Arbitration analysis: Reversing a first-instance judgment that had dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction and legal standing, the São Paulo Court of Appeals held that Brazilian courts may review administrative decisions rendered by arbitral institutions prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. The dispute concerned a decision by the President of the Market Arbitration Chamber (CAM) applying Article 3.6 of its Rules to appoint all three arbitrators and to disregard respondent Vale S.A.’s prior appointment of a co-arbitrator. The court held that the provision presupposes both a plurality of parties and an actual ‘absence of consensus’, which was not present in the case at hand, as the multiparty claimants acted jointly and with convergent interests up to that stage of the proceedings. It further held that the statutory right of each party to appoint a co-arbitrator under the Brazilian Arbitration Act cannot be displaced by institutional discretion in such circumstances. The decision reinforces the judicial control over institutional acts that affect fundamental procedural rights in arbitration and clarifies the São Paulo Court of Appeal’s stance on the distinction between jurisdictional and administrative acts in arbitration. Written by Renato Stephan Grion, partner at Pinheiro Neto Advogados, and Thiago Del Pozzo Zanelato, senior associate at Pinheiro Neto Advogados.

An event under a committed loan agreement that allows a lender to refuse to fund a requested drawdown (eg a default that is continuing).

This Practice Note considers the employment law and other issues an employer should consider when introducing, or implementing changes to, a dress code (dress policy or appearance policy), intended to guide employees and set expectations on the required standards of dress and appearance in the workplace. It examines relevant statutory and non-statutory guidance on dress codes, the discrimination issues and practical issues that may arise in relation to a dress code and particular aspects of dress that an employer may wish to cover in its dress code, such as business dress, tattoos, body art and piercings, protective clothing and personal protective equipment (PPE), headwear, hairstyle, haircut, jewellery, make-up, hygiene issues and dress down. An employer may wish to implement a dress code for various reasons, such as: • to ensure that employees are dressed smartly to convey a corporate image • to ensure that a uniform is worn, and/or • to meet health and safety requirements An employer has a wide degree of discretion over the terms it stipulates in its dress code. However,

Site of the Low Level Waste Repository in Cumbria.

The Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) creates a number of alcohol and drug related offences. The principal ones are: • driving with excess alcohol or drugs • attempting to drive with excess alcohol or drugs • being in charge of a motor vehicle with excess alcohol or drugs • driving or attempting to drive while unfit, and • being in charge of a motor vehicle while unfit All of the offences are summary-only offences. This Practice Note deals with driving impairment offences due to excess alcohol. For drug related driving impairment offences, see Practice Note: Driving, or being in charge of, a motor vehicle with concentrations of specified controlled drugs in excess of specified levels. Elements of the offence of driving with excess alcohol The prosecution must prove: • the defendant was driving • on a road or other public place • a motor vehicle • after consuming alcohol such that the proportion in their breath, blood or urine • exceeded the prescribed limits Driving The term

This Practice Note considers the general principles applicable to road traffic accident claims, including issues of speed, overtaking and queue-jumping, emerging from a minor road, misleading signals, braking and skidding, the duty of the following driver, vehicle lighting and multi-vehicle accidents. Road traffic accident claims are predominantly brought in negligence. As a starting point for assessing whether a driver of a motor vehicle has been negligent and breached the requisite standard of care, the court will have regard to the Highway Code. A breach of the code may be relied on as tending to establish liability. In addition, while a road traffic criminal conviction does not of itself prove negligence, it shifts the burden of proof onto the defendant to disprove liability in the civil action. Most road traffic cases turn on their particular facts. There are few hard and fast rules, and disapproval of the excessive citation of authority has been expressed in several cases (see, for example, Foskett v Mistry [1984] RTR 1 (not reported by LexisNexis®)). Despite

Law360: A forklift driver for a printing business has lost an appeal against the dismissal of his claim for discrimination after he tried to use a false claim of racial abuse to pressure his managers into giving him a pay rise.

Law360, London: The UK motor insurance sector is likely to be insulated from the widespread adoption of autonomous vehicles for at least another decade, analysts said on 4 February 2026.

Insurance & Reinsurance analysis: The court held that the ‘driving other cars’ (DOC ) cover offered as part of the policy of insurance covering the driver’s own car did not operate to provide cover in the circumstances of the accident because: (i) the driver was returning home from work and this did not fall within the ‘social, domestic and pleasure’ (SDP) use limitation on that policy, and (ii) the DOC cover was limited to driving ‘a privately-owned motor car’ and a courtesy car provided by a commercial organisation such as a motor repairer did not fall within that description. Written by Howard Palmer QC, at 2 Temple Gardens.

Police powers and preliminary tests Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988), there are three types of preliminary tests. These are: • a breath test administered by the police in which a suspect provides a specimen of breath that is tested to check if the proportion of alcohol in the person’s breath is likely to exceed the prescribed limit • a preliminary impairment test used to check the physical reactions and ability of the driver, and • a preliminary drug test is a procedure by which a specimen of sweat or saliva is obtained to give an indication of whether drugs have been administered by the driver The Deregulation Act 2015 (DA 2015) removed the requirement for an officer to conduct a preliminary test where a portable evidential breath test device is available. In these circumstances, the officer can move directly to take the evidential breath tests. The ability to require a preliminary breath test remains available. The police have the power to require a person to co-operate with any

The offences The Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) creates two offences: • obtaining a driving licence while disqualified, and • driving a motor vehicle on the road while disqualified A constable in uniform may arrest without warrant any person driving a motor vehicle on a road whom he has reasonable cause to suspect of being disqualified. What the prosecution has to prove In order for the offences to be made out the prosecution must prove the accused either: • obtained a licence • while disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence or: • drove a motor vehicle on a road • while disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence A licence obtained by a person who is disqualified is not a valid licence. Therefore, an accused could also be prosecuted for the offence of driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence. For the purposes of this offence, being in charge is insufficient, the defendant must be driving for there to be an offence. A person

The offence of driving with no insurance It is an offence to use, or to cause or permit another to use, a motor vehicle under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) unless a policy of insurance or security in respect of third parties is in force. Driving with no insurance is a summary-only offence carrying a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine. Elements of the offence A defendant is guilty of an offence if they: • use or cause/permit use • of a motor vehicle • on a road or other public place • without a valid policy of insurance or security in respect of third-party risks in force Meaning of ‘use’ The user of a vehicle is usually the driver or their employer if they are driving as part of their employment. There must be an element of controlling, managing or operating a vehicle at the relevant time. An owner of a vehicle can be said to be 'using' the vehicle if they are a passenger in it as they would