Local Government analysis: This was a decision of the Administrative Court. The applicant Mr Spiropoulos brought a renewed application for permission for judicial review against the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) and two local authorities. The application concerned the Ombudsman’s refusal to investigate a complaint about delay and evasion in determining and paying housing benefit to the applicant. The applicant complained that the authorities wrongly delayed and evaded making decisions on his housing benefit claims and refused payment, causing serious hardship for over two years. Although the First tier Tribunal (FTT) ruled in his favour on entitlement, it had no power to address the consequences of being deprived of benefit in the meantime. The Ombudsman refused to investigate, stating that the applicant had appealed to the Tribunal and that further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. The refusal was maintained on internal review, with the Ombudsman concluding that any outstanding injustice was not significant enough to justify involvement. Produced in partnership with Clive Adams, partner, and Zach Plunkett, graduate solicitor apprentice at Birketts LLP.

Brexit impact 11 pm (GMT) on 31 December 2020 marked the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period entered into following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. At this point in time (referred to in UK law as ‘IP completion day’), key transitional arrangements came to an end and significant changes began to take effect across the UK’s legal regime. Any changes relevant to this content will be set out below. Upon IP completion day, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (EU(W)A 2018) created a new category of domestic UK law—retained EU Law (REUL)—made up of EU-derived rights and legislation that were preserved in the UK following Brexit. On 29 June 2023, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (REUL(RR)A 2023) gained Royal Assent. REUL(RR)A 2023 reforms the treatment of REUL by:  • revoking substantial amounts of REUL from 31 December 2023 • re-labelling REUL as ‘assimilated law’ from 1 January 2024 • creating new powers in relation to assimilated law The re-categorisation

Available from A-day as a type of income drawdown for members from age 75 who wished to defer their pension payments.

Funds (whether sums or assets) held under a money purchase arrangement that had been ‘designated’ to provide a scheme member (aged 75 or over) with an alternatively secured pension, as identified in the Finance Act 2004, Sch 28, para 11, a form of income withdrawal available until 6 April 2011.

The traditional approach to disputes has been to resort to litigation rather than using the less contentious methods of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). At the heart of a trust, which creates binding equitable obligations on the trustees enforceable by the beneficiaries, is essentially a personal relationship. In the case of a dispute that personal relationship might be exposed to attack for a variety of reasons, such as lack of validity of the trust or improper administration of the trust by the trustees. Disputes between trustees and beneficiaries can be traumatic and generally cast a pall over any future meaningful relationship. Clearly there are cases where litigation is the only solution but the courts generally expect the parties to try to resolve the dispute by alternative means. In contentious estates matters, as in many trust disputes, there is usually a personal relationship between the parties and psychological factors, such as the affect of the grieving process on decision making. The Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) and their Practice Directions provide a framework to guide

The Code for Crown Prosecutors states that when making a decision to prosecute, consideration should be given to alternatives to prosecution. The two main alternatives to prosecution for adult offenders are: • cautions, and • fixed penalty notices Simple cautions There are two types of cautions: the simple caution and the conditional caution. Both are administered by the police. Some other regulators also have the power to administer simple cautions, including local authorities, the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency. Simple cautions are intended for low-level, first-time offending. The use of a simple caution is governed by section 17 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (CJCA 2015) which applies to all offences irrespective of when the offences were committed. Revised guidance has been issued by the Ministry of Justice on the application of simple cautions. See MOJ: Simple cautions for adult offenders. Practitioners should also be aware of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Guidance on Charging. The CJCA 2015 restricts the circumstances in which simple cautions can be administered.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 27 January 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into a cartel in relation to alternators and starters for car engines (AT.40028). The cartel involved the coordination of tenders, the allocation of customers and the sharing of commercially sensitive information. Latest development On 27 January 2016, the Commission announced that, following a settlement, it has issued its enforcement decision against Melco (Mitsubishi Electric), Hitachi and Denso, imposing combined fines totalling €137.789m. Fines were imposed on each company as follows: • Denso received full immunity for its involvement in each cartel, thereby avoiding a fine of over €157m • Hitachi was fined a total of €26.86m, including a 30% reduction for leniency and a further 10% reduction for settling • Melco was fined a

We have assumed that both the transferor and transferee company are non-UK resident for UK tax purposes. It does appear that there is an ambiguity in the legislation, so that it is not clear whether, on a transfer between group companies, the transferee company can benefit from rebasing. Neither provision, section 171 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (TCGA 1992) or TCGA 1992, Sch 4AA, para 7 specify which event should

Altice France SA (Altice France), a public limited liability company (société anonyme) incorporated in France and its parent, Altice France Holding SA (Altice France Holding) a société anonyme organized and existing under the laws of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, conducted a Liability Management Exercise (LME) in 2025 using a drop down, consent solicitation and French in-court procedure (sauvegarde accélérée, or accelerated safeguard proceedings). The key points appear below. For a look at some FAQs about LMEs, see Practice Note: FAQs on Liability Management Exercises. Key legal and tactical takeaways One of the most closely watched European drop-down LMEs using unrestricted subsidiary designations backed by a French in-court procedure (sauvegarde accélérée) to bind dissenting creditors to date (see Articles: Do divergent terms across European leveraged finance documentation really create misunderstanding, mischief and mayhem?: (2026) 2 JIBFL 97 and Minority creditors beware: the LME may not be a restructuring under European corporate CDS (2026) 4 JIBFL 219)). This is typical of the dual-track out of court/consensual and in-court implementation strategy we are increasingly

NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T- 425/18 ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 24 April 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation under Articles 4(1) and 7(1) EUMR into failure to notify and gun-jumping by Altice in relation to its 2015 acquisition of PT Portugal. Latest developments On 24 April 2018, the Commission issued its infringement decision and imposed a fine of €124.5m on Altice. The Commission found that Altice implemented its acquisition of PT Portugal before notification to or approval by the Commission under the EU Merger Regulation (in breach of Articles 4(1) and 7(1) of the EU Merger Regulation). Parties Altice is a Dutch-based multi-national telecommunications company. Prior to the acquisition of PT Portugal, Altice operated in Portugal through two subsidiaries, Cabovisão and ONI. Cabovisão provided pay TV, fixed internet access and fixed telephony services essentially to residential customers. ONI provided services to business customers,

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 20 September 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU investigation into Altstoff Recycling Austria (case number AT.39759). Latest development On 15 October 2016, the Commission issued its infringement decision. The Commission imposed a fine of €6,015,000 on ARA. The total fine includes a 30% reduction for cooperation by ARA, including:• acknowledging the infringement • ensuring that the decision could benefit from administrative efficiencies, and • proposing the structural remedy (see below). The Commission also imposed a structural remedy to address the foreclosure issue, which will see ARA divest the part of the household collection infrastructure that it owns. This remedy was proposed by ARA and will ensure that it will no longer be in a position in which it could exclude competitors from access to the infrastructure, meaning the infringement cannot be repeated in the future. Parties Altstoff Recycling Austria (ARA), an Austrian waste management company. Background The Commission started an own-initiative

Please note, this Q&A only considers UK bribery legislation. Payment of commissions We refer you to Practice Note: How to identify when a commission might become a bribe, which outlines how all commissions constitute the giving of a financial advantage, although they will not necessarily be bribes. The Bribery Act 2010 (BA 2010) has a broad interpretation of what may constitute a bribe. It is described as a 'financial or other advantage' given or received in a business context, which constitutes or induces the improper performance of a relevant function or activity. Performance will be ‘improper’ if it breaches a relevant expectation of good