Following several cases before the courts and authoritative analysis and reports, it is broadly settled that, under English law, cryptoassets are not things in possession or things in action, but, rather, they are a third category of property (data objects). The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) creates (broadly) two regimes for the realisation of the proceeds of crime: • a conviction-based restraint and confiscation regime under POCA 2002, Pt 2, which is criminal in nature and dealt with predominantly by the criminal courts pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 (CrimPR 2025), SI 2025/909, and • a non-conviction based asset recovery regime under POCA 2002, Pt 5, which sits within the civil jurisdiction. At a high level, in England and Wales, this culminates in: ◦ proceedings for the freezing and forfeiture of (i) cash, (ii) high value items of personal property and (iii) money in accounts held with financial institutions (FIs), which may be brought before the magistrates' court under its

This Practice Note examines the powers to search for, detain and recover cryptoassets, or cryptoasset-related items, in restraint and confiscation proceedings. For information on the civil recovery regime relating to cryptoassets, see Practice Note: Search, detention, recovery and conversion of cryptoassets under POCA 2002—civil recovery. Following several cases before the courts and authoritative analysis and reports, it is broadly settled that, under English law, cryptoassets are not things in possession or things in action, but, rather, they are a third category of property (data objects). The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) creates (broadly) two regimes for the realisation of the proceeds of crime: • a restraint and conviction-based confiscation regime under POCA 2002, Pt 2, which is criminal in nature and dealt with predominantly by the criminal courts pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Rules, and • a non-conviction based asset recovery regime under POCA 2002, Pt 5, which sits within the civil jurisdiction. At a high level, in England

Enforcement under the Food Safety Act An authorised officer of an enforcement authority has a right to enter any premises within the authority's area, at all reasonable hours, to ascertain whether there is, or has been, any contravention of the Food Safety Act 1990 (FSA 1990) on the premises. The officer must be able to produce some duly authenticated document showing their authority if they are requested to by the occupant. An authorised officer also has the power to enter any business premises, either within or outside the authority's area, to ascertain whether there is any evidence of any contravention, within that area, of the FSA 1990 on the premises. An authorised officer of a food authority may also enter any premises in order to perform their functions under the FSA 1990. If the premises is only used as a private dwelling-house, access to the premises should not be demanded as of right unless 24 hours' notice of the intended entry has been given to

This Deed is made the [insert date and month] 20[insert year] Parties 1 [Insert client's full name] of [insert client’s full address] (‘the Client'), and 2 [Insert the [members OR partners]] at the date of this Deed of the firm of solicitors practising as [insert name and address of law firm] (‘the Assignee’) Whereas: (A) In proceedings in the [insert name of court] under matter number [insert matter number] (the Proceedings) in which the Client is the [petitioner OR applicant OR respondent] in the divorce proceedings and the [applicant OR respondent] in the financial remedy proceedings and their spouse [insert name of spouse] (‘[insert title and surname of spouse]’) is the [petitioner OR applicant OR respondent] in the divorce proceedings and the [applicant OR respondent] in the financial remedy proceedings, the Client seeks:

An agreement between a client and a solicitor providing for delayed payment for work undertaken by the solicitor by way of an assisgment of rights in assets to be secured.

This Practice Note sets out guidance on Sears Tooth agreements, whereby a party to family proceedings assigns part of a future interest to their solicitors to meet their legal costs, and details the guidance given by the courts as to the appropriate circumstances for such an agreement and the requirement for independent legal advice. The Family Procedure Rules 2010, SI 2010/2955, 1.1 sets out the overriding objective, including that dealing with a case justly includes ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing. A Sears Tooth agreement may enable a spouse or civil partner who does not have the financial means to pay legal fees to obtain proper advice and representation within family proceedings. For alternative methods of funding, see also Practice Notes: Funding—legal services orders and costs allowances and Eligibility for family legal aid. The Sears Tooth case Assignment of potential rights In Sears Tooth v Payne Hicks Beach, the court considered the validity of a deed of assignment in which the wife had agreed to assign her rights in any financial provision and costs

A seasoned issuer is a company that already has securities admitted to trading on a public market and has an established track record of compliance with listing, disclosure and corporate governance requirements. In practice, it contrasts with a first‑time or “new” issuer. The term is mainly a market and regulatory concept rather than a defined statutory term. In the UK, it is used in the context of the FCA’s Listing Rules, the Prospectus Regulation Rules and MAR, for example when considering reduced disclosure for secondary offerings or the treatment of further share issues by companies with a track record on a regulated market. Similar ideas appear in EU/Irish prospectus, listing and transparency regimes, where an issuer’s history of compliance and market presence is relevant to available regulatory flexibilities. Across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, usage is broadly consistent: a seasoned issuer is typically a listed or quoted company with an established trading history and regulatory track record, affecting prospectus requirements, eligibility for fast‑track admissions, ongoing disclosure expectations and the due diligence approach of underwriters and advisers.

The jurisdiction in which an arbitration is deemed legally to take place and the award issued, regardless of the geographical location of the tribunal and/or any hearings. The seat also determines the legal system that, generally, provides the arbitration’s procedure and which courts have supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitration.

Arbitration analysis: This case involves a lawsuit to set aside an award rendered in an LCIA arbitration, under the UNCITRAL Rules, seated in London, England. The case was dismissed by the Judge of First Instance on the grounds that Brazilian Courts lack jurisdiction to set aside an award rendered abroad. The appealing party (Sinopec) alleged that the arbitration was actually conducted, and the award was physically rendered, in Brazil. Moreover, it argued Brazilian law was applicable to the merits of the arbitration. For these reasons, it sought to reverse the dismissal of the case and affirm the jurisdiction of the Courts of Rio de Janeiro. The Court of Appeals confirmed the decision of first instance and highlighted the relevance of the contractual choice of the seat of the arbitration by the parties. If the parties chose to have a foreign award they cannot sue to set it aside in Brazil. Written by Rodrigo Garcia da Fonseca, admitted to practice in Brazil, partner of Fonseca e Salles Lima Advogados Associados and President of The Centre of Mediation and Arbitration of the Brazil-Canada Chamber of Commerce (CAM-CCBC).

Commercial analysis: One week after the initiation of its first investigation into whether Google has strategic market status (SMS) in relation to its general search and search advertising services under the new digital markets competition regime, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has launched a further two parallel investigations into whether Apple and Google have SMS in relation to their mobile ecosystems. If the CMA investigations determine that Apple and/or Google have SMS in mobile ecosystems, the CMA will then have to decide whether to implement any measures to protect competition. Written by Daniel Hunt, partner, Giulia Trojano, senior associate, and Nanret Senok, associate, of Hausfeld & Co LLP.

Arbitration analysis: On 6 February 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that a contractual waiver of the ‘right to appeal’ was not clear and unequivocal and therefore could not preclude the appellate court from reviewing the district court’s judgment on the arbitral award. Practitioners should note that ambiguous or overly broad appellate waivers are unlikely to bar review, reinforcing the need for precise drafting of waiver clauses and for anticipating potential appeals following award confirmation. Written by David Earnest, Charles (Chip) Rosenberg, and Isabelle Gonzalez Roy, Diamond McCarthy LLP.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Commercial Court has refused to grant a judgment creditor a second order under CPR Part 71 to examine a former director of the judgment debtor about the company’s ability to pay the judgment debt. At an earlier examination, the director had committed contempt of court and was given a suspended sentence of imprisonment. Written by Phillip Patterson, barrister, Gatehouse Chambers.