Local Government analysis: The Court of Appeal refused to disturb findings of the Divisional Court, on a wealth of evidence, that an Orthodox Jewish housing association’s policy of not housing non–Orthodox Jewish seekers of social housing, was both justified and proportionate. The court also made clear that it is not easily persuaded to interfere with such first instance findings, without an undermining error of law or of reasoning first being established, and no such error was found to exist in this case. Very good reasons for restricting only 1% of the social housing stock in Hackney to Orthodox Jews were established, which were held to far outweigh the disadvantage to persons such as the claimant, who as a non–Orthodox Jew, who cannot access that housing stock. Written by Adam Heppinstall, barrister, at Henderson Chambers.

Employment analysis: If a witness discusses the evidence in a case during a break in proceedings while they remain under oath (or affirmation) it may justify the whole claim being struck out, according to the EAT.

The Ada Lovelace Institute has published a discussion paper on buying AI, which sought to identify whether the public sector is equipped to procure AI technology in the public interest. Focusing predominantly on local governments, the paper revealed that UK local authorities face challenges when making decisions about procuring AI and data-driven systems, as a result of there not being a clear or comprehensive account of how to procure AI in the public interest. The report found that there are various terms used to measure societal benefit throughout available procurement guidance and legislation, and that the guidance available is not specific enough about how and where to operationalise things like fairness, transparency, and public engagement for societal benefit. Various definitions of AI are also used, while relevant legislation does not always align. To improve procurement processes for AI and data-driven systems, the Ada Lovelace Institute recommends streamlining government guidance, reaching consensus on definitions of key terms, enhancing governance, and engaging communities, ensuring that AI technologies are ethically implemented and beneficial to public services.

This Practice Note focuses on the current availability of schemes which stand outside common law remedies for diseases. For obvious reasons claimant practitioners will concentrate efforts, at least in the first instance, on a common law claim through the civil courts in respect of occupational disease. However, there may be cases where that usual route is not available to the client. This may be due to the way in which the client contracted the illness and, typically, the lack of an identifiable tortfeasor (or at least an insured one). In such circumstances, a number of statutory and administrative compensation schemes may provide an alternative source of redress. For civil claims for mesothelioma sufferers, see Practice Note: Mesothelioma claims—procedure. In the case of each of the schemes identified, this Practice Note will describe the specific circumstances in which recourse to the scheme may be appropriate. The Pneumoconiosis etc (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 (P(WC)A 1979) Definition Pneumoconiosis is a collective term for a range of diseases caused by the inhalation and retention in the lung of dust. Applying The

Dispute Resolution analysis: This is the first judgment from the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) considering the recent Supreme Court decision in R (PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others (‘PACCAR’). A revised litigation funding agreement (‘LFA’) for opt-out proceedings was approved by the CAT, because it was held not to be a damages-based agreement (‘DBA’). Written by Charlotte Wilk, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

Disguised remuneration tax avoidance schemes normally involve a loan or other payment from a third party and aim to minimise income tax and National Insurance levies on employment income.

This Practice Note describes: • what is meant by 'disguised remuneration' • the basis of the disguised remuneration charge, and • the tax implications of a disguised remuneration charge This Practice Note refers only to those aspects of the disguised remuneration legislation which apply to employee share incentives and is not intended to be a comprehensive guide to the legislation. The Finance Act 2011 introduced Part 7A of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003), aimed at tackling what has become widely known as 'disguised remuneration' involving the use of employee benefit trusts. Broadly, the term 'disguised remuneration' describes arrangements involving third parties (often employee benefit trusts) which benefit employees in a way that avoids or defers liabilities for income tax and national insurance contributions (NICs). The arrangements must involve a third party in order for ITEPA 2003, Pt 7A to apply—if an employer is providing a benefit directly to the employee (other than where the employer is acting as a trustee),

What is disguised remuneration? HMRC has, for many years, sought to ensure that the rewards gained from employment are properly subject to income tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs) deducted by employers through the pay as you earn (PAYE) system. With this in mind, HMRC introduced the disguised remuneration legislation in the Finance Act 2011, which aims to tackle the use of Employer Financed Retirement Benefit Schemes (EFRBS), Employee Benefits Trusts and other ‘disguised remuneration’, so that benefits received are no more attractive than taking a salary. The legislation imposes a PAYE obligation on the employer and/or trustees of pension schemes to collect income tax and associated National Insurance Contribution (NIC) charges and it serves as a warning to employers and promoters of tax avoidance schemes that the use of certain contrived remuneration structures to avoid, defer or reduce income tax liabilities will be strongly challenged. Publication of the draft legislation in December 2010 was met with extensive criticism in light of its wide-ranging nature and its potential for catching innocent arrangements

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: As announced at Autumn Budget 2024, the government commissioned an independent review of the loan charge. The review, announced on 23 January 2025, was to ‘examine the barriers preventing those who are subject to the loan charge but have not already settled and paid their tax liabilities in full from reaching resolution with HMRC’ and was tasked to ‘recommend ways in which they can be encouraged to settle with HMRC’ (see News Analysis: Autumn Budget 2024—Independent review of the loan charge). To assist with the review, a call for evidence, aimed at those who remain subject to the loan charge (and their advisers), was published on 28 March 2025. The Final Report of the review was published, along with the government response, at Budget 2025 on 26 November 2025. The Final Report concluded that the loan charge ‘failed as a mechanism to resolve the tax affairs of [affected] taxpayers, largely because it was not married with a settlement strategy that was both commensurate to the extraordinary legislation

This Practice Note explains how UK tax legislation has evolved to address the use of disguised remuneration schemes, which have arisen as a result of the demand by companies and their owners to mitigate tax as efficiently as possible. It therefore sets out the tax planning environment which existed before the introduction of the disguised remuneration rules in 2011. This is useful for understanding why the rules were introduced and the types of structures to which they were designed to apply. This Practice Note was produced in partnership with Stephen Downie of Francis Wilks & Jones. Disguised remuneration schemes, often called tax avoidance schemes, have no specific design other than they seek to transfer remuneration to an employee without any liability for tax. Common methods include the provision of indirect loans or gains through derivative investments by the employer, the use of pension schemes to set-off loan accounts, sub-contractor schemes and the use of offshore trusts to loan sums to the employee/director. However, there are many other

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: As announced at Autumn Budget 2024, the government commissioned an independent review of the loan charge. The review, announced on 23 January 2025, was to ‘examine the barriers preventing those who are subject to the loan charge but have not already settled and paid their tax liabilities in full from reaching resolution with HMRC’ and was tasked to ‘recommend ways in which they can be encouraged to settle with HMRC’ (see News Analysis: Autumn Budget 2024—Independent review of the loan charge). To assist with the review, a call for evidence, aimed at those who remain subject to the loan charge (and their advisers), was published on 28 March 2025. The Final Report of the review was published, along with the government response, at Budget 2025 on 26 November 2025. The Final Report concluded that the loan charge ‘failed as a mechanism to resolve the tax affairs of [affected] taxpayers, largely because it was not married with a settlement strategy that was both commensurate to the extraordinary legislation

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: As announced at Autumn Budget 2024, the government commissioned an independent review of the loan charge. The review, announced on 23 January 2025, was to ‘examine the barriers preventing those who are subject to the loan charge but have not already settled and paid their tax liabilities in full from reaching resolution with HMRC’ and was tasked to ‘recommend ways in which they can be encouraged to settle with HMRC’ (see News Analysis: Autumn Budget 2024—Independent review of the loan charge). To assist with the review, a call for evidence, aimed at those who remain subject to the loan charge (and their advisers), was published on 28 March 2025. The Final Report of the review was published, along with the government response, at Budget 2025 on 26 November 2025. The Final Report concluded that the loan charge ‘failed as a mechanism to resolve the tax affairs of [affected] taxpayers, largely because it was not married with a settlement strategy that was both commensurate