Featured documents
R (Greyhound Board of Great Britain Ltd) v Welsh Ministers [2026] EWHC 670 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling reinforces the constitutional divide between the courts and the legislature. It explains that the scheme and framework of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GWA 2006) embody that separation of powers, and that any judicial attempt to recognise and enforce a common law obligation on Welsh Ministers to consult prior to introducing legislation in the Senedd would trespass upon that boundary. This is not a departure from established principle; case law has already upheld comparable rules for lawmakers in Scotland and at Westminster. However, this is the first express confirmation of the position for Welsh lawmakers, and the first time this dimension of the GWA 2006 has been analysed in such depth. The court examined earlier
The solution arrived through the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), a quasi‑judicial body handling mass claims, created under UN Security Council Resolution 687. By addressing environmental harm—most notably via its ‘F4’ claim class—the UNCC set a seminal benchmark shaping how international law and contemporary arbitral panels allocate financial responsibility for wartime ecological devastation. With present-day wars in areas such as Eastern Europe and the Middle East bringing dam breaches, strikes on chemical facilities, and the burning of farmland, the UNCC’s legacy endures as an essential reference point for states, global investors, and companies engaged in post‑conflict arbitration. The F4 claims: Quantifying the unquantifiable Prior to the 1990s, mechanisms in international law for war reparations overwhelmingly favoured property loss, foregone earnings, and bodily injury. The natural world was commonly treated as a mute, non-compensable victim of armed hostilities...
Understanding the farming business as a business Many farms still use long-standing structures that arose by habit, not strategy. Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common. While once effective, such setups can cause major issues around succession, tax planning and involving the next generation. A corporate team can take a fresh, business-led view of the farm, asking: Who owns the land and other critical assets? Who manages daily operations? Who carries the risk and who enjoys the return? What is the enduring plan for succession? From this review, the team can confirm whether the current setup is fit for purpose or if an alternative — for example an updated partnership agreement, a company, a limited liability partnership, or a blended model — would better meet the family’s aims. Tax efficiency through joined-up advice Tax sits at the centre of most
Most recent News
Section 6 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 supersedes VPA 2024, s 17, scrapping the prior constraint that protected disclosures had to be made to particular recipients for specified purposes. Any term in any agreement, including commercial non-disclosure agreements ( NDAs), is void to the extent it seeks to stop a victim, or someone who reasonably believes they are a victim, from revealing relevant criminal conduct-or the counterparty’s reaction to it-to anyone, for any purpose. The new provision binds the Crown, subject only to a tightly drawn national security exception. This analysis examines how these reforms align with existing common law limits on confidentiality and their consequences for standard commercial NDA templates. It is written by Richard Hanstock, a barrister at Cornerstone Barristers and the founder of Deeptech Legal, an SRA-authorised firm specialising in cybersecurity, artificial...
In this issue: Advertising, marketing and sponsorship Contracts Sale and supply of goods Supply of services Lex Talk®Commercial: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Horizon Scanner and Trackers Advertising, marketing and sponsorship ASA Rulings – 27 May 2026 Two complaints were reviewed by the Advertising Standards Authority ( ASA) on whether gambling-related Instagram ads breached the Committees of Advertising Practice ( CAP) Code by including individuals likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s. The ASA upheld the complaint against Oddschecker, but did not uphold the complaint against Betway. See: LNB News 27/05/2026 6. Contracts The Winros Partnership v Global Energy Horizons Corporation [2026] EWCA Civ 654 The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed both appeals brought by the Winros Partnership (formerly Rosenblatt Solicitors) against decisions of Marcus Smith J. The...
Following missed deadlines, the European Commission has moved against a number of EU Member States for not notifying full transposition of EU Directives into domestic law. It has issued letters of formal notice, allowing Member States two months to reply and finalise legal transposition, after which......
The Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA) confirmed it has contacted multiple trader recommendation platforms ( TRPs) following the recent identification of concerns about their conduct......
The Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA) announced it had obtained a High Court–approved settlement from Emma Sleep after the firm admitted to breaching consumer law. According to the CMA, Emma Sleep also used misleading countdown clocks, false claims of high demand, and deceptive discount promotions......
The Advertising Standards Authority ( ASA) examined two complaints in question about whether gambling-themed Instagram ads broke the Committees of Advertising Practice ( CAP) Code by using figures likely to hold strong appeal for under-18s. The ASA upheld the case regarding Oddschecker, but rejected the one concerning Betway. Betway Ltd t/a Betway; Cyan Blue Odds Ltd t/a Oddschecker. Both decisions related to Instagram content promoting gambling services. For Betway, the decision covered a post with ex-footballer and pundit Thierry Henry talking about Arsenal’s chances of winning the Premier League. For Oddschecker, the decision addressed posts highlighting current players Harry Kane and Erling Haaland alongside betting activity and bookmaker odds. Issue The ASA formally assessed whether the ads breached the CAP Code by featuring people deemed likely to be of strong attraction to under-18s in particular......
In brief Limbu v Dyson, alleging forced labour within Dyson’s Malaysian supply network, settled before trial The proceedings posed novel issues about whether UK companies may owe a duty of care to workers in overseas supply chains The Supreme Court’s refusal of Dyson’s forum non‑convenience challenge signalled a judicial readiness to scrutinise human rights harms abroad The claim also advanced unjust enrichment, contending Dyson effectively profited from exploitation Although Dyson denies liability, the settlement signals an important acceptance of responsibility and may still deliver key outcomes pursued through strategic litigation: remedy, accountability, industry change and pressure for legislative reform What happened in Limbu v Dyson? In 2022, twenty‑four Nepalese and Bangladeshi migrant workers issued a High Court claim against Dyson over alleged abuses while working in two Malaysian factories making components for the Dyson supply chain. After years of wrangling over forum, a January 2026 ruling that the case should be heard in the UK...
In this issue: Advertising, marketing and sponsorship Consumer protection Contracts Lex Talk®Commercial: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Horizon Scanner and Trackers Advertising, marketing and sponsorship ASA rulings—15 April 2026 The Advertising Standards Authority ( ASA) received four complaints questioning whether certain ads promoted identifiable ‘less healthy’ high fat, salt and sugar ( HFSS) food and drink products. Two of those complaints were upheld. See: LNB News 15/04/2026 13. ASA and CAP publish annual report 2025 The Advertising Standards Authority ( ASA) and the Committees of Advertising Practice ( CAP) have released their 2025 annual report, detailing their approach to fast-moving developments in online advertising. The report notes that the ASA scanned close to 60 million online ads using its artificial intelligence ( AI)-driven Active Ad Monitoring system, handled over 40,000 complaints and secured the amendment or removal of 22,383 ads. CAP also delivered 596,039 pieces of...
The government’s response The consultation ran from 31 July to 23 October 2025 and received over 850 responses. Secretary of State Peter Kyle characterised the outcome as delivering ‘the most ambitious legislation to tackle late payments in over 25 years’ and ‘the strongest legal framework on late payments in the G7’. Addressing late payment formed a pledge in the 2024 Labour Manifesto. At the heart of the package is a broadened remit for the SBC. The SBC—an independent public body created by the Enterprise Act 2016—currently helps small firms resolve payment disputes by offering guidance and issuing non-binding recommendations. It will receive three new categories of powers. First, investigatory powers: the SBC will be able to open inquiries on a wider array of evidence, including anonymous tips; require companies to supply information; and conduct compliance checks on payment reporting data, backed by financial...
What is the key regulatory update from the CMA’s press release on fake and misleading consumer reviews? On Friday 27 March 2026, the CMA revealed it has begun consumer protection enforcement against five UK firms over fake and deceptive online reviews, signalling one of the first deployments of its new powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 ( DMCCA 2024), in this area of consumer protection and online reviews enforcement. The probe currently covers Autotrader, Feefo, Dignity, Just Eat and Pasta Evangelists—covering the car sales, funerals and food delivery industries. At present, the CMA has not determined whether consumer law has been infringed. Under the DMCCA 2024, fabricated and misleading reviews are treated as an automatically unfair commercial practice. Responsibilities do not rest only with companies that solicit or reward reviews; they also apply to those that publish, host or...
In this issue: Advertising, marketing and sponsorship Consumer protection Contracts Data protection Lex Talk®Commercial: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updates content Dates for your diary Horizon Scanner and Trackers Advertising, marketing and sponsorship ASA rulings—8 April 2026 Two complaints were lodged with the Advertising Standards Authority ( ASA) about a paid-for Instagram ad for a gambling website, which compared gambling with eating pistachios and implied that favourable and unfavourable results encouraged continued participation. The ASA upheld the complaints. See: LNB News 09/04/2026 9. Consumer protection DBT implements mandatory ADR accreditation framework The Department for Business and Trade has issued a suite of statutory instruments under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 to reform alternative dispute resolution ( ADR) for consumer contract disputes, with the Secretary of State commencing a mandatory...
In this issue: Advertising, marketing and sponsorship Consumer protection Contracts E-commerce Product liability Public procurement Supply of services Lex Talk®Commercial: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Horizon Scanners and Trackers Advertising, marketing and sponsorship ASA rulings—1 April 2026 Continuing its regulatory scrutiny of alcohol promotions, the Advertising Standards Authority upheld a complaint against Sazerac UK Ltd t/a Hi- Spirits over a Fireball whisky poster. The decision focuses on ambiguous wording and imagery likely to encourage excessive drinking, where copy and visuals together could mislead or promote irresponsible behaviour. See: LNB News 01/04/2026 20. Consumer protection Managing product returns—what can be learned from the new ASOS returns policy? Can retailers curb or shape returns by influencing consumer behaviour, adopting behaviour-based pricing, and levying charges for...
In this issue Advertising, marketing and sponsorship Consumer protection Contracts Intellectual property Lex Talk®Commercial: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Horizon Scanners and Trackers Advertising, marketing and sponsorship ASA rulings—25 March 2026. The Advertising Standards Authority reviewed two objections about nutrition-related claims in ads for alcoholic beverages and upheld both. See: LNB News 25/03/2026 37. Consumer protection DBT publishes response to late payments consultation outlining legislative measures. The Department for Business and Trade has issued its reply to the consultation on addressing poor payment practices, confirming plans to bring forward legislation to tackle late payments, estimated to cost the UK economy £11 billion a year. Proposals include expanding the Small Business Commissioner’s ( SBC) powers to investigate, adjudicate disputes and impose financial penalties on habitual late payers; setting a...
Does the new returns tool unlawfully penalise consumers for exercising their right to return items? The consumer–trader relationship sits under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ( CRA) and the Consumer Contracts ( Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 ( CCRs). Under the CCRs, individuals who enter contracts by distance means (for instance, online) enjoy a right to cancel a retailer contract. In particular, a shopper may cancel an online purchase at any point within the cancellation window, although this can be subject to enhanced delivery charges, deductions for any use, the expense of sending goods back, and the price of any services supplied during that window. Ordinarily, the period for cancelling is 14 days (though some businesses do allow longer return timeframes). When a cancellation is made, the retailer must return any sums paid by the customer, including standard delivery charges (but...
Petroleum Exploration ( PVT) Ltd v Frontier Holdings Ltd and another company [2026] EWHC 56 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment strengthens the Fiona Trust presumption in the specific setting of settlement agreements concluded to resolve earlier contractual disputes. In particular, where parties insert a fresh, broadly worded arbitration clause into a settlement agreement, the working assumption is that it is intended to operate as a single ‘one‑stop’ route for resolving all future disputes arising under the settlement, in the absence of unequivocally clear carve‑outs (see Fiona Trust Holding Corp v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40). When drafting or interpreting such arbitration clauses, parties and their legal representatives should: assume that the arbitration clause in the settlement agreement is the operative dispute resolution provision for any dispute between the parties concerning the implementation of, or alleged breach of, the...
Zaha Hadid Ltd v Zaha Hadid Foundation [2026] EWCA Civ 192 What are the practical implications of the case? The ruling clarifies the line between perpetual agreements and those of indefinite duration, and the situations in which a power to terminate on reasonable notice may exist, both in principle and in day-to-day commercial practice overall too. Having surveyed the common law authorities in this field, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that perpetual and indefinite contracts can carry different consequences. At the heart of the outcome is a focus on construing the agreement and ascertaining the parties’ common intention. It underlines, once again, the need for intentions to be settled from the outset and, preferably, for contracts to contain express provisions dealing with termination. The judgment also offers notable, albeit obiter, observations on the doctrine of restraint of trade in commercial...
In this issue: Advertising, marketing and sponsorship Agency and distribution Consumer protection Contracts Contractual joint ventures Lex Talk®Commercial: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Horizon Scanners and Trackers Advertising, marketing and sponsorship ASA rulings—18 March 2026 Two complaints were made to the Advertising Standards Authority ( ASA) asserting that the basis of a price comparison and the end‑of‑life handling of coffee pods were misleading. The ASA upheld both complaints. See: LNB News 18/03/2026 25. IAB Tech Lab releases Co MP framework for AI content licensing agreements The Interactive Advertising Bureau ( IAB) Tech Lab has announced the release of the Content Monetization Protocol ( Co MP) Specification v1.0 for public consultation. This standardised framework seeks to lock in commercial terms before artificial intelligence ( AI) systems crawl...
Muller UK and Ireland Group LLP and others v HMRC [2026] EWCA Civ 248 The second, third and fourth appellants (the Corporate Members) were part of the Muller multinational corporate group trading in dairy products. In 2013, those appellants moved their respective trades and assets, including intellectual property and goodwill, to the fourth appellant, Muller UK and Ireland Group LLP ( LLP), receiving membership units in the LLP in exchange. The LLP recorded amortisation of the assets and goodwill (the Material Assets) in its accounts on a straight-line basis over five years. When calculating their taxable profits from the LLP for the 2013–18 accounting periods, the Corporate Members claimed deductions for that amortisation under Part 8 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 ( CTA 2009). HMRC rejected the claims on the footing that the Material Assets did not satisfy the Part 8...
On 9 March 2026, the CMA released guidance titled ‘ Complying with consumer law when using AI agents’, together with research called ‘ Agentic AI and consumers’. These publications signal rising regulatory focus on the impact of autonomous AI in consumer markets and examine how existing consumer legislation applies to agentic AI. The CMA sets out a policy overview of agentic AI, considers potential future developments, identifies likely benefits and risks for consumers, and outlines actions for businesses building or using agentic AI to ensure compliance with consumer law and to cultivate trust in their systems. This commentary summarises: the scope of the CMA’s analysis key takeaways for practitioners practical steps businesses can take now to meet consumer protection expectations What the publications covers From tools to autonomous agents A central theme is the movement of...
In this issue: Advertising, marketing and sponsorship Consumer protection Contracts Supply chain Supply of services Lex Talk®Commercial: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Webinars Latest Q& A Horizon Scanners and Trackers Advertising, marketing and sponsorship ASA rulings—4 March 2026 Two challenges were lodged with the Advertising Standards Authority ( ASA) about cost‑saving assertions in adverts for solar panels and heat pumps. The ASA upheld both complaints. See: LNB News 05/03/2026 15. Consumer protection CMA analyses consumer impacts of agentic AI and issues compliance guidance for businesses The Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA) has released analysis on the rise of agentic AI and its shift from reactive tools to autonomous systems that can sense, decide and act, and has issued compliance guidance for...
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
