A local authority may use a variety of means to ensure businesses meet their responsibilities under the Food Safety Act 1990 (FSA 1990) and Codes of Practice including education, advice, guidance, warning letters, improvement and emergency prohibition notices, formal cautions and prosecution. For information on the key offences under the FSA 1990, see Practice Note: Food Safety Act 1990 offences. For information on out of court disposals, see Practice Note: Alternatives to prosecution for adults. As made clear in the Food Standards Agency’s (FSA) Food Law Code of Practice and Food Law Practice Guidance, which enforcement option is used will depend on the risk to public health. Prohibition notices and prosecution will be reserved for those cases where there is imminent risk of injury to health in respect of premises, a piece of equipment or a process, or where there has otherwise been a serious breach of the food business’s obligations. Factors influencing the decision to prosecute Prosecution

This Decision-making framework should be used in conjunction with our Decision-making guide which sets out our organisation’s approach to decision making and explains why we have such a process in place. We understand that all members of staff make decisions at work every day. We do not expect you to follow the Decision-making guide and this framework for minor or operational business decisions, although you may find some of the principles set out in this framework to be useful on a day-to-day basis. The Decision-making guide and framework should be used whenever a significant business decision is required, to ensure such decisions are based on evidence and logic. A significant business decision is a decision that [insert your criteria, eg may have a significant effect on our business, operations, staff, customers or external stakeholders], eg [insert examples eg a decision to proceed with a key project or business initiative, a decision relating to a complex situation or that is likely to have a commercial impact]. The full criteria for a significant business decision is set out in the Decision-making

1 Introduction 1.1 This Decision-making guide (the Guide) sets out our organisation’s approach to decision making and covers: 1.1.1 why we have implemented a Decision-making framework 1.1.2 what our approach to decision making is 1.1.3 when the Decision-making framework should be used 1.1.4 what decision-making tools are available to help you 2 Why do we have a Decision-making framework? 2.1 Our Decision-making framework gives us a robust and structured approach to follow to ensure we make effective business decisions which align with our organisational goals. 2.2 Our Decision-making framework can be accessed [insert location eg on our intranet] and ensures: 2.2.1 everybody is aligned, working to the same process and uncertainty is minimised 2.2.2 decisions are visible through all levels of planning and we can clearly show how options and plans support our organisational strategies 2.2.3 the right people are consulted and involved in any decision that would impact their team, department or business unit 2.2.4 decisions of similar complexity and impact are made at similar levels throughout our organisation 2.2.5 we work in an ethical way and manage risk 2.2.6 we meet compliance and regulatory requirements 2.2.7 decisions are made at the right pace based on a clear process 2.2.8 we know who the final decision

Decision-making process flowchart This Decision-making process flowchart illustrates the nine key stages in a decision-making process and highlights decision-making tools available to assist at different stages of the process. It can be used in conjunction with Precedents: Decision-making guide and Decision-making framework. Information and analysis relating to all of these nine stages can be captured and consolidated in Precedent: Decision-making framework. Note 1 Stage 1 is where you can state what the problem or issue is you are seeking to address, why a decision is needed and what outcomes you expect to achieve from this decision. Note 2 Stage 2 involves identifying any alternative options or solutions to

1 Your details Name [insert name] Role [insert role] Department [insert department] Date [insert date] 2 Decision details What do we need to make a decision about? When does a decision need to be made by? [insert details about the decision that needs to be made, eg whether to invest in a new CRM system to better track and manage our customer relationships] [insert any decision deadline date] 3 Analysis of options 3.1 Option 1: [insert details of the potential option, eg install new ‘off-the-shelf’ CRM software] Key criteria Analysis [[insert criteria, eg Cost]] [[insert details of any costs associated with this

Associations of distinct undertakings can often take the form of trade associations or federations, which are themselves liable under Article 101(1) TFEU and section 2 of the Competition Act 1998 for their anti-competitive decisions.

This Practice Note summarises key decisions on the enforceability of post-termination restrictions (restrictive covenants) in contracts of employment and sets out examples of cases which practitioners may find helpful as illustrations of the courts’ approach. For a Practice Note summarising key decisions on restraint of trade provisions in commercial and corporate contracts, see Practice Note: Decisions on restrictive covenants in commercial contracts. Garden leave provisions Employers must provide sufficient evidence when attempting to establish a legitimate business aim (ICAP v Berry) Role CEO ICAP v Berry [2017] EWHC 1321 (QB)See also News Analysis: Garden leave and TUPE (ICAP Management Services v Berry) Terms of restriction 12-month notice period with garden leave Validity Valid Notable points The protection of confidential information in the employee’s possession was a legitimate business aim. The employee had freely agreed to the garden leave provision within his contract. In addition, the employee was unlikely to be out of pocket or to suffer a reduction or stagnation in skills during the

This Practice Note summarises key decisions on the enforceability of restraint of trade provisions (restrictive covenants) in commercial and corporate contracts. For more information on restrictive covenants and the doctrine of restraint of trade in commercial contracts, see Practice Note: Restrictive covenants and restraint of trade in commercial contracts. For a Practice Note summarising key decisions on the enforceability of post-termination restrictions (restrictive covenants) in contracts of employment, see Practice Note: Decisions on post-termination restrictions and garden leave in employment contracts. This Practice Note includes some decisions that were made under EU competition law. Since 1 January 2021, EU competition law no longer directly applies in the UK. Where an agreement affects trade within the UK, the provisions of Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 (CA 1998) apply. The Chapter I prohibition outlaws anti-competitive agreements and is based on Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). EU case-law are likely to remain of interest, but from 1 January 2024 the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023

Law360; The government should widen the age range for employees being automatically enrolled in a work-based pension, one of a raft of proposals that would address a series of risks to the future of UK pensioners, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) recommended on 2 July 2025.

A remedy consisting of a binding declaration of the rights or obligations of a party.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal against a deputy High Court judge’s decision on a preliminary issue, concluding that a declaration in previous litigation about the beneficial interest in property assets did not avail the same claimants in a related tracing claim against a different party. In essence, the Court of Appeal supported the deputy judge, holding that the declaration was in personam against the named parties and not in rem against everyone. It had no legal effect on the new claim against the new party on grounds of fairness, requiring the claimants to prove their case in the usual way. Written by Ian Gascoigne, dispute lawyer, writer, and legal trainer.

View or print a full-size PDF versio