This Practice Note explains the circumstances in which employment tribunals may have to determine a claimant’s pension loss and the Presidential Guidance and Principles for Compensating Pension Loss in employment tribunals. It looks at different types of pension loss, the Ogden Tables, the impact of taxation, expert evidence, case management, loss of state pension, loss of pension from defined contribution schemes and loss of pension from defined benefit schemes. Pension loss will generally only arise in cases where an individual has lost their job and the pension provision that went with that job. An employment tribunal will therefore need to calculate pension loss as part of its consideration of remedy in the following types of claim: • wrongful dismissal: where an individual has been dismissed in breach of contract, ie without being given their full contractual notice or pay in lieu, damages may be awarded for the value of pension benefits that would have accrued during the notice period • unfair dismissal: as part of the compensatory award for unfair

This Practice Note outlines how to calculate the amount of inheritance tax (IHT) that arises on an individual’s estate on death. For a broader explanation of the IHT charge on death, see Practice Note: IHT—the charge on death. For a worked example of an IHT calculation on death, see Practice Note: Case study—IHT calculation on death. IHT charge on death The IHT charge on an individual’s death falls under two headings: • the 'additional charge'—which can arise on chargeable lifetime transfers (CLTs) and potentially exempt transfers (PET) made by the deceased in the seven years before death, and • the 'estate charge'—which arises on the value of all the property the deceased owned (or was deemed to own) immediately before death Additional charge on death Additional IHT may be due on the death of the transferor on CLTs that have already suffered IHT at the lower lifetime rates. Where the deceased has not survived seven years from the date of a PET, the failed PET is treated as a chargeable transfer and

This Practice Note provides practical guidance on the calculation of the amount of a subsidy that confers a benefit to the recipient. It provides practical guidance on the government provision of equity, loans, guarantees, the government provision of goods and services and the government purchase of goods. Introduction The World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) requires that the investigating authority first determine if there is a subsidy before determining whether the subsidy causes material injury to the domestic industry. In terms of the SCM Agreement a subsidy exists if there: • there is a financial contribution • by a government or any public body, and • which confers a benefit for the recipient In addition, the subsidy must be specific. Even if there is a financial contribution, such financial contribution must still confer a benefit for the recipient. For more guidance hereon, see Practice Note: An introduction to the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. This Practice Note considers how investigating authority may calculate that benefit. Guidance

FORTHCOMING CHANGE relating to penalty reform calls for evidence and behavioural penalties reform: At Budget 2025, the government published a summary of responses to the consultation launched at Spring Statement 2025 on behavioural penalties reform and announced its intention to proceed with proposals to reform penalties for inaccuracies in tax returns and for failures to notify chargeability. This consultation followed two calls for evidence: • an initial call for evidence on ‘The Tax Administration Framework: Supporting a 21st Century tax system’ on 23 March 2021 and a summary of responses on 30 November 2021, and • a second call for evidence on ‘The Tax Administration Framework Review–enquiry and assessment powers, penalties, safeguards’, on 15 February 2024, followed by a summary of responses on 30 October 2024—this second call for evidence included potential options for the reform of penalties, including the reform of penalty suspension and penalty escalation for continued or repeated non-compliance The consultation outcome published at Budget 2025 sets out the government’s intention to develop draft legislation to reform

FORTHCOMING CHANGE relating to penalty reform calls for evidence and behavioural penalties reform: At Budget 2025, the government published a summary of responses to the consultation launched at Spring Statement 2025 on behavioural penalties reform and announced its intention to proceed with proposals to reform penalties for inaccuracies in tax returns and for failures to notify chargeability. This consultation followed two calls for evidence: • an initial call for evidence on ‘The Tax Administration Framework: Supporting a 21st Century tax system’ on 23 March 2021 and a summary of responses on 30 November 2021, and • a second call for evidence on ‘The Tax Administration Framework Review–enquiry and assessment powers, penalties, safeguards’, on 15 February 2024, followed by a summary of responses on 30 October 2024—this second call for evidence included potential options for the reform of penalties, including the reform of penalty suspension and penalty escalation for continued or repeated non-compliance The consultation outcome published at Budget 2025 sets out the government’s intention to develop draft legislation to reform the

This Practice Note explains how to calculate a period of time for doing an act required by the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) (or associated practice directions) or a judgment or order of the court. It also considers the meaning of clear days and business days. It does not consider what the relevant time periods are for doing certain acts as set out in the CPR. For information on the time periods for filing and serving statements of case in England and Wales, see Practice Note: Time limits for filing and serving statements of case in England and Wales. The importance of calculating time periods correctly Parties are required to comply with time limits imposed by the CPR, practice directions and the court’s orders. These will include time limits imposed for filing and serving documents and for other steps in the claim, including filing statements of case, giving disclosure, exchanging witness statements and expert reports, etc. These deadlines are generally set out in the CPR and/or the court's case management directions orders. A failure to comply

Time spent on remand Where an offender is given a determinate custodial sentence (ie a sentence of imprisonment for a fixed period of time), the amount of time spent on remand in custody to be counted towards their sentence must be calculated and applied administratively by the Prison Service. Provision for this is contained in section 240ZA of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003). For determinate prison sentences, the sentencing judge will announce the overall sentence and it is for the Prison Service to then calculate the reduction for time spent on remand in custody, see Practice Note: Custodial sentences available for adult offenders—Determinate sentences of imprisonment. The process is different for time spent subject to a qualifying curfew and time spent in custody awaiting extradition (see below). Remanded in custody has a restricted meaning and only applies to defendants remanded in or committed to custody by order of a court, kept in secure accommodation, detained in a secure training centre or remanded to hospital. The Prison Service have the

The first step of any EU merger control analysis is to assess whether or not a transaction falls within the jurisdiction of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR). The EUMR only applies to concentrations with an 'EU dimension'. The term concentration covers most transactions where an element of control is acquired and is wider than classic merger transactions (in particular capturing many, often complex, joint ventures) (see A 'concentration' with an EU dimension). Whether a transaction has an ‘EU dimension' depends on whether it satisfies certain turnover thresholds. These thresholds are purely jurisdictional in nature. They are applied without regard to substantive competition issues, to the nationality of the parties, to the country where the transaction takes place or to the law applicable to the transaction. As a result, the EUMR can apply to transactions with little or no EU connection. EU dimension The transaction must have an EU dimension. A concentration has an EU dimension if the following thresholds, set out in the EUMR are met: • the combined aggregate world-wide turnover of the undertakings concerned

Merger control regimes use jurisdictional thresholds to determine whether a transaction must be notified or may otherwise be reviewed (see MJ merger grid—jurisdiction). Turnover thresholds are commonly used, although some regimes use asset, market share, transaction value or other jurisdictional tests, either instead of or in addition to turnover. Calculating and geographically allocating turnover correctly is therefore crucial. Depending on the jurisdiction, failure to notify or comply with an applicable standstill obligation may result in financial or criminal penalties, restorative measures, or the transaction being unwound, declared void or otherwise ineffective. Note—the checklist below summarises Article 5 of the EU Merger Regulation and the Commission Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice. Other jurisdictions may calculate turnover differently. Always check the relevant local rules. Turnover—checklist Key factors to consider when calculating turnover are as follows: • Identify the undertakings concerned—before calculating turnover, identify the undertakings concerned. In an acquisition of sole control, these will generally be the acquiring undertaking and the target undertaking or acquired business; the seller’s retained business is excluded. In a merger, each of the merging undertakings is an undertaking concerned.

Property analysis: In a wide-ranging judgment, the High Court has clarified a number of rarely-tested points of law on jurisdictional issues with expert determination proceedings, including the application of limitation principles. Nick Wells, partner at Flint Bishop LLP, acted for the successful first defendant within the case of Bastholm and others v Peveril Securities (Dalton Park Retail) Ltd and others and discusses the key legal and jurisdictional principles arising from the judgment of His Honour Judge Davis-White KC (sitting as a judge of the Chancery Division) below.

This Practice Note explains and summarises the suite of calculators designed by Lexis®+ UK Employment to assist employment lawyers. Automated unfair dismissal schedule of loss or counter-schedule of loss The automated schedule of loss can be accessed here: Lexis®+ UK Employment—Schedule of Loss application. The application provides a fast and accurate way to prepare a schedule of loss for an unfair dismissal claim. It: • can be used to create a schedule for a claimant or a counter-schedule for a respondent • carries out the statutory and mathematical calculations required to assess the value of a claim, and

[ON YOUR LETTERHEAD] WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS [SUBJECT TO CONTRACT] [Insert date] [Insert name and address of other party’s solicitor] Dear [insert contact name] [Insert subject of letter] We refer to our open letter of [today’s date OR [insert date]]. 1 As set out in that letter, both we and our client are confident that our client will be wholly successful in its claim[s] against your client, in respect of the agreement between our clients dated [insert date] (the ‘Agreement’) as set out in its claim [insert claim action number] and will [insert details of the remedy sought, eg, recover payment of the unpaid invoices plus interest, due to pursuant to the agreement between our respective clients, as set out in our open letter]. [We are also of the view that your client’s counterclaim dated [insert date of defence and counterclaim] (the ‘Counterclaim’) is wholly without merit and would be dismissed at trial. ]Nonetheless, our client is mindful of the obligations on parties to try to resolve their disputes and that the court has the discretion to penalise a party on costs for