Corporate Crime analysis: Mr Cook was a senior civil servant within the Ministry of Defence (MOD) who was convicted of misconduct in public office but acquitted of a more serious charge of corruption. The case related to his acceptance of commissions in relation to the award of a contract by MOD. Having been convicted of the lesser offence, the judge sentenced him to 30 months’ immediate custody having closely followed the Bribery Sentencing Guideline. The approach to sentencing in this case, and the difficulties faced by the judge in reaching the sentence provide a useful moment to reflect on the need for reform of the common law offence of misconduct in public offence. Written by Tayyiba Bajwa, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Legislation Day is on 21 July 2025; (2) the ICAEW has launched a consultation on proposed probate registration fees for 2026; (3) analysis of Rogers v Wills, a rare example of the court finding a contract for care existed between family members; (4) the Investing and Saving Alliance proposes alternative approaches to the government’s pension IHT reforms; (5) Marcus v Marcus in which the appeal court upheld the decision that the word ‘children’ included a non-biological son; and (6) analysis of Mobile Telecommunications Company KSCP v HRH Prince Hussam Bin Saud Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud in which the court rules on the meaning of ‘place of residence’ in a bankruptcy jurisdiction appeal.

The Welsh Government has updated its guidance on the Welsh Building Safety Fund (WBSF) and fire safety remediation for residential buildings of 11 m and over. The guidance confirms that leaseholders will not bear the costs of remediation works for construction-related fire safety issues. Ten developers—including Barratt Redrow, Taylor Wimpey and Bellway—have signed a contract with the Welsh Government committing to address such issues in buildings developed since 1992. Orphan buildings, defined as those with no identified developer, where the developer has ceased trading or constructed prior to 1992, will be supported through the WBSF. Social sector buildings owned by Registered Social Landlords or Local Authorities may apply to the WBSF for up to 100% of eligible remediation costs. Buildings identified as under 11 m, as defined under Part B of the Building Regulations 2010, SI 2010/2214, fall outside the scope of current remediation plans.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) rejected an enforcement challenge to an adjudicator’s decision on the basis that amendments to a standard form contract on how a adjudicator should be selected from a specified panel chosen by the employer contravened the requirements of s 108, Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996). It was held that there was no evidence of bias on the part of any of the adjudicators named on the employer’s panel nor, on an interpretation of the provisions of HGCRA 1996, s 108, were there grounds to replace the amended provisions in whole or in part with the provisions of the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (‘the Scheme’).

Commercial analysis: The Court of Appeal has delivered its verdict on the effect of a clause excluding liability for loss of ‘anticipated profits’ in a contract between the telecoms giants EE and Virgin Mobile. The court was not convinced by EE’s arguments that its loss of revenue resulting from Virgin Mobile’s alleged breach fell outside of the scope of the exclusion and rejected EE’s appeal albeit by a majority decision. The judgment provides a degree of comfort to drafters of exclusion clauses, given the expression ‘anticipated profits’ is widely used, and confirmatory guidance on the way the courts should approach these sorts of clauses in sophisticated business contracts. Written by Beverley Whittaker, consultant at Stevens & Bolton LLP.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) Advocate General Andrea Biondi has delivered an opinion in Case C-802/24 Reibel stating that the prohibition on satisfying claims by Russian entities under Council Regulation 833/2014 forms part of European Union public policy. The opinion, delivered on 26 February 2026, establishes that national courts must ensure arbitration awards comply with this prohibition and set aside awards that breach it, acting of their own motion if necessary. The case arose from a 2015 contract between a Belgian company and Russian entity where EU restrictive measures prevented performance, leading to a 2021 Swedish arbitration award ordering repayment of advance payments. Advocate General Biondi concluded that while arbitration proceedings concerning such claims may proceed, tribunals cannot provide favourable responses to Russian entity claims affected by restrictive measures. The opinion emphasises that arbitration tribunals remain bound by EU law and national courts must exercise effective judicial review to prevent circumvention of sanctions prohibitions.

This edition of Employment weekly highlights includes (1) the latest remit for the Low Pay commission’s minimum wage recommendations from April 2026, (2) a judicial review challenge to the changes to the Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance following the Supreme Court decision in For Women Scotland, (3) an EAT decision on whether government departments can cause, instruct, induce or knowingly help discrimination by an employer through issuing guidance, (4) an EAT decision on when a Service Complaint is valid for the purposes of bringing a tribunal claim, (5) a partial victory for Tesco over the Tribunal’s use of comparators in its the long-running equal pay litigation, (6) an EAT case on when questions over fair trials and strike-out may be ‘intertwined’, (7) a new Precedent basic contract for zero hours employees, (8) dates for your diary, and (9) other news items of interest to employment practitioners.

The Crown Commercial Service (CCS) has published its SME Action Plan 2025. As of June 2025, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) account for approximately 75% of suppliers on CCS commercial agreements. The action plan outlines strategies to help government departments level the playing field for SMEs in public procurement over the next 12-18 months. It also updates on actions detailed in the previous plan. Action points include enhancing transparency and awareness of procurement opportunities, facilitating engagement through events, embedding SME-friendly practices across procurement processes and building better SME data to track participation and ensure SMEs are considered throughout the procurement lifecycle. The action plan also includes the provision of tailored guidance and support on bidding, contract terms, and requirements, including publication of ‘Supplier Specifics’ articles.

The European Banking Authority (EBA) has published a report under Article 21c(6) of the Capital Requirements Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD), assessing whether third-country undertakings should be permitted to provide core banking services directly to EU financial sector entities (FSEs) without establishing a branch in the EU. The report, developed in consultation with the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA), draws on quantitative supervisory data and qualitative input from stakeholders. It concludes that there is currently no clear basis for extending this possibility beyond EU credit institutions. The EBA notes challenges in forming a comprehensive view of the impact of the prohibition, citing limited data, the absence of a harmonised definition of core banking services, and uncertainty around the application of existing exemptions. Article 21c CRD includes carve-outs for interbank and intragroup transactions, reverse solicitation, and MiFID-related services, and allows for contract grandfathering to support transition.

The Crown Commercial Service (CCS) has revealed significant changes to its procurement timeline and agreement structures. The implementation of new procurement regulations has been postponed from 28 October 2024 to 24 February 2025. In response, several agreements originally slated for the new regulations will now proceed under the Public Contract Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102, including RM6361, RM6310, RM6353, and RM6360. Additionally, multiple agreements have been extended, with some receiving six month extensions (eg., RM6123, RM6168) and others nine month extensions (eg., RM6100, RM1043.8). The Procurement Act 2023 will not apply retroactively, resulting in a period where agreements will operate under both PCR 2015 and the new Act. These adjustments aim to ensure service continuity and provide certainty for stakeholders during the transition period.

The International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) has released a statement in response to the Bank of Israel's announcement on the cessation of all TELBOR tenors after 30 June 2025. After this date, fallbacks (to the adjusted risk-free rate plus spread) will automatically apply for outstanding TELBOR derivatives contracts that incorporate version 7.0 onwards of the 2021 ISDA Interest Rate Derivatives Definitions or in respect of which both parties have adhered to the November 2022 Benchmarks Module to the ISDA 2021 Fallbacks Protocol. For other outstanding TELBOR derivatives contract, the generic fallback provisions will apply, where the parties will seek to apply the first alternative continuation fallback pursuant to which a Continuation Amendment can be made.

1 Compliance 1.1 Returns The Company has duly and properly submitted all [material] computations and returns (including all land transaction returns), supplied all information, made all statements and disclosures and given all notices to any relevant Tax Authority as reasonably requested or required by law to be made for the purposes of Tax within any applicable time limits. All such computations, returns, information, statements, disclosures and notices were made on a proper basis and were when submitted and remain at the date of this Agreement complete, correct and accurate in all respects. None of the computations and returns are, or [so far as the Seller is aware,] are likely to be, the subject of any dispute with any Tax Authority. 1.2 Payment The Company has duly paid all Tax for which it has become liable to pay or account for within applicable time limits and the Company is not liable, nor has it within six years prior to the date of this Agreement been liable to make a payment under an accelerated payment notice or partner payment notice or to pay any penalty, interest, fine,