One of the rating agencies.

Unless the contract provides otherwise, the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 imposes an implied term on a contractor, as supplier of goods, that, if a particular purpose for which goods are being supplied is made known to it, they must be reasonably fit for that purpose.

Fitness for purpose warranty 1 The Contractor warrants to the Employer that the Works will be fit

A contractor or consultant’s standard of care in relation to design is a common source of disagreement between the parties to a construction project. In most cases the contractor or consultant will be trying to avoid accepting a 'fitness for purpose' obligation in relation to the design—either express or implied. This Practice Note examines what the so-called 'fitness for purpose' obligation is, who is subject to it and who isn't, where it comes from and why contractors and consultants are keen to avoid accepting it. It also includes example clauses and considers whether a contractor should accept them. The amount of design that a contractor or consultant may carry out under their contract or appointment will vary but, regardless of the extent of design undertaken, the principles dictating the standard of care in respect of that design will be the same. Where does the fitness for purpose obligation come from? The fitness for purpose obligation derives from legislation regarding product liability and the standards that are required to be met where goods, materials and/or

Fitness to plead (or unfitness to plead) concerns whether a defendant has the capacity to participate effectively in criminal proceedings. The test derives from common law, namely the leading authority of R v Pritchard, supplemented by statutory procedure in the Crown Court under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (CP(I)A 1964) and the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025, SI 2025/909 (CrimPR 2025). The issue most commonly arises where a defendant has a mental disorder, cognitive impairment, or communication difficulty. This Practice Note sets out the substantive test, the procedure in both the Crown Court and magistrates’ court, and key authorities, together with practical guidance. The legal test The leading authority for assessing whether a defendant is fit to plead is R v Pritchard (1836) 7 C & P 303 (not reported by LexisNexis®) and has been developed over time. A defendant is unfit to plead if, on the balance of probabilities, they lack the capacity to do any one of the following things: • understand the charge(s) against them • decide whether to plead guilty or not guilty

Law360: Europe's top court on 6 March 2025 fined five EU Member States a total of almost €39m after concluding that they took too long to adopt an EU directive to boost protections for whistleblowers.

The Home Office has announced that the UK, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have endorsed a package of UK-led measures to strengthen the international response to fraud and online scams. The measures include faster intelligence-sharing to identify cross-border fraud operations, including scam centres, and co-ordinated action by governments, law enforcement and industry to shut down the accounts, services and communications channels used to target victims and move criminal profits. Recommendations to strengthen industry action against online scams and financial crime will also be developed with telecommunications providers, technology companies and financial institutions. Five Eyes partners have also endorsed enhanced international support for the UK-backed International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) Global Fraud Taskforce, which will map organised fraud networks, generate intelligence, identify links between criminal groups and support international operations to disrupt their activities and bring perpetrators to justice.

Five Leicestershire district and borough councils have issued a pre-action letter to the government, preserving their right to challenge its preferred Local Government Reorganisation proposal for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. The councils acted despite the decision being paused because any delay could jeopardise a future legal challenge. They state that requests for clarification on the decision's status and for information on why the preferred option was selected were not answered. The proposed challenge will examine whether the Secretary of State had sufficient information to assess the options and whether the decision complied with legal requirements. The councils will decide whether to pursue judicial review after considering the government's response.

Law360: The US Department of Justice's (DOJ) and the US Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) recent settlements with SAP SE to resolve alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) provide insights into how the DOJ and the SEC are enforcing the FCPA, and how corporations can reduce their FCPA liability.

HMRC rules state that the scheme administrator (your provider) must review the minimum and maximum amount you can take from your income withdrawal plan each year.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has referred the convictions of five city traders back to the courts. This action follows a July 2025 Supreme Court decision that quashed the LIBOR and EURIBOR convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo. The five traders—Alex Pabon, Jay Vijay Merchant, Jonathan Mathew, Philippe Moryoussef, and Colin Bermingham—were convicted at Southwark Crown Court between 2016 and 2019 of conspiracy to defraud, receiving sentences ranging from two to eight years. The CCRC concluded that the jury misdirection and legal errors identified by the Supreme Court in the Hayes and Palombo cases similarly undermined the safety of these five convictions.

Law360: Just five companies among the top 100 businesses in the UK account for half of the combined £40bn surplus in the country's pension plans, Lane Clark & Peacock, a consultancy, said on 20 May 2025.