This week's edition of Banking and Finance weekly highlights includes: (1) Our cases round-up from December 2025 and January 2026; (2) RICS publishes fourth edition of global ESG standard for commercial property valuation; and (3) LMA publishes guidance on sanctioned lenders in developing market syndicated loans.

This week's edition of Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights includes: an examination on the nature of the relationship between creditors and subject company in a company voluntary arrangement (Paramount Licensing Inc v Batty), an analysis on whether a company exiting administration should enter liquidation or be dissolved (Mittal v Berthier), the Insolvency Service’s newly released insolvency statistics for December 2024, plus a round-up of other news and cases for restructuring and insolvency professionals.

This week's edition of Competition weekly highlights includes, from a UK perspective: (1) the CMA’s decision to launch a consultation on proposed changes to the CMA’s guidance on applications for leniency and no-action in cartel cases, (2) publication by the CMA of guidance on how mergers are investigated, and (3) publication of guidance by the CMA on how it will deliver the 4Ps to support growth under the new digital markets competition regime. This week's highlights also includes, from an EU perspective: (1) the Commission’s decision to fine Apple €500m for breaching its anti-steering obligation under the DMA, (2) the Commission’s decision to close its investigation into Apple's user choice obligations under the DMA, (3) the Commission’s decision to issue its preliminary findings in relation to its non-compliance investigation into whether Apple’s new contractual requirements for alternative app distribution breach the DMA, (4) the Commission’s decision to fine Meta €200m for breaching the DMA obligation to give consumers the choice of a service that uses less of their personal data, (5) publication by the Commission of its second annual report on the DMA, (6) the Court of Justice’s judgment concerning a national reference from Poland on exemption from property tax, (7) a judgment from the General Court dismissing Symrise’s appeal against a dawn raid in the Commission’s fragrance cartel investigation, and (8) a judgment from the General Court dismissing an appeal regarding Deutsche Lufthansa’s challenge against the Commission’s decision to grant Frankhurt Hahn airport aid following referral back from Court of Justice.

This edition of Employment weekly highlights includes: (1) a Court of Appeal ruling dismissing Spain’s state immunity argument in a discrimination claim, (2) an EAT judgment considering the approach the employment tribunal should take when determining whether to make an order for re-engagement in an unfair dismissal claim, (3) an HMCTS announcement that implementation of the new employment tribunal Practice Directions in England, Wales and Scotland, originally scheduled to coincide with the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2025 on 6 January 2025, is now expected later in January 2025, (4) the Senior President of Tribunals’ Practice Statement authorising Legal Officers to exercise certain judicial functions in employment tribunals, (5) the forthcoming launch of Ireland–Employment law, a new offering on Lexis+ which includes a dedicated practical guidance module and a valuable new source of Irish Employment law cases, (6) dates for your diary, and (7) other news items of interest to employment practitioners.

This week's edition of Property weekly highlights includes: more on Budget 2025 and cases on specific performance, breach of covenant under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, insolvency and trespassers, letting agent regulatory breaches, VAT on supplies of land and SDLT and mixed use, multiple dwellings relief and separate residential transactions.

This week's edition of Commercial weekly highlights includes: a Court of Appeal decision in AXA France Iard S.A. v Santander Cards UK Ltd holding that an indemnity applied only to acts or omissions after the agreement had been entered into; a High Court decision in Bromcom Computers plc v Arbor Education Partners Ltd permitting an implied-misrepresentation conspiracy claim to proceed; and analysis of the Supreme Court's decision in Great Asia Maritime Ltd v Orion Shipping and Trading LLC on loss of bargain damages following contractual termination.

This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes a case in which the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) provided guidance on the ‘just and equitable’ test in relation to remediation contribution orders made under section 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (Grey Gr v Edgewater), an announcement from the Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) that the 2024 editions of several of its standard form contracts and documents will be released on 5 March 2025, publication of a National Procurement Policy Statement and the reissue of several Procurement Policy Notes ahead of the Procurement Act 2023 go-live, a case in which the Court of Session considered whether a pursuer could recover transferred loss in respect of defective wind turbines (Simmers v Green Cat), a case in which the Court of Appeal analysed the effect of a clause that excluded liability for loss of ‘anticipated profits’ (EE v Virgin Mobile), and the launch of a global survey by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) on improving the effectiveness of party-appointed expert witness evidence in alternative dispute resolution.

In brief Data protection laws in the UK seek to ensure information about living individuals (within the definition of ‘personal data’) is used fairly and responsibly. To help ensure that, UK data protection laws impose a large number of obligations on those ‘processing’ personal data (and on the controllers of such processing). The UK data protection regime expressly recognises that the processing of children’s personal data requires specific protection and provides enhanced protection for children’s personal data. This is because children may be less aware of the risks, consequences and safeguards concerned and their rights in relation to the processing of personal data. Those additional protections are also relevant to organisations which aren’t actively seeking to process children’s personal data (eg designing a service aimed at adults) since they will need to consider whether they may inadvertently end up processing children’s personal data (eg if a child accesses that service). Organisations that do not adequately protect children’s data protection rights and privacy are a particular focus of the UK Information Commission’s Office (ICO). For examples

This week's edition of Arbitration weekly highlights includes coverage of arbitration-related decisions from England and Wales, India and Singapore, updates from the PMAC and FIFA, and news of the consultation on proposed amendments to Hong Kong’s Arbitration Ordinance and the announcement of the programme and keynote speaker for London Arbitration Week 2026.. All this, and more, in our weekly highlights.

What are CCPs and what do they do? A central counterparty (CCP) is a type of financial institution (also known as a clearing house) which facilitates the clearing of both over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives and exchange-traded derivatives (ETDs). CCPs are classed as financial market infrastructures (FMIs). A derivative is a type of financial instrument whose value is determined by reference to (and so derived from) an underlying asset, index, rate, reference point or risk (referred to as the underlying asset or underlying). Derivatives are bi-lateral contracts which involve the transfer of all or part of the risk and reward associated with the underlying from one party to another without the immediate transfer of the underlying itself. The terms of OTC derivatives are agreed directly between the parties (or in some cases arranged through a broker). OTC derivatives can be distinguished from derivatives (usually futures or options) which are traded on public exchanges (exchange traded derivatives or ETDs). The terms of ETDs are specified by the exchanges on which they are traded, not by the parties. ETDs are, generally,

STOP PRESS: A significant restructuring of the UK listing regime came into effect on 29 July 2024, which included the removal of the premium and standard listing segments and the creation of a single listing category for equity shares in commercial companies. The commercial companies category is heavily disclosure-based and sits alongside other listing categories such as the shell companies, secondary listing and closed ended investment fund categories. A new UK Listing Rules sourcebook came into force to implement the changes and the previous Listing Rules sourcebook was revoked. For further information see Practice Note: Reform of the UK listing regime—fundamentals. This Checklist reflects the listing regime as it was prior to 29 July 2024. A limited company may buy back its own shares, if certain conditions set out in the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) are met. This is known as a share buyback or a purchase of own shares. In addition to the provisions of the CA 2006, there are other rules and guidelines that are relevant to a listed company or an AIM company.

This edition of Employment weekly highlights includes: (1) amendments to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to extend the right to work regime to ‘gig economy’ workers, (2) comments from Sophie Barrett-Brown of Laura Devine Immigration and Katie Newbury of Kingsley Napley on the government’s Immigration White Paper, (3) the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s extended consultation period for updates to the Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations, (4) an EAT case confirming that workers contracted via an employment business cannot make indirect discrimination claims based on discrepancies between their pay and that of directly employed workers, (5) a letter from the Department for Business and Trade announcing forthcoming extension to the whistleblowing regime in relation to UK sanctions, (6) a decision from the Supreme Court that Dyson cannot challenge jurisdiction in its forced labour case, (7) a Court of Appeal decision that the EAT interpretation of a ‘minor error’ under rule 37(6) of the EAT Rules was too narrow and (8) dates for your diary.