“A lot of the work that I do is historic-the maximum sentences change at different points of time. It's really complicated and people get it wrong all the time. That's when having a timeline is really useful.”
1 High PavementAccess all documents on Alien species, Article 3(1)
REMEMBER: The 42-day appeal deadline finishes at 4pm on the 42nd day. It is YOUR duty to ensure ALL required papers are submitted within that period. DO NOT LEAVE IT UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE. If your appeal is missing documents or pages, it is classed as ‘not properly instituted’, meaning it has not been correctly lodged. The Checklist Read sections 1 to 3 of the EAT Practice Direction 2024 and the T440 Guidance. Notice of Appeal: have you completed every section of the Notice of Appeal from decision of Employment Tribunal (Form T444)?...
1. Settlor Gather the following details about the settlor (or each settlor, where there is more than one): full name and courtesy title status date of birth address domicile nationality usual residence a schedule of assets and liabilities (for this purpose, a separate schedule is useful) 2. Name of the trust Confirm with the settlor what the trust should be named 3. ...
This timeline charts activity from 1 January 2024 onwards concerning the EU-facing legal and supervisory frameworks for anti-money laundering (AML), counter-terrorist financing (CTF) and counter‑proliferation financing (CPF) within the financial services sector. It traces both milestones and roll-out of the European AML, CTF and CPF rulebook. It also tracks cross-border initiatives in AML/CTF/CPF from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS), IOSCO, the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) and the Wolfsberg Group. For added detail on the EU AML/CTF regime, consult the Financial crime and sanctions (EU Law)—overview, including Practice Notes on AMLA—direct oversight of qualifying financial services firms, the EU Sixth Money Laundering Directive (MLD6) and the EU Recast Second Wire Transfer Regulation (Recast WTR2) on cryptoasset transfers... 2026 16 March 2026 — AMLA — AMLA starts a data collection exercise to test risk assessment models. AMLA has issued the reporting package for this data collection and testing exercise...
Under the UK merger control rules the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) may assess or review mergers already completed as well as those still anticipated, provided a ‘relevant merger situation’ arises. See Practice Note: A ‘relevant merger situation’ under UK merger rules. Several distinct conditions must be fulfilled for such a ‘relevant merger situation’ to exist, and these requirements are set out in the flowchart provided below here...
This Flowchart This Flowchart outlines the key questions to consider when assessing the territorial reach or scope of statutory employment rights—specifically, which statutory rights, if any, apply to an employee who works abroad and/or has a foreign employer. For general guidance on territorial application or scope, see Practice Note: The territorial scope of statutory employment rights. For Flowcharts that address applicable law and jurisdiction, refer to Determining applicable law in employment disputes—flowchart and Determining jurisdiction in employment disputes (1 January 2021 onwards)—flowchart...
Stage 1—preparing to bring a claim and pre-action matters Guidance on infringement, defences, ownership, injunctions, running disputes, and the Business and Property Courts Disclosure Scheme; cease and desist precedent; timetable checklist; key forms; IP insurance. Stage 2—letter of claim alleging copyright infringement Guidance on infringement, drafting letters of claim, unjustified threats and remedies, with precedents for standard and peer‑to‑peer infringement letters. Stage 3—commencing proceedings Notes on infringement, secondary infringement, permitted acts, remedies, criminal offences, the Business and Property Courts and the Disclosure Scheme; pleadings/initial disclosure precedents; Disclosure/IPEC flow tools; CPR claim/defence/settlement/default forms. Stage 4—case management Guidance on running disputes, costs management and the Disclosure Scheme; checklist; Chancery, Patents Court and IPEC Guides; Mitchell v NGN; core case‑management and disclosure forms. Stage 5—disclosure and evidence Notes on e‑disclosure, witness statements and the Disclosure Scheme; PD 57AC for Business and Property Courts trial statements (not...
Mergers The Commission cleared: Hartree Partners Holdings, LP’s acquisition of exclusive control of Touton S.A. (M.12189), following a phase I investigation—see further in Midday Express the establishment of a joint venture by EVH Grüne Energie – Beteiligung GmbH & Co. KG and HSBC Alternative Investments S.C.A. SICAV-RAIF (M.12240), following a phase I investigation—see further in Midday Express the setting up of a joint venture by RCL Cruises Ltd....
Antitrust Court of Justice issues judgment in national reference from the Netherlands proposing that parity clauses are not ancillary restrictions for the purposes of EU competition law The Court of Justice has delivered its judgment in Case C- 264/23 Booking,com BV and Booking.com (Deutschland) GmbH v 25hours Hotel Company Berlin GmbH and Others, concerning a Dutch reference seeking clarification on whether wide and narrow parity clauses are ancillary restraints under Article 101(1) TFEU. The reference seeks guidance on their classification within EU competition rules under Article 101(1) of TFEU. Background Booking.com BV runs an online hotel reservation platform. Up to 2015, its agreements contained wide price parity obligations that stopped hotels from advertising cheaper room rates via their own direct channels and any other outlets, including rival online travel agencies (OTAs). Thereafter, Booking.com moved to narrow price parity undertakings, which bar hotels from offering lower prices through their direct sales channels; the Federal Court of Justice of Germany nonetheless held these also restrict competition. Booking.com and other...
Antitrust Commission penalises Eurofield and Unanime Sport €172,000 for incomplete information in synthetic turf sector probe The Commission stated it has imposed fines totalling about €172,000 on Eurofield SAS (Eurofield) and Unanime Sport SAS (Unanime Sport), the ultimate parent of Eurofield at the time of the infringement, for submitting an incomplete response to an information request issued as part of its ongoing inquiry into a possible infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU. Background On 7 June 2023, the Commission revealed that it had carried out unannounced inspections at the premises of companies active in the synthetic turf sector across several Member States. It explained that the inquiry concerns synthetic turf for sports use and noted its concerns that the inspected companies may have breached Article 101 TFEU. In the course of this investigation, the Commission also sent requests for information to the companies under investigation, including Eurofield...
Resource Note This Resource Note signposts key commentary, analysis and materials to aid interpretation and offer practical direction on using Chapter 2 of the Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules (DTR 2). Where relevant, it draws on: the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Handbook FCA Knowledge Base—Procedural and Technical notes (formal guidance binding on the FCA) FCA consultation and discussion papers, policy and feedback statements, and warnings Primary Market Bulletins and other FCA publications legacy UKLA technical and procedural notes and the UKLA’s newsletter List!, where still pertinent assimilated EU legislation EU Directives and EU Regulations, where helpful to construing a provision Lexis+® UK analysis and resources Setting the scene What it covers: DTR 2 prescribes the framework for issuers to disclose and manage inside information, supporting timely and even-handed release of market-sensitive information. It also identifies specific situations permitting a delay to public disclosure of inside information, together with the safeguards required to keep such information...
This Resource Note spotlights commentary, analysis and materials to aid interpretation and give practical guidance on applying Chapters 1, 1A, 1B and 1C of the Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules: DTR 1, DTR 1A, DTR 1B and DTR 1C respectively. Materials referenced here include, where pertinent: the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Handbook FCA Knowledge Base guidance—Procedural notes and Technical notes (constituting formal guidance and binding on the FCA) FCA consultation papers, discussion papers, policy statements, feedback statements and warnings Primary Market Bulletins and other FCA publications former UKLA technical and procedural notes and the UKLA newsletter List!, where still relevant to interpreting or applying a provision assimilated EU legislation EU Directives and EU Regulations, where relevant to interpreting a provision Lexis+ UK analysis and resources Setting the scene What it covers: DTR 1 sets out the Disclosure guidance, explaining its scope and purpose; DTR 1A sets out the transparency rules with their scope and purpose;...
This Practice Note clearly explains the courts’ function within the context of family arbitration. In matters concerning families, any arbitration normally proceeds under the Institute of Family Law Arbitrators (IFLA) scheme. The courts continue to have overall jurisdiction over any family arbitration award or determination and will endorse the award or determination provided it falls within recognised limits, thereby fully respecting the parties’ autonomy. For further practical guidance on, among other things, the conduct of arbitration in family cases, the principal advantages of arbitration, the scope of the IFLA scheme and the arbitrator’s powers, please see Practice Note: Family arbitration—introduction. Acting on Law Commission proposals to reform the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) and to bring in measures to bolster arbitrator immunity, enhance overall case efficiency and clarify the court’s powers, a draft Bill reflecting those recommendations was formally laid before Parliament and subsequently obtained Royal Assent on 25 February 2025. Accordingly, the Arbitration Act 2025 (AA 2025) modifies AA 1996 from 1 August 2025 by virtue of the Arbitration...
1 General information Report date: [ Enter date ] Previous report date: [ Enter date ] Report submitted by: [ Enter name ] 2 Action points arising from last report Action item: [ Enter action point ], Responsible person: [ Identify person responsible for this action point ], Status: [ Enter status ] Action item: [ Enter action point ], Responsible person: [ Identify person responsible for this action point ], Status: [ Enter status ] Action item: [ Enter action point ], Responsible person: [ Identify person responsible for this action point ], Status: [ Enter status ] Action item: [ Enter action point ], Responsible person: [ Identify person responsible for this action point ], Status: [ Enter status ] 3 Executive summary This report covers the following items: 3.1 overview of business operations; 3.2 account of the operation of competition law compliance systems and controls;...
As offerings become more technologically advanced and include integrated systems and features, assessing whether tying or bundling might be seen as anti-competitive grows more complex. This checklist is designed to help you weigh key competition law considerations before linking or packaging products. Always seek advice from [ insert, eg the legal team ] where indicated below, and if you have any queries or concerns... 1 Products and market Evaluate whether the items proposed for a bundle or tie are genuinely separate products. Can the products being bundled or tied be treated as distinct offerings? Yes — consult [ insert, eg the legal team ], as bundling may adversely affect suppliers of stand‑alone products and thus harm competition No — [Insert comments] Do other organisations in the market use bundling and tying?...
Behaviour red flags are situations that should prompt you to probe further. Though they can be hard to spot, many scenarios can indicate the presence of anti-competitive conduct. This awareness tool highlights potential competition law warning signs, indicators, traits or behaviours to be especially alert to at all times. Even a single red flag may suggest anti-competitive conduct. 1 Cartel behaviour Any attempt to fix prices. Any attempt to engage in bid-rigging. ...
Duty to make reasonable adjustments The Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) establishes a duty to make reasonable adjustments (referred to below as ‘the duty’), which contains three distinct requirements. The third requires that, where a disabled person would, without the provision of an auxiliary aid, face a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter when compared with people who are not disabled, such steps as are reasonable must be taken to supply the auxiliary aid. The situations in which the duty arises differ across workplace settings. Accordingly, the precise circumstances that engage the duty will not be uniform across all settings. For all three requirements, the duty is triggered only where a disabled individual is placed at a substantial disadvantage compared with non‑disabled people ‘in relation to a “relevant matter”’, and what counts as a ‘relevant matter’ (as defined in EqA 2010, Sch 8 Pt 1) varies according to the particular type of workplace. As a result, application of the duty is context‑specific to the workplace in question....
Section 213 of the Housing Act 2004 (HA 2004) sets out the obligations on landlords who take a deposit in relation to an assured shorthold tenancy. Every deposit must be handled in line with an authorised scheme (HA 2004, s 213(1)), and the scheme’s initial requirements must be met within a period of 30 days from receipt of the deposit (HA 2004, s 213(3))...
Section 17 of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 (LT(C)A 1995) provides that: (1) This provision applies where a person (“the former tenant”) has, as a consequence of an assignment, ceased to be the tenant under a tenancy, but either: namely that (a) in the context of a new tenancy, has, under an authorised guarantee agreement, guaranteed his assignee’s performance of a tenant covenant of that tenancy under which any fixed charge is payable; or (b) in relation to any tenancy, still remains obliged by that covenant under that tenancy, notwithstanding assignment...