Benchmark meaning

Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI) is the worldwide benchmark for routinely transmitting taxpayers’ financial details between jurisdictions to deter tax evasion. A trust resident in the UK is generally brought within the UK AEOI framework through the International Tax Compliance Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/878), as amended (the ‘ITC Regulations’). The ITC Regulations give domestic effect to the UK’s AEOI commitments under the Common Reporting Standard (CRS) and the UK‑US FATCA Agreement (FATCA). Refer to Practice Notes: Automatic exchange of information-outline; Automatic exchange of information for UK trustees-key obligations; and FATCA and UK Trusts. HMRC’s guidance appears in the International Exchange of Information Manual (IEIM400000). This Checklist summarises the principal matters trustees must consider under the UK AEOI regime. Scope and Threshold Question: Does AEOI Apply? Has the trust’s UK tax residence position been determined for AEOI purposes? Has it been verified whether the ITC Regulations 2015 apply to the trust (CRS and/or FATCA)? Is the trust in scope of AEOI as a possible Financial...

Timeline of key developments for Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/1011 (the UK Benchmarks Regulation) This timeline outlines major developments concerning Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/1011 (the UK Benchmarks Regulation) from January 2024 onwards. For prior developments, see Benchmarks Regulation—timeline [Archived] 2025 17 December 2025 — HMT; FCA Open consultation: Future regulatory regime for benchmarks and benchmark administrators Consultation [PDF]; FCA welcomes reform to the UK Benchmarks Regulation HM Treasury (HMT) has opened a consultation on the Specified Authorised Benchmark Regime (SABR), a wholly new benchmarks framework intended to replace the UK Benchmarks Regulation, regulating only those benchmarks or benchmark administrators that could present systemic risks to UK financial markets. HMT anticipates that SABR could shrink the population of benchmark administrators within scope by roughly 80 to 90 per cent. Under SABR, HMT would designate in-scope benchmarks and benchmark administrators, acting on advice from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). All other benchmarks, and administrators supplying benchmarks in the UK,...

This timeline is archived For updates from January 2024 onwards, see EU Benchmarks Regulation—timeline for matters concerning the EU Benchmarks Regulation, or UK Benchmarks Regulation—timeline for issues relating to the UK Benchmarks Regulation. For further guidance on the EU Benchmarks Regulation, consult Practice Notes: EU Benchmarks Regulation—one minute guide and EU Benchmarks Regulation—essentials. For further guidance on the UK Benchmarks Regulation, see Practice Notes: UK Benchmarks Regulation—one minute guide and UK Benchmarks Regulation—essentials. Benchmarks: Council agrees its negotiating mandate Date: 20 December 2023 Source: Council of the EU Description: The Council of the EU has settled its negotiating mandate on a regulation amending the EU Benchmarks Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/1011). The proposed changes address the scope of the benchmark rules, the EU’s use of benchmarks supplied by administrators based in a third country, and certain reporting duties. The plan is intended to reduce the regulatory burden on administrators of benchmarks that are not economically significant in the EU by excluding them from the...

STOP PRESS: This document is currently being revised to take account of the implementation of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA 2025), which modifies the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. For further guidance on the compliance impact of DUAA 2025, refer to Practice Note: Data (Use and Access) Act 2025—compliance implications. This Flowchart follows the approach outlined by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) to assess whether you may carry out an international transfer of personal data relying on standard contractual clauses (SCCs) or binding corporate rules (BCRs). These transfer tools can be used only where the safeguards, enforceable rights and legal redress available to individuals in the destination country are essentially equivalent to those guaranteed by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The ‘essentially equivalent’ benchmark derives from the Facebook Ireland and Schrems ruling (Schrems II), determined under the EU GDPR. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has issued Guidance on transfer risk assessments, which adopts the phrase ‘sufficiently similar’ for transfers under the...

Antitrust The application in Case C-60/25 Livronsa has now been published, an Italian national reference asking whether national courts must regard the Euribor manipulation evidence confirmed by the Commission and the Court of Justice as conclusive, and whether the ensuing competition restriction applies only to the derivatives market or instead to all markets that use the manipulated Euribor benchmark—see also the application The General Court has recently issued an order in Case T-413/21 Feralpi v Commission, an action lodged against the Commission for failing to pay Default Interest as required by the General Court in Cases C-85/15 Feralpi v Commission...

In this issue: Companies House Corporate governance Equity capital markets Accounts and reports Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Companies House Companies House announces fee changes from February 2026 Companies House has confirmed a revised fees schedule from 1 February 2026, following its annual assessment to align charges with the cost of providing services. Notably, the digital incorporation filing fee will rise to £100, and the digital confirmation statement fee will increase to £50. These adjustments are set out in the Registrar of Companies (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 (SI 2025/1137), which were laid before Parliament on 30 October 2025 and take effect on 1 February 2026. The accompanying explanatory memorandum states that the updated fees are intended to recover increased costs linked to implementing the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA 2023) and the Economic...

In this issue: Sustainable finance and ESG weekly round-up Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Act 2023 Football Governance Bill LIBOR and benchmarks Sustainable finance Debt capital markets Derivatives Regulation for derivatives lawyers Technology in banking & finance transactions Structured products and securitisation Regulation for banking lawyers Banking & Finance Highlights 2024/2025 Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information Sustainable finance and ESG weekly round-up For this week’s coverage of Sustainable finance and ESG developments, please see: Sustainable finance and ESG weekly round–up—19 December 2024. Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Act 2023 Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Act 2023 (Commencement) Regulations 2024 SSI 2024/378: From 1 April 2025, the outstanding provisions of the Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Act 2023 (the Act) will come into effect. See: LNB News 17/12/2024 9. Moveable Transactions (Forms) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 SSI 2024/379: These prescribe the forms to be used for the purposes set out...

This Practice Note This Practice Note examines how standard essential patents (SEPs) and fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing feature in patent disputes before the Courts of England and Wales (the English Courts). It focuses, in particular, on the legal position following the UK Supreme Court’s ruling of 26 August 2020 in the combined Unwired Planet and Conversant appeals, and the practical consequences of that decision. For further information, see News Analysis: Supreme Court—English courts can determine terms of global licences for portfolios of standard essential patents (Unwired Planet v Huawei). Since then, two further significant rulings on FRAND rates have been issued in England and Wales and have been the subject of appeal judgments, as noted below: First, judgment was handed down on 16 March 2023 in the dispute between InterDigital and Lenovo following a High Court FRAND trial in January 2022. It offered additional guidance on several of the issues considered in Unwired Planet. The appeal judgment in InterDigital v Lenovo was handed...

Lexcel is the Law Society’s benchmark for practice management. Accreditation is optional, yet Lexcel status can assist firms seeking recognition under the Conveyancing Quality Scheme or the Legal Service Board's Specialist Quality Mark. This Practice Note explains every step of the post-assessment pathway. Processing final report Soon after your assessment (typically two to three days), the assessor will send you the final report by email. It will set out any minor and/or major non-compliances, highlight areas for improvement, and note examples of good practice. A duplicate of the report will be forwarded to the Law Society panel...

This Practice Note examines the EU’s Recast Second Wire Transfer Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (Recast WTR2) on information accompanying transfers of funds and certain cryptoassets. Often referred to as the Recast Second Funds Transfer Regulation (Recast FTR2), it takes effect on 30 December 2024. Recast WTR2 sits at the heart of the EU’s anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF) architecture, and underpins the bloc’s oversight of payments and cryptoassets. It revises and supersedes the Second Wire Transfer Regulation (EU) 2015/847 (EU WTR2) to bring EU rules into line with the latest Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards, the worldwide AML/CTF rule‑setting authority. Under Recast WTR2, the information‑sharing benchmark for transfers—commonly called the ‘Travel Rule’—sets out the payer and payee details that must travel with any funds transfer, regardless of currency, to help prevent, detect and investigate money laundering and terrorist financing (ML/TF), whenever at least one of the payment service providers (PSPs) engaged in the transfer is established in the EU. It further obliges PSPs...

Dear All Our Lexcel evaluation is formally scheduled [ on [ insert date ] OR from [ insert date ] to [ insert date ] ]. Lexcel is the Law Society’s professional practice management benchmark, conferred only upon firms that achieve the very highest standards of management and customer care...

1 Introduction 1.1 This policy provides a summary of the Company’s measures to ensure we fulfil our health and safety duties towards employees and wider stakeholders, including people visiting our sites and anyone impacted by our activities, effectively and consistently. 1.2 This policy is non-contractual, and the Company may change it at any time. 1.3 The Company intends this policy to serve as guidance to support our continuing operational decision-making, and as a benchmark against which any procedures put in place can be evaluated...

This Precedent (also known as a decision matrix) It serves as a way to appraise the alternative choices you have surfaced against a benchmark, for example the system or process you rely on at present. This tool proves helpful when confronted with possibilities, which may include keeping the status quo, and you require guidance to determine which is the most suitable. The scorecard allows you to rate each option against key criteria to decide whether a single route is viable, or to review a range of options that are not quite right, identify the strongest elements of each, and combine them to create a hybrid option...

Damages After the lease ends, a landlord’s terminal dilapidations claim lies in damages. The recoverable sum is determined by common law rules for assessing loss arising from breach of the repairing covenant, but is curtailed by the statutory ceiling in section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 (LTA 1927). At common law, the benchmark for disrepair is the reasonable expenditure required to restore the premises to the condition they should have been in at the point of lease expiry. The claim for damages may, in addition, encompass foreseeable knock-on losses, including rent foregone during any period when the state of disrepair prevents the property being relet...

Much will turn on the exact provisions settled between the parties; for example, whether the essential component of child maintenance was set as a fixed sum with no top‑up payable at the time of the initial order because, at that stage, the payer’s earnings did not cross the relevant threshold. It will also matter whether, when that basic maintenance figure was determined, a 50/50 shared care regime was already in place and operating from the outset. The calculation used in the order appears to mirror the approach endorsed by Mostyn J in CB v KB, particularly at paragraph [49], where he indicated that in any case in which the non‑resident parent’s gross annual income does not exceed £650,000, the starting benchmark should be the output of the formula, disregarding the cap on gross annual income set at £156,000...