ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note summarises the procedure for the progress of a dispute under the third edition of the ARIAS (UK) Rules which were adopted in 2014 (the ARIAS Rules). For an introduction to ARIAS, see Practice Note: Arbitration under the ARIAS (UK) Rules 2014. Formal requirements Under ARIAS Rule 17, an award must: • be in writing (ARIAS, rule 17.2) • be in the primary language of the arbitration (ARIAS, rule 17.2) • state the seat of the arbitration (ARIAS, rule 17.2) • state the date of the award (ARIAS, rule 17.2) • give reasons (unless the parties agree otherwise, or the tribunal gives a consent award at the parties’ request (ARIAS, rule 17.10)) • be signed by the sole arbitrator, the umpire or two of the three arbitrators (as appropriate) (ARIAS, rule 17.3) The ARIAS rules do not lay down a time frame within which the award must be published. Governing law The award must determine the dispute: • in accordance

Availability, Reliability, Maintainability: Often expressed as target performance levels that (safety-critical) plants and systems must meet or better, to underpin the nuclear safety case. For example, key systems must have a certain level of reliability or must be repairable within a maximum time limit. The need to meet these targets often influences both the strategy for the type and number of different parallel / independent systems and the EMIT Schedule (see EMITS).

See Accounting reference period (ARP).

The European Payments Council (EPC) has opened its API Reference Toolbox (ART) test and self-certification platform after completing a successful pilot phase. The platform supports the Verification of Payee (VOP) scheme, which allows payment service providers (PSPs) to offer an IBAN-name check service from October 2025 in accordance with the Instant Payment Regulation. Routing and/or verification mechanisms (RVMs) are required to complete a self-certification process on the ART platform to demonstrate compliance with the VOP API specifications. From mid-June 2025, PSPs not operating through an RVM will also have the opportunity to test and certify their VOP API implementation on a voluntary basis.

Law360, London: The UK government's plans to tighten the rules for appointed representatives (ARs) will give the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) a far greater enforcement hook, making the regime costlier and harder to access by the companies it is designed to support, lawyers have warned.

TMT analysis: On 27 February 2019, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) published a ruling involving TSE Malta LP t/a Betfair in relation to a TV ad’s compliance with the UK Code of Broadcast Advertising (BCAP Code).

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld a complaint against Menwell Ltd, trading as Manual, regarding a paid Google advertisement promoting oral minoxidil for hair loss. The ad, seen on 31 January 2025, stated 'Buy Oral Minoxidil - £14/Month' and included claims such as 'Effective in 9/10 Men – The Very Best Treatment in the UK,' along with an invitation to book a personal online consultation. The ASA found that this advertisement breached the CAP Code because oral minoxidil is a prescription-only medicine (POM). While the medicine is licensed in the UK for the treatment of certain types of hypertension, it is not licensed for hair loss, which was the clear implication of the ad’s messaging. Manual responded by removing the product from their advertising. However, the ASA concluded that the ad had promoted a POM to the general public, which is prohibited under CAP Code rule 12.12. As a result, the complaint was upheld, and the ASA instructed Menwell Ltd not to advertise POMs to the public in the future

Two complaints were considered by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) concerning whether gambling-related Instagram advertisements breached the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP) Code by featuring individuals likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s. The ASA upheld the complaint against Oddschecker but did not uphold the complaint against Betway.

Six complaints were received by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) concerning whether advertisements for food and drink brands were paid-for advertisements for identifiable ‘less healthy’ food or drink products. The ASA upheld two complaints and did not uphold four. The rulings provide guidance on the application of the CAP and BCAP Code restrictions and the scope of the brand advertising exemption.

Two complaints were upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in relation to alcohol advertising, as part of a wider piece of work on alcohol advertising. The rulings follow investigations triggered by the ASA’s Active Ad Monitoring system, which uses AI to identify potentially non-compliant online ads.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld complaints against Proud & Free and JPD Retail Ltd t/a Harrison & James concerning online jewellery promotions. The rulings highlight retailers’ responsibility to avoid false urgency through closing-down and availability claims and to substantiate ‘free’ offers.

One complaint was received by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) regarding the fairness of a prize draw administration. The ASA upheld the complaint.