This Checklist sets out the Guideline Hourly Rates (GHR) for different periods starting from 1 October 2021 to 31 December 2023 to the current GHR which were uprated for inflation on 1 January 2026. Note, from 2024, the GHR have been uplifted annually for inflation in line with the Services Producers Price Index. The 2021 Guide continues to be of relevance for practitioners as it explains the purpose and approach to GHR. The 2021 Guide, para 28, states that GHR are intended to provide a starting point for summary assessment and may also be a helpful starting point on detailed assessment. In addition, the GHR applied will depend on the grade of fee earner and their location, eg whether they are Grade A and work in London or outside of London, etc. For guidance on the principles behind GHR and the approach of the courts, see Practice Note: Guideline hourly rates. GHR from 1 January 2026 Grade Fee earner London 1 London 2 London 3 National 1 National 2 A Solicitors and legal executives with over

This Practice Note contains illustrative decisions as to how the court applies the guideline hourly rates (GHR). The GHR are the guideline figures for carrying out a summary assessment of costs, listed by pay band and grade of fee earner for different parts of the country. Although the GHR were intended to be used as a starting point for judges when summarily assessing costs, judges often use them as a starting point for the assessment of hourly rates when undertaking a detailed assessment. The current GHR have been in force since 1 January 2026 and were uplifted for inflation. Previous GHR were for the periods—1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025, 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024, 1 October 2021 to 31 December 2023. Prior to 1 October 2021, GHR had not been updated since 1 April 2010. This Practice Note contains illustrative decisions as to how the court applies GHR. The Practice Note is divided into sections: • cases in which the court uplifted the applicable GHR to allow a higher rate

FORTHCOMING CHANGE relating to the modernisation of stamp taxes on shares framework: Stamp duty and SDRT will, in 2027, be replaced with a single, self-assessed tax on transfers of securities, the securities transfer tax (STT) (formerly referred to as the securities transfer charge or STC), that will be paid (and reported) through electronic transfer systems such as CREST or, where appropriate, a new online portal. Draft legislation for the STT was published on 13 July 2026, along with explanatory notes, a policy paper and the outcome of the higher rate 1.5% stamp tax consultation. Subject to exemptions, the STT draft legislation includes a main charge of 0.5% for agreements to transfer chargeable securities to another person for consideration in money or money’s worth and, for transfers to a clearance service (CS) or depositary receipt issuer (DRI), a higher-rate charge of 1.5%. The main charge arises when an agreement is made or, in the case of a conditional agreement, when the conditions are satisfied, although, where the agreement is not electronic,

A non-UK incorporated company becomes UK tax resident under the UK's domestic residence rules if it becomes centrally managed and controlled in the UK. Although some non-UK incorporated companies may wish to become UK tax resident, many do not. This Checklist: • summarises key guidelines that a non-UK incorporated company's board should aim to follow in order to reduce the risk that the non-UK incorporated company may become centrally managed and controlled, and therefore tax resident, in the UK—this Checklist may serve as a reminder for the directors • is relevant to non-UK incorporated companies that have some connection to the UK that gives rise to the risk that it may become UK tax resident, such as a non-UK incorporated company: ◦ where at least one (if not more) of its directors is/are UK tax resident ◦ that has its shares or debt securities listed on a recognised stock exchange in the UK, such as the Main Market of the London Stock Exchange, or admitted to trading on a UK recognised

This document provides guidance to [partners OR members OR directors] [, managers] and any other member of staff involved in supervising trainee solicitors with a training contract with our firm. What the SRA expects from us The SRA imposes general requirements on supervising work, together with specific regulatory requirements in relation to training and supervising trainee solicitors who have a training contract. The requirements are supplemented by guidance on the SRA website. The SRA’s requirements can be found in: • the SRA Codes of Conduct, which contain the SRA’s core requirements in relation to supervision generally • the SRA Education, Training and Assessment Provider Regulations We are committed to providing training that: • is properly and effectively supervised in accordance with the SRA’s requirements • supports trainees and ensures they meet the Practice Skills Standards (see below) • [provides practical experience in at least three distinct areas of English and Welsh law and practice] • includes regular review and appraisal of the trainee’s performance and development and their record of training The training principal The Firm has appointed [insert name of training principal] to be its training principal. The training principal

The primary resource relied upon by medicolegal experts and the courts for the diagnosis of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) is the Coles, Lutman and Buffin’s ‘Guidelines on the diagnosis of noise-induced hearing loss for medicolegal purposes’ published in April 2000 (the CLB Guidelines). The same authors later produced ‘Guidelines for Quantification of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss in a Medicolegal Context’, published in 2015 (the LCB Guidelines), because the CLB Guidelines were restricted to diagnosis and could not be used for quantification of NIHL. Both guidelines are considered in this Practice Note. This Practice Note also briefly considers the ‘Guidelines for Diagnosing and Quantifying Noise-Induced Hearing Loss’ published by Moore, Lowe and Cox in 2022 (the rM-NIHL Guidelines). The 2000 CLB Guidelines One of the difficulties with NIHL claims is that it is not enough to establish that the claimant: • was exposed to hazardous noise levels at work, and • has hearing loss in order to persuade a court that the noise levels at work caused the claimant’s hearing

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 22 January 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline CMA Article 101 TFEU/Chapter I CA98 investigation alleging that Fender breached UK and EU competition law by restricting online discounting for its guitars. Latest developments On 22 January 2020, the CMA issued its infringement decision, finding that Fender had breached the Chapter I prohibition/Article 101 TFEU by engaging in resale price maintenance by requiring its guitars to be sold at or above a minimum price. The aim of this was to restrict retailers from discounting their online prices. The CMA imposed a fine of £4.5m, which reflects reductions to account for leniency and settlement, following Fender’s admission that it broke the law. Parties Fender Musical Instruments Europe Limited (Fender Europe), a UK-based company, supplies guitars to UK retailers. Fender Europe is a subsidiary of Fender Musical Instruments Corporation (Fender Corporation). Fender Corporation is an American manufacturer of stringed instruments

The EU imposes on parties to transactions notification requirements when certain thresholds are met. The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that competition authorities have the opportunity to review transactions that could substantially harm competition before they are closed. Gun jumping relates to unlawful pre-merger co-ordination or integration between the parties to a transaction. More precisely, it is a term used to describe two types of scenarios: • transactions that are closed without any notification despite thresholds having been triggered (so-called ‘failure to notify’ cases), and • substantive gun jumping (ie integration measures being taken prior to clearance—frequently while review by competition authorities is pending) For a practical checklist of do’s and don’ts in relation to gun jumping, see Gun-jumping ’Do’s and don’ts’—checklist. Failure to notify Failure to notify cases refer to cases where parties fail entirely to notify the competition authorities of a transaction triggering merger thresholds, thus violating the applicable obligation to notify a transaction prior to its implementation under Article 4(1) of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR). Of course, in cases where the EUMR

This Checklist provides practical guidance for those involved in corporate transactions in relation to what can and cannot be done in the pre-closing period under ‘gun jumping’ rules where transactions are caught by merger control rules. Gun jumping—introduction In most jurisdictions, including the EU and the US, applicable competition laws prescribe that corporate transactions (including mergers & acquisitions, as well as other transactions leading to a change in control, but also in some jurisdictions acquisitions of minority shares, etc) first need to be notified to relevant competition authorities and then require clearance by these authorities before the parties are entitled to implement the transaction (see Gun jumping). Any implementation measures prior to having obtained clearance and prior to closing is commonly referred to as ‘gun jumping’ and can lead to serious fines (see, for example, the European Commission’s decision to impose fines totalling €124.5m on Altice for gun jumping in Altice/PT Portugal (Arts. 4(1) and 7(1)) (M.7993), later reduced on appeal to €115.2m). This document provides initial practical guidance divided into: • permissible conduct (‘Do’s’)

Law360: British businessman Sanjeev Gupta and four other executives in his industrial group face criminal charges over their alleged failure to file accounts for more than 70 listed companies, the UK corporate registry confirmed on 10 October 2024.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has announced that Guy Flintham has pleaded guilty to fraud, following a prosecution brought by the regulator. Between January 2016 and November 2021, Flintham, based in Blackburn, Lancashire, defrauded around 240 investors by making false representations to persuade them to invest approximately £19m in an investment scheme operated by him. Sentencing will take place on 26 April 2024.

MLex: Güralp Systems Ltd's 'deteriorating standards' of compliance and poor bribery controls formed the basis of an application by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to prosecute the company following its alleged failure to meet the terms of a 2019 deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), it has emerged. A former senior company executive described the concerns as 'overstated'.