The Assured Shorthold Tenancy Notices and Prescribed Requirements (England) Regulations (Prescribed Requirement Regs 2015), SI 2015/1646, reg 1(3) and 1(4) provide that: ‘(3) Subject to paragraph (4), these Regulations apply in relation to an assured shorthold tenancy of a dwelling-house in England granted on or after 1st October 2015. (4) These Regulations do not apply to an assured shorthold tenancy that came into being under section 5(2) of the Housing Act 1988 on or after 1st

This Practice Note provides an introduction to the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA) and offers an overview of arbitrating under the institution’s most recent arbitration rules, which took effect on 1 April 2021. This Practice Note is not intended to be an exhaustive guide to ACICA arbitration or a substitute for carefully considering the application of the ACICA arbitration rules as relevant to your dispute. What is ACICA? ACICA is Australia’s international dispute resolution institution. Established in 1985 as an independent, not-for-profit organisation, ACICA’s objective is to promote and facilitate the efficient resolution of commercial disputes throughout Australia and internationally by arbitration and mediation, with the aim of delivering expediency and neutrality of process, enforceability of outcome and commercial privacy to parties in dispute. ACICA is the sole default appointing authority competent to perform the arbitrator appointment functions under the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth). The ACICA Arbitration Rules The

TMT analysis: Brian Wong and Lucy Pegler, Partners of Burges Salmon, consider the importance of the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 (AVA 2024) and the timeline of the Act’s implementation, among other things.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’s Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), also known as the BEPS Multilateral Instrument (MLI), gives effect to the BEPS Actions that required changes to double tax treaties (DTTs), without the need for each treaty to be separately renegotiated. When a taxpayer seeks to rely on a DTT, their adviser should consider whether the relevant article of that treaty is affected by the MLI. This is most obviously the case where the provision is directly modified by the MLI (for instance, in relation to permanent establishments or hybrid entities), but it is also important to consider the potential for the treaty abuse aspects of the MLI to affect the availability of other treaty benefits. For example, the MLI does not directly modify the dividend or interest articles of treaties, but the principal purpose test has the potential to deny the benefits that those articles would otherwise provide. The UK, like other signatories to the MLI, has published ‘synthesised

Scope of this Practice Note This Practice Note introduces the Bank of England (BoE) and provides links to key materials. It outlines key functions and relevant committees and introduces the BoE’s role in relation to recognised clearing houses and settlement, payments and cash. It also outlines how its role has changed since the BoE was founded. For more information on the UK financial services regulators, see: UK regulators—financial services—overview and The regulators—checklist [Archived] and for more information on the BoE interacts with the other UK financial services regulators, see Practice Note: Interaction between the PRA, FCA and FPC. History of the BoE—at the heart of the UK financial system The BoE was founded in 1694 and has been central to the UK’s financial system since this time. Originally set up as a private bank that was acting as a banker to the Government, it was nationalised under the Bank of England Act 1946 because of its importance to the UK’s economy. In 1997, the BoE was granted independence in some of its areas to ensure its

The Bar Council has published its updated guidance on the use of ChatGPT and other generative artificial intelligence (AI) large language model systems (LLMs) following recent High Court case law and various technological developments. It concludes that barristers should understand these systems and, where appropriate, use them responsibly to ensure accuracy and compliance with laws, rules and professional codes of conduct. The guidance highlights key risks, including anthropomorphism, hallucinations, information disorder, bias in data training, mistakes and confidential data training. The Council notes that the guidance does not constitute ‘guidance’ for the purposes of the BSB Handbook I6.4.

Title The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal Entry into Force 5 May 1992 Amendments The Ban Amendment, Plastic Waste Amendment Implementing legislation EU Waste Shipment Regulation (EC) 1013/2006The Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations, SI 2007/1711 Subject Transboundary Movements of Waste Background and purpose of the Basel Convention The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (the Convention) came into force on 5 May 1992, having been adopted on 22 March 1989. The Convention arose out of global concern about the increase in exports of hazardous waste to developing countries during the 1970s and 1980s. It had become widely recognised that if these exports were not properly regulated their movement could pose a threat to human health and the environment. The United Nations Environment Programme listed the export of hazardous waste as one of three priority areas during its Programme on Environmental Law in Montevideo in 1981.As at April 2026, there

This Practice Note contains Q&As on practical execution issues on the following key aspects of executing documents in commercial transactions. • Authority to execute • Executing contracts • Executing deeds • Counterparts • Dating • Witnesses • Mistakes in executing documents Authority to execute • What is the process for authorising a non-director to sign contracts on behalf of a company? • Can a manager who is not a director sign a simple contract on behalf of a company? If so, what is required to show authority to sign? • What evidence should be sought to ascertain the status and authority of the person signing a deed as a partner on behalf of a general partnership? • Can a Head of Finance of one company in a group of companies sign the contractual documents of another company in the same group? What formalities are required for any such signature to be valid? • Can a third party rely on ostensible/apparent authority where they know the person signing a document is an employee of a company not

Commercial analysis: Victoria Hobbs, partner, and Matthew Pack, senior associate, at Bird & Bird look at the High Court’s findings in the case of The Burke Partnership v The Body Shop International Limited and its implications for franchisors with existing or proposed long-term contracts with their franchisees.

Banking & Finance analysis: Garon Anthony, banking litigation partner at Squire Patton Boggs, examines the recent High Court decision of UBS AG v Rose Capital Venture Ltd and others. The High Court found that because a mortgage agreement between the claimant lender and the first defendant borrower entitled the claimant to call for repayment of the loan at its 'absolute discretion', the claimant did not have a duty under Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd to exercise its discretion in a manner which was not irrational, arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.

Arbitration analysis: In this case, the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice considered an exequatur request to enforce a decision by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales regarding the reimbursement of litigation costs incurred by the claimant. The Superior Court determined that analysing public policy offences related to the decision's provisions, which prohibit the filing of further legal actions and establish civil imprisonment for non-compliance, was irrelevant to the exequatur, as the claimant did not seek enforcement of those particular decisions. The ruling is consistent with the court’s jurisprudence since the statute 13.105/15 came into force, when the court started granting partial exequatur to parts of decisions that are in line with what the court considers to be public policy (see, for example, E.S. vs M.A.P., HDE 176, 15/08/2018).

The Bribery Act 2010 (BA 2010) was passed to ensure the UK’s compliance with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD) Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. It was designed to provide an effective legal framework to tackle corruption in both the public and private sectors, modernising the UK’s anti-corruption legislation and replacing the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 and Prevention of Corruption Act 1916. BA 2010 has major implications for any business that is incorporated or trades in the UK. It applies to bribery committed by it, or on its behalf, anywhere in the world. Offences under the Bribery Act 2010 BA 2010 criminalises four distinct types of conduct (offences): • bribing another person (BA 2010, s 1) • soliciting or accepting a bribe (BA 2010, s 2) • bribing a foreign public official (BA 2010, s 6), and • (for a business only) failing to prevent bribery (BA 2010, s 7) Broadly, these offences concern the offering, giving, requesting or accepting