This Practice Note provides practical guidance on the usage of the green lane under the UK’s Internal Market Scheme when moving goods to and from UK and Northern Ireland. Introduction Under the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement the UK and EU agreed on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. The Protocol dealt with the trade aspects to safeguard the Good Friday agreement. Specifically, it recognised that Northern Ireland is part of the UK’s customs territory. However, many traders experienced issues in the movement of goods between the UK and Northern Ireland even though the goods were traded duty free. This was because the goods were otherwise treated as crossing an international border. In other words, these goods were subject to customs control, which included the requirements for multiple declarations, checks and, where relevant, rules of origin requirements. For guidance on the Protocol, see Practice Note: Trade in goods with Northern Ireland. In order to overcome these issues, the Windsor Framework was negotiated to establish a new arrangement for the movement of goods between the UK

Environment analysis: On 27 September 2024, the Department of Agriculture, Environment, and Rural Affairs (DAERA) published Northern Ireland (NI)’s first Environment Improvement Plan (EIP). Brendan Martyn, Director, and Caitlin McPeake, Solicitor, at Cleaver Fulton Rankin, comment on the EIP.

An initiative to boost the local economies in the North by investing in skills, innovation, transport and culture as well as the devolution of significant powers and budgets to elected mayors.

Immigration analysis: A recent decision by the Court of Appeal has held that there is no ‘duty of prescription’ at common law (Northumbrian Water Ltd, R v Water Services Regulation Authority). What this means in general public law terms has been explored in a previous News Analysis. The present article seeks to discuss the possible impact that this decision may have in immigration law cases. It argues that such a duty, if anything, would have been beneficial in immigration law. That is due to the need to mitigate arbitrary decision making. Written by Parvez Anwar Pantho, caseworker at Duncan Lewis Solicitors. With thanks to Raman Kumar of Duncan Lewis Solicitors.

Public Law analysis: In a recent and important decision, the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Lewis, with Lord Justice Peter Jackson and Lord Justice Elisabeth Laing agreeing) has ruled that there does not exist a free-standing ‘duty of prescription’ in common law. That is to say, the courts will not insist that where a public body decision-maker has at its disposal a discretionary power, it might sometimes have to publish a policy circumscribing how that discretion will be exercised in practice. Any statements to the contrary found in the earlier case law have been resigned to obiter dicta or confined to particular facts. The case takes a different view from that of the High Court in R (ZLL) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Governmentwhere Mr Justice Fordham explicitly recognized the presence of the common law ‘duty of prescription’ on the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision in Lumba v Secretary of State for the Home Department. But given that the passages in Lumba are (arguably) obiter, Northumbria Water is now the leading binding authority on the (lack of any) duty of prescription at common law. Written by Lewis Graham, Fellow in Law at Wadham College, Oxford.

Law360: Former employees of Norton Motorcycles received £9.4m into their pension schemes from the Fraud Compensation Fund this week, an independent trustee told the Work and Pensions Committee on 13 March 2024.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—This archived case hub reflects the position of the decision of 2 September 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into the anticipated acquisition by NortonLifeLock Inc. of Avast plc. The parties overlap in the supply of consumer cyber safety solutions. Latest developments On 2 September 2022, the CMA issued it final report, unconditionally clearing the transaction after an in-depth phase 2 investigation.. Parties • NortonLifeLock Inc. (NortonLifeLock): NortonLifeLock provides consumer cyber security solutions It offers solutions which enables consumers to protect their devices, online privacy, identity, and home networks. NortonLifeLock serves customers worldwide.• Avast plc (Avast): Avast operates as a cyber security software company. It designs and develops cloud-based security infrastructure solutions that offers desktop security and server protection services. Background On 11 August 2021, the parties announced that they had entered into an agreement under which NortonLifeLock would acquire Avast for US$8bn.On 19 January 2022, the CMA launched its phase 1 investigation.On 25 March 2022, the CMA referred the transaction for a phase 2 investigation,

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 4 March 2020; it is no longer maintained. NOTE—–appeals lodged before the CAT in Lexon (UK) Limited v CMA (1344/1/12/20) and Amit Patel v CMA (1348/2/12/20) See further, timeline ,commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline CMA Article 101 TFEU/Chapter I investigation into Alissa Healthcare Research, Auden Mckenzie, Accord-UK, King Pharmaceuticals, Praze Consultants and Lexon in relation to a breach of competition law concerning the supply of anti-depressant Nortriptyline. Latest developments On 11 January 2022, the CMA announced that it had secured a legally binding disqualification undertaking from Mr Pritesh Sonpal, a former Lexon. Mr Sonpal has given an undertaking not to act as a director of any UK company for four years. Parties Alissa Heathcare Research Limited (Alisa). Alissa specialises in the licensing, marketing and distribution of generic prescription and OTC medicines in the UK pharmaceutical market. Auden Mckenzie Holdings Limited (Auden Mckenzie). Auden Mckenzie develops, manufactures, licenses and markets generic drugs. The company was founded in 2002 and

1. What is the applicable legislation? The control of foreign investments on grounds of national security is governed by the Act of 1 June 2018 No. 24 relating to National Security (the Act), specifically the Act, Ch 10, and the Regulation of 20 December 2018 relating to the protective security work of undertakings (Regulation 2010). In addition, there are other indirect control mechanisms, in particular the obligation for a company that is party to contracts that require facility security clearance, to inform the relevant authority of changes in its board composition or ownership structure. Furthermore, the King in Council, ie the government in plenary session, may take decisions to prevent activities that present a threat to national security or other planned or ongoing activities that may present a ‘not insignificant risk’ of a threat to national security interests. 2. Which government or other body (or bodies) reviews foreign investments? The competent authority to receive and process the filing is the relevant ministry with responsibility for the sector in question. However,

This table summarises all completed investigations by Norway’s competition authority (the Konkurransetilsynet) into alleged cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions (Articles 101/102 TFEU and national equivalents) since 2018. Note—only investigations that have been made public are included in this table. 2024 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/Section 10 of the Norwegian Competition Act Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Grocery retail• Coop• Norgesgruppen• Rema Restrictive agreements—price fixing •Infringement decision issued; fines totalling NOK 4.9bn Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/Section 11 of the Norwegian Competition Act The Konkurransetilsynet has not yet issued decisions under Article 102/Section 11 in 2024 2023 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/Section

NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in Norway and throughout the world are met, see further: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Norwegian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Norway? By way of background, Norway's Competition Act (Act on competition between undertakings and control with concentrations of 5 March 2004, No. 12) (the Competition Act) is enforced by the Norwegian Competition Authority (Konkurransetilsynet). The Competition Act, s16, para 1 imposes an obligation on the Konkurransetilsynet to prohibit concentrations that would lead to a significant impediment of effective competition (SIEC), in particular, as a result of the creation or strengthening of a dominant position—ie the same test as in the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR), Arts (2)(2) and (3). There is an independent appeals board for competition cases, the Competition Appeals Board (Konkurranseklagenemnda), which acts as the appeals body for all decisions of the Konkurransetilsynet, including decisions in merger cases. The decisions

Law360: Norway’s Protector Forsikring insurance group has reported that it lost a dispute with reinsurer Munich Re over claims relating to the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire, leaving it with unreinsured damages to pay of £6.9m.