Private Client analysis: The claimant, an incorporated charity, applied for a cy-pres scheme to alter the objects of the charity and for a declaration that its governors had the power under the Public Schools Act 1868 to amend those objects in the future. The charity in question was the ‘Free Grammar School of John Lyon’, now known as Harrow School, which had been established by Royal Charter in 1572. The Judge concluded that a cy-près event within the meaning of section 62 of the Charities Act 2011 (CA 2011) had not occurred and further, that as a matter of statutory interpretation, the Public Schools Act 1868 did not permit amendment of the objects set out in the charter. Written by Lynne Counsell, barrister at Addington Chambers.

Corporate Crime analysis: Olivia Dwan and April O’Neill of BCL Solicitors provide an analysis of the recently announced Independent Sentencing Review, looking at the background to the Review, the key aspects the Review will and won’t consider, the aim of the Review and what, if any, outcomes we can expect from it.

An individual who analyses investments, such as companies, to see if they are worth buying.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case concerned an application for Norwich Pharmacal relief against a law firm where the granting of the relief would require the firm to disclose the identity of a London based Business Intelligence Consultancy (Consultancy) which had obtained a Russian language report (Glavstroy Report) which was alleged to be a forgery. The decision provides insights into such applications against law firms and the limitations of litigation privilege in such circumstances. Written by Natalie Todd, partner, and Sam Macintosh, associate at Cooke, Young and Keidan.

An anchor statement is a statement within the collaborative process in family cases setting out the parties' aims and goals.

Anchoring describes the behavioural effect whereby the first figure, proposal or frame put forward exerts disproportionate influence on later negotiation, valuation and decision‑making. In legal practice across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, it is a descriptive term (not defined in legislation or case law) used in settlement negotiations, mediation, Part 36/Calderbank offers, pleadings of sums, and submissions on damages or sentencing. Practitioners deploy anchors to shape the bargaining range; opponents seek to neutralise them with evidence and objective benchmarks.Courts and tribunals recognise the risk of unfair anchoring and rely on structured guidance to promote consistency: the Judicial College Guidelines (England & Wales), the Judicial Studies Board Guidelines (Northern Ireland), Scottish case law with reference to the Judicial College Guidelines, and the Judicial Council’s Personal Injuries Guidelines 2021 (Ireland). Over‑ or under‑anchoring can have costs consequences where offers are unreasonable.Do not confuse anchoring with the “anchor defendant” or “anchor claim” used to establish jurisdiction or service out (for example, the “necessary or proper party” gateway in England & Wales, similar concepts in Scotland, and Article 8(1) Brussels Ia/Brussels Recast still relevant in Ireland). In consumer and competition contexts, “price anchoring” (reference pricing) may attract scrutiny under the UK Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and Ireland’s Consumer Protection Act 2007.

Law firms might be caught by the consumer credit regime by entering into a consumer credit agreement as lender, eg in respect of their fees, or by engaging in ancillary consumer credit activities such as debt adjusting. This

Leveraged finance facilities agreements will typically include provisions allowing borrowers to use some of the revolving credit facility commitment to access certain kinds of banking facilities such as an overdraft, stand-by letter of credit facility or foreign exchange facility. These facilities are typically provided on a bilateral basis and known as ancillary facilities.

Ancillary jurisdiction describes a court’s power to hear and determine matters that are not the primary claim before it, but which are sufficiently connected that they must be resolved to do justice or give effect to its decisions. It is a descriptive doctrine rather than a single statutory definition, and is developed mainly through case law.In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, ancillary jurisdiction commonly covers: enforcing and supervising court orders; dealing with consequential and incidental applications (for example, costs, interim relief, committal, variation and interpretation of orders); and determining related issues necessary to make the principal proceedings effective. In civil procedure it overlaps with concepts such as “incidental” or “supplemental” jurisdiction.In Scotland, similar ideas are reflected in the court’s inherent powers and its competence to deal with incidental procedure, including ancillary orders in actions raised in the Court of Session or sheriff court.In Ireland, courts likewise rely on inherent and statutory jurisdiction to make ancillary orders and to resolve related issues required to implement their judgments.Across all four jurisdictions, ancillary jurisdiction is practically significant in complex litigation, enforcement, insolvency, family law and regulatory proceedings.

Applications for financial provision brought by one party to a marriage or civil partnership on divorce or dissolution whether for themselves or for any children of the family.

Article 101(1) TFEU prohibits agreements which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction, or distortion of competition within the internal market. However, EU case law has confirmed that not every restriction of a party's economic freedom is necessarily a ‘restriction of competition’ within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU—the Court of Justice confirming (for example) that it: '...may be doubted whether there is an interference with competition if the said agreement seems really necessary for the penetration of a new area by an undertaking' This observation led to the ‘ancillary restraints doctrine' with the EU Courts and the European Commission (Commission) recognising that certain restrictions should not be ‘restrictions of competition’ within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU where, in consideration of the 'legal and economic context', they are demonstrably necessary for protecting the legitimate interests of the parties to the agreement. Doctrine Inspired by the common law approach to assessing commercial restraints (ie, exceptions to the rule against ‘restraints of trade’), the concept

Andrew Warnock QC, of 1 Chancery Lane, and Rosalind English, of 1 Crown Office Row, have discussed the new British Bill of Rights, seeking to replace the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998).