This Checklist will help you ensure you have appropriate systems in place to comply with the SRA’s requirements relating to confidentiality and disclosure. It reflects the requirements of the SRA Standards and Regulations. Requirement Compulsory or recommended Comments (if any) ☐ Develop a procedure to safeguard the confidentiality of matter files and all other client information.See Precedent: Conflicts, confidentiality and disclosure policy—law firms. Compulsory SRA Code for Firms, para 6.3Lexcel England and Wales v6.1: Standard for legal practices, para 7.3 (Insert any comments you may wish to make regarding your firm’s arrangements) ☐ Develop an effective system for identifying and assessing confidentiality issues.See:—Practice Note: Duties of confidentiality and disclosure—Precedent: Conflicts, confidentiality and disclosure policy—law firms Compulsory SRA Code for Firms, paras 2.1, 2.5 and 6.3–6.5 (Insert any comments you may wish to make regarding your firm’s arrangements) ☐ Develop an effective system for screening auditors, consultants and other third-party service providers for confidentiality risks and putting in place appropriate confidentiality agreements.See, eg Precedent:

This Practice Note is one of a series covering local authority (LA) companies. This Practice Note covers the duties owed by the directors of an LA company to the company, as well as to the LA highlighting when those dual responsibilities may conflict. For more information on LA companies, see Practice Note: Local authority companies. Directors’ duties under CA 2006 Chapter 2 of Part 10 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) codified certain long-standing common law and equitable duties of directors. In summary, the seven general duties under CA 2006 are: • to act within their powers • to promote the success of the company • to exercise independent judgment • to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence • to avoid conflicts of interest • not to accept benefits from third parties • to declare an interest in a proposed transaction or arrangement Who are the duties owed by? The general duties apply to all the directors of a company. ‘Director’ is defined to include

Employees' duties do not have to be set out in their contracts of employment. The contract only needs to include a description of the job or a brief description of the work to be done. Contracts rarely go much beyond this statutory minimum, as employers generally want flexibility in the work they can require employees to do. Duties are often linked to titles, for example: 'you will perform the duties of a contracts manager'. Sometimes, the contract attempts to widen the scope of duties: '...together with such other duties [consistent with your position] as may reasonably be required of you'. Job descriptions Many large employers provide a document describing in detail the work they expect an employee to do. Unless specifically referred to in the contract, the job description is unlikely to have contractual force. This means an employee cannot claim breach of contract because they are not given all of the duties in the job description or because they have been asked to do things which are outside it. For further information on

Local Government analysis: Birmingham Children’s Trust (BCT) performs certain statutory functions relating to children on behalf of Birmingham City Council. At the relevant time it had a policy (now updated) as regards the services under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) it would provide to children and families who had no recourse to public funds (NRPF). This policy did not draw any distinction between families who were in the UK in breach of the Immigration Rules, and other families who were NRPF (eg Zambrano carers, and people with pre-settled status). This policy was challenged both as to the lawfulness of its rates and on the ground that the lack of distinction between the different cohorts of NRPF families amounted to Thlimmenos discrimination. Written by Joshua Swirsky, barrister at Field Court Chambers.

FORTHCOMING CHANGE : In summer 2026, the DWP plans to consult on fiduciary duty guidance that aims to provide clarity on how wider considerations can be taken into account within existing duties, including system-level risks such as climate change and the long-term impacts of investments on members’ outcomes. It will also address how trustees may take account of members’ views and reaffirm the need to consider all financially material factors, while remaining consistent with acting in members’ best interests. Note that earlier attempts to put the guidance on a statutory footing through the Pension Schemes Act 2026 failed. For further information, see: Updated workplace pensions roadmap, DWP Parliamentary response, 19 January 2026 and Hansard debate: House of Lords (26 March 2026). THIS PRACTICE NOTE APPLIES TO ALL TRUST-BASED PENSION ARRANGEMENTS Undertaking the office of trustee should never be taken lightly, and this holds particularly true in respect of pension trusts. It is fair to say that the position is a particularly onerous one, and certainly not one that can be conducted passively. The role

This Practice Note deals with the duty of care owed by road users to others in road traffic accidents including car drivers or motorists, passengers, pedestrians and cyclists. Road users have a duty to take reasonable care to avoid causing damage to others using or present on the highway. The standard of care required is the care and skill of an ordinary driver and no allowance is made for the inexperienced or learner driver. The road user should also anticipate that other road users or persons on the highway may not show this requisite standard of skill, experience and care. Road traffic accidents are a large source of work for personal injury practitioners, giving rise to claims that span the full spectrum of severity and complexity. The principal cause of action is negligence: though there are times when statutory duties, nuisance or contract are relevant, the legal framework for the great majority of claims is the duty to drive with ordinary care and skill. For guidance on specific types of accident, see Practice

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court considered an application by Revolut for strike out and/or summary judgment in respect of a claim by Kenneth Larsson, who was a victim of an authorised push payment (‘APP’) fraud. As part of the fraud relating to a fictional investment, Larsson transferred substantial funds to accounts at Revolut, believing that they were set up in his name. Revolut was accused of failing to detect and prevent the fraud from those recipient accounts, leading to Larsson’s financial loss. The court explored the contractual and/or tortious duties potentially owed by Revolut, and legal precedents governing the responsibilities of banks to prevent fraud. There was also discussion as to whether a constructive trust arises in circumstances where a victim of fraud pays monies to an account on the basis of a mistake. The court rejected the contention that Revolut owed Larsson the alleged contractual or tortious duties, emphasising the distinction between the roles of courts and legislators in setting fraud prevention policy and regulation, and the difficulties an obligation on banks to protect third parties from fraud would create. The claimant was granted permission to re-plead his breach of trust arguments. Written by Daniel Murphy, legal director at Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP and Gary Orritt, senior associate at Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP.

IP analysis: Lord Justice Newey delivered this trade mark-centric Court of Appeal decision against a complex backdrop of disputes between Quantum Advisory Ltd (QuAd) and Quantum Actuarial LLP (QuAc), the pensions-fund actuarial services provider to whom QuAd (following a corporate restructure) had outsourced the operation of its business under a Services Agreement (Agreement). At first instance, His Honour Judge Keyser held that QuAc acted in breach of its fiduciary duties to QuAd by applying for three trade marks incorporating the words ‘QUANTUM ADVISORY’ that rightfully belonged to QuAd and granted its application for rectification of the register under section 10B of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994). However, he considered that the fourth mark (for a ‘Q’ device only, that QuAc had also applied for in its own name), was too dissimilar for the legislation to apply. On appeal, the Court of Appeal disagreed with limiting the rectification order and extended it to include the Q Mark. Written by Emma Kennaugh-Gallacher, senior professional support lawyer at IP firm Mewburn Ellis.

Public Law analysis: The claimants challenged a decision by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to make the Houses in Multiple Occupation (Asylum-Seeker Accommodation) (England) Regulations 2023 (the ‘2023 Regulations’). The defendants served three tranches of disclosure, containing redacted documents. In an interim judgment, Mr Justice Swift held that in judicial review proceedings, absent good reason to the contrary, redaction on grounds of relevance alone ought to be confined to clear situations where the information redacted does not concern the decision under challenge (at para [22]). He held that it was not permissible for the Secretaries of State, as a matter of routine, to redact the names of civil servants outside the Senior Civil Service from documents disclosed in proceedings. Written by Jonathan Lewis, barrister at Monckton Chambers.

places a requirement on a health service body to act in an open and transparent way with relevant persons in relation to care and treatment provided to service users in carrying on a regulated activity.

Disclosure (stating that a document exists or has existed) in judicial review proceedings is expected to be achieved through compliance with the duty of candour rather than a formal disclosure process. Default lack of formal disclosure and inspection exercise Disclosure is not required unless the court orders otherwise. This default position is because judicial review is usually concerned with the legal consequences of (largely) agreed facts and the court is not trying to resolve factual disputes, and because both parties have a ‘duty of candour’ to the court, such that ‘disclosure’ as such is not required (though in practice the result will likely be the same). This applies in judicial review, statutory reviews and appeals in the Administrative Court. The court has a broad discretion to order disclosure. However, that discretion will be exercised sparingly. General duty of candour All parties to judicial review proceedings are under a general duty of candour requiring them to disclose facts and information needed and ensure

Corporate Crime analysis: The High Court considered challenges to search warrants applied for by HMRC pursuant to requests for mutual legal assistance from the German and Danish authorities. The claimants alleged material non-disclosure by HMRC when applying for the search warrants, and challenged the decision that the material could not be obtained by a production order. The court dismissed all grounds of challenge, holding that HMRC was entitled to rely on information it had been provided by the Requesting Authorities and was not required to conduct its own inquiries when complying with its duty of candour. In any event, the non-disclosures were not ‘material’ as they would not have affected the judge’s approach when considering the applications. Written by Jamas Hodivala KC, barrister at Matrix Chambers.