Mandatory authority describes case law or legislation that a court is obliged to follow when deciding a dispute. In everyday legal practice in the UK and Ireland, it refers to binding sources of law, as opposed to persuasive authority, which a court may consider but need not follow.The expression itself is descriptive rather than a defined statutory term. Its content comes from rules on precedent and court hierarchies in each jurisdiction.In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, mandatory authority includes decisions of higher courts in the same hierarchy (for example, the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and relevant divisional courts) and directly applicable or retained EU law where binding. In Scotland, it includes decisions of the Supreme Court on UK‑wide matters and of the Inner House of the Court of Session on Scottish issues. In Ireland, it includes decisions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal on lower courts.Identifying what is mandatory authority is central to legal research, case analysis, drafting submissions and advising clients on the strength of a precedent‑based argument.

This Practice Note covers the mandatory climate-related disclosures that apply to UK financial institutions and the proposal to roll out sustainability reporting under IFRS S1 and S2 in the UK. What are the current UK requirements? In the UK there are currently mandatory climate-related disclosures that were introduced under corporate legislation and separate rules introduced by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for some listed companies and financial services entities. The FCA has also introduced some sector and product-specific disclosures. The UK government is currently reviewing the climate-related disclosure regimes in the UK and on 25 June 2025 published: • a consultation by the Department for Business and Trade published on the draft UK Sustainability Reporting Standards (UK SRS), which would implement the ISSB's sustainability disclosures standards (IFRS S1 and IFRS S2) into UK law • a consultation by the Department for Business and Trade on the government's proposal for greater regulatory oversight of third-party assurance services for sustainability-related financial disclosures; and • a consultation

The cost to a lender of complying with regulatory liquidity requirements and regulator fees—these may be included as a separate element in the interest calculation in a loan agreement, or catered for in the margin.

Companies operating in the UK may be required to report on environmental matters in accordance with: • the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) in particular in the directors’ and strategic reports on environmental matters, and matters related to greenhouse gases and energy and carbon, as well as non-financial reporting statements. CA 2006 requirements have continued to expand following publication of many regulations related to this area, all of which are expanded on below. For more information, see: ◦ The directors’ report (CA 2006)—mandatory greenhouse gas reporting and energy and carbon reporting ◦ The strategic report (CA 2006)—duty to report on environmental matters ◦ Mandatory Section 172 statement • Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD) implementation in the UK, which varies depending on entity type. For more information, see: Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures • accounting standards and codes—see: Company accounts and accounting standards • domestic environmental regulatory regimes, which may require reports to be filed—see: Domestic regulatory reporting requirements • UK Sustainability Disclosure Requirements—see: UK Sustainability Disclosure Requirements The

Private and public sector organisations are increasingly required to report on their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The extent of a company’s GHG reporting requirements depends on: • the size and nature of the organisation • whether it is a UK company • the amount of energy the organisation consumes Even where a company is not required to report on its GHG emissions, chapter 2 of the Environmental reporting guidelines, including streamlined energy and carbon reporting guidance (the Guidelines) recommends that companies report on their emissions voluntarily. Many businesses are now choosing to do this in response to stakeholder pressures, especially those connected with investor demands. For voluntary GHG reporting information, see Practice Note: Voluntary greenhouse gas reporting. For more information on wider, voluntary environment, social and governance reporting, see Practice Note: Voluntary environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) reporting. For a hub on issues related to sustainable business, including reporting, see: ESG and sustainability collection. For information on reporting connected with nature and biodiversity impacts, see Practice Note: ESG and sustainability—biodiversity and nature-related risks—Reporting and disclosure. Mandatory

A mandatory injunction is a court order requiring a party to take positive steps to do something, rather than merely to refrain from an act. It is an equitable remedy, granted at the court’s discretion, and is used across civil litigation, commercial disputes, property law and public law in England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland with broadly similar effect.Courts typically treat mandatory injunctions as a more intrusive remedy than prohibitory injunctions. Applicants must usually show a strong prima facie case, that damages would be an inadequate remedy, and that the balance of convenience and justice favours granting the order. They are often sought on an interim basis to restore the status quo ante, for example compelling reinstatement of services, removal of unlawful obstructions, or performance of contractual or statutory duties.The concept is primarily developed through case law (for example, guidance in *American Cyanamid* for interim relief in England and Wales, with analogous principles in the other jurisdictions). Breach of a mandatory injunction may amount to contempt of court, exposing the respondent to fines, sequestration of assets or, in serious cases, imprisonment.

DR analysis: Teare J in the Commercial Court ordered a mandatory injunction on a without notice application, a rare occurrence. The judgment does not set out any new principles, the case being determined on the facts. For practitioners the key issue is ensuring that clear instructions are received from clients, a late change of position by the defendants in this case may well have contributed to the inability to persuade the court that such an injunction should not have been granted.

It is a statutory requirement that an offender aged 21 and over who is convicted of murder (but not related offences such as attempted murder or conspiracy to murder) must be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

Mandatory life sentences A court must impose a sentence for life (life sentence) in respect of an offender who is aged 21 or over and who is convicted of murder (but not related offences such as attempted murder or conspiracy to murder). This is because the sentence is ‘fixed by law’. The same is true of any other offence for which the sentence fixed by law is life imprisonment. Where an offender is aged over 18 on the date of the offence but under 21 on the date of conviction, the equivalent sentence is custody for life. The applicable sentence for a person convicted of murder who was under 18 at the time of the offence is detention at His Majesty's pleasure. Fixing the tariff for mandatory life sentences When passing a life sentence, the court must make a whole life order or otherwise fix a minimum term that the offender must serve in custody before the Parole Board can consider whether to release the offender. Where the Parole Board directs the release of a prisoner serving

Rule 9 of the Takeover Code requires a person to make a mandatory offer for a company when that person acquires an interest in the company’s shares which, either in itself or when aggregated with shares already held, carries 30% or more of the voting rights in the company.

Rule 9 requires a person to make a offer'>mandatory offer for a company when that person acquires an interest in the company’s shares which, either in itself or when aggregated with shares already held, carries 30% or more of the voting rights in the company. Such a person shall extend offers, on the basis set out in Rules 9.3, 9.4 and 9.5, to the holders of any class of equity share capital, whether voting or non-voting, and also to the holders of any other class of transferable securities carrying voting rights.

Produced with input from Rebecca Cousin of Slaughter and May on market practice. The nature of a mandatory offer Most takeover offers are voluntary, in the sense that the offeror elects to make a bid for control of a company (or for a class of its shares), usually after careful consideration and preparation, and (subject to some restrictions) chooses the consideration to be offered and the conditions to be attached (see Practice Note: Voluntary, partial and tender offers). One of the best known rules of the Code, however, is Rule 9, which requires a person (or persons acting in concert) to make a takeover offer for a company subject to the Code once that person’s shareholding (or those persons' combined shareholdings) in that company cross certain thresholds. Such an offer is known as a mandatory offer or a Rule 9 offer. Mandatory offers are in practice infrequent, as they are generally considered as something to avoid. For details of which companies are subject to the Code, see Practice Note: The Panel and the regulatory framework of takeovers—Companies