The organisations Detention Action, Bail for Immigration Detainees, Medical Justice and the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association have produced a series of briefings on the law, policy and practice of immigration detention, together with some recommendations to the government on changes they would like to see made.

An offer which is recommended to offeree shareholders by the board of directors of the offeree.

Property analysis: Edward Cumming, barrister at XXIV Old Buildings, examines the Supreme Court’s reconciliation in Wood v Capita of perceived differences in its earlier approaches to contractual interpretation. He also explains that lawyers should take note of the difficulty of applying what the Supreme Court views to be settled principles to individual contracts.

This Practice Note gives practical guidance on the reconsideration of the United Kingdom’s Trade Remedies Authority’s original decisions as well as appeals, to the Upper Tribunal of the United Kingdom’s Trade Remedy Authority’s reconsidered decisions and the Secretary of State’s decisions in relation to reconsidered decisions. It provides guidance on what types of decision can be reconsidered or appealed, how the reconsiderations or appeals will be conducted and what the outcome of any reconsideration nor appeal may be. Introduction Around the world, the decisions of investigating authorities are often questioned. If this happens, parties to the investigations normally have a few remedies available to them. In the case of the United Kingdom’s Trade Remedies Authority (TRA), parties may consider: • applying to the TRA to reconsider its decision; or • appealing the reconsidered decision to the Upper Tribunal Reconsideration of TRA’s decision The Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 provides that regulations may be promulgated that would make provision of the reconsideration by the TRA of its decisions. Such

Applications under sections 19–22 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) enable the Crown Court to revisit certain confiscation decisions where the statutory conditions are met. This procedure applies when a prosecutor, in view of fresh evidence, wants the court to either: • reconsider making a confiscation order where the defendant was convicted but no such order was made • reconsider the defendant's benefit from criminal conduct where no confiscation order was made • reconsider the defendant’s benefit from criminal conduct where a confiscation order was made • reconsider the available amount where a confiscation order was made Where a defendant wants to seek relief because their available amount has become inadequate, the appropriate procedure is to apply to vary the confiscation order under POCA 2002, s 23. See Practice Note: Confiscation orders—to vary or discharge. Practitioners should be aware of the potential for default sentences to increase in conjunction with applications to reconsider confiscation orders and should advise their clients accordingly. For more information, see Practice Note: Default term in confiscation. Reconsideration

This Practice Note discusses the discretionary power of an employment tribunal to reconsider (or review) its own judgment. It provides guidance on when and how this power is triggered, and examines the general principles that apply in the exercise of the discretion. It covers the extent to which tribunals should take into account analogously relevant provisions in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 3.9, CPR 1.1) when it comes to the reconsideration of a judgment in which sanctions for non-compliance with tribunal rules or orders are imposed. It discusses the reconsideration of Rule 22 judgments, and explains the distinction between judgments and case management orders, and how a case management order can be clarified or set aside. It sets out how a party may apply for reconsideration and the possible outcomes. It also deals with the power to correct clerical mistakes in tribunal documents. A party who is dissatisfied with a judgment of an employment tribunal may appeal against the decision in certain circumstances, usually to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) (for further information, see: EAT—overview).

When deciding whether to reconsider a judgment an Employment Judge should take into account the wider effects that any new evidence has on the credibility of the parties as that may have an important influence on the result of the case. In doing so, the Judge should consider the evidence in its entirety rather than looking at each piece of evidence in isolation. EAT: SQR Security Solutions v Badu.

Employment analysis: In this judgment, the EAT provides guidance on three aspects of employment tribunal procedure: (i) the ambit of the framework under the tribunal rules regarding applications for reconsideration of a judgment, (ii) the circumstances in which the Article 8 ECHR right to respect for private and family life may be engaged in the context of applications under Rule 50 for anonymisation etc and (iii) the proper approach to the test for ‘exceptional circumstances’ when considering an application for a postponement or adjournment to which rule 30A applies (ie one made at late notice or after multiple postponements).

Corporate Crime analysis: On 27 June 2024, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against the judgment of Mr. Justice Dove to refuse a judicial review of three UK law enforcement authorities’ decisions not to investigate potential criminal offences connected to the importation of cotton products from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China (‘XUAR’). The court concluded that the National Crime Agency’s (NCA) decision proceeded on the basis of an error of law regarding the ‘adequate consideration’ exemption to the section 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) offence (acquiring, using, or possessing criminal property). The correct interpretation is that paying fair value for criminal property does not ‘cleanse’ the property such there can be no commission of subsequent or concurrent POCA 2002 offences. The court quashed the High Court decision and remitted the relevant investigatory decisions back to the NCA. Written by Laurence Harris, Mountford Chambers.

This Practice Note examines the debtor’s right under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974) to receive a copy of their executed credit agreement, including when and how a request for a reconstituted agreement can be made, and the practical considerations for both the creditor and the debtor. Legal and evidential context Under CCA 1974, a debtor under a regulated credit agreement is generally entitled to receive a copy of the executed agreement into which they entered. Further, in litigation a creditor may be required to disclose a copy of the executed credit agreement as proof that as a matter of common law a contract existed, or as proof of the terms of the agreement, or as proof that various statutory requirements (eg concerning warnings and notices) were given. In both scenarios the question arises as to what constitutes a copy of the executed credit agreement within the meaning of the CCA 1974 and as a general matter of evidence. Statutory right to a copy of the executed credit agreement The starting points

A limited company having a share capital has historically been permitted by statute, most recently by the (now repealed) provisions of the Companies Act 1985 (CA 1985), to: • convert all or any of its fully paid shares into stock, and • reconvert all and any of its stock into fully paid shares of any denomination CA 1985, s 121 provided that a company must be authorised by its articles of association to exercise those powers and each such power was to be exercised by a resolution of the company’s shareholders passed at a general meeting. Since 1 October 2009 and the coming into force of section 540(2) of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), it has not been possible for a company to convert its shares into stock (unless the conversion was approved before that date). However, a company that converted fully paid shares into stock before 1 October 2009 may still reconvert that stock into fully paid shares of any nominal value in accordance with the provisions of CA 2006, s 620. The nature

Print or view a full-size PDF versio