Property Disputes analysis: English property law periodically produces epoch-making decisions of the highest court. In years to come, Waller Edwards v One Savings Bank plc may well become such a decision. It enjoys the respectable jurisprudential lineage of three famous House of Lords’ decisions: Barclays Bank v O’Brien, CIBC Mortgages v Pitt, and Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge, but it also applies established principles in a novel way. Written by Marc Beaumont, Windsor Chambers.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. NOTE: THIS PRACTICE NOTE IS FOR HISTORIC PURPOSES ONLY. Introduction—the nature of the changes and transitional arrangements The guiding ethos behind the change to the Supreme Court was the desire to separate the judicial function of the House of Lords from its parliamentary arm. Additionally, there was a desire to open up the accessibility of the appeal system within the highest court of the land. These changes did not involve a wholesale change in terms of access per se. The routes to appeal to the Supreme Court remain as they were for the House of Lords. Overall, the changes are not substantive in scope with the exception, perhaps, of the inclusion within the new Supreme Court's remit of jurisdiction to hear matters concerning devolution issues (previously the jurisdiction of the Privy Council). Other than that, the changes are more stylistic in terms of updating the terminology, the style and feel of the procedure and

Public Law analysis: In its highly anticipated judgment in R (on the application of Miller and another) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the UK Supreme Court ruled (by majority) that an Act of Parliament is required to authorise the triggering of Article 50 TEU by the UK government. Our panel of experts considers what this means for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, and also the wider legal, political and constitutional significance of the judgment.

Arbitration analysis: The Svea Court of Appeal has dismissed a challenge to an arbitral award between OAO Tyumenneftegaz (TNG), a Russian oil exploration company, and First National Petroleum Corporation (FNP), an American company in the oil and gas industry, confirming that the fact that a party to an arbitration is subject to sanctions does not impact the dispute’s arbitrability. The court also found that the sanctioned party had been provided fair opportunities to present its case and consequently dismissed the challenge. Written by Andreas Johard, partner in Hammarskiöld’s team for litigation and arbitration, and Mikaela Grimstig, associate at Hammarskiöld’s team for litigation and arbitration.

This Practice Note introduces the Swiss Arbitration Centre and the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration (the Swiss Rules). Development of the Swiss Rules Some of the local Swiss Chambers of Commerce have offered arbitration services as early as in the second half of the 19th century. The Chambers of Commerce and Industry of Basel, Bern, Geneva, Neuchâtel, Ticino, Vaud and Zurich each applied their own rules of arbitration until 2004, when they replaced their former local arbitration rules by the 2004 Swiss Rules of International Arbitration (the 2004 Swiss Rules). The 2004 Swiss Rules were based on the 1976 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (the UNCITRAL Rules), with some significant modifications. In particular, unlike under the UNCITRAL Rules, arbitrations under the Swiss Rules are administered by an institution. In 2010, a working group was constituted to revise the 2004 Swiss Rules. The purpose of the revision was to further increase the time and cost

This Practice Note focuses on the climate change disclosure requirements imposed on pension schemes (depending on the type and size of the scheme) starting from 1 October 2021 to reflect recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). These TCFD recommendations are explored in Practice Note: TCFD recommendations and other ESG reporting frameworks, standards and benchmarks [Archived]. For more general information on ESG (environmental, social and governance) requirements in the context of pensions, see Practice Note: ESG and stewardship issues in pensions. The TCFD pensions framework The Pension Schemes Act 2021 (PSA 2021) introduced a broad framework for the government to impose duties on pension scheme trustees concerning climate change. These duties are intended to encourage schemes to align their portfolios with the objectives in the Paris Agreement (for further information on which, see Practice Note: The Paris Agreement 2015—snapshot). More specifically, PSA 2021, s 124 inserted sections 41A–41B in the Pensions Act 1995

For many, an announcement of a bidder's firm intention to make an offer for the shares in a company is the starting gun in a takeover process. For those dealing with the target company's share plans though, the starting gun was fired some weeks earlier when the initial approach was made to the target company. This period prior to announcement of a takeover right until the takeover completes is governed by the Takeover Code. With effect from 3 February 2025, the Takeover Code applies to offers for, broadly, any company listed or admitted to trading on a UK regulated market, a UK multilateral trading facility or any stock exchange in the Channel Islands or Isle of Man (or a company which until recently was such a listed or admitted company) which has its registered office in the UK, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. This represents a narrowing of the scope of the Takeover Code compared to its applicability before that date and, for example, means that UK public companies which

Rule 2.7(c)(viii) (together with Note 1 on Rule 2.7) and Rule 24.2 of the Takeover Code requires an offeror to make a statement of intention. The statement must set out in, respectively, the announcement of a firm intention to make an offer and the offer document its intentions with regard to the business, employees and pension scheme(s) of the offeree company. If, exceptionally, an offeror has no intention to make any changes in relation to those matters, it is required to make a negative statement to that effect. In Panel Bulletin 7 (the subject of Panel Statement 2024/14) the Panel Executive clarifies and reminds practitioners of the acceptable scope and content of a statement of intention.

The Takeover Panel (the Panel) has published three new Panel Statements. PS 2024/8 announces two new appointments to the Panel, PS 2024/9 refers to the removal of the Pensions and Lifetimes Savings Association (PLSA) as one of the bodies able to nominate a member of the Panel and PS 2024/10 relates to minor amendments to the provisions of the Takeover Code (the Code) relating to document charges.

Pensions analysis: A consultation launched by the Department for Education (DfE) in November 2024 sought views on proposed changes to the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS) in relation to increasing member contribution rates and extending Fair Deal protection to capture employees of further education establishments. The consultation response was received from the DfE in March 2025 and the Teachers’ Pensions Schemes (Amendment) Regulations 2025 (effecting these changes) came into force on 1 April 2025. Written by Joel Eytle, partner, Nigel Bolton, partner, and Sadie Goodrum, solicitor, at Bevan Brittan LLP.

Background The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has led to unprecedented social distancing measures and lockdowns being introduced by governments around the world. In the UK, this has had a significant impact on the ability of the courts, and court users, to carry out their normal functions. In response, the courts are operating under new protocols and procedures—see Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—Changes to the court process in insolvency proceedings [Archived]. To supplement these changes, and in order to deal with specific challenges relevant to insolvency proceedings, a new Temporary Insolvency Practice Direction ( TIPD ) was introduced with effect from 6 April 2020—see: Issue 96 of Insolvency Service’s Dear IP published, LNB News 06/04/2020 90. The TIPD expired on 1 October 2020 and was replaced by the Temporary Insolvency Practice Direction Supporting the Insolvency Practice Direction (in force from 1 October 2020 until 31 March 2021). This has since been replaced by further temporary practice directions, the most recent of which expires on 30 September 2021—see Practice Note: The Temporary Insolvency Practice Direction Supporting

Background to the Temporary Insolvency Practice Direction Supporting the Insolvency Practice Direction The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has led to unprecedented social distancing measures and lockdowns. This in turn has had a significant impact on the ability of the courts, and court users, to carry out their normal functions. In response, the courts are operating under new protocols and procedures—see Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—Changes to the court process in insolvency proceedings [Archived]. To supplement these changes, and in order to deal with specific challenges relevant to insolvency proceedings, a Temporary Insolvency Practice Direction (TIPD) was introduced on 6 April 2020. This expired and was replaced by further versions of TIPD (in the same form), with the most recent version being introduced on 30 June 2021. That version expired on 30 September 2021 and has been replaced by a new temporary insolvency practice direction supporting the insolvency practice direction (MIPD 2021). For further details on the original TIPD, see Practice Note: The Temporary Insolvency Practice Direction (6 April