Threat What is it? Our defensive measures Advanced persistent threat (APT) Attackers gain unauthorised access to a system and remain undetected for a prolonged period of time. They may carry out unauthorised transfers of sensitive data.Even when they are detected, they may leave several ‘backdoors’ open so they can return. We ensure users are aware of the risk and of basic account security procedures.We use firewalls to inspect and filter traffic.We use antivirus software. Botnet Collection of infected computers remotely controlled by a hacker.The hacker can share or sell access to the computers to other cyber criminals to be used to distribute spam or overload a system. See Malware and Hacking Chain letter An email that encourages the user to forward copies to other people.Not a security threat but can waste time and slow down mail servers. We ensure users know not to forward chain letters or hoaxes.We try to stay informed about chain letters and hoaxes. Commercial identity theft Bogus organisations (eg law firms) present a significant risk to the interests of consumers and our reputation if we become associated with one, eg because it

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the order of 4 July 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeal by A.C. Nielsen Company Limited against the OFT’s decision to clear the Information Resources Inc./Aztec Group merger and not refer it to the Competition Commission (case 1227/4/12/14). The CAT issued an order quashing the OFT’s decision and referring it back to the CMA on 04/07/2014. Parties A.C. Nielsen Company Limited (A.C. Nielsen). A.C. Nielsen is a US-based market research company operating in over 100 countries. It supplies retail measurement services in the UK. Competition and Markets Authority (which took over the functions of the OFT on 1 April 2014). Information Resources Inc. (IRi), a US-based company that acquired Aztec Group. Background On 18 October 2013, the OFT was notified of the completed acquisition by Information Resources Inc. of Aztec Group. The OFT decided to clear the merger (and not refer it for a phase 2 investigation before the Competition Commission)

ARCHIVED: this Practice Note is no longer maintained as it covers the implementation of EU free movement law in the UK prior to IP completion day, on which date domestic legislation implementing EU free movement law was revoked, subject to certain savings and modifications. For further details, including of the relevant savings and the position of CJEU case law, see Practice Note: Brexit and the end of EU free movement law in the UK. The Practice Note has been retained in archived form for historical interest, because EU law as previously implemented in the UK remains relevant in certain limited situations. For historical versions of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, SI 2016/1052, including immediately prior to revocation, see Legislation.gov.uk. For the ongoing development of EU free movement law in EU Member States, see: Immigration, employment & share incentives (EU Law)—overview. This Practice Note looks at issues that are specific to the acquisition of permanent residence (PR) for nationals of the ten eastern European countries that acceded to the European Union

This Practice Note tracks, records and summarises UK case law developments relating to applications made to the courts of England and Wales (England and English are used as convenient shorthand) to stay litigation proceedings in favour of arbitration pursuant to section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). It covers key authorities from the commencement of AA 1996, s 9 in 1997 to the present, including first instance and appellate decisions where they add helpful guidance on the operation of AA 1996, s 9 in practice. 2025–2026 Case Application type Key issue Summary GMC Utilities Group Ltd v Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd [2026] EWHC 885 (TCC)Judgment date: 16 April 2026Technology and Construction Court (King’s Bench Division) s 9 stay Whether escrow agreement jurisdiction clause displaced arbitration clause The claimant issued Part 7 proceedings seeking declarations about extensions of time, delay damages and entitlement to sums held in escrow under arrangements linked to a subcontract containing an LCIA arbitration clause. The defendant sought a stay under AA 1996, s 9. The court held that the Part

Arbitration analysis: Mrs Justice Cockerill sitting in the Commercial Court dismissed an application made pursuant to section 72 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), to set aside two awards on the ground that the arbitrator did not have substantive jurisdiction. An application to convert the awards into English judgments had previously been granted under section 66(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). Cockerill J accepted that the contractual right of action arising from the awards had therefore been merged into the judgment, and there was no longer a right which could be raised under AA 1996, s 72.

This Practice Note considers appealing an arbitral award on a point of law pursuant to section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). It should be read alongside Practice Note: AA 1996—appealing the award—leave to appeal (s 69), which considers obtaining permission to appeal an award under AA 1996, s 69, and Practice Note: AA 1996—appealing the award—questions of law versus questions of fact, which provides more information on the distinction between questions of law and questions of fact for these purposes. An introduction to appealing an award on a point of law under AA 1996, s 69 The only two grounds on which a party may seek to challenge an award in an English-seated arbitration is for lack of substantive jurisdiction under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) or for serious irregularity under AA 1996, s 68—see Practice Notes: AA 1996—challenging substantive jurisdiction post-award (s 67), AA 1996—challenging the award on grounds of serious irregularity (s 68) and AA 1996—challenging the award—categories of serious

This Practice Note considers how to apply for leave to appeal (or permission to appeal) an arbitration award on a point (or question) of law to the courts of England and Wales under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) (England and English are used throughout as convenient shorthand). For a general introduction to challenging and appealing arbitral awards under AA 1996, see Practice Note: AA 1996—challenging and appealing arbitral awards in the English court. Leave to appeal an arbitral award—the statutory and procedural framework The process of appealing against an arbitration award on a point of law under AA 1996, s 69 is split into two stages: • obtaining leave to appeal from the English court (which is required in all cases except where all parties to the relevant arbitration proceedings agree to an appeal (AA 1996, s 69(2))), and • the substantive appeal itself This Practice Note considers the first stage of this process, ie obtaining leave to appeal an arbitration award on a point of law. As discussed

Appealing arbitral awards on points of law Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) provides that parties to an arbitration seated in London may appeal any award arising from the arbitration only on a ‘question of law’. This Practice Note deals with the distinction between a question of law and a question of fact for the purposes of AA 1996, s 69. In practice, AA 1996, s 69 appeals rarely succeed and the hurdles for permission to appeal (which must be obtained) under the section are substantial. Those hurdles, as well as practical issues arising with respect to any AA 1996, s 69 appeal, are discussed in Practice Notes: AA 1996—appealing the award—leave to appeal (s 69) and AA 1996—appealing the award—appealing on a point of law (s 69). Questions of law v questions of fact As an appeal under AA 1996, s 69 is only available (assuming the right of appeal has not been excluded by agreement of the parties) with respect to questions of law, much of the

This Practice Note considers applications to the courts of England and Wales (English and England are used for convenience) for the determination of preliminary points of law pursuant to section 45 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). In arbitration proceedings, questions of law are usually decided by the arbitral tribunal, subject to any right of appeal to the court pursuant to AA 1996, s 69 (which is often, in practice, excluded by parties expressly or pursuant to their chosen arbitration rules, eg LCIA Arbitration rules, art 26.8). Section 45, is not mandatory and where it is not excluded by the parties agreement to arbitration (and choice of rules) it operates narrowly and should not be used or seen to be used by the parties as a way of avoiding their agreement to arbitrate. The jurisdiction of the court is limited—see below—and where the arbitral tribunal may consider continuing the arbitration proceedings while an application pursuant to section 45 is pending. However, it may, in the particular circumstances

This Practice Note considers applications to the courts of England and Wales (England and English are used as convenient shorthands) to remove arbitrators pursuant to section 24 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). Applying to court to remove an arbitrator under AA 1996, s 24 AA 1996, s 24, which is a mandatory provision of the Act (ie parties cannot agree that it will not apply), provides the English court with a discretionary power to remove arbitrators. A party to arbitral proceedings may, on notice to (a) the other parties, (b) the arbitrator concerned and (c) any other arbitrator, apply to the court to remove an arbitrator on one (or, indeed, more) of the following grounds: • circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality (AA 1996, s 24(1)(a)) • the arbitrator does not possess the qualifications required by the relevant arbitration agreement (AA 1996, s 24(1)(b)) • the arbitrator is not physically or mentally capable of conducting the proceedings or there are justifiable doubts as to their capacity

This Practice Note considers the appointment of the arbitral tribunal under the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). Under the AA 1996: • the parties are free to decide the number and manner in which the tribunal will be appointed • unless otherwise agreed by the parties, an agreement that the number of arbitrators shall be two or another even number will be understood as requiring the appointment of an additional arbitrator as chair • absent any agreement as to the number of arbitrators, the dispute will be determined by a sole arbitrator • any arbitrator appointed must be impartial and be physically and mentally capable of carrying out his duties Of course, AA 1996 is only relevant to the constitution of the tribunal where the arbitration is seated in England or Wales, as underlined in GmbH v Enercon. There are no restrictions in AA 1996 on who can be appointed as an arbitrator; arbitrators should either be experienced in the technical or legal aspects of the case. The extent to which

This Practice Note has been updated to incorporate the amendments introduced to the Arbitration Act 2025. References to the AA 1996 are to the Act in its amended form. A party wishing to challenge an arbitral tribunal’s substantive jurisdiction over a dispute prior to an award being issued can do so to the tribunal under section 31 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) or to the court under AA 1996, s 32. Section 1A, introduced by the AA 2025, confirms that an application under s 32 is limited to questions not yet ruled on by the tribunal (s 32(1A)). For more information on challenging jurisdiction pre-award