For the purposes of the offence of obtaining property by deception under the Theft Act 1968, s 15, 'deception' means any deception, whether deliberate or reckless, by words or conduct as to fact or law, including a deception as to the present intentions of the person using the deception or any other person.

This Practice Note examines deceptive design practices in online choice architecture (OCA), focusing on techniques such as dark patterns, dark nudges, and sludge. It covers the impact on consumer choice and competition, alongside the legislative framework in the UK, including the unfair commercial practices (UCP) provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA 2024). Techniques discussed in this Practice Note are typically incorporated into business-to-consumer (B2C) websites, apps and other technology platforms. OCA refers to the design features and elements within digital environments, such as websites, that influence how users make decisions. This may include the presentation and placement of choices (such as ‘buy now’ buttons), the design of interfaces, and the use of algorithms to personalise experiences. In many instances, OCA has a beneficial impact on consumer choice and assists consumers to navigate platforms effectively. However, when it is designed to intentionally manipulate, mislead or pressure a consumer, this may be referred to as a ‘dark pattern’, ‘dark nudge’ or ‘sludge’ technique and constitute a breach of consumer protection,

This Practice Note considers the basis on which an employer can choose to recruit an individual. It looks at the different types of employment status, namely that of employee, worker and self-employed or independent contractor. It also considers employee shareholders, casual workers and those on zero hours contracts, agency workers, apprentices, interns and volunteers, the gig economy and employee status for tax purposes. When an employer recruits someone, it is important for the employer to determine at an early stage what status it considers that person should have, whether it is that of an employee, worker or self-employed person. This is important because the rights which attach to each of them are different. In addition, different issues will arise depending on whether the person is a casual or ‘zero hours’ worker, agency worker, apprentice, intern or volunteer. Employee status is also relevant to the individual’s treatment for tax purposes (see Practice Note: Employment status—why it matters). Employers who get it wrong may face employment tribunal claims and tax penalties. Note that, whatever employment status is chosen,

One of the 10% bands in 100%. An investment manager who is in the top decile is in one of the top 10% of funds.

Corporate Crime analysis: In the third part in a legal series on cryptocurrencies, Will Glover and Angharad Hughes, barristers at 3 Temple Gardens, continue their series of articles in the developing area of cryptocurrency regulation. They highlight the key issues around privacy and the regulation of cryptoassets for money laundering purposes and provide some commentary for healthy debate on the issues arising from the Fifth Money Laundering Directive (MLD5) and UK anti-money laundering (AML) regulations.

Arbitration analysis: The General Assembly of the Dubai Court of Cassation unanimously decided to abandon what the court had followed in previous rulings regarding the cancellation of the arbitration clause. In its Decision No 10/2023, the General Assembly of the Dubai Court of Cassation has ended the uncertainty and confusion stemming from the 2013 judgment of the Dubai Court of Cassation in Contestation no. 379/2013 dated 29 December 2013. In 2013, prior to the issuance of the UAE Federal Arbitration Law the Dubai Court of Cassation held that the arbitration agreement was considered abandoned and cancelled after the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) dismissed a request for arbitration due to non-payment of the advance costs of arbitration. However, in the light of the provisions of Article 45 (1) and Article 54 (4) of the Federal Law No 6 for 2018 concerning Arbitration, the General Assembly of the Dubai Court of Cassation now directs all the lower courts including the Dubai Court of Cassation to abandon the approach taken by the court in Contestation no. 379/2013 and to follow an approach that is in line with the Arbitration Law in that—the jurisdiction of the state courts is excluded as long as the arbitration agreement is validly concluded; the arbitration agreement remains valid even after the arbitration award is set aside; the cancellation of the arbitration proceedings by an arbitration center due to nonpayment of the costs of the arbitration should not be construed as an abandonment of the arbitration agreement. Written by Firas Alchoufi FCIArb, DiplArb, LLM, LLB, founder and managing partner at Bin Sevan Advocates & Legal Consultancy.

IP analysis: This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court, in which it was held that Samsung infringed all 23 of the Swatch Group's trade marks through most, but not all, of the 30 digital watch face apps complained of, which could be downloaded by users to Samsung smartwatches from the Samsung Galaxy App store (‘the SGA store’). Due to this, Samsung was held liable as a primary tortfeasor. Samsung appealed on three grounds, namely that (i) the court was wrong to hold that there was use of the signs by Samsung, (ii) the court was wrong to hold that the use of the signs included use in relation to smartwatches, and (iii) the court was wrong to reject Samsung's defence pursuant to Article 14(1) of the E-Commerce Directive to financial remedies. All of the grounds of appeal were dismissed. Written by Milena Velikova, trade mark attorney, and Helene Whelbourn, legal director, at Lee & Thompson LLP.

In Consensus Business Group (Ground Rents) Ltd v Palgrave Gardens Freehold Co Ltd [2020] EWHC 920 (Ch), the High Court dismissed an appeal against a decision of the Central London County Court that a single notice could be served under section 13 of the Leasehold, Housing Reform and Urban Development Act 1993 even if the building contained separate buildings within it.

Public Law analysis: On 6 July 2018 the Northern Ireland (NI) Court of Appeal gave its ruling in the appeal against the decision of the High Court in Buick’s (Colin) Application as Chair Person of NoArc21. Andrew Ryan, partner at TLT Solicitors, argues that the potential implications of the judgment for governance as a whole in NI in the absence of an executive—and without direct rule—are significant. At its heart lies a major question mark over future decision making by NI government departments in the absence of either a devolved executive or direct rule from Westminster—neither of which appear likely in the foreseeable future. Careful analysis of the Court of Appeal’s decision also perhaps raises more questions than it answers.

This Precedent Decision scorecard (also known as a decision matrix) can be used to evaluate the alternative decision options you have identified against a baseline, eg the system or process you have in place at the moment. This tool is useful when you are faced with multiple options, which may include maintaining the status quo, and need assistance to work out what is the best one. This scorecard enables you to score each potential option against key criteria to establish if a single option is feasible, or to assess various alternatives which are not quite right to find the best aspects of each and produce a hybrid option. 1 General information Define the problem or issue you need to address [insert details] Describe the system or process currently in place,

The Chief Constable of the West Midlands, Craig Guildford, has written to the Chair of the Commons Home Affairs Committee, Dame Karen Bradley, admitting that a decision to ban Israeli fans from a major football match in Birmingham was partly based on evidence about a non-existent previous match in the UK, generated by use of Microsoft Copilot. The Chief Constable had previously told the Committee that the error was not the result of using AI. The Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has announced that she no longer has confidence in him.

Planning analysis: In Lochailort Kentford v West Suffolk Council, the High Court dismissed a statutory review challenge under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to the adoption of the West Suffolk Local Plan. The claimant argued that the Council’s inclusion of part of its site in Part 1 of the brownfield land register showed that the site was considered suitable for residential development, and that this was inconsistent with the stance taken in the local plan process. The court rejected that analysis, holding that decision not to allocate the site turned on comparative planning judgment and the Council’s preference for other, more suitable and achievable sites, not on any unequivocal conclusion that the whole promoted site was unsuitable.