The Institute for Government (IfG) has reported on flaws in the model of independent oversight of government functions and the need for independent inspectors to be able to publish separately from those they scrutinise. This follows the dismissal of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, David Neal, by James Cleverly after Neal gave interviews on the backlog of unpublished reports in the Home Office. Jill Rutter of the IfG has suggested that Parliament ‘does not necessarily do a great job in ensuring’ that independent overseers ‘have the powers and authority they need to do their jobs effectively.’ The IfG has argued that Parliament must ensure that independent inspectors, commissioners and watchdogs have the budget and powers necessary to effectively perform in their respective roles. Additionally, the IfG has said that inspectors should have the power to publish their own reports, or their departments should be obligated to publish the report within a specified period of time and thereafter report to Parliament on how the department has responded to the findings.

The Institute for Government (IfG) has explained how the government should set out its priorities in the upcoming King’s Speech 2024. Firstly, it notes that the government should define its new priorities with the manifesto being translated into defined and measurable outcomes accompanied by a timeframe. It further states that the government should strengthen the evidence base of each outcome by explaining what the government is doing already, how effectively is it addressing policy problems and how is it spending public money. Finally, IfG recommends that the government announces its priorities and resolves trade-offs whilst holding itself accountable.

The Institute for Government (IfG) has published a report calling for reforms to the UK’s public inquiry system, warning of rising costs and limited impact. With 27 inquiries underway and cumulative costs since 2005 exceeding £730m, including £192m for the Covid‑19 Inquiry, the report highlights duplication, excessive legalism and delays that leave victims waiting years for answers. According to the Institute, ministers’ vague decisions on scope and appointments often lead to sprawling inquiries, while budget and time limits have proven ineffective without departmental cooperation. The report recommends clearer guidance in the Cabinet Manual, a stronger Cabinet Office Inquiry Team and a formal decision-making framework to ensure inquiries deliver timely lessons and justice.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The case involved a successful claim brought by the Secretary of State (‘SoS’) for an order to be made against a director pursuant to section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA 1986) disqualifying him from acting as a director or being concerned in the management of a company (‘the Company’). Written by Maxwell Myers, barrister at Selborne Chambers.

Arbitration analysis: The Singapore International Commercial Court dismissed DWJ’s application to set aside an SIAC award ordering it to repay USD2.7 million to DWK. DWJ had deliberately declined to participate in the arbitration despite being kept informed of the proceedings and could not establish that it had been unable to present its case. Nor did alleged non-disclosure of oral assurances establish fraud, breach of natural justice or a public policy ground for setting aside. The decision underscores that non-participating parties cannot ordinarily rely on their own failure to engage or obtain legal advice to challenge an award, while an attending party has no general duty to advance an absent party’s unpleaded defences. Produced in partnership with Amanda Lees of Mallesons.

This Practice Note considers the risks for lenders and corporate borrowers of ignoring an event of default under an unregulated corporate or commercial facility agreement, including the potential impact on enforcement rights. It explains how lender conduct may give rise to waiver or estoppel and outlines practical steps for managing a default, including reservation of rights, waivers, amendments and standstills. Quick summary • An event of default is a contractual trigger in a finance document that allows the lender to take specified action against the borrower, such as cancelling commitments, accelerating the loan, demanding repayment, enforcing security and charging default interest. • For the lender, the key risk in not taking formal action promptly following an event of default is that its conduct may result in it waiving, or becoming estopped from exercising, rights arising from the event of default. No waiver clauses and reservation of rights letters may reduce the risk, but their effectiveness depends on their wording and the lender’s subsequent conduct. • For the borrower, lender inaction does not necessarily

We have assumed for the purposes of this Q&A that the purchase of Company B by Company A was effected by way of a share purchase transaction. This assumption therefore implies that Company B is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Company A following the transaction, but all assets and liabilities previously owned by Company B remain in the ownership of Company B. It is further assumed that the lease between the landlord and Company B contains a qualified covenant against assignment (ie against assignment without consent of the landlord). In a situation where Company B holds a leasehold interest in a property, this will be unaffected by a sale of the issued share capital of the company

Lease. A financing arrangement commonly deployed in real estate and project finance transactions as well as forming the basis of sukuk al ijarah structures.

Literally, ‘consensus’ or ‘agreement’. A secondary source of Shari’ah, representing the historic, collective reasoning and consensus among authoritative Muslims of a particular generation on particular issues.

A process of independent reasoning deployed by Islamic scholars.

Law360: The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has stopped monitoring Ikea after the Swedish household goods giant improved its sexual harassment policies following its alleged failure to investigate an incident.

In Doyle v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the claimant could not recover a retrospective payment equivalent to sick pay as part of their compensation for disability discrimination, as retirement on medical grounds was a break in the chain of causation.