Export controls There are strict controls on the export, brokering and transshipment of ‘strategic’ goods, software, technology, as well as items which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, from and through the UK. This includes military equipment and ‘dual-use’ items that can be used for both civil and military purposes. For guidance on whether the controls apply, see Practice Note: Export controls—requirement for an export licence. The Export Control Joint Unit (ECJU), a unit of the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, is responsible for licensing items subject to strategic export controls and for monitoring exporters’ compliance with those controls. Licensing requirements arising solely under UK trade sanctions regimes (rather than strategic export controls) may instead fall within the remit of the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation (OTSI), depending on the nature of the prohibition engaged. Licensing for goods and ancillary services which are subject to both strategic export controls and trade sanctions, as well as goods and ancillary

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (SAMLA 2018) is the UK’s domestic sanctions framework. See Practice Notes: The UK sanctions framework under SAMLA 2018 and UK sanctions regimes currently in force. When advising in relation to the sanctions breaches and enforcement, practitioners should always reference the specific sanctions statutory instrument in order to confirm the relevant prohibitions, exclusions and enforcement powers relating to that specific sanctions regime. Who is responsible for enforcing financial sanctions in the UK? In the UK, the enforcement of financial sanctions is the responsibility of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI), which is part of HM Treasury. OFSI’s role is to administer and enforce financial sanctions in the UK. In broad terms, ‘financial sanctions’ refers to the designation of persons and entities, and the imposition of prohibitions on the carrying out of financial transactions with them. For information about financial sanctions, see Practice Notes: Understanding the financial sanctions regime, Licences and exemptions in financial sanctions and Financial sanctions—offences. Different government departments

Trade sanctions are measures which restrict the direct or indirect import and export of goods, non-financial services or technology in relation to, or for use in or by a particular country, region or person. The UK uses sanctions to fulfil a range of purposes, including supporting foreign policy and national security objectives, as well as maintaining international peace and security, and preventing terrorism. UK sanctions regimes apply under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (SAMLA 2018). These regimes apply to the whole of the UK, including Northern Ireland. UK trade sanctions therefore apply to:  • all individuals or businesses within the territory and territorial sea of the UK, and • all UK nationals or UK businesses established under UK law, wherever they are in the world This Practice Note explains the enforcement of trade sanctions in the UK. For more information on trade sanctions, see Practice Notes: Understanding the UK trade sanctions regime, Trade sanctions—offences and Licences and exceptions in trade sanctions. For more

Corporate Crime analysis: The Court of Appeal has provided detailed analysis of complex Strasbourg case law and domestic jurisprudence on when the positive obligations imposed by Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) apply to inquests into the death of vulnerable adults, subject to the deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS), whose deaths may have followed on from errors in medical care and treatment. The Court of Appeal, dismissing the appeal, held that the coroner was right to conclude on the evidence adduced at the inquest, that there was no basis for believing that the death was the result of a breach of the operational duty of the state to protect life. He was therefore right to conclude that Article 2 ECHR was not engaged and direct the jury accordingly that the inquest conclusions were governed by section 5(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (CJA 2009) and limited to ‘how the deceased came by her death’ rather than ‘how and in what circumstances’. Written by Sophie Cartwright, barrister, at Deans Court Chambers, Manchester.

This Practice Note looks at the equity of exoneration: what it is, and when and how it applies. It does not look at how the trustee in bankruptcy (trustee) ascertains and values any interest they may have in property, what assets vest in them, or how they realise any interest and equitable accounting. For further reading on this, see Practice Notes: • Protecting a trustee in bankruptcy's interest in property following their appointment • Equitable accounting—how it works in practice • Possession and sale applications in respect of a bankrupt's family home What is the equity of exoneration? The equity of exoneration is an equitable relief which can be applied if jointly-owned property is mortgaged or charged to raise money for the payment of one of the co-owner’s debts, or otherwise for their benefit. In these circumstances it is presumed, absent any evidence to the contrary, that the charge given by the non-debt incurring party is given merely by way of security, and they may be indemnified by the

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Jack McCracken, co-author of the chapter on Hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS) in Munkman on Employer’s Liability (18th Edition), considers the first instance judgment of HHJ Saira Singh on a claim for HAVS. In Lunt v BAC Impalloy Ltd the claimant succeeded on liability and was awarded damages of £34,465.50. The judgment should interest industrial disease practitioners given the court’s approach to: (i) the limitation defence in the context of exposure to vibratory tools spanning over 20 years; and (ii) the approach to medical causation in respect of the second and third stages of the test for the diagnosis of HAVS in Montracon Ltd v Whalley [2005] EWCA Civ 1383, where there was contested expert medical evidence on the presentation and development of symptoms of HAVS and whether constitutional Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) could plausibly be considered a differential diagnosis. The judgment is also of interest on the quantum of damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA), future care and assistance and whether an award for disadvantage on the open labour market should be made in accordance with Smith v Manchester. Written by Jack McCracken, barrister at Ropewalk Chambers.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: This fatal mesothelioma claim was brought by the executor (nephew) of Mr Eldred Grocock (born 1939; died 5 January 2023) against the Secretary of State as successor to the National Coal Board. The claim was that Mr Grocock developed malignant mesothelioma as a result of occupational asbestos exposure while employed by the Coal Board between March 1967 and January 1988 as a mobile plant operator, mostly operating a ‘grader’, at collieries in the North Derbyshire Area. The key issue was exposure. The court’s primary task was to consider whether, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Grocock was exposed to asbestos dust in the manner alleged. This was principally by driving over asbestos waste on spoil heaps, crushing/compressing/compacting it so that fibres would be released into the atmosphere and enter the grader cab. Ultimately, the court dismissed the claim because it found that the evidence did not prove probable exposure, only that exposure might have occurred. Written by Jim Hester, barrister at Parklane Plowden Chambers.

Historically, the meaning and nature of arrangements referred to as ‘outsourcing’ have been characterised by the transfer of an existing undertaking operated in-house to a specialist third party supplier (see: Traditional IT outsourcing below). As business practice has evolved, the scope of outsourcing arrangements has widened to the extent that, for the purposes of specific regulated activities, outsourcing may be defined as an arrangement of any form (whether or not an existing in-house undertaking) between a firm and a service provider by which that service provider performs a process, a service or an activity which would otherwise be undertaken by the firm itself. Similarly, the nature of services encompassed by IT outsourcing has widened as business has leveraged (and become increasingly reliant upon) IT for its operation and in seeking competitive advantage. Historically, typical outsourced IT services might include those considered the remit of the ‘IT department’. These are often grouped in a structured way as ‘IT service towers’ reflecting, for example, the provision of support services in relation to desktop IT, servers, tech support,

Arbitration analysis: As in many other countries, the resolution of disputes in Kazakhstan by third-party neutrals has existed for a long time. This was particularly evident in the form of courts of elders or 'biys', and later, during the Soviet period, through so called 'third party courts'. However, the history of arbitration in Kazakhstan as it is known today has only spanned the last two to three decades. During this time the development of the world-class International Arbitration Centre (IAC) and Astana International Financial Centre (AIFC) Court, and the pro-arbitration nature of a recent Constitutional Court decision pertaining to the finality of arbitral awards, evidence the positive growth of international arbitration in Kazakhstan. Written by Aigoul Kenjebayeva, partner at Dentons Kazakhstan LLP.

Arbitration analysis: Under French arbitration law, arbitral awards may be annulled, or leave to enforce them may be refused, if their recognition and enforcement would violate French international public policy (Articles 1514, 1520, 5° and 1525 of the French Code of Civil Procedure). Given the central role of the fight against corruption in French international public policy, this article explores how the annulment judge has addressed corruption allegations at the enforcement stage. For clarity, this article uses the term ‘annulment judge’ to refer to the courts handling both annulment and enforcement matters. Written by Julie Spinelli, partner at Le 16 Law (with the assistance of Emma Ruby, associate at Le 16 Law).

ARCHIVED: This content was published in 2022 and is not maintained. What does the Market Standards trend report cover? The evolving AGM: adapting to change The Market Standards trend report examines the unique set of challenges and opportunities faced by public companies in the 2022 AGM season. It looks at the impact of environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues on stakeholder and shareholder engagement, focusing on how these matters influenced investor voting patterns during the 2021 AGM season, and anticipates the topics companies can expect to see at the top of the agenda in 2022. The report also examines alternatives to the traditional physical general meeting. It reviews how companies have approached the concept of hybrid meetings and provides a summary of best practice recommendations for companies seeking guidance and clarification on the rapidly evolving regulatory framework underpinning this area. What

The 'essential facilities’ doctrine states that, in exceptional circumstances, the refusal by a dominant undertaking to grant access to an essential facility that it controls may constitute an abuse of a dominant position. Under the strict test in Bronner, the refusal must be likely to eliminate all competition on the part of the undertaking requesting access, be incapable of objective justification and concern infrastructure that is indispensable because there is no actual or potential substitute. Essential facilities traditionally include infrastructure such as airports and energy transportation pipelines. The Commission’s Guidelines on the application of Article 102 TFEU to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings (the Guidelines) now formalise the key distinction: the strict Bronner conditions apply to a refusal of access to an input established or developed solely for the dominant undertaking’s own use; other restrictions of access are assessed under the general framework and do not require indispensability. There are specific issues arising in cases of refusal to license or grant access to intellectual property rights (IPRs) or proprietary information which are not covered