Barrier meaning

Targeted support regime set to launch in 2026 The targeted support regime, due in 2026, will permit banks, financial advisers and others to recommend products to cohorts of similar customers, described as segments. Businesses employ segmentation to cluster consumers and deliver targeted support, narrowing suggestions to fit attributes commonly shared within each group. Yet the main barrier is the danger that firms could breach current rules by issuing marketing communications to investors. Regulatory lawyers are relying on the government to publish a policy paper on Tuesday 15 July 2025 setting out changes to financial services rules to make targeted support proposals workable. While commentators are generally positive about governmental backing for legal adjustments, they also note uncertainty about how the wider approach aligns with existing consumer protection measures under the FCA’s Consumer Duty. ‘There is significant tension between what the FCA is suggesting firms could do in the context of the targeted support and what those same firms are prohibited from doing under the direct marketing rules,’ said Michelle...

On 17 June 2025, PensionBee reported findings from a nationally representative poll of 1,000 UK adults, conducted in May 2025, clearly indicating that 57% of workers in the temporary economy are unable to put money aside for a pension scheme. The study, which focused on people either not contributing to a pension, or unsure whether they are making any contributions at all, showed that cost remains the chief barrier to building retirement savings for many. Among non-contributors, 60% of self-employed and freelance participants cited lack of affordability; similarly, 57% of unpaid carers and 46% of those on zero-hours contracts gave the same reason, the data shows from the research. Close to 30% also either did not know how to start pension saving, or considered retirement savings schemes too complex to navigate, according to the research findings in total...

Dalston Projects Ltd and others v Secretary of State for Transport; Shvidler v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2024] EWCA Civ 172 What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment will be of note to sanctions practitioners and, more broadly, to anyone with an interest in public law. Put plainly, the effect of the decision is that designated individuals (or those owning designated assets) must overcome an exceptionally demanding barrier if they are to persuade the court to lift their designation. Delivering the court’s reasons, Lord Justice Singh held that, once a person falls within the (wide) definition of an “involved person” for the purposes of the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019/855, reg 6, there is a sufficient rational link for the classic proportionality exercise in Bank Mellat to be satisfied (see Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39). In essence, satisfaction of that statutory description supplies the necessary rational connection demanded by the Bank Mellat analysis,...

Dealings between private enterprises and governments, or state-owned bodies, are commonplace in the spheres of foreign investment and cross‑border contracting across numerous jurisdictions. Parties to cross‑border frameworks often opt to refer prospective disputes to international arbitration rather than litigate in court. The underlying logic is clear and compelling. First, arbitration removes the quarrel from the reach of the state party’s own courts and places it before an impartial, independent tribunal. Second, well‑known international treaties, including the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention) and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention), have markedly eased the recognition and enforcement of arbitration clauses and awards. Notwithstanding these benefits, state immunity may present a significant barrier to effective dispute resolution in practice when engaging with states or state‑controlled entities. In essence, state immunity signifies that a sovereign cannot be forced to accept the jurisdiction of another country’s courts (immunity from jurisdiction). It may likewise shield particular assets...

This Practice Note explores the use of Norwich Pharmacal orders in cross border disputes. For guidance on: the principles of Norwich Pharmacal orders, see Practice Note: Norwich Pharmacal orders (NPOs) making an application for a Norwich Pharmacal order, see Practice Note: Norwich Pharmacal orders—making an application Norwich Pharmacal relief in support of foreign proceedings For many years, it was assumed that Norwich Pharmacal relief was obtainable in support of existing or prospective foreign proceedings without the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 (E(POJ)A 1975) presenting any barrier. In Shlaimoun v Mining Technologies International Inc (2011), the judge did not regard the statutory scheme under E(POJ)A 1975 as excluding Norwich Pharmacal relief. Instead, he took the view that the Act and the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction offered parallel or complementary routes to obtain documents later deployed in foreign proceedings. For insight, see News Analysis: Court gives guidance on using documents obtained under a Norwich Pharmacal Order in subsequent foreign proceedings (Shlaimoun & Anor...

This Resource Note summarises the principal elements of Rule 16 of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (the Code) and signposts key materials, commentary and guidance from the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers (the Panel), together with Lexis+® UK analysis and resources, to offer practical assistance on the interpretation and application of Rule 16. Materials addressed in this Resource Note comprise: detailed notes that accompany the Code (the Notes), which elaborate on how the Rules are intended to be implemented, plus relevant Appendices addressing particular issues Practice Statements released by the Panel Executive (the body responsible for the day-to-day supervision of takeovers and regulation of the Code) (Executive), giving informal guidance on the Executive’s usual interpretation and application of the Code Panel Statements issued by the Panel (P/S) and Panel Instruments Public Consultation Papers (PCP) and Response Statements (RS) from the Code Committee relevant Lexis+® UK resources Rule 16—Setting the scene Rule 16—Special deals and management incentivisation ...

Information barrier scheme drafted by [ insert name ] Information barrier scheme authorised by [ insert name of partner and/or COLP ] Date [ insert date ] A: Client and matter details Name of first client to whom the information barrier will apply [ insert name of first client to whom the information barrier will apply ] Summary of matter and file reference for the first client [ insert matter description for client 1 ] Partner responsible for the first client [ insert name of partner ] Name of second client to whom the information barrier will apply [ insert name of second client to whom the information barrier will apply ] Partner responsible for the second client [ insert name of partner ] Summary of matter and file reference for the second client [ insert matter description for client 2 ] Partner responsible for the third client [ insert name of partner ] Name of third...

Tip What should you do? How can following this tip help you? Look the part Consider your appearance and attire—does it reflect the image you intend for yourself and your firm? Presentation matters greatly. Top performers are impeccably turned out, even on days without scheduled meetings, because they want to be prepared for any opportunity. Develop rapport and empathy with the person you are meeting Show genuine interest and curiosity—ask plenty of questions and keep the conversation moving, particularly where there is shared ground or a mutual interest. Be as ready to chat about personal interests as you are to discuss business. A natural connection helps people relax and builds trust. Many individuals enjoy talking about their hobbies and family, so join the conversation. Do not be put off by the word ‘no’ Identify the reason behind the prospect’s objection or the ‘no’ and evaluate whether a different approach or action could remove the barrier. The best salespeople often say they are not...

The straightforward answer to this question is no, provided the security barrier is deemed safe for those on foot. A security barrier is generally a gate, featuring either a rising arm or a horizontal swing from a fixed hinge. Although it can be feasible for a barrier to be safe for both vehicles and pedestrians, they are commonly designed to suit only one of these two uses. A barrier intended to stop vehicles is not well suited to preventing pedestrians from passing through. Because cars and people differ markedly in scale and movement, it is usually simpler to install two different gate types. From a security standpoint, a basic vehicular gate will not exclude pedestrians. More importantly, a gate meant for vehicles can pose a significant risk to pedestrians...