Brexit

Brexit

Introduction

The Brexit transition period ended at 11 pm on 31 December 2020. At this time (referred to in UK law as ‘IP completion day’), transitional arrangements ended and significant changes began to take effect across the UK’s legal regime. This overview was prepared in the lead up to Brexit and is maintained for historical reference purposes. Much of the content linked within this overview has since been archived however key content that remains of interest to commercial practitioners includes:

•
Brexit collection
•
Brexit timeline
•
Brexit—introduction to the Withdrawal Agreement
•
Retained EU law and assimilated law
•
Commercial Q&As—Brexit collection

Brexit—key steps and timeline

On 31 January 2020 (Exit Day), the UK ceased to be an EU Member State and entered an implementation period, during which it continued to be subject to EU law. Transitional provisions in the UK legislation implementing the Withdrawal Agreement, namely the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (EU(WA)A 2020) amended the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (EU(W)A 2018) so that EU law continued to take effect in accordance with the Withdrawal Agreement

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Information Law News

ICO publishes open letter on strengthening age assurance measures

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has issued an open letter to social media and video-sharing platforms operating in the UK, calling for strengthened age assurance measures to enhance their age assurance measures beyond mere self-declaration by children. The ICO addressed its letter to TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and X requesting that they demonstrate compliance with stronger age verification requirements.

ICO fines Police Scotland £66k and issues reprimand over failures in handling sensitive personal information

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has fined Police Scotland £66,000 and issued it with a reprimand after finding serious failures in its handling of sensitive personal information. It concluded that the force failed to apply basic safeguards when extracting and disclosing highly sensitive data. The ICO found that Police Scotland extracted the entire contents of a person’s mobile phone after they reported an alleged crime, without putting in place adequate safeguards to prevent access to irrelevant material. The download ran to 39,233 pages, including more than 10,000 pages of images and included private and special category data wholly unrelated to the investigation. The ICO concluded that the extraction was not ‘strictly necessary’ for law enforcement purposes and was excessive and unfair, in breach of sections 35 and 37 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018).

Information Law weekly highlights—12 March 2026

Welcome to this week’s edition of the Information Law weekly highlights: a hand-picked summary of news analysis, updates and new content related to laws governing the use and dissemination of information and personal data. Each week these highlights focus on developments in key topics such as data protection, ePrivacy, cybersecurity, breach of confidence, misuse of private information, and defamation.

Freedom of information contempt certification in the Upper Tribunal (Bence v Cornwall Council)

Public Law analysis: In Bence v Cornwall Council, the Upper Tribunal (UT) found Cornwall Council in contempt for failing to comply with a Substituted Decision Notice (SDN) issued by the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FIA 2000). The Council ultimately admitted it had not responded to the SDN within the prescribed 35-day period, and the UT further held that the Council remained in breach for a protracted period. Bence is the first reported case in which the UT has made a finding of contempt by a public authority in an information law case. The decision provides guidance on the respective roles of the FTT and UT in the contempt certification process. It also provides a helpful and comprehensive summary of the contempt regime as it relates to non-compliance with the FTT’s SDNs. Further, the judgment emphasises the seriousness of non-compliance by a public authority and the elements of civil contempt, in conjunction with Buzzard-Quashie, that sanctions for contempt on this basis may be severe. The case is also instructive in illustrating how a public authority may mitigate failures of compliance to avoid investigation and certification of contempt. Written by Gaelyn Fuhrmann, legal director at Wiggin LLP.

View Information Law by content type :

News