Since devolution began in the UK, there have been number of challenges to devolved legislation. Initial challenges were brought by individuals seeking to uphold their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. However, since 2008 there has been a distinct shift toward challenging devolved legislation on the grounds that it goes beyond the legislative competence of the devolved legislature itself. This Practice Note aims to provide some foundational guidance on how and why these challenges occur and how the courts have approached these challenges. In addition, UK government ministers have power under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 (SA 1998) and section 114 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GWA 2006) to intervene in certain cases by order to prohibit the Presiding Officer of a devolved legislature from submitting a Bill for Royal Assent. The making of such an order is subject to challenge by judicial review. Part II of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (NIA 1998) achieves a broadly similar purpose through a distinctive procedure under which it is the Secretary of State

Arbitration analysis: The High Court of Singapore refused to interfere with a decision of the Registrar of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) to amend the deemed date of commencement of an arbitration under Rule 3.3 of the SIAC Rules. The court agreed that the relationship between the parties and the SIAC was a contractual one and that the Registrar was required to exercise the power in a lawful manner and in accordance with the SIAC Rules. However, it held that Rule 40.2 expressly prohibited appeals from or reviews of decisions of the President, Court or Registrar of SIAC. By seeking a declaration that the date of commencement was different from that decided by the Registrar, the plaintiff was mounting a back-door appeal. The plaintiff’s only remedy was to await the award and apply to set it aside on the basis of the incorrect commencement date. The challenge to the decision was therefore in breach of the parties’ agreement and an abuse of process attracting an order for indemnity costs. Written by Dr Cameron Ford OAM SC is a arrister at William Forster Chambers.

Private Client analysis: How does the recent decision in Burns v Burns affect our understanding of testamentary capacity? James Fryer-Spedding, barrister at 9 St John Street Chambers, considers the decision and the impact it could have on the validity of wills made by those suffering with cognitive difficulties.

The original version of this note was written by the late Professor Alexander Türk. In brief According to settled case law, the Court of Justice of the European Union has the exclusive competence to declare an act of the EU to be invalid. Under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the validity of an EU Directive can be challenged by: • bringing a direct action for annulment before the Court of Justice under Article 263 TFEU • raising the invalidity of the Directive indirectly in a dispute before a national court. The action in the national court is directed against the implementing measures adopted by the national authorities to transpose a Directive into national law. The national court hearing the case can ask the Court of Justice to review the validity of the Directive by way of the preliminary reference procedure in Article 267 TFEU • a challenge incidentally under Article 277 TFEU (plea of illegality) attached to a main direct action brought under Article 263 TFEU Direct action

Challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal pre-award—Singapore’s Arbitration Act and International Arbitration Act Singapore has a dual arbitration regime with the Arbitration Act, 2001 (the ‘AA’) governing domestic arbitrations and the International Arbitration Act 1994 (the ‘IAA’) governing international arbitrations whether seated in Singapore or abroad. Both the AA and the IAA recognise the principle of separability, which treats the arbitration agreement as distinct and independent from the underlying contract. They also incorporate the doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz which confers upon the tribuna authority to determine its own jurisdiction—including a determination that it does not have jurisdiction over the dispute between the parties. The High Court of Singapore in Malini Ventura v Knight Capital Pte Ltd observed that the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (Model Law) confers upon the arbitral tribunal the power to determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear the disputes in question, including the validity and existence of the arbitration agreement.

What is an LME? The term liability management exercise (LME) can have various meanings. For the purposes of this Practice Note: (i) LMEs include liability management transactions (LMTs) (ii) LMEs refers to a borrower using flexibility in the finance documents (sometimes unintentionally granted by the lenders) to adjust its capital structure, thereby accessing additional and/or cheaper debt or reducing leverage and (iii) LMEs do not involve any formal or court driven restructuring techniques (eg Part 26A restructuring plans (RPs) or Part 26 Schemes of Arrangement (schemes)) and so are a form of ‘out-of-court restructuring’ process. Typically, the debtor and a small group of existing (or new) lenders/bondholders/noteholders will work together to elevate or improve the position of those participating creditors, often to the detriment or dilution of non-participanting/minority creditors (ie a non pro rata deal). Essentially LMEs involve a tension between freedom of contract (the argument run by the debtor company and participating creditors) and the equitable treatment of the non-participating creditors. Various structures are typically used in LMEs including: drop downs, up-tiers, double

Corporate Crime analysis: The High Court upheld decisions made by the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) to refuse a licence for payments related to the upkeep of Mr Fridman’s home. In doing so it emphasised the nature of the court process, the material which it will consider and what is required of OFSI in its decision-making role. Substantively the court refused to permit the corporate veil to affect its determination about what amount to indirect payments. Gary Pons, a barrister at 5 St Andrew Hill, examines the case in more detail and assesses the future implications of the judgment.

The legal framework Two principal statutes govern the relationship between arbitration and Turkish court proceedings. The International Arbitration Law No. 4686 (IAL) applies to arbitrations with a foreign element where the seat is in Türkiye or where the parties or tribunal choose its application. The Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (CCP) governs domestic arbitration and the procedural treatment of preliminary objections in Turkish civil litigation. Article II(3) of the New York Convention also requires courts of contracting states, subject to the limited qualifications in that provision, to refer parties to arbitration when proceedings are brought in a matter covered by a written arbitration agreement. Türkiye is a contracting state. Recognition and enforcement in Türkiye are governed by separate regimes: foreign court judgments are governed by Articles 50–59 of the IPPL, subject to any applicable international treaty; foreign arbitral awards are governed by the New York Convention where applicable and, outside its scope, by Articles 60–63 of the IPPL, subject to any other applicable

This Practice Note explains how designations made under the UK domestic sanctions regime under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (SAMLA 2018) can be challenged. SAMLA 2018 was implemented to ensure the UK had a robust sanctions regime after the UK left the EU and enabled the UK to impose financial sanctions, immigration sanctions, trade sanctions, aircraft sanctions, shipping sanctions and other sanctions needed to comply with United Nations (UN) sanctions obligations. Those UK sanctions made under SAMLA 2018 which replaced EU or UN sanctions were brought into force fully at the end of the implementation period (IP completion day). For further guidance, see Practice Note: Development of sanctions regime in the UK post Brexit—timeline. For information on the UK domestic sanctions regime under SAMLA 2018, see Practice Notes: The UK sanctions framework under SAMLA 2018 and UK sanctions regimes currently in force. The impact of a sanctions designation Sanctions designations can—indeed, are designed to—have significant adverse effects on those who are made subject to them (‘designated persons’).

A decision by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD), acting by the Home Office, to refuse to grant a Workers and Temporary Workers sponsor licence is not subject to any right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), although since 6 April 2016 there has been a ‘pre-licence error correction’ procedure. Decisions to suspend, downgrade or revoke sponsor licences have no right of appeal or review. Operating a sponsor licensing system without a right of appeal to an independent tribunal has been held to be compliant with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (right to a fair trial). The Court of Appeal in R (New London College Ltd) v SSHD confirmed that judicial review was an appropriate and sufficient remedy in these circumstances. The criteria for the grant, suspension or withdrawal of a sponsor licence are currently contained solely within the Home Office Sponsor Guidance. See: Applying for a licence—overview and Sponsor duties and

This Practice Note sets out certain key cases and associated relevant content in relation to challenging a liquidator under section 168(5) of Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). The cases are divided by topic area and include: • standing • the test • relief For further reading on this topic, see Practice Note: Role, powers, functions and duties of a liquidator. Standing Names of parties Judgment date Case summary Relevant content Re Styles & Wood Group Ltd (in liquidation); Lanigan v Hyslop [2026] EWHC 128 (Ch) 28 January 2026 Creditors of the company will not have standing to apply under IA 1986, s 168(5) if: • the application is advanced and relief sought by them in their capacity as defendants to assigned claims brought against them, and not in their capacity as creditors • their real purpose is not to advance or protect the interests of the creditor class, or even of themselves as creditors or members of that class, but to disrupt and, if possible, defeat the claims • it

Stop Press: On 24 February 2025, the main provisions of the Public Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) come into force. We are reviewing and updating our content accordingly. Note, however, that procurements begun on or after 24 February must be carried out under PA 2023, whereas those begun under the previous legislation (the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016, the Concession Regulations 2016, and the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011) must continue to be procured and managed under that legislation. For information, see Practice Note: Key Implications of the Procurement Act 2023 for Construction Lawyers. Brexit impact—public procurement The UK public procurement regime derives from EU public procurement laws, and is therefore impacted by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. For general updates on the process and preparations for Brexit, see Practice Note: Brexit timeline. For further reading on the impact of Brexit on public procurement, see Practice Note: Brexit—the implications for public procurement [Archived]. Introduction The Public Contract Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102 implement the Public