Self‑executing describes a legal provision, instrument or arrangement that takes effect automatically, without needing further court order, legislative action or additional implementing steps. In UK and Irish practice it is a descriptive expression rather than a generally defined statutory term, and its meaning derives from context and case law usage. A self‑executing clause in a contract or trust (for example, an automatic acceleration clause, step‑in right or forfeiture provision) operates once specified conditions are met, with no further decision or act required by the parties. In public and constitutional law, a self‑executing treaty or statutory provision is one that can be applied directly by courts and public bodies without additional implementing legislation, although many international obligations in the UK and Ireland are not self‑executing and require domestic enactment. Across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, usage is broadly consistent: the focus is on whether the legal mechanism is sufficient in itself to create, modify or terminate rights or obligations, and whether courts will give it direct effect without additional procedural steps.

Self-incrimination refers to a person exposing themself, directly or indirectly, to criminal liability through their own statements, documents, acts or omissions, for example when giving evidence, answering police questions or complying with investigatory powers. Across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, the concept underpins the privilege against self-incrimination, closely linked to the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. It arises in criminal proceedings, regulatory investigations, civil disclosure and inquiries. The privilege is principally shaped by case law and human rights instruments (notably Article 6 ECHR), and is reflected in statutory provisions such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (and equivalent legislation), compulsory interview regimes, and investigative powers with use and derivative-use immunity. Key issues for practitioners include: when a person can refuse to answer questions; the admissibility of compelled answers; inferences from silence; protections for suspects, accused persons and witnesses; and limits to the privilege (e.g. production of pre-existing documents, company records). Usage and core principles are broadly consistent across the UK and Ireland, though detailed procedural rules and statutory frameworks vary by jurisdiction and context.

This is a personal pension plan that allows a member to select the scheme’s investments.

Pension whereby individuals can make their own investment decisions from the range investments approved by HMRC. A wider range of investments is possible than in other personal pension schemes, notably commercial property and equities.

FORTHCOMING CHANGE : On 22 June 2026, the FCA published consultation paper CP26/20, proposing new rules to strengthen consumer protection in the SIPP market. The proposals would introduce clearer, proportionate due diligence requirements for SIPP operators in relation to relevant third parties and investments, including core checks applying in all cases and additional checks for higher-risk investments. They would also establish a new Pension Scheme Money and Assets regime in COBS 19B for SIPP money and assets not already subject to the Client Assets Sourcebook (CASS), covering record-keeping, reconciliations, discrepancies and oversight of assets held by third parties. The consultation closed on 24 August 2026, and the FCA expects to publish its policy statement and final Handbook amendments in the first half of 2027. The proposals provide for a 12-month implementation period for the due diligence requirements and a two-year period for the new money and assets requirements, with a possible additional year for certain existing third-party relationships. For further information, see: Pensions weekly highlights—25 June 2026 — Personal pensions. When

This is where a scheme's assets are invested in connection with the employer's business.

Self-reporting is the process by which financial or other wrongdoing within a business is reported to regulators and/or law enforcement agencies, either because it is required under statute or regulations (mandatory) or, where there is no positive obligation to do so, it is nonetheless considered necessary to do so with a view to achieving lenient treatment and/or avoidance of prosecution (voluntary). In the UK, mandatory self-reporting is required in the context of: • health and safety at work • environmental • financial and trade sanctions • anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF), and • financial regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) Voluntary self-reporting arises principally in the context of: • anti-bribery and corruption (ABC) • ‘failure to prevent’ (FtP) offences Mandatory self-reporting A number of regulatory regimes impose actual, or effective, mandatory self-reporting regimes. Some of the regimes which corporate crime lawyers often advise upon are outlined below. Health and safety at work and environmental A mandatory scheme exists within health and safety and environmental

This Practice Note provides guidance on the self-reporting regime operating in Scotland in relation to certain economic crime offences. For guidance on the law enforcement agencies and prosecutors in Scotland in relation to economic and financial crime offences, see Practice Note: The investigation and prosecution of financial crime in Scotland. For guidance on sentencing in Scotland, see Practice Notes: The jurisdiction and sentencing powers of Scottish criminal courts and Sentencing corporate criminal offences in Scotland. Self-reporting bribery in Scotland Since 1 July 2011, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) has offered businesses the opportunity to self-report bribery offences to COPFS in return for the opportunity to negotiate an alternative to prosecution by way of a civil settlement. For guidance on the territorial application for the prosecution of offences under BA 2010, see Practice Note: Bribery Act 2010—jurisdictional issues between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Details of concluded civil settlements are generally published by COPFS. Media releases detailing concluded corporate self-reports and civil settlements include: • Abbot Group Limited—£5.6m settlement

Where a supply is made both by a business in the course or furtherance of it and to the same business for the purpose of that business.

To: [insert name of Trustee] I refer to the agreement that I entered into on [date] with you and [insert name of the Company whose shares are under the JSOP award] (the Company), under which I jointly acquired Shares in the Company with

[Letterhead of offeror] To: [insert name and address of shareholder] [insert date] Dear Shareholder Offer by [insert name of offeror] (the Offeror) to acquire [all] the issued [and to be issued] [ordinary] shares of [insert value]p each (ordinary shares) in [insert name of offeree] PLC (the Company) [(other than those already owned by the Offeror)] (the Offer) We refer to the offer document dated [insert date] (the Offer Document) in which we offered to acquire all the issued [and to be issued] ordinary share capital of the Company[(other than shares already owned by the Offeror)]. As you may be aware, the Offer was declared unconditional on [insert date][, and closed on [insert date]]. As at 3.00 pm on this [last] date, the Offeror had,

See Compulsory acquisition. CA 2006, ss 974–991 contains provisions requiring an offeror, following a takeover offer, to acquire offeree shares for which acceptances have not been received or given under the offer on the same terms as the offer. A minority shareholder may exercise sell-out rights if the offeror acquires 90% of all the offeree shares (and not just those to which the offer relates).