heidi Yildiz, barrister and Arbitrator at 36 Stone, the 36 Group.

Arbitration analysis: This appeal concerns the correct interpretation of Chapter 11 of the free trade agreement between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America (the ‘Treaty’). In April 2018, Elliott Associates, LP (‘Elliott’) commenced arbitration proceedings, alleging that the Republic of Korea (‘Korea’) had breached specific provisions of Chapter 11 of the Treaty. Korea objected to the tribunal’s jurisdiction, arguing that the claim fell outside the scope of Chapter 11, including its dispute resolution provisions. However, in June 2023, the tribunal upheld Elliott’s claims and awarded damages against Korea. In response, Korea applied to the High Court in July 2023 seeking to set aside the arbitral award under section 67 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The application was dismissed by Justice Foxton of the Commercial Court in August 2024, resulting in the present appeal. In overturning the High Court’s decision, the Court of Appeal (COA) clarified the correct approach to interpreting treaties. It affirmed that interpretation must align with the principles established in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), which reflect customary international law. Drawing from Article 31 and 32 of the VCLT, the COA emphasised that treaty terms must be construed by reference to their ordinary meaning, in context, and in light of the object and purpose of the treaty without drawing from English authorities as to whether particular issues ‘will be jurisdictional for section 67 purposes’. The COA concluded that, on a proper interpretation, Section A of the Treaty imposes specific jurisdictional requirements that must be satisfied, for an offer to arbitrate under Section B of Chapter 11 to arise. Accordingly, the High Court was found to have erred in holding otherwise. Written by Dr Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and Naa Amorkor Amarteifio, partner at AB & David Africa, Ghana.

Arbitration analysis: This case arises from a claim to set aside the final award in an LCIA arbitration, on the grounds of serious irregularity under section 68 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 (the ‘Act’). The claimants contended that the tribunal breached its duties under section 33 of the Act (‘Section 33’) by: (1) refusing to adjourn an evidentiary hearing to allow the claimants obtain legal representation and attend the hearing; (2) declining to admit and assess certain evidence tendered by the respondent in the arbitration; and (3) adopting an inappropriate approach to certain issues in the final award. In dismissing the claim and holding that no serious irregularity had occurred under section 68 of the Act (‘Section 68’), the court found that the claimants’ lack of legal representation was a self-inflicted consequence of their failure to take proper and prompt steps to vary a freezing order issued in related litigation proceedings. The court also concluded that it was the tribunal’s responsibility to determine the extent to which it needed to probe the respondent’s evidence and submissions in the arbitration. Additionally, the court stressed that it is not the court’s role ‘to tell an international commercial tribunal how to set out its award or the reason therefor’ under the guise of applying section 68. Accordingly, a claim that the tribunal has ignored or failed to have regard to evidence relied upon by one of the parties cannot form the basis of a claim under section 68 (2) (a) or (d). Written by Dr Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and IfeOluwa Alabi, associate at Hogan Lovells, London.

Arbitration analysis: This case arises from the claimant’s application for interim injunctive reliefs (the ‘Application’) seeking, among others, to restrain the first defendant (‘Firm B’), including any of its branches from (i) acting for Corporation C in an ongoing arbitration against Corporation D (the ‘Second Arbitration’); and (ii) providing any confidential information from a previous arbitration between the Claimant and Corporation B (the ‘First Arbitration’), to Corporation C. In determining the Application, the Court considered the principles governing the grant of interim reliefs as established in American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd. The court also considered the boundaries of arbitral confidentiality by considering what documents and information the obligation of arbitral confidentiality covers, and the relevant exceptions to this obligation. The court concluded that the claimant was not entitled to the requested reliefs. After examining the claimant's allegations of breaches of arbitral confidentiality, the court found no breach, except for some limited settlement information from the First Arbitration. The court was also not persuaded that there was a real risk of confidential information being transferred between Firm B’s London and Asia offices. Consequently, the court decided that granting the injunction would significantly prejudice Firm B and Corporation C, while not granting it would cause no prejudice to the claimant and only minimal prejudice to Corporation D. Written by Dr. Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and IfeOluwa Alabi, associate at Hogan Lovells, London.