Overview The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) enhanced the scope and effectiveness of the international legal framework for conserving biological diversity and ensuring the sustainable use of its components. Its scope extends beyond biological diversity and governs issues such as sustainable use of biological resources, access to genetic resources, benefit sharing, access to biotechnology and the risks of biotechnology. It was one of two legally binding conventions that were adopted and signed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also know as the Rio Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. It was signed by 150 government leaders and is dedicated to promoting sustainable development. For information on parties to the convention see: List of Parties. The other legally binding treaty signed at UNCED was the United Nations Framework convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). For more information, see Practice Note: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992—snapshot. The CBD is a ‘framework’ convention which provides guiding principles that states are required to take into account in developing national

Snapshot of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Title Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treat (CTBT) Parties 185 signed. 170 ratified Signatories Adopted 10 September 1996 Opened for signature 24 September 1996 Not in force The treaty requires ratification by all Annex 2 countries Status of ratification Subject The ban of all nuclear explosions Status of the Treaty The treaty cannot come into force until it is ratified by the Annex 2 States listed below. These are States that took part in the negotiation of the CTBT from 1994–96 and that had nuclear power or research reactors at the time. Annex 2 States Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Romania, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States

This Practice Note deals with matters relating to jurisdiction, applicable law, transfers between contracting states and parental responsibility under the Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (the 1996 Hague Convention), which came into force in the UK on 1 November 2012. The Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) has published a Practical Handbook on the Operation of the 1996 Child Protection Convention and an Explanatory Report on the 1996 Hague Convention (the Lagarde Report). The courts have determined that both the Practical Handbook and the Explanatory Report are appropriate materials to consider for the purposes of determining the meaning and scope of the 1996 Hague Convention where necessary. As of 31 January 2020 (exit day), the UK ceased to be an EU Member State, no longer participating in the political institutions and governance structures of the EU. However, in accordance with the transitional arrangements provided for in Part 4 of the Withdrawal Agreement, exit day marked the

Issue Details Title Protocol to Amend the 1963 Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Parties 17 parties Adopted 12 September 1997 Came into force 4 October 2003 Subject Nuclear liability What is the background to the 1997 Protocol? The diplomatic conference held in Vienna in 1997 adopted two instruments: • a Protocol to amend the 1963 Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (1997 Protocol) • a Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC) Parties to the 1963 Vienna Convention and the 1997 Protocol must read and interpret them together as one single text that may be referred to as the 1997 Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage. See Practice Note: 1963 Vienna Convention—snapshot [Archived]. The CSC opened for signature on 12 September 1997 and entered into force on 15 April 2015. What are the key elements of the 1997 Protocol? The 1997 Protocol: • broadens the definition of nuclear damage under the Vienna Convention • extends the geographical scope of the Vienna

Since 1 April 2021, non-UK residents that buy residential property in England and Northern Ireland pay a 2% surcharge in addition to the stamp duty land tax (SDLT) rates for residential property. This Practice Note examines when the 2% surcharge applies. The SDLT rules for residential property transactions are complicated. There are various different SDLT rates that can apply to the acquisition of a residential property and, with effect from 1 April 2021, the 2% surcharge adds another set of rates to this. SDLT does not apply in Scotland or Wales. For more on Scottish land and buildings transaction tax (LBTT) and Welsh land transaction tax (LTT), see the LBTT subtopic and the LTT subtopic. Background The government announced a surcharge for non-residents buying residential property in England and Northern Ireland at Budget 2018. The government consulted on the surcharge until 6 May 2019 and the surcharge was confirmed at Spring Budget 2020. Following the consultation, the government published draft legislation which was included in Finance Act 2021. The 2% surcharge for non-residents is intended

These Training Materials cover the 2% stamp duty land tax (SDLT) surcharge that applies from 1 April 2021 to acquisitions of residential property in England and Northern Ireland by non-UK residents. They consist of template PowerPoint slides and are designed to be used as the starting point for a presentation

The standard fees for hedge fund managers (some charge up to 4&40); it means that the charges are 2% each year of the funds under management, plus 20% of any gain.

Law 360, London: Clydesdale Bank is facing allegations that its customers lost ‘hundreds of millions of pounds’ after it misled them about the charges for terminating their loans, with lawyers launching a collective action in a London court to recover the money.

Adopted by the contracting parties to the Paris and Brussels Conventions in 2004, this Protocol revises the Conventions so that additional compensation is provided to more people and for a wider scope of nuclear damage. The 2004 Protocol shifts more of the onus for insurance on to industry and establishes new limits of liability which, notably, increase the minimum amount of a nuclear operator’s liability. During 2011, DECC issued a public consultation on how the 2004 Protocol should be implemented into UK law by way of amendment to the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. Following public consultation, the Government issued its response in March 2012. The Nuclear Installations (Liability for Damage) Order 2016 was made on 4 May 2016 and will fully come into force when the 2004 Protocol is finally ratified.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Introduction This archived Practice Note discusses the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework as first published in 2012 (the 2012 NPPF) for housing assessments. On 24 July 2018, the government published a revised version of the NPPF (the 2018 NPPF), which replaced the 2012 NPPF from 24 July 2018 onwards. It amended the policy requirements around establishing housing need and housing land supply. Transitional provisions in Annex 1 of the 2018 NPPF provide that: • the policies in the 2018 NPPF should be taken into account as material considerations in the determination of planning applications from 24 July 2018 onwards • development plans ‘may’ also need to be revised to reflect policy changes brought about by the 2018 NPPF. The 2018 NPPF advises that such revisions should be progressed as quickly as possible, but that existing development policies should not be considered out of date simply because they were adopted or made prior to the 2018 NPPF. It advises that due weight should be

This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Name of parties and citation(s) Judgment date Subject Lexis®PSL analysis Appleyard v Wewelwala [2012] EWHC 3302 (Ch), [2012] All ER (D) 285 (Nov) 23 November 2012 Bankruptcy expenses The lacuna in a trustee in bankruptcy's expenses—Appleyard v Wewelwala Wright Hassall LLP v Morris (administrator of Marketbalance Ltd and another) [2012] EWCA Civ 1472, [2012] All ER (D) 198 (Nov) 15 November 2012 Administrator's liability under a conditional fee agreement Administrator personally liable for solicitors costs under a conditional fee agreement Neumans LLP v Andronikou and others Re Portsmouth City Football Club Ltd (in liquidation) [2012] EWHC 3088 (Ch), [2012] All ER (D) 34 (Nov) 2 November 2012 Solicitors' costs in winding-up proceedings How

This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Name of parties and citation(s) Judgment date Subject Lexis®PSL analysis Re Magyar Telecom BV [2013] EWHC 3800 (Ch), [2013] All ER (D) 20 (Dec) 3 December 2013 Schemes of arrangement Schemes widened to compromise non-English debt Isis Investments Ltd v Oscatello Investments Ltd and others [2013] EWCA Civ 1493, [2013] All ER (D) 327 (Nov) 27 November 2013 Credit institutions—lawsuits pending When is a Part 20 claim part of a pending lawsuit in cross-border cases? Ovenden Colbert Printers Ltd Hunt v Hosking [2013] EWCA Civ 1408, [2013] All ER (D) 188 (Nov) 15 November 2013 Transactions at an undervalue Bringing a successful transaction at an undervalue claim Closegate Hotel Development (Durham) Ltd and another v McLean and others [2013] EWHC 3237 (Ch), [2013] All ER (D) 308 (Oct) 25 October 2013 Administration appointments Can a director challenge an administration appointment and was the bank estopped from taking action? LBI hf v Kepler Capital