Where an injured person is disadvantaged in seeking employment in the labour market as a result of a residual disability resulting from an injury, they are entitled to claim a head of damage commonly referred to as a award'>Smith v Manchester award, named after the case that popularised the claim.

Arbitration analysis: On 11 December 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal dismissed in full an Italian franchisor (the Franchisor)’s application to set aside an ICC award rendered in a dispute with its former Portuguese franchisee (the Franchisee) and the latter’s parent company (the Parent Company), reaffirming once again France’s pro-enforcement and arbitration-friendly stance. The court adopted a formalistic approach to annulment control and, more broadly, to the application of civil procedure rules. It refused to reopen the proceedings absent any serious circumstance arising after the order closing the proceedings and held that the scope of judicial review is defined exclusively by the claims precisely framed at the outset of the annulment proceedings. In practice, only the specific operative heads of the award expressly challenged in the applicant’s submissions filed within the statutory time limit could be examined, with all other challenges declared inadmissible. The court further dismissed all alleged annulment grounds based on due process, excess of mandate, and the violation of international public policy as unlawful attempts to revisit the merits. For practitioners, the decision underscores the narrow scope of French annulment review, the need to front-load and precisely frame challenges from the outset, and the growing financial risks of speculative or ‘kitchen-sink’ set-aside strategies, particularly given the court’s willingness to award substantial adverse costs, EUR 240,000 in this case. Written by Julie Spinelli, partner at Le 16 Law, and Carl Szymura, associate at Le 16 Law.

Requirement Compulsory or recommended Comments (if any) □ Be clear internally on who is responsible for co-ordinating financial crime investigations within the firm. Recommended You could include this information in a procedure which you share with staff, eg see Precedent: Financial crime investigation procedure—law firms. (Insert any comments you wish to make regarding your organisation’s arrangements) □ Undertake detailed risk assessments to determine the possibility of your firm being used for financial crime and identify your weaker spots. Recommended See Precedents: —Money laundering, terrorist financing and proliferation financing firm-wide risk assessment—law firms—Bribery and corruption—risk assessment—Facilitation of tax evasion—risk assessment—Fraud risk assessment—Financial sanctions organisation-wide risk assessment (Insert any comments you wish to make regarding your organisation’s arrangements) □ Implement policies and procedures to help mitigate the risk of your firm being involved in financial crime. Recommended See Precedents: —AML, CTF and counter-proliferation financing policy—law firms—Anti-bribery and corruption policy—for law firms—Policy—tax evasion facilitation prevention—Fraud risk management policy—Financial sanctions policy (Insert any comments you wish to make regarding your organisation’s

Click below to view or print the full-size

This Flowchart is intended to help you navigate a superSAR request made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, as amended by the Criminal Finances Act 2017. See further Practice Note: Proceeds of Crime Act 2002—information sharing in the regulated sector—superSARs. Notes Note 1: Request received NOT from a relevant undertaking in the regulated sector or the NCA Under the legislation, a person (A) may disclose information if four conditions are met, the first two are relevant here: Condition 1: • A is carrying on a business in the regulated sector as a relevant undertaking • the information on which the disclosure is based came to A in the course of carrying on that business, and • the person to whom the information is to be disclosed (or each of them, where the disclosure is to more than one person) is also carrying on a business in the regulated sector as a relevant undertaking (whether or not of the same kind as A) Condition 2: • an NCA authorised officer (ie a person authorised for the purposes

Family analysis: In ABX v SBX, the parties had incurred some £1.1m in costs between them. The case provides lessons, as highlighted by the judge, on how not to commence divorce and financial remedy proceedings. Georgina Hamblin, head of London Family at Vardags, comments on the issues.

STOP PRESS: This document is being updated to reflect implementation of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA 2025) which amends the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018. For more guidance on the compliance implications of DUAA 2025, see Practice Note: Data (Use and Access) Act 2025—compliance implications. This Practice Note is intended for private sector commercial organisations in the UK. It covers some frequently asked questions in relation to handling data subject requests under Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679, UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), eg: • How long do I have to comply with a data subject request? • How do I calculate the time limit for responding to a data subject request? • If I request further identity information, when does the clock start ticking? • Can I charge a fee for dealing with a data subject access request? • What is ‘manifestly unfounded or excessive’? • What makes a data subject request ‘complex’? • Are there any requirements about the format of data that we provide in response

This Flowchart maps out a process for handling data subject requests received under the UK GDPR. It reflects requirements in the UK GDPR. It should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: How to handle data subject requests and the following detailed Flowcharts for handling requests under specific data subject rights: • Evaluating a data subject access request—flowchart • Evaluating a data rectification request—flowchart • Evaluating a data subject erasure request—flowchart • Evaluating a restriction of data processing request—flowchart • Evaluating a data portability request—flowchart • Evaluating an objection to processing request—flowchart Note 1—data subject requests As a preliminary step, determine whether the data subject is making a request to exercise one of their rights under the UK GDPR or whether their request is merely a routine enquiry, eg a customer making a query about their account. Alternatively, the individual could be making a data protection complaint, in which case see Practice Note: How to handle data protection complaints. If in doubt as to whether the data subject is making a data subject request, consider seeking

Handling stolen goods cannot occur during the course of the stealing; there are various modes of handling, the most common of which is “receiving”.

The ‘handling’ offence Handling stolen goods is an offence under section 22 of the Theft Act 1968 (TA 1968) that is triable either way. The elements of the offence are: • dishonestly receiving the goods, or • dishonestly undertaking or assisting in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or arranging to do so • knowing or believing them to be stolen goods, and • the goods having been stolen The offence is committed while the defendant is acting otherwise than in the course of stealing. As theft can be a continuing act it is sometimes difficult to show whether the defendant in possession of stolen goods is a thief or a handler of goods that have already been stolen. In such cases the prosecution will charge handling stolen goods in the alternative. The goods must have been stolen but proof of a conviction for the predicate theft is not required; nor is it necessary to name the person who stole the goods. If the person who stole the

The Hansard Society has published analysis examining constitutional and legislative impact of the government's decision to reduce international aid spending to 0.3% of GNI to fund defence spending increases, breaching the 0.7% aid target under the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015. This development follows the 2020-2021 precedent where, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, Ministers effectively bypassed the statutory 0.7% target through a ministerial statement rather than legislative amendment. The Society's analysis considers whether the legislation allows for pre-meditated non-compliance with a statutory duty, examining the weaknesses in declaratory legislation, and the lack of enforcement mechanisms beyond basic reporting requirements. The analysis highlights the risk of growing executive dominance over Parliament, as Ministers can effectively override primary legislation through statements, raising questions about parliamentary sovereignty and the efficacy of laws without meaningful sanctions. The Society argues this demonstrates a concerning pattern of legislative failure and diminishing parliamentary oversight. While acknowledging that ignoring a law is easier politically than repealing it, the report warns that doing so erodes legal certainty and democratic accountability.

The Hansard Society has published a briefing raising concerns about the delegated powers contained in the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, also known as the assisted dying bill. The briefing focuses on two key clauses: Clause 20, which grants the Secretary of State power to specify approved substances for assisted dying via negative procedure regulations, and Clause 32, which provides broad Henry VIII powers to make regulations ensuring assistance is available. The Society calls for increased parliamentary scrutiny of these powers, such as using the affirmative procedure and suggests requiring consultation before specifying approved substances. The briefing also notes the absence of a Delegated Powers Memorandum for the bill, which would typically provide justification for such powers and their proposed scrutiny procedures.