CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 21 September 2012; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the planned acquisition by Universal Music Group of EMI Music (Case M.6458). The Commission cleared the transaction subject to commitments on 21/09/2012. Parties Universal Music Group and EMI's recorded music business. Universal is the world's leading music recording company. Its activities include discovering, developing and promoting recording artists, wholesaling recording music, online music retail, music publishing artist management and event services. Universal is owned by Vivendi, an international media company. EMI's recorded music business includes discovering, developing and promoting recording artists and in the wholesale of recorded music. EMI's music publishing business was

The current requirement, with regard to the right to request flexible working, that the request be for the purposes of caring for a child or adult will be removed by the provisions of Part 8 of the Children and Families Bill, ie the right will be extended to all employees who meet the other conditions. As a consequence of this change, Acas is to produce a statutory Code of Practice on the exercise of the proposed extended right, together with non-statutory guidance. A consultation on a draft of the proposed statutory Code of Practice has been announced by Acas. The deadline for responses to the consultation is 20 May 2013.

Concept used in cross-border matters that insolvency proceedings against a debtor should encompass all its assets on a worldwide basis and its creditors wherever situated.

An institution which provides higher education.

The different types of universities and their governance arrangements Universities in England are constituted in a variety of ways and therefore have a range of different governance arrangements. Chartered universities Universities established by Royal Charter have a council and a senate. The council is the executive governing body responsible for: • the management and administration of the revenue and property of the university • exercising general control over the conduct of the affairs of the university, subject to the powers of the senate, and • discharging such specific powers and duties as are set out in the university charter, statutes and ordinances The senate is, subject to the powers of the council, responsible for the academic teaching and research work of the university and for the regulation of the education and discipline of the university’s students. The membership of the council and senate is as set out in each university’s governing documents. However, the number of lay members of council (ie not staff or student members) must exceed the total of non-lay members. Membership

The Centre for Criminology at the University of Oxford has published a report entitled ‘no  such thing as justice here’ which looks at the criminalisation of people arriving to the UK on ‘small boats’ following the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (NBA 2022) which expanded the scope of criminal offences to include ‘illegal arrival’ and the maximum sentence for ‘facilitation’ to life imprisonment. The data is taken from observations of over 100 court hearings, interviews with lawyers and people directly affected by the law and various freedom of information requests.

Universities and other academic institutions undertake a significant amount of research and therefore generate a lot of protectable IP. The protection and exploitation of this IP is both expensive and time consuming and often a university is better placed to take on this role than individual academics. Larger universities often have an IP policy requiring academics to assign all IP rights arising from their research to the university. In return incentives such as a share in the revenue generated by the IP will be given. Once a university has secured ownership of IP there are various ways in which it can be commercialised. These include: • donation for the general good of the public • licensing to existing third parties or start-ups • selling/assigning the IP to third parties, and • creating spin-offs to exploit the IP A university ‘spin-off’ or ‘spin-out’ refers to a new company that is set up to exploit research done in an academic institution. Some of the largest most well-known corporations, such as biotechnology firm Amgen, started as university spin-offs. One

Local Government analysis: A former student of the University of Oxford has failed in a ‘failure to educate’ claim for damages for the alleged harmful consequences of his obtaining a low mark in one of his Finals papers in 2000. The claimant alleged that the teaching on one particular course had been negligently inadequate and that this negligence had caused him to achieve a lower degree class, the level of which had not been high enough for him to gain entry to a top US law college and which had caused him serious mental health difficulties which had compromised his ability to hold down several jobs in professional service firms. In a judgment handed down on 7 February 2018, Mr Justice David Foskett said the claim by Faiz Siddiqui against Oxford University should be dismissed. The hearing was adjourned so that consequential matters could be considered including an application for permission to appeal. Written by Mark Blois, Partner and Head of Education at Browne Jacobson LLP

Unjust enrichment describes a situation where one party is enriched at another’s expense in circumstances the law considers unjust, and where restitution is ordered to reverse that enrichment. It is a core principle in the law of restitution rather than a single codified statutory concept, and is primarily developed through case law across the UK and Ireland. In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, courts commonly analyse unjust enrichment using four elements: (1) the defendant’s enrichment; (2) at the claimant’s expense; (3) an unjust factor (such as mistake, duress, failure of consideration or undue influence); and (4) the absence of a relevant defence (for example change of position). In Scotland, unjustified enrichment is recognised as a distinct obligation, historically structured around specific “restitutionary” and “recompense” actions, but now often analysed in similar modern terms. In Ireland, the doctrine closely follows English restitution principles, with Irish case law adapting unjust enrichment to local statutory and equitable contexts. Unjust enrichment claims frequently arise in mistaken payments, failed contracts, overpayments, benefits conferred under void transactions, and misapplied funds, and are a key alternative or supplement to contractual and equitable remedies.

This Practice Note considers the relationship between unjust enrichment and contractual claims, with an emphasis on the idea of a ‘failure of basis’ as a ‘unjust factor’ when seeking to establish the elements of a claim in unjust enrichment. It should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Unjust enrichment—elements of the claim, which explains the background of the law of unjust enrichment and sets out the basic requirements for establishing such a claim. As explained in that Practice Note, the guidance in this document is designed to provide an outline understanding of a particularly complex area of jurisprudence. The relationship between unjust enrichment and contracts Claims for restitution for unjust enrichment are distinct from contract claims. The general position is that where the claimant and the defendant are in a contractual relationship, the contract regulates their rights and liabilities, including allocating the risk, until such time as the contract is discharged or set aside (which itself is a matter of contract law). See: Terminating contracts—how and when a contract ends—overview. This

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the specific issues that may arise where the parties have a contractual relationship and yet the prospect of bringing a claim in unjust enrichment may also arise. Where this scenario occurs, there is limited scope for a party being able to pursue a claim for unjust enrichment in the face of a subsisting contractual relationship, as explored below. Additionally, the party would also need to satisfy the general requirements for pursuing a claim for unjust enrichment as set out in Practice Note: Unjust enrichment—elements of the claim and be aware of any defences that may be raised, as considered in Practice Note: Unjust enrichment—defences. The relationship between unjust enrichment and contracts Claims for restitution for unjust enrichment are distinct from contract claims. The general position is that where the claimant and the defendant are in a contractual relationship, the contract regulates their rights and liabilities, including allocating the risk, until such time as the contract

Dispute Resolution analysis: To succeed in a claim for unjust enrichment, the claimant must prove that the defendant has been enriched. In the recent case of Dowman Imports v 2 Toobz, however, the court has held that a claim in unjust enrichment can succeed ‘even if the idea of an enduring benefit to the defendant is essentially a fictional one’. This wide-ranging judgment provides useful guidance on the court’s approach to unjust enrichment claims for services provided in anticipation of concluding a contract. The decision also provides a salutary lesson on the consequences of not adducing expert evidence and failing to seek permission to rely on real evidence (in this case soft toys) under CPR 33.6. Written by Harriet Campbell, professional support lawyer, at Stephenson Harwood LLP.