This Precedent provides general information about giving evidence in employment tribunal proceedings in England and Wales and suggests some helpful tips to make the process of giving evidence easier and more effective. Your employment lawyer will be able to provide specific advice based on your circumstances. Giving evidence in the employment tribunal If you are called as a witness in employment tribunal proceedings it is likely to be at the final hearing stage of the case or at a preliminary hearing where issues of fact are to be considered. You will be required to give evidence for one of the parties (claimant or respondent) either in person or via video link, depending on whether the hearing is listed to take place at a tribunal venue or remotely. It is also possible for the tribunal to list a hearing for in-person attendance but permit some of the evidence to be heard via video link if the circumstances require it (sometimes referred to as a hybrid hearing). Ultimately, an employment tribunal judge decides on the format

Immigration advisers and service providers in the UK are subject to regulation. Broadly, non-legally qualified immigration advisers are required to register and comply with standards set by the Immigration Advice Authority (IAA). Prior to a rebranding on 16 January 2025, the IAA was called the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC). Advisers working for an organisation which is appropriately regulated by a designated professional body or a designated qualifying regulator (see below) are not currently required to register with the IAA. The registration provisions were introduced as there were concerns about the quality of immigration advice in the UK. If an adviser fails to act in the best interests of their client, the consequences for the client can be extremely serious. In R (Nori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) the court held that the law would not excuse the applicant because he had been let down by his solicitor as his solicitor’s actions were to be regarded as his actions. However, this is not an absolute

The way in which witness evidence is presented is not determined in accordance with a fixed procedure and will therefore vary from arbitration to arbitration. It is for the tribunal to decide on the appropriate process for the dispute and to determine whether and to what extent there should be oral evidence. The procedure should be set out early in the proceedings by the tribunal so that the parties understand how their evidence should be given. Traditionally, tribunals in international arbitration have adopted an approach in which witnesses give evidence orally and adversarial cross-examination takes place. The IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (IBA Rules) adopt this approach. However, in December 2018 the Rules on the Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in International Arbitration (the Prague Rules) were signed, providing parties with an alternative approach to adopt that is more in line with the approach to witness evidence in civil jurisdictions. While the Prague Rules still require witness statements to be produced, the number may be limited. The tribunal may request

Glass Lewis has published its 2025 proxy voting policy guidelines for the US, UK, and Europe. The updated guidelines, effective from 1 January 2025, introduce significant policy updates, including board oversight of artificial intelligence (AI), shareholder meeting formats, and time-based awards. It also comprises guidance on evaluating shareholder proposals related to the use of AI technologies and environment, social, and governance issues. Glass Lewis intends to publish updates to its guidelines for additional local markets and thematic policy guidelines by mid-December 2024.

Glass Lewis has published its 2026 Benchmark Voting Policies for major jurisdictions including the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Continental Europe, and global shareholder proposals. The proxy advisory firm states that these market-specific Benchmark Voting Policies are applied in its Proxy Paper research alongside Thematic Voting Policy options and Supplementary Guidance. Glass Lewis indicates that its analysis evaluates each company and proposal individually, considering performance, industry, stock exchange, incorporation, and other relevant factors. The policies are available for download and complement the firm's existing 2025 policies covering numerous international markets including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Japan, and various European jurisdictions.

CASE HUB (Appeals lodged at the Competition Appeal Tribunal–see GlaxoSmithKline and other v CMA (paroxetine)) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 12 February 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline CMA Articles 101 and 102 TFEU/Chapters I and II investigation into GlaxoSmithKline and generic drug producers in relation to pay-for-delay agreements concerning anti-depressant medicines (paroxetine) (Case CE/9531-11). Appeals lodged at the Competition Appeal Tribunal:• Generics UK Limited v CMA (1251/1/12/16) • GlaxoSmithKline PLC v CMA (1252/1/12/16) • (1) Xellia Pharmaceuticals APS (2) Alpharma LLC v CMA (1253/1/12/16) • Actavis UK Limited v CMA (1254/1/12/16) • Merck KGaA v CMA (1255/1/12/16) Latest developments On 12 February 2016, the CMA issued its infringement decision and imposed the following fines: • GSK has been fined £37,606,275 • in relation to GUK's infringement, GUK and Merck KGaA (GUK's former parent) have been fined a total of £5,841,286 (both companies being jointly and severally liable) • in relation top Alpharma's infringement, Actavis UK Limited (formerly Alpharma Limited), Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS (formerly

ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 7 May 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline Generics UK Limited v CMA (1251/1/12/16), GlaxoSmithKline PLC v CMA (1252/1/12/16), Xellia Pharmaceuticals APS and Alpharma LLC v CMA (1253/1/12/16), Actavis UK Limited v CMA (1254/1/12/16) and Merck KGaA v CMA (1255/1/12/16)–appeals to the CAT in relation to the CMA's decision of 12 February 2016 in GlaxoSmithKline and others (paroxetine) (CE/9531-11). Latest development On 10 May 2021, the CAT issued its supplementary judgment in which it upheld the CMA’s infringement decision, in particular that: (i) Generics (UK) Limited and Alpharma were potential competitors of GlaxoSmithKline PLC at the time that they entered into the settlement agreements; (ii) the settlement agreements were restrictive of competition by object and effect; and (iii) GlaxoSmithKline PLC had abused its dominant position in relation to the supply of paroxetine. However, the CAT concluded that a reduction of 10% granted at Step 4 of the calculation of the fine

Law360: Charges brought by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) accusing former Glencore employees of bribery mark one of the biggest prosecutions the agency has taken on in years, which will test its resources and appetite for the toughest disputes, lawyers say.

Law360, London: A recent High Court decision that forced Glencore to hand over documents obtained from a Dutch investigation provides further evidence of the difficulties companies face when they try to resist disclosure in civil proceedings by pointing to the risk of prosecution overseas.

Law360: A Manhattan federal judge signed off 28 February 2023 on US$700m in criminal penalties to be paid by Glencore International AG for a decadelong course of international bribery that had allowed the mining giant to earn US$315m in revenue starting in 2007.

Public Law analysis: Could Australia seek relaxed UK immigration under a prospective trade deal? Panos Koutrakos, professor of EU law at City University of London and barrister at Monckton Chambers, explores the main issues on the negotiation of a UK-Australia trade agreement post-Brexit.

Public Law analysis: What appetite is there for a UK-Canada free trade agreement (FTA)? Clifford Sosnow, partner at Fasken Martineau LLP, believes that Brexit can only deepen trade ties between Canada and the UK.