Trustees' powers As trusts can arise by operation of law as well as by way of express trusts, the law must provide implied powers to enable trustees to carry out their task. The trustee's implied powers include, for example: • advancements • delegation • insurance • investment • maintenance • buying and selling land In creating express trusts it is common to amend the implied powers and to add to them. The Standard Provisions of the Society of Trust And Estate Practitioners (1st Edition) Background The Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (STEP) was founded in 1991. It commissioned James Kessler QC to produce some routine administrative clauses that could be incorporated into trusts and Wills by reference, to enable those documents to be shortened and simplified. These provisions are known as the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners Standard Provisions (1st Edition) (the 1st Edition). The Standard Provisions form a comprehensive code of administrative provisions which can be included in a Will or trust. A Practice

What is the SCC? The Stockholm Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Institute (SCC) is part of, but independent from, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce. The Arbitration Institute was established in 1917. The SCC was recognised in the 1970s by the United States and the Soviet Union as a neutral centre for the resolution of trade disputes. As a consequence, the SCC still remains a popular forum for East/West disputes, ie disputes between one or more parties from North America or Europe and one or more parties from Russia, China, or the former Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries. The number of cases filed with the SCC has increased considerably over the last 25 years and the SCC has emerged as one of the most important and frequently used arbitration institutions worldwide. The SCC’s recent statistics are available on its website (see also Practice Note: Arbitration statistics and surveys). The SCC administers a broad range of domestic and international commercial arbitration disputes and is also a well-recognised institution for bilateral investment treaty disputes. Approximately

Purpose of the Strong and Simple Framework As set out in the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA)’s Discussion Paper (DP) 1/21 A strong and simple prudential framework for non-systemic banks and building societies, the purpose of the Strong and Simple Framework is to mitigate the ‘complexity problem’ that can arise when the same prudential requirements are applied to all firms regardless of the scale and nature of their operations. The PRA aims to achieve this by simplifying the prudential framework for non-systemic domestic banks and building societies, while maintaining their resilience. Application of the Strong and Simple Framework The Strong and Simple framework applies to Small Domestic Deposit Takers (SDDTs) and SDDT consolidation entities. The framework operates on an opt-in basis, which means that it does not automatically apply to firms which meet the relevant criteria, but instead firms meeting the relevant criteria are required to opt in. As set out in PRA Statement of policy (SOP) 2/23 Operating the Small Domestic Deposit Taker (SDDT) regime, there is a two-stage ‘modification by consent’ process

This Practice Note examines the changes to the law of succession created by the Succession (Scotland) Act 2016 (S(S)A 2016). It provides information on each section of S(S)A 2016, and comments on its effect on the position of the law prior to its enactment. Effect of divorce, dissolution or annulment on Will—S(S)A 2016, s 1 Where a marriage or civil partnership is terminated by divorce, dissolution or annulment, any benefit or power of appointment conferred by a testator upon the former spouse or civil partner, together with any appointment of such persons as executor or trustee, will be revoked. For this section to apply, the deceased must have died after the divorce, dissolution or annulment has been obtained and after 1 November 2016. This will be the case unless the Will expressly provides that the above entitlement or appointments are to have effect irrespective of the formal termination of the relationship. The revocation is achieved through treating the ex-spouse or civil partner as having died before the testator for the purposes of

Ireland—Employment Service analysis: The Pensions Authority's (the Authority) new Supervisory Review Process (SRP) is a key part of its enhanced regulatory framework for prudential supervision of occupational pension schemes in Ireland.

ARCHIVED: this archived Practice Note is not maintained and is for background information purposes only. Further, some of the links may not direct you to the provisions as at the date the guidance in this Practice Note was published. A mixed bag of Supreme Court decisions in 2016—what do you need to know? The year 2016 has seen some interesting decisions in a number of areas and in circumstances where a divided view amongst our most senior judges is all too apparent. In this review of 2016, we consider: • setting aside settlement for deceit (Hayward v Zurich)—see below • fraudulent presentation in insurance claims (Versloot v HDI)—see below • unjust enrichment claims tainted by illegality (Patel v Mirza)—see below • malicious prosecution of civil claims (Willers v Joyce)—see below • the 'close connection' test in cases of vicarious liability (Mohamud v WM Morrison)—see below Setting aside settlement agreement for deceit (Hayward v Zurich) In

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In Hassam v Rabot, the Supreme Court considered the application of the ‘whiplash reforms’, which fixed the amount of damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA) payable for whiplash injuries by reference to a statutory tariff, in ‘mixed injury’ cases where the claimant suffers PSLA caused by whiplash and non-whiplash injuries in the same accident. The Supreme Court held that in such cases a broadly two-stage approach to assessing PSLA damages must be followed. First, the court must add together the tariff amount for the whiplash injury and the common law damages for PSLA for the non-whiplash injury. Then it must consider whether to apply a discount to avoid double recovery for the same PSLA under the tariff and the common law damages. The decision is likely to be difficult to apply in practice given the lack of clarity as to how the adjustment is to be calculated. Written by Rob Weir KC (counsel for the interveners, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and the Motor Accident Solicitors Society) and Tom Westwell, barrister at Devereux Chambers, London.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the hospitals’ appeals in these cases concerning withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for children. There was no basis on which anonymity injunctions in relation to clinicians could be continued indefinitely. If anonymity is sought in such cases beyond a cooling-off period following the child’s death or withdrawal of treatment, the application should be made by the clinicians concerned. Such applications should be supported by specific evidence and the need for any restriction of freedom of expression must be established convincingly. Hannah Markham KC and Madeleine Whelan of 36 Family, Louise Sivey and Eloise Carey of Bates Wells, and Professor Carmen Draghici of the University of London comment on the judgment.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, holding that the doctrine of merger is confined to ‘coercive judgments’ and does not extend to declaratory judgments. Jack Mitchell of Old Square Chambers comments on the implications of the judgment.

Public law analysis: John Bell, LLM (Queen Mary University of London) and former Schuman Trainee at the European Parliament analyses the future of constitutional statutes following the Supreme Court judgment in Re Allister et al.

Arbitration analysis: The Supreme Court of Spain has recently held that the ratio decidendi of a foreign judgment declining jurisdiction has ‘res judicata’ effect. In its decision, the Spanish Court has expressly referred to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Gothaer v Samskip GmbH, according to which, under the Brussels I Regulation regime, ‘res judicata’ does not attach only to the operative part of the judgment in question, but also attaches to the ratio decidendi of that judgment, which provides the necessary underpinning for the operative part and is inseparable from it. The Spanish decision is interesting because it applies a European concept of ‘res judicata’ and departs from the traditional approach that dictates that the crucial law for determining the effects of a recognised judgment is the law of the State where the judgment was rendered (theory of extension of effects). Written by Ana Mercedes López Rodríguez, PhD, independent arbitrator, associate professor of Private International Law at Universidad Loyola Andalucia.

International Trade analysis: In a landmark decision some have called the most important decision of this century, the US Supreme Court ruled, by a 6–3 majority, that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorise the President to impose tariffs. The court held that the Constitution vests the exclusive power to levy taxes in Congress, and that IEEPA’s grant of authority to ‘regulate’ does not encompass the imposition of tariffs. Invoking the Major Questions Doctrine, the court emphasised that the exercise of such sweeping and unprecedented economic authority requires clear and explicit congressional authorisation–not an implied delegation under IEEPA. Accordingly, the decision invalidates two types of tariffs imposed under IEEPA: drug trafficking tariffs on imports from China, Mexico, and Canada; and reciprocal tariffs ‘on all imports from all trading partners’. (Executive Order No 14257, 90 Fed. Reg. 15045) The court’s holding has thus triggered refunds for affected businesses. The court assigned responsibility for overseeing the refund process to the Court of International Trade, with implementation to be carried out by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Importers and businesses across the United States have filed and continue to file claims seeking full reimbursement. Written by Charles H. Camp, president; Josephine Gray, law clerk; and Sarah Nersesov, law clerk, Law Offices of Charles H. Camp, PC, Washington, DC.