Arbitration analysis: The Court of Appeal held that a clause conferring on a rabbinical tribunal an unlimited power to amend awards 'at any time' was repugnant to the arbitration agreement, unenforceable and severable. The court situated the requirement for finality not only in section 58 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996)(a non-mandatory provision) but also in the irreducible legal character of every arbitration agreement: it must contemplate a binding decision, or it is not an arbitration agreement at all. Stripped of the offending clause, the section 57 default regime applied, and its time limits had not been met in the case. An award of £459,228.03 was final and enforceable, and the enforcement order was restored. The decision warrants close attention from those drafting arbitration agreements incorporating non-institutional or faith-based tribunals, and clarifies the outer limits of party autonomy in arbitration under English law. Written by Can Yeginsu, barrister and arbitrator at 3 Verulam Buildings.

Environment analysis: The 2025 reservoir safety reform programme introduces a modernised regulatory framework for England and Wales, responding to structural vulnerabilities, climate change pressures, outdated legislation, and a shortage of specialist engineers. Key reforms include revised hazard classification, regulation of smaller reservoirs, strengthened enforcement powers, and a transition to risk-based, proportionate oversight under the Environmental Permitting regime. The overarching objective is to safeguard public safety and infrastructure through preventative regulation, clearer duties, and improved professional standards. Written by Dr Michael J Bowes at 6 Pump Court Chambers.

Where personal representatives (PRs) have opted to pay inheritance tax (IHT) by instalments, the outstanding balance of the IHT becomes payable in full immediately if: • the property on which IHT remains payable is sold • an interest or part of an interest in a business is sold, or • cash is secured when a partnership share is paid out (whether or not under the terms of a partnership agreement) otherwise than on sale The

You may find the following Practice Notes useful in relation to this Q&A: • Registering the grant and collecting in the principal estate assets—This Practice Note outlines the issues personal representatives (PRs) should have regard to when realising assets (eg taxation, beneficiaries position, statutory position for

If a hearing has been listed in family proceedings, it can be possible for the hearing to be adjourned in circumstances whereby one party is unable to attend. As a first hearing dispute resolution appointment is an opportunity for parties to reach an agreement in proceedings, it is important that both parties are able to attend the hearing and the parties and their representatives must attend unless excused by the court. See Practice Note: Child Arrangements Programme—the procedure for section 8 applications, in particular section ‘First hearing dispute resolution appointment—weeks 5–6’. The court’s ability to adjourn a hearing arises from the provisions of FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 1 as to the court’s case management powers. A comprehensive list of the court's general case management powers is set out in FPR 2010, SI

We have presumed for the purpose of this Q&A that the respondent’s lack of engagement with the proceedings includes a failure to file a financial statement in Form E. When the court issues an application in Form A, it will also produce a second document, called Form C, which will include the date for the exchange of Form E, ie Forms E must be simultaneously exchanged and filed with the court not less than 35 days before the date of the first appointment in accordance with Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 9.14(1). If the Form E is not produced on time, it may not be possible to produce a properly thought-out questionnaire prior to the first appointment. In accordance with FPR 2010,

Where a party has transferred the former family home from their sole name into joint names with a relative, this may constitute a reviewable disposition under section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) or its equivalent under paragraph 74, Schedule 5 Part 14 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004). The court has power to set aside such dispositions where they are made with the intention of defeating a claim for financial relief in divorce or civil partnership dissolution proceedings. A disposition is reviewable unless it is made for valuable consideration to a person who acted in good faith and without notice of any intention to defeat the applicant's claim (see MCA 1973, s 37(4)/CPA 2004,

Where a party fails to engage in financial remedy proceedings (whether or not they are resident abroad) and the court is satisfied that service has been effected, there are a number of options that can be taken by the other party to progress matters. A common first step at a first appointment will be for the court to order that the recalcitrant party file their Form E and other relevant documents, backed by a penal notice. Ordinarily the court will give the party another opportunity to comply, and the threat of committal proceedings by virtue of the penal notice is often enough to achieve this, for example, in Ball v Shepstone [2013] EWCC 7 (Fam) (not reported by

Section 24B(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) provides that ‘a pension sharing order … is not to take effect unless the decree … has been made absolute’. One might then ask, why not proceed with pronouncement of the decree absolute sooner than later, given that it is a necessary step for the implementation of pension sharing order? Indeed, for some parties, the grant of decree absolute may also have psychological benefits, in providing them with a sense of closure, or practical benefits in allowing them legally to remarry, if they wished to. However, pronouncement of decree absolute prior to a pension sharing order taking effect may have disastrous unintended consequences in the event of the death of

Dispute Resolution analysis: In Philipp v Barclays Bank Plc, the Supreme Court severely limited the scope of the Quincecare duty on a bank not to comply with payment instructions when it is on inquiry that there is an attempt to misappropriate funds, but it did raise the possibility of a duty owed by banks to retrieve transfers of funds procured by fraud. In CCP Graduate School Limited (CCP) v National Westminster Bank Plc and Santander UK, a further step has been taken towards recognising such a duty, which could even extend to banks with which the victim has no contractual relationship. Written by Emily Saunderson, barrister at Quadrant Chambers.

This Practice Note provides an overview of Regulation (EU) 910/2014 (eIDAS Regulation), as amended by Regulation (EU) 2024/1183 (European Digital Identity Regulation or EUDI Regulation). The revised eIDAS Regulation is also referred to as eIDAS 2.0. The revised eIDAS Regulation sets the legal framework for electronic signatures, digital identities and other ‘trust services’ in the EU. It defines who can use such electronic signatures and digital identities and in which contexts. It lays down certain requirements on the providers of ‘trust services’ and introduces a European Digital Identity Wallet (EUDI Wallet) which will be available in 2026. This Practice Note only covers EU law, for more information on the general position on electronic signatures under the law of England and Wales, see Practice Note: Electronic signatures. Background In 2014, in response to a general perception that usage of electronic signatures had been low and to help address trust issues identified in the context of on-line transactions, the EU adopted Regulation (EU) 910/2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic

EU Law analysis: On 29 November 2023, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive (the draft Directive) to amend Directive 2015/2302/EU (the EU Package Travel Directive (EU PTD 2015)). While the UK is no longer subject to EU law, UK companies selling packages to customers in the EU will be affected by the new rules and will need to ensure compliance with the Directive. Claire Mulligan, partner, and Francesca Khan, trainee solicitor, at Kennedys Law LLP, discuss the draft Directive, the key changes from the EU PTD 2015 and practical implications for businesses.