This week's edition of Life Sciences weekly highlights includes analysis by Taylor Wessing LLP of damages quantification methodologies in the long-running Merck v Merck Sharpe & Dohme trade mark infringement case. Also included, is several stories covering the European Commission announcing its bold Apply AI and AI in Science strategies to advance the adoption of AI in scientific research, the Commission also has launched the AI Act Service Desk and Single Information Platform to support implementation of the AI Act, the EMA has launched a survey to identify key research priorities for AI in the development and evaluation of medicines and published its European Medicines Agencies Network Data Strategy, MedTech Europe published a reflection paper responding to the Commission’s Chemicals Industry Action Plan calling for realistic transition pathways and continued access to essential chemicals like PFAS in their downstream use for critical medical technologies and the DHSC launched a consultation to shape new regulations on the sale and composition of tobacco, vape and nicotine products. Further news includes stories that the British health technology industry body (ABHI) published its response to an EU consultation on proposed revisions to the EU medical device legislation, the EU pharmaceutical industry called for refinement of certain provisions in the EU’s General Pharmaceutical Legislation reform package, the UK High Court found that the DHSC was still entitled to some damages for Medpro’s breach of contract despite the DHSC failing to reject the PPE gowns within time, the MHRA halved clinical trial approval times to 41 days following regulatory reforms and digital platforms introduced in 2023, and the Commission has formally withdrawn the AI Liability Act; among other stories.

Arbitration analysis: This is a relatively rare instance of English courts refusing to recognise and enforce an arbitration award on the basis that doing so would be contrary to UK public policy. The case is a notable addition to the growing case law dealing with crypto-assets disputes, which are spurring the courts to look anew at the impact of the enforcement of awards on public policy in this sphere of financial activity. Mr Chechetkin is a UK-domiciled lawyer. In 2020, he used a cryptocurrency exchange platform operated by Payward’s UK subsidiary to acquire trading positions. He incurred losses in excess of £600,000 on the platform and initiated proceedings in the English courts to recover his funds, arguing that Payward’s operations were unauthorised in the UK, and thus that his contract with Payward was unenforceable under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000). Payward’s terms and conditions governing trading on the platform provided that any disputes be resolved through Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (‘JAMS’) arbitration in San Francisco. Payward started arbitration proceedings pursuant to its terms and obtained an award in 2022 declaring that it bore no liability to Mr Chechetkin, and that Mr Chechetkin was required to arbitrate his disputes with Payward. Payward started enforcement proceedings before the English courts. Mr Chechetkin invoked section 103(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), whereby the court may refuse enforcement on the ground of ‘public policy’. In this case, the public policy grounds are the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015) and the FSMA. Written by Sophie Nappert, independent arbitrator at 3 Verulam Buildings and co-founder of ArbTech, and Elisabeth Zoe Everson, co-founder of ArbTech.

The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry, chaired by Sir Wyn Williams, has published the first volume of its final report. The inquiry is tasked with producing a public summary of the failings of the Horizon IT system at the Post Office, which led to the suspension, contract termination, prosecution and conviction of sub-postmasters. The 162-page report, laid before Parliament on 8 July 2025, focuses on the human impact of the scandal. The findings are based on hearings and evidence submitted up to 6 June 2025, involving approximately 225 days of hearings, 298 witnesses and over 250,000 documents. The report outlines 19 urgent recommendations to ensure full and fair redress for affected sub-postmasters and their families, starting with calls for a public announcement from the government and the Post Office on the agreed definition of ‘full and fair financial redress’, to ensure consistency across all schemes. The report makes a number of specific recommendations relating to the Horizon Shortfall Scheme (HSS) and related schemes, including a revised of deadline of 27 November 2025 for further HSS claims, access to legal advice funded by the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) for all HSS claimants, and the appointment of a senior lawyer to the HSS with powers to ensure that full and fair offers are delivered as soon as possible. The report also recommends the creation of a process for providing fair financial redress to close family members of those most adversely affected by Horizon. Further proposals include the creation of a standing public body, acting as a compensating authority, to devise and manage compensation schemes for victims of wrongdoing by public bodies. The government (and where appropriate the Post Office and Fujitsu) must respond to the recommendations in writing by 10 October 2025, and report on progress regarding any agreed programme of restorative justice by 31 October 2025.

A receivable which is payable by a debtor domiciled outside the UK. Typically the contract of sale referable to the debt is governed by English law and disputes must be resolved in the English courts.

Joint and several liability arises where two or more persons under the same contract make a promise to the same person, and at the same time each of them individually makes the same promise to that same person.

A certificate or statement issued pursuant to the building contract by the architect or employer's agent confirming that practical completion has been achieved and the date on which it occurred.

Joint operating agreement (JOA) is a contract to regulate the rights and obligations of multiple parties to an oil and gas concession, covering all phases of the concession's lifecycle

Arises when gains and losses on an effective hedging arrangement, such as an swap'>interest rate swap or forward currency contract, are permitted by the relevant financial reporting framework to be shown outside profit or loss.

Updated December 2025 Introduction The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is strategically located at the crossroads of major Western and Eastern economies. It is a constitutional federation of seven Emirates, each with its own local government, united under the overarching leadership of the Supreme Council and the Council of Ministers. As a member of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), the UAE is part of the Middle East's only multi-national common market, with the aim to further cross-border economic and fiscal integration. Doing business in the UAE presents diverse opportunities for investors. This Practice Note outlines key considerations for foreign entities entering the UAE market and the fundamental steps required to establish operations. This Practice Note focuses on business set-up in Mainland UAE, the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), and the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC). While these jurisdictions are discussed in detail, investors may explore numerous other options across the UAE's extensive network of free zones, each offering distinct benefits and regulatory frameworks.

FORTHCOMING CHANGES: In measures expected to come into force on 1 October 2026, time limits for making certain claims in employment tribunals in Great Britain (and, in certain cases, industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland) will be increased from three months to six months. The changes are set out in section 152 of the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025) and ERA 2025, Schedule 12 (not yet in force), and in The Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026 (draft), The Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 (draft) and The Employee Study and Training (Procedural Requirements) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, SI 2026/473. This Practice Note will be updated as soon as the relevant statutory instruments are made. For more information, see Practice Note: Employment Rights Act 2025—tracker. This Practice Note contains a high-level, low detail guide to all our materials relating to protections and liabilities arising out of acts and omissions that amount to sex discrimination or other forms of prohibited conduct that are connected to sex. The

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes: analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including the Supreme Court decision in THG Plc v Zedra Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd (limitation) and the Court of Appeal decisions in Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation v Dechert LLP (court’s case management powers); South Bank Hotel Management Company Ltd v Galliard Hotels Ltd; Lodgeshine Ltd v South Bank Hotel Management Company Ltd (limitation) and Fridman v Agrofirma Oniks LLC (cross-border service); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

This week's edition of Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights includes: an examination of an application to move a company from liquidation to administration under paragraph 38 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) (Re Mannarest Ltd), consideration of the effect of filing a notice under IA 1986, Sch B1, para 84(4) on an administration (Wonop APS v Jagger), an analysis of a judgment annulling a bankruptcy order where the main assets of the debtor are located outside of the UK (Nilsson and Carter v Jones), plus a round-up of other news and cases for restructuring and insolvency professionals.