Shielding meaning

What is the background to the call for evidence? Following Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt’s Mansion House address the night before, the DWP launched the call for evidence. Issued in tandem with several other DWP publications, these materials covered a broad spread of topics affecting UK pension schemes. Their shared aim was to boost investment in UK productive finance whilst shielding members’ benefits and giving precedence to a resilient, diversified gilt market. The Chancellor characterised the proposals across the various papers as the ‘Mansion House reforms’. The DWP placed the Response alongside further papers pertinent to DB pension schemes, including: the Autumn Statement 2023, which confirms that the Government will reduce the authorised surplus payments charge, currently payable on a return of surplus to a scheme employer, from 35% to 25% from 6 April 2024; and Call for evidence outcome: Pension trustee skills, capability and culture What was the outcome? ...

Shell persuaded the Hague Court of Appeal that it need not cut its emissions by 45%—or by any figure—by 2030, despite judges accepting campaigners’ argument that the firm owes a duty to the public to curb emissions to confront the climate emergency. There can be no doubt that shielding people from dangerous climate change is a human right, the appeals court stated. It is chiefly for legislators and governments to implement measures that reduce dangerous climate change. The 2021 ruling on appeal from the Hague District Court had directed Shell to lower carbon dioxide output and to bring corporate policy into line with the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Activists hailed the judgment as a landmark first. The action was initiated by Milieudefensie, the Dutch branch of Friends of the Earth, along with more than 17,000 co-claimants in total supporting the case overall...

Official data indicate a sharp rise in inquiries into suspected unfair imports, largely linked to China, with 33 fresh anti-dumping and anti-subsidy cases launched in 2024, compared with 12 in 2023 and five in 2022. By the close of last year, authorities were also handling 21 expiry reviews, four interim reviews, three anti-circumvention cases and a single new safeguard probe. Since early this year, 13 additional anti-dumping and anti-subsidy actions have been initiated, implying the momentum has continued since US President Donald Trump began his second term and imposed trade tariffs on China and numerous other nations. This has fuelled EU debate over whether to speed up procedures for tackling imports that stem from unfair foreign subsidies or are sold at artificially low prices, the practice known as dumping. Cutting the length of trade-defence inquiries is possible, but could impinge upon the right of defence. The central issue is whether two or three months are decisive for shielding the Union’s industry. In my view, they are not, said Renato Antonini,...

Introduction Block exemption rules offer broadly applicable safe harbours for agreements from the UK ban on anti-competitive agreements set out in Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 (notably section 2), so long as the agreement satisfies the conditions of the relevant block exemption. Each such regime rests on the assumption that any restrictive deal within its ambit meets the four criteria in section 9 of the Competition Act 1998 required to obtain an individual exemption from section 2 (see also, Practice Note: Chapter I prohibition). As a result, a block exemption creates a safe harbour shielding restrictive arrangements from challenge under section 2 of the Competition Act 1998. Before 1 January 2023, research and development (R&D) agreements were covered by Retained Regulation (EU) 1217/2010, the Retained Research and Development Block Exemption Regulation (UK Retained R&D BER), which continued to apply in the UK as retained EU law after Brexit. The UK Retained R&D BER lapsed on 31 December 2022 and, from 1 January 2023, was superseded by (UK...

ARCHIVED This archived Practice Note is not being maintained and is supplied for background purposes only. It covers the original Coronavirus (COVID-19) Job Retention Scheme (CJRS), first unveiled by the government on 20 March 2020, which applied from 1 March to 30 June 2020. For information on: the extended CJRS operating between 1 May and 30 September 2021, see Practice Note: Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (extended version 1 May to 30 September 2021) [Archived] the extended CJRS in effect from 1 November 2020 to 30 April 2021, see Practice Note: Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (extended version 1 November 2020 to 30 April 2021) [Archived] the revised CJRS running from 1 July to 31 October 2020, see Practice Note: Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (extended version 1 July to 31 October 2020) [Archived] The CJRS was a temporary initiative, originally intended to run for three months from 1 March 2020. On 17 April 2020, HM Treasury announced an extension to 30 June,...

Background The idea of the privilege against self-incrimination, often treated as a single safeguard, in truth stems from several distinct common law protections for defendants and witnesses, each aimed at shielding citizens from misuse of powers by those who investigate crime. Each reflects concern for the protection of citizens against abuse of powers by those investigating crimes in law. Those varied protections can be broadly grouped as: a privilege against self-incrimination for witnesses in criminal, civil, or other non-judicial investigative proceedings (including coroners' inquests) the entitlement of a defendant not to give evidence at trial; and a suspect’s right to remain silent during a pre-trial criminal inquiry As outlined below, the privilege is not absolute, and statute has intruded upon these protections in several ways. The privilege against self-incrimination at common law The privilege against self-incrimination is a long-established common law protection. The principle developed at common law as a reaction to prisoners being tortured into providing...

Legal professional privilege Legal professional privilege denotes a doctrine shielding particular categories of documents from scrutiny or inspection by the opposing party to the case. Legal advice privilege covers materials containing advice irrespective of whether proceedings are envisaged at any stage. Litigation privilege concerns documents created when litigation is extant or on foot, anticipated, or pending as such. Both are treated as sitting beneath the umbrella of legal advice privilege. A hearing attendance note will, as a rule, come within litigation privilege and so need not be disclosed to the other side. The request for a copy of that hearing note may, therefore, be made with a respondent’s potential appeal in mind...

Legal professional privilege Legal professional privilege is a doctrine shielding specified categories of documents from scrutiny by the opposing party in proceedings. Legal advice privilege covers materials that convey advice, regardless of whether litigation is anticipated. Litigation privilege concerns documents created when litigation is on foot, foreseen, or awaiting commencement. Both are treated as sitting beneath the umbrella of legal advice privilege. A hearing attendance note will usually attract litigation privilege and, as a result, need not be disclosed to the other side. A request for a copy of the hearing attendance note may, in fact, be made with a respondent’s prospective appeal in mind...