CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 12 August 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline CMA Chapter I CA98 investigation into a cartel in the market for the online sales of posters and frames (Case 50223). The cartel involved an agreement between competitors not to undercut each other’s prices for posters and frames sold on Amazon’s UK website. Latest developments On 1 December 2016, the CMA announced it has disqualified the director of Trod Ltd, the company found to have infringed competition law for its part in a cartel in relation to the online sale of posters and frames. Daniel Aston, managing director of Trod Ltd, has given a disqualification undertaking not to act as a director of any UK company for five years. Parties Trod Limited (in administration) (Trod), based in Birmingham, UK. GB eye Limited (GB eye) which trades as 'GB Posters', based in Sheffield, UK. Market(s) Online sales of posters and

Gambling and sport have a long association; indeed people have been betting on sporting events for as long as there have been sporting events to bet on. In recent years, though, the amount and variety of gambling within sport has increased significantly as the popularity of online gambling has soared. This Practice Note gives a broad overview of some of the main issues that arise in the field of online sports gambling, and covers the following: • licensing • sponsorship and advertising • illegal betting and match-fixing • eSports Licensing The main piece of legislation governing gambling in Great Britain is the Gambling Act 2005 (GA 2005). Gambling in Northern Ireland is outside of the scope of this Practice Note. GA 2005 defines several types of gambling and designates the Gambling Commission (the Commission) as the body responsible for ensuring that any gambling that takes place in Great Britain is appropriately licensed and otherwise complies with GA 2005. This includes remote gambling where consumers use a form of remote communication to take part, including the internet. Providing facilities

Please read the following important terms and conditions before you buy any digital content from us and check that they contain everything you want and nothing that you are not willing to agree to. Summary of some of your key rights: The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 say that you have a 14 day right to change your mind and get a full refund on your digital content. You do not have this right to cancel once a download has started provided you have been told this and have acknowledged this.The Consumer Rights Act 2015 says digital content must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality. If your digital content is faulty, you’re entitled to a repair or a replacement. If the fault can’t be fixed, or if it hasn’t been fixed within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience, you can get some, or all of your money back. If you can show the fault has damaged your device and we haven’t used reasonable care

Please read the following important terms and conditions before you buy anything on our website and check that they contain everything you want and nothing that you are not willing to agree to. Summary of some of your key rights: The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 say that up to 14 days after receiving your goods, in most cases, you can change your mind and get a full refund. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 says goods must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality. During the expected lifespan of your product you’re entitled to the following: • up to 30 days: if your goods are faulty, you can get a refund; • up to six months: if it can’t be repaired or replaced, then you’re entitled to a full refund in most cases; • up to six years: if the goods do not last a reasonable length of time, you may be entitled to some money back. This is a summary of some of your key rights. For detailed information from Citizens Advice please visit www.citizensadvice.org.uk

Please read the following important terms and conditions before you buy anything on our website and check that they contain everything you want and nothing that you are not willing to agree to. Summary of some of your key rights: The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 say that in most cases, you can cancel within 14 days. If you agree the services will start within this time, you may be charged for what you’ve used. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 says: • you can ask us to repeat or fix a service if it’s not carried out with reasonable care and skill, or get some money back if we can’t fix it; • if a price hasn’t been agreed upfront, what you’re asked to pay must be reasonable; • if a time hasn’t been agreed upfront, it must be carried out within a reasonable time. This is a summary of some of your key rights. For detailed information from Citizens Advice please visit www.citizensadvice.org.uk or call 0808 223 1133. The information in this summary box summarises some of your key rights. It

This Practice Note explains the income tax provisions that apply to onshore employment intermediaries. For details of the practical considerations, see Practice Note: Onshore employment intermediaries—key practical considerations. The onshore employment intermediaries legislation, also commonly referred to as the agency or agencies legislation, broadly applies when an onshore employment intermediary entity is used to facilitate the provision of a worker's services. The legislation, which was substantially reformed in 2014, is broadly aimed at ensuring genuine employment is not disguised as self-employment in order to reduce employment taxes (in particular, National Insurance contributions (NICs)). For details of the income tax provisions applicable to offshore employment intermediaries, see Practice Note: Offshore employment intermediaries—income tax provisions and key practical considerations. Note that when considering employment intermediaries structures, certain other rules should also be considered, namely: • the general IR35 legislation (for further details, see Practice Note: IR35—the small client off-payroll regime) • the IR35 regime applicable to off-payroll working (for further details, see Practice Note: IR35—the large and public client off-payroll regime) • the managed

The onshore employment intermediaries legislation broadly applies when an onshore employment intermediary entity is used to facilitate the provision of a worker's services. The legislation is broadly aimed at ensuring genuine employment is not disguised as self-employment in order to reduce employment taxes (in particular, National Insurance contributions (NICs)) and also to reduce the costs associated with workers' employment rights. For a detailed explanation of the legislation, see Practice Note: Onshore employment intermediaries—income tax provisions. This Practice Note deals with practical considerations of the relevant legislation. Onshore employment intermediaries The consultation process that preceded the 2014 introduction of the onshore intermediaries legislation highlighted numerous concerns as to the definitions and use of 'supervision, direction or control' in the amended legislation. As a result of those consultation responses, HMRC slightly altered the legislation when in draft form and has also issued pieces of guidance as to the key phrase 'supervision, direction or control'. To recap, in order for the onshore intermediary legislation to apply: • the worker must personally provide services (which are

Introduction This Practice Note covers environmental compliance related to onshore infrastructure projects in England and Wales. This is a complex area and there are many areas of regulation, ranging from the requirement for environmental assessment, site preparation issues, the need for environmental permits, licences and consents, measures relating to the avoidance of pollution, nature and biodiversity considerations, pollution controls, chemicals, energy efficiency and emissions. Requirements will vary depending on the type of project, location, scale and environmental sensitivity of the area. Additional regimes will also need to be complied with which are beyond the scope of this Practice Note, eg planning requirements will need to be followed and necessary building controls and design and safety standards will need to be complied with, as well as applicable health and safety legislation, highways and utilities requirements and landowner/third party rights. For more information, see: • The planning regime for onshore wind generation in England and Wales • Building regulations for construction lawyers—overview • Design in construction projects—overview • Health and safety collection Types of onshore infrastructure projects Onshore infrastructure

For further practical guidance on key legal issues in the wind sector, see also textbook: Wind: Projects and Transactions. What is onshore wind? Onshore wind refers to wind turbines that are installed in land. Wind turbines harness the energy of moving air (wind) to produce electricity. Wind turbines components Wind turbines have blades which rotate around a hub (nacelle) at the top of a steel tower. Typically they have three blades with rotation around an horizontal axis. Sometimes they are configured with two blades, but these tend to be of a smaller scale. Horizontal axis wind turbines dominate the majority of the wind industry; these produce more electricity from a given amount of wind but perform less efficiently under turbulent wind conditions. Figure 1—example of horizontal axis turbines (source: WSP) Vertical axis designs have the advantage of rotational symmetry that allows being powered by the wind from all 360 degrees. The tower (or mast) is another essential part of a wind turbine system. The power output increases with the height of the turbine bringing the blades

Arbitration analysis: In Aroma Franchise Company, Inc v Aroma Espresso Bar Canada Inc 2024 ONCA 839, the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the ‘Court’) clarified the law pertaining to the assessment of arbitrators’ disclosure obligations and to challenges based on reasonable apprehension of bias. The Court held that the test that applies to an arbitrator’s duty to disclose under Ontario’s International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 2, Sch 5, which incorporates the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (‘Model Law’) is an objective one. The Court reinstated the arbitral award which had been set aside by the Superior Court based on a subjective approach to disclosure under the IBA Guidelines rather than the Model Law. Written by Philippe Boisvert and Dayeon Min, lawyers at Borden Ladner Gervais.

Arbitration analysis: the Court of Appeal for Ontario set aside an arbitration award because of the reasonable apprehension of bias arising out of ex parte communications between a party-appointed member of a three-person panel and counsel for that party. After a unanimous final award had been issued, the party who succumbed learned that officials from the prevailing party who had appointed that member had been communicating with him, notably regarding appointments to future arbitration panels. The finding of a reasonable apprehension of bias arising out of such conduct was not challenged on appeal, but the Court of Appeal proceeded with a detailed analysis of the Canadian approach to fair hearing breaches in commercial arbitration and held that the first judge had no discretion to uphold the award. Setting aside the award was the ‘only result that is appropriate in the circumstances’, the only one that ‘guarantees the integrity of the commercial arbitration process’. Written by Eric Bédard, FCIArb, partner at Woods LLP.

Arbitration analysis: George Karayannides, a partner at Clyde & Co Canada LLP, examines a decision of Ontario's Superior Court of Justice that fresh evidence in an application to set aside an arbitral tribunal’s award on jurisdiction under Articles 16 and 34 of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration could not be introduced as of right. The court accordingly held that as permission was required to file fresh evidence but the applicant (Russia) had not satisfied the test for obtaining it, the evidence was not admissible in its challenge to the decision of a tribunal seated in Toronto that it had jurisdiction to hear the respondent company’s claims that the applicant had violated certain provisions of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT).