This legislation tracker is divided into the following sections: • Forthcoming Acts and Bills • Forthcoming Statutory Instruments • Forthcoming FCA instruments • Forthcoming European legislation • Legislation recently made / in force Forthcoming Acts and Bills This section includes Acts which have received Royal Assent but the provisions of which have not yet come into force. Date Legislative change Status 2026–2027 Finance Bill 2026–27 On 13 July 2026, HMRC published draft provisions of the Finance Bill 2026–27, together with policy papers on the key measures. As announced at Budget 2025 (on 26 November 2025), the pensions measures include:• DB surplus payments to members—with effect from 6 April 2027, trustees of DB schemes will be authorised to make surplus payments to members. Surplus payments will be treated as pension income, taxed at the member’s marginal rate of income tax. The draft legislation bringing this change into effect would amend Part 4 of the Finance Act 2004 through the Finance Bill 2026-27 to create a new category of authorised member payment, enabling trustees to make discretionary surplus payments to eligible

Under the devolution settlements in the UK, the devolved administrations can only legislate on matters where they have competence. The table

This Flowchart shows the process for a Bill to progress to an Act in the Northern Ireland

The name given to children's legal rights in the law of succession.

This Practice Note outlines the main categories of legitimate business interest which may be protected by way of an appropriate post-termination restriction (restrictive covenant) in the employment context, namely trade secrets and/or confidential information, trade connections, clients/customers, suppliers and other business contacts, and the stability of the employer’s workforce. As noted elsewhere (see Practice Note: Restraint of trade in employment), a post-termination restriction will be unlawful, and therefore unenforceable, unless the party attempting to enforce it has a legitimate business interest to protect. An employer will not be able to enforce a restriction that seeks merely to prevent its former employees from competing against it. Preventing competition is not, of itself, sufficient to amount to a legitimate business interest for these purposes. The general approach is that competition is in the public interest and is therefore something to be encouraged. Similarly, an employee who, through training by the employer, has gained general skill and knowledge that will assist the employee in competing when they leave employment will generally be permitted to use that skill and knowledge to compete. Rather,

1 Background Name and position of person(s) conducting assessment [Insert name] Date of assessment [Insert date] 2 Proposed processing Summary of proposed processing to which this assessment relates [Describe, eg: Direct marketing by email to existing contacts of similar services offered by [insert organisation name]] Description of the data or classes of data to be processed [Describe, eg:][Names and email addresses][Purchase history of proposed recipients, to ensure the direct marketing is limited to similar services] Description of the data subject(s) or category of data subject(s) whose data will be processed [Describe, eg Existing customers, former customers, and other contacts with whom we have entered into negotiations for the sale of our services (proposed recipients)] Is the data subject a child or is the pool of data subjects likely to include children? ☐ Yes☐ No Description of the proposed processing [Describe, eg:][Use data mining software and existing suppression lists to:][—interrogate our customer database and identify proposed recipients, and][—screen out any who may have objected to receiving direct marketing generally or by email][Export list of proposed contacts into direct marketing software, to send email campaigns to those individuals so identified] Timescale for proposed processing [State

1 Background information Name and position of person(s) conducting assessment [Insert name] Date of assessment [Insert date] 2 Proposed processing Describe the proposed processing covered by this legitimate interests impact assessment. Summary of proposed processing to which this assessment relates [Insert response] Description of the data or classes of data to be processed [Insert response] Description of the data subject(s) or category of data subject(s) whose data will be processed [Insert response] Is the data subject a child or is the pool of data subjects likely to include children? ☐ Yes☐ No Description of the proposed processing [Insert response] Timescale for the proposed processing [Insert response] Is this:—a new form of processing?—an expansion of an existing processing operation?—a continuation of an existing processing operation? [Insert response] 3 Purpose test Assess whether there is a legitimate interest behind the processing. Why

The UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) permits processing of personal data where that processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of

Law360, London: Lego failed to persuade the General Court to reinstate design protections for one of its blocks, after a Chinese toy company successfully challenged the protections at the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline CMA Chapter I investigation into whether Leicester City FC and JD Sports breached Chapter I by colluding to restrict competition in the sales of Leicester City-branded clothing products. Latest developments On 31 July 2023, the CMA issued its infringement decision. The CMA imposed fines totalling £880,000 on Leicester City FC (including a 20% discount for settling). JD Sports reported the conduct to the CMA and therefore was granted immunity under the CMA’s Leniency programme. Parties • Leicester City Football Club (and its parent companies King Power International

Leicestershire County Council has announced that it is taking legal advice on launching a challenge to the government's decision to establish two unitary councils for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland from April 2028. The government has decided for an expanded Leicester City authority and a second authority covering the remainder of Leicestershire and Rutland. The decision follows consultation on proposals to replace existing two-tier local government arrangements in the area. Council leader Dan Harrison said the council opposed the expansion of Leicester City and would continue to represent the interests of Leicestershire residents while preparations for local government reorganisation proceed.

All Leicestershire district and borough councils have announced that they have filed a protective judicial review claim challenging the government’s decision to proceed with proposals to create two unitary councils for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, including an expanded Leicester boundary. The claim argues that the decision was not made in accordance with the law, lacked proper consultation and did not properly consider impact, costs or reasons for boundary changes.