Tax analysis: In Tartaruga, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) considered the approach to take in determining the extent to which insurance contracts relate to risks situated inside the UK (in which case UK insurance premium tax (IPT) applies) or outside the UK (in which case, UK IPT doesn’t apply). This decision also involved analysing the meaning of ‘buildings’ and ‘establishment’ when determining the subject matter to which insurance contracts ‘relate’. Written by Sarah Black, barrister, at 11 New Square.

This Checklist is designed to help a business decide whether it should be using its standard form terms and conditions for a particular transaction, or whether it is more appropriate to use a bespoke contract. The Checklist is designed to be attached to the front of the business’ standard terms document as a prompt to consider the issues before they are selected for use. It is appropriate for business-to-business (B2B) transactions only. Standard form terms and conditions should be used to make a business more efficient, but they are not appropriate for all contracts. It is important that a business knows when to

This Practice Note provides an overview of the issues the court will consider during an application in which a party either seeks to establish or challenge the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales (English courts). There are three key requirements: there must be a serious issue to be tried, there must be a good arguable case and the English courts must be the proper place for determining the dispute between the parties. The Practice Note refers to the decision in AK Investment v Kyrgyz Mobil which is reported in some law reports as Altimo Holdings & Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd. Why is jurisdiction an important issue? The important of establishing that the court has jurisdiction to determine the claim being brought before it has been considered in numerous authorities. A useful summary can be seen in the Court of Appeal decision in Mashate v Kagute (2012) where it was held that it is paramount for the court to ensure that: • proceedings before

A deterministic valuation uses one set of assumptions to calculate a single result especially when assessing scheme funding.

Where an employee has suffered from an unlawful act (or detriment) by the actions of the employer.

There is no contravention of the Equality Act 2010 in the context of work under section 39(2)(d) unless there is both (1) discrimination, eg less favourable treatment on grounds of a protected characteristic, and (2) detriment to the employee. In certain factual scenarios there may be no detriment despite less favourable treatment, eg where the less favourable treatment involved the failure to investigate a fabricated and untrue allegation, and where, as a matter of fact, the employee suffered no injury to feelings as a result of the failure to investigate. EAT: Cordant Security Ltd v (1) Singh (debarred) (2) Stones.

FORTHCOMING CHANGES: In measures expected to come into force on 1 October 2026, time limits for making certain claims in employment tribunals in Great Britain (and, in certain cases, industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland) will be increased from three months to six months. The changes are set out in section 152 of the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025) and ERA 2025, Schedule 12 (not yet in force), and in The Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026 (draft), The Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 (draft) and The Employee Study and Training (Procedural Requirements) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, SI 2026/473. This Practice Note will be updated as soon as the relevant statutory instruments are made. For more information, see Practice Note: Employment Rights Act 2025—tracker. FORTHCOMING CHANGE: The existing enhanced protection from redundancy that is available to employees during pregnancy, maternity leave and other types of statutory leave (and for an additional period after the leave has ended) is to

FORTHCOMING CHANGES: In measures expected to come into force on 1 October 2026, time limits for making certain claims in employment tribunals in Great Britain (and, in certain cases, industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland) will be increased from three months to six months. The changes are set out in section 152 of the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025) and ERA 2025, Schedule 12 (not yet in force), and in the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026, SI 2026/759, the Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations, SI 2026/758, and the Employee Study and Training (Procedural Requirements) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, SI 2026/473. For more information, see Practice Note: Employment Rights Act 2025—tracker. FORTHCOMING CHANGE: The existing enhanced protection from redundancy that is available to employees during pregnancy, maternity leave and other types of statutory leave (and for an additional period after the leave has ended) is to be extended to cover other forms of dismissal. The powers to make regulations under

FORTHCOMING CHANGES: In measures expected to come into force on 1 October 2026, time limits for making certain claims in employment tribunals in Great Britain (and, in certain cases, industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland) will be increased from three months to six months. The changes are set out in section 152 of the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025) and ERA 2025, Schedule 12 (not yet in force), and in The Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026 (draft), The Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 (draft) and The Employee Study and Training (Procedural Requirements) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, SI 2026/473. This Practice Note will be updated as soon as the relevant statutory instruments are made. For more information, see Practice Note: Employment Rights Act 2025—tracker. FORTHCOMING CHANGE: The existing enhanced protection from redundancy that is available to employees during pregnancy, maternity leave and other types of statutory leave (and for an additional period after the leave

The time limit of three months to bring a claim of detriment under section 48(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 generally runs from the date of the act to which the complaint relates and not from the date on which the complainant learns of that act. Accordingly, in a whistleblowing detriment case, where the complaint relates to the decision taken on a grievance, the time limit runs from the date on which the decision is taken rather than the date on which the employee learns of that decision. The test in detriment cases is different to that for determining the effective date of termination for unfair dismissal purposes. EAT: McKinney v London Borough of Newham.

Any modification to a scheme that would or might adversely affect any subsisting rights of any member or any survivor of a member of the scheme.

Detrimental reliance describes, in practice, a party changing their position on the faith of another’s representation, promise or assurance and, as a result, suffering prejudice or disadvantage. It is not a statutory term; it is a case‑law and practitioner expression used across multiple contexts.Key legal roles:- Estoppel: In proprietary estoppel (England & Wales, Northern Ireland and Ireland), detriment is an essential element alongside assurance and reliance; relief is fashioned to do justice. In promissory estoppel, the promisee’s reliance must make it inequitable for the promisor to resile; detriment commonly evidences that inequity. In Scotland, the closest concept is personal bar, which requires reliance to the representee’s prejudice.- Misrepresentation and negligent misstatement: the claimant must prove reliance causing loss; “detrimental reliance” is often used as shorthand for this causal and loss requirement.Typical detriment includes expenditure, improving property, foregoing legal rights, or otherwise acting to one’s disadvantage. Reliance must be causative and reasonable (or foreseeable) in context. The concept is used consistently across England & Wales, Scotland (as prejudice for personal bar), Northern Ireland and Ireland, though doctrinal labels differ. Practically, proving detrimental reliance can unlock equitable relief (e.g., an equity under proprietary estoppel or restraint on enforcement) or damages where a tort or statutory cause of action is made out.