‘Confidential Information’—one-way—pro-recipient meaning

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,...

In this issue: Employment contract Horizon scanning Pensions Tax Prohibited conduct (discrimination etc) Data protection and employee information Dates for your diary Trackers New Q&As Employment resources on Lexis+® Daily and weekly news alerts Employment contract Supreme Court reinstates High Court injunction preventing Tesco from ‘firing and rehiring’ employees on less favourable terms. In Tesco Stores Ltd v Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW) [2024] UKSC 28, the Supreme Court, unanimously and led by Lord Burrows and Lady Simler, upheld the High Court’s stance, reviving the injunction that bars Tesco from dismissing staff in order to strip them of a ‘permanent’ contractual entitlement to retained pay, then proposing re‑engagement without it. An implied term in the contracts curtailed Tesco’s ability to rely on dismissal rights for that end. Commentary on the ruling is provided by Neil Todd of Thompsons Solicitors; Jonathan Chamberlain and Connie Cliff of Gowling WLG; Philip Harman...

R (oao UBS AG) v HMRC and another [2024] UKUT 242 (TCC) As part of JW’s reward package, UBS and JW (then an employee) entered into three options over gilts in 2002. The options were not taken up until 2012, after JW had left the business, and delivery of the gilts did not occur until 2016/17 because of valuation problems. HMRC issued a determination under regulation 80 of the PAYE Regulations requiring the company to account for PAYE. The company disputed that determination, advancing a number of lines of attack, one of which asked HMRC to exercise its discretion under section 684(7A) of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003. HMRC responded that it was not appropriate to decide whether to deploy that discretionary power at that juncture, as the ultimate liability had not yet been fixed. UBS sought judicial review of...

In this issue: Residential property Transferring property Easements, rights and covenants Property taxes Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers New Q&As Residential property Failure to serve claim notice did not invalidate transfer of right to manage The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the appeal in A1 Properties (Sunderland) Ltd v Tudor Studios RTM Company Ltd [2024] UKSC 27, confirming that Tudor Studios RTM Company Ltd (Tudor Studios RTM Company)’s omission to serve a claim notice on A1 Properties (Sunderland) Ltd (A1 Properties) did not undo the transfer of the right to manage. The issue for decision was the consequence of non-compliance with section 79(6)(a) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (CLRA 2002), and whether such a failure necessarily invalidates the process. Court of Appeal authority indicates that not every failure to serve a claim notice defeats an RTM company’s acquisition of the right to manage the premises: Elim Court...

Hackney carriages and private hire vehicles A ‘hackney carriage’ means a vehicle authorised to ‘ply for hire’, namely to offer a taxi service and stand on taxi ranks awaiting passengers. See the Practice Note: Taxi licensing. Plying for hire without a hackney carriage licence is an offence under section 45 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (TPCA 1847). Touting for car hire services constitutes an offence by virtue of section 167 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA 1994). See Practice Notes: Taxi touting or soliciting for hire, and Taxi and private hire vehicles enforcement. A ‘private hire vehicle’ is defined at section 80 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (LG(MP)A 1976) as ‘a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to seat fewer than nine passengers, other than a hackney carriage or public service vehicle, or a London cab or tramcar, which is provided for hire with the services of a driver for the purpose of carrying passengers’. A ‘private hire vehicle’ must not...

This archived case hub captures the position as at the date of the judgment of 17 September 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases Case facts Outline An action for annulment was lodged before the General Court against the Commission’s decision of 7 February 2007 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production (Case SA.12186). The Commission considered 80% of the tax relief granted by the Italian Government to Euroallumina SpA to be lawful, and, on that basis, required recovery of the remaining 20% of the amount of relief. Latest developments On 17 September 2019, the General Court delivered its judgment, in which it dismissed in its entirety the appeals brought by Italy and Eurallumina, finding that the excise duty exemptions granted to Eurallumina SpA, for mineral oils used as fuel in alumina production, infringed the State Aid rules...

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is no longer maintained. It sets out the different iterations of HMRC and DHSC guidance on the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) released over time, and supplies tracked-change comparisons highlighting alterations from one update to the next, so practitioners can quickly determine which version of the relevant guidance applied on any given date. For a guidance tracker: covering the successive versions of HMRC guidance on the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme (SEISS), see Practice Note: Self-Employment Income Support Scheme—guidance tracker [Archived] covering the successive versions of general guidance on coronavirus (COVID-19), see Practice Notes: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—guidance tracker for employment (non-BEIS guidance) [Archived] and Coronavirus (COVID-19)—guidance tracker for employment (BEIS working safely guidance to 18 July 2021) [Archived] Separate sections of the Practice Note cover: Treasury Direction Guidance for employers: Check if you can claim for your employees’ wages through the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme Check which employees you can...

In the Employment Tribunals Case number: [ Insert case number ] Between: [ Insert name of claimant ] (Claimant) and [ Insert name of respondent ] (Respondent) Claimant's schedule of loss 1. Details Net basic pay per week (after deductions): £[ Insert amount ] Respondent’s yearly pension contributions/annual pension entitlement: [ [ Insert amount, e.g. £x ] OR [ Insert details of pension scheme, e.g. 1/80 final salary scheme with related lump sum ] ] Yearly value of bonus/other employment perks: £[ Insert amount ] Notice period under the contract: [ Insert period, e.g. x weeks or x months ] Claimant’s date of birth: [ Insert date ] Date employment ended: [ [ Insert date ] ] Age at termination: [ [ Insert age ] ] 2. ...

To: [ name ] of [ address ] Please note that: The [ name ] [ District ] [ Borough ] [ City ] Council (the Council) is satisfied that a statutory nuisance [ exists OR is likely to [ occur OR recur ] ] under section 79(1) [ specify which subsection ] of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990), originating from [ the premises at ] [ specify the address of the source of the nuisance ] and resulting from [ describe the matters which are causing the nuisance ]. This abatement notice is issued to you as you are [ the person responsible for the statutory nuisance OR [ the owner OR the occupier of ] the premises ]. What you are required to do [ You are required to abate...

Please use this checklist before entering into any exclusive agreement Determining whether exclusivity is liable to produce anti-competitive effects is not straightforward; multiple factors must be weighed, and in many cases exclusive deals may not be feasible at all. Above all, ensure the justification for exclusivity is not simply to undermine competitors or to delay or impede new entrants. If this is driving the exclusivity, from a competition regulator's perspective it may not matter whether the conduct gives rise to an anti-competitive effect. You must seek guidance from [ insert, eg the legal team ] where flagged in this checklist and whenever you have any questions or concerns. Exclusivity Factor Result Comments 1. Is the buyer required or encouraged to concentrate its orders for a particular product or service with just one supplier (often termed single-branding/exclusive sourcing)? Note that even an obligation or incentive to purchase more than 80% of requirements from a single supplier amounts to exclusivity...

Under the Capital Funding Guide issued by Homes England, where a development lies within a designated protected area (DPA) and benefits from grant, the registered provider (RP) granting a shared ownership lease must include one of two provisions: limit staircasing to a maximum of 80%; or if staircasing beyond 80% is permitted, require the leaseholder to sell their share back to the landlord (or a nominee that is also an RP) at market value when they wish to sell. In certain cases, a local authority can seek a waiver of these conditions from Homes England where the supply of shared ownership homes is no longer constrained. Notwithstanding guidance suggesting one of the above clauses is mandatory for every shared ownership lease in a DPA, our understanding is that the applicable regulations do not impose this where the site has not received grant. For more detail, see: Practice Note: Entitlements under shared ownership leases Housing (Shared Ownership Leases)...

Immigration Rules, Appendix ECAA: Extension Of Stay Pursuant to the current Immigration Rules (Immigration Rules, Appendix ECAA: Extension Of Stay) and the applicable guidance (Turkish ECAA guidance: Appendix ECAA extension of stay), holders of the Turkish Worker visa who have been lawfully employed in the UK for at least four years may, from that point, take up any role with any employer. This Appendix took effect at 11pm GMT on 31 December 2020, to encompass those who previously enjoyed rights under Decision 1/80 of the Association Council connected to the ECAA Association Agreement (concluded on 12 September 1963 in Ankara, and later supplemented on 23 November 1970 by the Brussels Protocol). See: Turkey-EEC Association Agreement: Macdonald’s Immigration Law and Practice [6.193]. Immigration Rules Appendix ECAA: Extension Of Stay, paragraphs ECAA 3.1–ECAA 3.2 set out, amongst other matters, that: ECAA 3.1...

On the life tenant’s death, an inheritance tax (IHT) liability would arise pursuant to section 49 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984), subject to any property that was eligible for relief at that time...