Relevance of the Takeover Code to share acquisitions by an EBT It may be necessary to consult the Takeover Panel (Panel) in certain circumstances if the trustee of an employee benefit trust (EBT) is acquiring shares in a company. If the trustee could be considered to be acting in concert with others when it acquires the shares, this could result in the trustee being required to also extend its offer to buy shares to all other shareholders, in accordance with requirements under the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (Code). The Panel can be asked to confirm whether the trustee of an EBT will be presumed to be acting in concert for the purposes of these requirements under the Code. In some circumstances, the Code requires that the Panel must be consulted before certain share acquisitions by an EBT, as detailed below. The Panel’s main functions are to issue and administer the Code and to supervise and regulate takeovers and other matters to which the Code applies. Its central objective

Trustees are generally treated as UK resident if all the trustees are resident in the UK, or: • at least one trustee is resident in the UK • there is a mixture of resident and non-resident trustees acting at the same time, and • the settlor of the trust was resident (or, prior to 6 April 2025, domiciled) in the UK at broadly the time when the settlor made the settlement The position is altered for a trustee who is not resident in the UK if the trustee acts as trustee in the course of a business that the trustee carries on through a ‘branch, agency or permanent establishment’ in the UK. In these circumstances, the trustee will be treated as if they were resident in the UK at that time. HMRC takes the view that the ‘branch’ or ‘agency’ tests apply to non-corporate trustees and the ‘permanent establishment’ test to corporate trustees. Non-UK resident companies that are trustees therefore need only be concerned about being treated as

An employee, who is not entitled to an invention, may be entitled to compensation from his employer where the invention he devised provided outstanding benefit to the employer.

Employment analysis: At first sight, the case of Webb v London Underground is a typical first instance unfair dismissal and race discrimination case. What is more interesting from an employment and privacy perspective is the employment tribunal's findings in relation to Ms Webb's private Facebook posts. Julia Wilson, Partner, Robert Marsh, associate and Mandy Li, knowledge lawyer at Baker McKenzie examine the case.

A document that sets out the work practices and policies of the employer.

Introduction This handbook tells you about the things you need to know about working for [insert company name] (the Company). Every employee will [be given OR have access to] a copy of the handbook and you are expected to become familiar with its

This Practice Note examines reasons for an employer to issue an employee handbook or employee manual (staff handbook, staff manual or company policy manual). It covers contents, reasonably accessible terms, disciplinary and grievance rules, holiday pay, sickness absence and pay, contractual policies, non-contractual policies, rules, procedures, intranet, gender neutrality, contractual force, whether terms are apt for incorporation, permanent health (PHI) and other insurance, and making changes or amendments. It includes details of the Lexis®Smart Precedent employee handbook and other relevant documents. Certain aspects of the employment and worker relationship have to be covered by a written statement of particulars of employment that is given to the employee or worker (see Practice Note: Written statements of employment particulars). The particulars are often included in the employee's contract of employment. Other terms must be put in writing, but only need to be 'reasonably accessible' to the employee. The employer can choose whether to have them as separate documents, or as a group of policy documents, or to put them into an employee handbook. They are terms relating to:

This material considers the UK GDPR regime, and legislative links are to Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679, UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), except where expressly stated otherwise. It also takes account of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA 2025) (see Practice Note: Data (Use and Access) Act 2025—employment implications). An employer will usually wish to process, ie collect, use and record, data concerning an individual’s health (health information) in a number of different circumstances. Before processing health information relating to a current or prospective employee or worker, the employer will need to consider whether that processing is lawful under Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679, UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018). In addition to the matters examined in detail in this Practice Note, the employer should also consider the following: • if the employer wishes to obtain a medical report from an individual’s GP or specialist, or another medical practitioner responsible for the individual's clinical care, the requirements of the Access to Medical Reports Act 1988 (AMRA 1988) will apply. For further

Ireland—Employment analysis: This article, was written by Colin Rooney, Olivia Mullooly, Ian Duffy, Rosemarie Blake and Fionn Henderson of Arthur Cox LLP and discusses the ongoing regulatory enforcement actions against excessive employee monitoring practices, focusing on a recent decision by the French supervisory authority (CNIL). The CNIL fined a French real estate company €40,000 for overly intrusive monitoring of employees, including tracking activity and productivity through software that recorded periods of inactivity, visited websites, and took screenshots. The article highlights the risks of such surveillance practices, especially in remote work settings, and emphasizes the importance of careful consideration before implementing monitoring systems.

Employment analysis: A successful appeal against a dismissal will automatically result in reinstatement back into employment unless the employee objectively and unequivocally withdraws their appeal against dismissal prior to the appeal being decided. This remains the case even in circumstances where the employee expressly says to the appeal decision maker that they do not want to return to work. That is because there may be other reasons why they might well wish to pursue and succeed in the appeal, eg to establish that they had not committed gross misconduct, to make it easier to find a new job or to obtain back pay, even if they then resign thereafter, according to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

EOT is an acronym for ‘employee ownership trust’, which is a particular type of statutory EBT that was introduced under Schedule 37 to the Finance Act 2014. Where a trust meets the various legislative requirements in order to qualify as an EOT, certain statutory tax reliefs will be available.

What is an employee ownership trust? An employee ownership trust (EOT) is a particular type of employee benefit trust (EBT) that meets certain statutory criteria. The concept of an EOT was introduced under Finance Act 2014 (FA 2014), in conjunction with certain tax benefits that became available for companies that are owned by an EOT and for individuals who dispose of shares to an EOT. If the statutory criteria are not satisfied in relation to the EOT then these tax reliefs will not be available. The tax reliefs were introduced by FA 2014, Sch 37 following an announcement in the Budget 2013 and a subsequent consultation. For a guide to some of the pitfalls and common mistakes to be aware of when setting up or operating an EOT, see Practice Note: Pitfalls of setting up and operating an employee-ownership trust. For information on EBTs generally, see Practice Note: What is an employee benefit trust? What tax reliefs can an EOT provide? Three tax reliefs were legislated, in line with a policy of encouraging the creation of employee-owned