Background—the Francis Inquiry In June 2010, a full public inquiry into the Mid Staffordshire Foundation NHS Trust was announced. This was following concerns about standards of care at the Trust, and an investigation and report published by the (now abolished) Healthcare Commission in March 2009. The concerns were surrounding apparently high mortality rates in patients admitted as emergencies. The Inquiry was chaired by Robert Francis KC. The Francis Inquiry concluded that candour is an essential component in high quality healthcare, but that openness, transparency and candour are frequently not observed. Thus the introduction of a statutory duty of candour implements a key recommendation from the Inquiry. The duty of candour has also been coined Robbie’s Law, by the Action against Medical Accidents group after Robbie Powell who died in 1990. Statutory framework The regulations were made on 6 November 2014 in the form of a statutory instrument under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (HSCA 2008). The majority of the regulations were effective 21 days after the regulations were made, ie from 27

This Practice Note provides guidance on the ongoing duty of full and frank disclosure in financial proceedings, together with the possible consequences of any breach of duty, including the court drawing adverse inferences. It also considers the Supreme Court decisions in Sharland v Sharland and Gohil v Gohil, together with the professional duty not to knowingly mislead the court by providing incorrect or inaccurate information in relation to disclosure and the disclosure of documents to and by third parties. General principles There is an ongoing duty to provide full, frank and clear disclosure in financial proceedings. Such disclosure includes all material facts, documents and other information relevant to the issues in the case, together with any material changes after initial disclosure has been given. Such changes must be disclosed to the court and the other party at the earliest possible opportunity. As noted by Roberts J in AB v CD, ‘it is not for a litigant to judge the ambit of the duty to disclose or the consequences of disclosure; any information

All employees are under a duty of fidelity to their employer. The duty of fidelity is also known as the duty of good faith, or of loyalty. Fidelity is a broad concept containing a number of more specific duties, some of which overlap both with each other and with the duty of trust and confidence (see Practice Note: The term of trust and confidence): • to behave honestly—the duty of fidelity requires that an employee is honest in their dealings with their employer (see: Duty of fidelity—honesty, below) • not to work in competition—employees may not work for a competitor organisation (including one they have set up) during their employment (see: Duty of fidelity—competition and Duty of fidelity—Preparation to compete, below) • not to make a secret profit—employees must not make secret profit, and must give to their employer any money that they do make (see: Duty of fidelity—secret profit, below) • to disclose information—as with money, so all information created in the course of employment must be passed to the employer (see: Duty

Dispute Resolution analysis: This is the most recent episode in litigation between two Russian Oligarch and involves an application to set aside a worldwide freezing order (WFO) and permission for service out of jurisdiction (service out order) for failures in the duty of full and frank disclosure. There is an apparent conflict in recent judgments which have suggested that the duty of full and frank disclosure on without notice applications is the same for permission to serve out of jurisdiction as for WFO. Written by Lauren John Godfrey, barrister at Hardwicke Chambers, Lincoln’s Inn and lecturer in Commercial Law at Birkbeck College (University of London).

Circumstances in which the duty to give reasons for planning decisions arises In 2013, the statutory duty to give reasons for the grant of planning permission by local planning authorities (LPAs) was abolished. However, there are still certain circumstances in which a duty to give reasons for the grant or refusal of planning permission arises, either under specific statutory provisions or as a result of the common law ‘filling the gap’. The main categories of planning decisions where reasons need or may need to be given are: • decisions by the Secretary of State (including those delegated to inspectors): ◦ following an inquiry or hearing ◦ on written representations appeals ◦ in respect of call-in decisions • decisions at any level on applications for environmental impact assessment (EIA) development • decisions by LPAs: ◦ refusing planning permission ◦ imposing conditions ◦ granting planning permission ◦ granting planning permission through an officer under delegated powers Further details are set out below. Sources of the duty to give reasons Decisions

This Practice Note examines the obligation created by section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 on certain large commercial organisations to produce a modern slavery and human trafficking statement. It explains what is meant by modern slavery, what the section 54 duty involves, the suggested contents of the statement, which organisations are subject to the duty, how the statement should be prepared, approved and published, and the consequences of non-compliance. It also references the modern slavery statement registry and sets out expected legislative changes. Modern slavery is prevalent across the world. In 2021 the International Labour Organization (ILO) estimated that there were 28 million people in forced labour in the world. The UK government estimated that there were more than 10,000 potential victims of slavery in the UK in 2020. The government responded to this ongoing problem by enacting the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (MSA 2015). MSA 2015 is designed to tackle forced labour and human trafficking in the UK on a number of levels. One of these is the duty

The early conciliation (EC) requirement (also known as mandatory Acas early conciliation) is an obligation on a prospective claimant to contact Acas with certain information prior to submitting a claim in the employment tribunal. The EC requirement was introduced to: • allow Acas the opportunity to promote the settlement of employment-related disputes at an early stage, and • reduce the need for claims to be brought in the employment tribunal Acas conciliation involves an independent Acas conciliation officer (also known as a conciliator) discussing the issues in dispute with both parties in order to help them reach a better understanding of each other's position. The conciliation officer encourages the parties in dispute to reach an agreement between themselves in order to avoid the need for a tribunal hearing to resolve the matter. For further information on Acas conciliation generally, see Practice Note: Acas conciliation. Prospective claimants must comply with the EC requirement for most employment tribunal claims. See also: • The early conciliation requirement: relevant proceedings and extension of time limits—checklist • Does the early conciliation

The early conciliation (EC) requirement (also known as mandatory Acas early conciliation) is an obligation on a prospective claimant to contact Acas with certain information prior to submitting a claim in the employment tribunal, set out in section 18A(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (ETA 1996). For further information, see Practice Note: The early conciliation requirement. This Checklist sets out which claims are 'relevant proceedings', and which are subject to the early conciliation requirement either by reason of: • ETA 1996, s 18(1A), or • specific provision in the relevant legislation For further information on relevant proceedings, see Practice Note: The early conciliation requirement—Relevant proceedings. When a prospective claimant complies with the early conciliation requirement, there is (in almost all cases) a statutory extension to the normal time limit within which the claim must be presented to an employment tribunal. This Checklist also sets out where the relevant extension of time limit provisions can be found, and lists certain proceedings to which the extension provisions do not appear

The principle of economic continuity enables the European Commission (the Commission) to attribute liability for a violation of EU competition law to a legal entity who has not committed the infringement. This option, which is often presented as an exception to the principle of personal responsibility, is subject to narrow limits set by the EU Courts. Rationale behind the economic continuity principle Responsibility for committing a competition law infringement is, in principle personal, owing to the nature and degree of severity of the ensuing penalties. Accordingly, the Commission normally imputes liability on the legal person who ran the infringing business at the time the infringement was committed (the initial operator): this is the principle of personal responsibility. However, in certain cases, the formalistic application of the principle of personal responsibility may affect the Commission’s ability to ensure effective enforcement of competition law, either because the initial operator no longer exists or because it underwent organisational changes. Hence, the principle of economic continuity provides that, when adopting a decision imposing fines, the Commission may, by way of exception, attribute

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note considers what UK company law and regulation looked like at various stages in the Brexit process and the possible impact it had on corporate transactions. It reflects the position as at 31 December 2020 (IP completion day). It is not maintained and is for background information only. On 23 June 2016, the United Kingdom held a referendum on its membership of the EU, with a majority voting in favour of the United Kingdom leaving the EU (this option has become known as Brexit). For more information, see: LNB News 24/06/2016 1. For guidance on Brexit generally, see: Brexit collection and Practice Note: Brexit timeline [Archived]. Implementing Brexit In order to give effect to Brexit, there were several procedural hurdles to overcome. Reaching exit day On 29 March 2017, Theresa May MP, the then UK Prime Minister, gave formal notification of the UK's intention to withdraw from the EU (ie to Brexit), commencing the withdrawal process under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). Art 50 TEU

Employment analysis: Rule 52 of the ET Rules 2013 (which generally has the effect, on dismissal of a claim following withdrawal, that the claimant may not commence a further claim against the respondent raising the same, or substantially the same, complaint) does not prevent a second whistleblowing detriment claim being brought based on new treatment suffered as a result of the same protected disclosures relied on in a first whistleblowing detriment claim which has been withdrawn following settlement (because the second claim is not the same, or substantially the same, complaint as the first claim). However, the second claim may be struck out as an abuse of process, depending upon the terms on which the first claim was settled, according to the EAT.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Practical implications of West Tankers In summary, the effect of the West Tankers story (so far) is: • every court of an EU Member State seised of a dispute must determine whether it has jurisdiction to determine the dispute. It is contrary to Brussels I and the Brussels I (recast) for this power to be taken away from it by the courts of another Member State • an arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction to award damages for breach of an obligation to arbitrate In a case where jurisdictional issues may be argued between the parties (which is often the case), consider advising clients to seek a final award dealing with jurisdiction first and have that enforced and recognised by the court (the application would be made under the procedure set out in CPR 62). This will then prevent an inconsistent court judgment taking precedence, on the principle of issue estoppel. Subsequently, the parties can then proceed with the liability and quantum aspects in the