Corporate Crime analysis: The world of food production is on the edge of a seismic shift, driven by advancements in novel foods and precision breeding techniques. These innovations hold the promise of addressing food security challenges and creating more sustainable food systems. In this article, we explore the intersection of food safety, regulatory frameworks, and an upcoming general election. Bobby Maan, regulatory consultant at DWF, considers key developments of the last few months in relation to the regulation of food safety, the developments on the horizon and which of these will have the most impact and why.

An agreement to make certain materials available for the inclusion in the film.

This Practice Note provides a summary of the Football Governance Act 2025 (FGA 2025) and explains which provisions banking and finance lawyers need to be aware of in particular, including the requirement for certain football clubs to gain consent from the Independent Football Regulator (IFR) if they wish to dispose of their home ground or grant security. What does the Football Governance Act 2025 do? The aim of the FGA 2025 is to protect and promote the sustainability of English football. In order to help achieve this, it provides for the establishment of an independent regulator, the IFR. The IFR’s core purpose is to improve financial soundness of football clubs, ensure financial resilience across the leagues and safeguard the heritage of English football. The FGA 2025 also establishes a licensing regime, where all clubs in scope will need a licence to compete in the English Premier League, Football League or National League. Overview of the licensing regime Following two consultations, the IFR published the final versions of the licensing

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. For information on football banning orders, see: Football Banning Orders: Blackstone's Criminal Practice [E21.3], Football Banning Orders: Banks on Sentence [59.1], Football banning orders: Stone's Justices' Manual and Making of football banning orders on conviction: Halsbury's Laws of England [273]. What is a football banning order? A football banning order is a measure designed to prevent offenders travelling to football matches in England and Wales and abroad. They include exclusion from football matches, restrictions from travel and prohibition from a zone around a ground for a period of hours before and after a game. Such an order prohibits the person who is subject to the order from entering any premises for the purpose of attending regulated football matches in England and Wales, or, if it relates to matches outside of England and Wales, requires that person to report at a police station. The court has no power to limit an order to particular matches or in relation to particular teams. This was confirmed in Metropolitan

Section 8 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (P(LBCA)A 1990) provides that listed building consent must be obtained to demolish, alter or extend a listed building in any way that affects its character, in addition to planning permission. Whether an internal alteration requires listed building consent depends on factors such

Under the Immigration Rules, Part 6A, para 245DD an applicant who holds leave as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant can apply to extend their leave in the same category. The deadline to make an extension application is before 6 April 2023. When considering the investment of funds requirement for extension applications, para 245DD(b) states: ‘The applicant must have a minimum of 75 points under paragraphs 35 to 53 of Appendix A.’ The

The Practice Note: Tier 1 (Investor): applying for indefinite leave to remain (under the headings ‘Old rules: investment requirements’ and ‘New rules: investment requirements’) confirms the following: The investment requirements for the Tier 1 (Investor) category depend on when the applicant made their initial application under the category. In order to qualify for accelerated settlement after two years, the relevant investment must be at least

This question concerns a Part 8 claim which is not subject to the costs budgeting regime as contained in CPR 3. A Part 8 claim is automatically allocated to the multi-track, such that CPR 29 will apply. CPR 29.2 provides that, as well as giving directions for the case management of a claim, the court will fix the trial date as soon as practicable, and when it does so will specify the date by which the parties must file a pre-trial checklist (otherwise known as a listing questionnaire). Listing questionnaires are dealt with by CPR 29.6 and CPR PD 29, para 8. In essence, the form to be used is Form N170. Form N170 provides states: ‘legal representatives only: if no costs management order has been made. You must attach estimates of costs incurred to date, and your likely overall costs. In substantial

Where the applicant is relying on cash funds that have been held for the specified 90-day period, but not yet invested, the applicant must provide the documents as specified in Immigration Rules, Appendix A, para 64-SD(a)(iii) and Immigration Rules, Appendix A, para 64-SD(a)(iv) and/or Immigration Rules, Appendix A, para 64-SD(b). The specific rules that apply will be dependent on whether the applicant is able to obtain bank statements and whether the funds are held by a regulated financial institution in the UK or overseas. Note that for applications submitted from 29 March 2019, the specified 90-day period is being extended to a two-year requirement as set out in the latest Statement of changes to the Immigration Rules, published on 7 March 2019. Appendix A, Paragraph 64-SD ‘64-SD. The specified document requirements in paragraph 64(a), as evidence of having held

Commentary: 1 Vicarious Liability: Butterworths Personal Injury Litigation Service [333] explains: ‘From 1 April 2019, NHS Resolution has operated a new state indemnity scheme for general practice in England called the Clinical Negligence Scheme for General Practice

Limitation Claims under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) are subject to a one year limitation period which runs from the date of the act complained of. However, there is a provision under HRA 1998 s 7(5)(b) for the court to extend that period if it is ‘equitable’ to do so having regard to all of the circumstances of the case. In Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust, the claimants issued their HRA 1998 claim one year and four months following the death. The Supreme Court held that factors listed in section 33(3) of the Limitation Act 1980 are relevant in determining whether the discretion to extend time should be exercised. However,

Although not essential to the validity of the bill, you cannot sue on a bill unless you have complied with the signature requirements in the Solicitors Act 1974 (SA 1974), ie the bill must be: • signed by the solicitor or on their behalf by an employee of the