Affray is an offence created by section 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 (POA 1986). It can be tried in either the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court. The magistrates’ court may decline jurisdiction where, for example, cases involve a weapon/throwing objects, or conduct that causes serious injury. Elements of the offence of affray The prosecution must prove that: • a person intentionally • uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another, or • is aware that their conduct may be violent or threatening towards another, and • a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene would fear for their safety Where a group of people (ie two or more persons) use or threaten unlawful violence, it is the conduct of them taken together which is to be considered for establishing whether an offence has been committed. In Dragjoshi v Croydon Magistrates’ Court, the Appellant appealed his conviction by way of case stated, challenging whether it was open to the court to convict him in the absence of any reliable identification evidence, particularly where there was accepted

Law360, London: Barings Law is preparing to bring a mass data-breach claim against the Ministry of Defence after the names of Afghans applying to relocate to the UK was inadvertently leaked, it was revealed when a ban that restricted reporting was lifted on 15 July 2025.

The African Arbitration Association has announced that its fifth Annual Conference will take place from 9-11 October 2024 in Douala, Cameroon.

For the purposes of this Q&A, it is assumed that there is not some new Act or statutory instrument conferring expanded jurisdiction in respect of voluntary winding up. The simple answer is that they do not. After IP completion day (11 pm on 31 December 2020), the English courts will not have jurisdiction to put a foreign company (ie a company registered in an EU Member State) into members’ voluntary liquidation in the UK. However, they will have jurisdiction to make a compulsory winding up order in respect of a foreign registered company, including one with its ‘centre of main interests’ (COMI) in an EU Member State. For this to occur, it needs to be established that the relevant company has a ‘sufficient connection’ with the UK. This might for instance be assets in the UK or creditors based

If, before a relevant transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246) (TUPE 2006), the transferee (ie the new employer) envisaged taking any measures, in connection with the transfer, in relation to any affected employees who would become the transferee’s employees after the transfer, the transferee should have provided information about those measures to the transferor, to enable the transferor to comply with its obligation to inform the affected employees. The word ‘measures’ is of wide import and involves any action, step or arrangement. For further information, see Practice Note: Information and consultation in transfers—Measures. For further information on the duty to inform and consult under TUPE 2006, SI 2006/246 generally, see Practice Note: Information and consultation in transfers—The duty to inform and consult, and Precedent: Letter—TUPE (3) letter from

A claim may be commenced under: • CPR 7—for more guidance, see Practice Notes: Claim form—the contents, Claim form—filing and issuing and Drafting the particulars of claim • CPR 8—for more guidance, see Practice Note: CPR Part 8 claims (alternative procedure for claims) Action following service of a claim The general position is that prior to commencing proceedings, the parties will have followed a pre-action protocol or exchanged pre-action correspondence which will have provided the defendant with an opportunity to consider and prepare a response to the claim. For further guidance, see: Pre-action: general—overview. Where this is not the case, the arrival of a claim form may come as a surprise to the defendant and force it to consider a number of issues quickly. CPR 9.2 provides that following particulars of claim being served on a defendant, the defendant may: • file or serve an admission in accordance with CPR 14—the admission may be in relation to all or part of the claim (see Practice Note: Admissions), and/or • file

We have assumed that It is assumed that the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims applies to the claim. As indicated by your question, pursuant to paragraph 3.4 of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (the Debt Protocol), if the debtor does not reply to a letter of claim within 30 days of the date of the letter, the creditor may start court proceedings, subject to any remaining obligations the creditor may have to the debtor (for example, under the Financial Conduct Authority's Handbook). For detailed guidance on the specific steps that a party should take and timing considerations when commencing proceedings in respect of claims governed by the Debt

The answer will depend upon the basis upon which the data sharing took place, and any contractual arrangements entered into between the parties. If the original data controller was simply sharing (ie handing over a copy) data with somebody who was going to process for the original data controller and then send the processed data back then there has to be a contract between the two which (at the very least) specifies that there shall be verifiable security measures on the part of the data processor and that the processor must follow the instructions of the original data controller. If the contract has continuing obligations say, of confidentiality or to return all data and

The answer to this question will turn on whether the licence is excluded from the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (PEA 1977). PEA 1977, s 3(1): ‘Where any premises have been let as a dwelling [...] and— (a) the tenancy [...] has come to an end,

There is no company law obligation for a company or its directors to ‘share’ a special resolution with its shareholders after it has been passed, but there is an obligation to file the resolution so that it is registered on the public register. After a special resolution has been passed, it must be filed with Companies House within 15 days of it being passed (section 30 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). A company must do this by filing either a copy of the resolution with Companies House or a

In relation to withdrawing consent, one would need to consider first whether the employee’s original consent to the proposed reduction in salary was effective in changing their terms and conditions of employment. Normally, express consent to a proposed variation is effective in changing the terms of the contract, provided that: • the consent is given freely and free from duress • it is supported by consideration For further information, see Practice Note: Changing terms and conditions of employment in ‘Changes not permitted by the contract: obtaining consent’. In some cases, an employee’s implied consent to the change will be effective in changing the terms of the contract (see Practice Note: Changing

Obligations imposed on certain persons subject to immigration control in respect of actions after being granted leave to enter the UK.