The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has dismissed an appeal brought by six second division Mexican football clubs—Club Atlético La Paz, Club Atlético Morelia, Cancún FC, CD Mineros de Zacatecas, Venados FC and Leones Negros de la UdeG—regarding the Mexican Football Federation’s (FMF) decision to continue suspending promotion and relegation in Liga MX for the 2025/2026 season. The appeal, filed on 19 May 2025, followed the FMF’s confirmation on 29 April 2025 that the suspension, originally introduced in 2019/2020 in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, would remain in place. Following a hearing held in Mexico City on 28 August 2025, the CAS panel found that the FMF had clearly communicated the duration of the suspension and dismissed the appeal. A full CAS award will be published unless confidentiality is requested.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has launched an inaugural Summer Academy programme, a virtual course designed to provide a practical introduction to sports arbitration. The programme will run from 6 to 10 July 2026 and will be delivered by CAS counsel and arbitrators, covering key aspects of sports dispute resolution, CAS jurisprudence and the structure of major sports institutions. The week-long course will include daily sessions of four to five hours and will combine presentations with interactive discussions. Topics include international arbitration, sports arbitration, the structure of organised sport, football disputes and anti-doping. The programme is aimed at students and legal practitioners with a foundational knowledge of law. Registration is open, with fees set at CHF 300 for students and CHF 500 for other participants. Registration is expected to close in mid-June, subject to demand.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has launched a new e-filing system for parties to initiate procedures and submit documents in arbitration proceedings. The updated platform is available for new procedures only, while the existing e-filing system will remain operational for ongoing procedures. Parties are invited to create a new user account on the platform. The CAS Court Office will provide support to facilitate the transition, with a practical guide available to assist parties using the new platform.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has announced that it will establish a remote Ad hoc Division for the FIFA World Cup 2026 to resolve legal disputes arising during the tournament through expedited proceedings. Operating from 11 June to 19 July 2026, the division will apply tailored and simplified procedural rules and will remain on standby throughout the competition. CAS stated that decisions may be issued within as little as 48 hours to ensure timely resolution of disputes. Appeals may only be submitted once all available internal legal remedies have been exhausted. The rules governing the division have been published by CAS in English, French and Spanish.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has published procedural rules for two ad hoc divisions established to resolve disputes during the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 and UEFA Women’s EURO 2025. These temporary divisions will operate until 14 July 2025 and 27 July 2025, respectively. They are intended to handle disputes falling within the scope of FIFA and UEFA Statutes, with panels required to render decisions within 48 hours.

Life Sciences analysis: Ross Cummings, partner, and Kessia Hawkins, associate, at Gill Jennings & Every LLP, discuss the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s (MHRA) approval of CASGEVY, the world’s first CRISPR-based gene therapy as well as the first gene therapy for the treatment of sickle cell disease (SCD) and transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia (TDT).

Client Asset Sourcebook rules.

STOP PRESS: On 2 July 2026, the FCA published consultation paper CP26/24: Simplifying consumer investment disclosures which proposes changes to align the cost disclosure requirements which derive from the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) with its Consumer Composite Investments (CCI) regime. The FCA says it is simplifying and consolidating the disclosure requirements for MiFID, the Insurance Distribution Directive (IDD), and non-MiFID investments business. Responses are sought by 21 August 2026. Among other things, the FCA proposes to delete CASS 9.4 and move the client asset disclosure requirements into proposed COBS 6A.2.14 R. The FCA intends the professional client and eligible counterparty scope currently produced by CASS 9.4 to continue. The FCA intends to publish a policy statement with final rules by the end of 2026 and proposes an 18-month implementation period for the wider COBS 6A rules. Until final rules take effect, firms must continue to comply with current CASS 9.4 and the connected COBS rules. Development and application of CASS 9 Prior to 1 December 2014, most FCA requirements governing information

Method of identification of the importance of a particular function, or a set of functionality, to nuclear safety. Definition provided in IEC 61226 Nuclear power plants - Instrumentation and control important to safety - Classification of instrumentation and control functions.

Public Law analysis: The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) dismissed Zenobē Energy Ltd’s applications under section 70 of the Subsidy Control Act 2022 (SCA 2022) challenging Ofgem’s development of the long-duration electricity storage (LDES) cap-and-floor scheme. The CAT held that neither Ofgem’s September 2025 publications setting out the proposed assessment framework, nor its February 2026 decision adopting earlier development work, constituted a reviewable ‘subsidy decision’ for the purpose of SCA 2022, s 70. The measures formed part of a broader, multi-stage process for developing and establishing the scheme, with important decisions still to be taken before any subsidies could be awarded. The CAT further held that, even if the scheme involved subsidies, it would be a scheme made by means of primary legislation within the meaning of SCA 2022, s 78 and Sch 3, meaning that the CAT would lack jurisdiction under SCA 2022, s 70 in any event.

NOTE—Although the Brexit transition period ended on 31 December 2020, this Practice Note continues to retain references to EU competition law. This is because, despite the fact it is now possible for UK regulators and courts to depart from EU jurisprudence, any divergence between the two regimes is likely to be gradual on the basis that: (i) the UK’s competition regime relies heavily on concepts which have been refined in EU case law over many years (concepts which the UK courts were obliged to apply consistently with UK competition law); and (ii) unless the UK decides to force the pace of change by legislating (which currently seems unlikely), the opportunities for divergence will depend on the issues raised by cases coming before the CMA and courts now that the transition period has passed. On the basis of the above considerations, EU competition law is likely to remain influential in UK practice for some time. However, to the extent that any diverge

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has published two judgments on the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) finding that Auden/Actavis UK paid AMCo/Advanz to keep its own 10mg hydrocortisone tablets off the market. In the first judgment, the CAT finds that the decision was right on the facts and that all the grounds of appeal fail. In the second, the CAT finds that the appeals must be allowed because the CMA did not fully present its case to a witness during its two-day cross-examination at trial overturning nearly £100m of fines for the drug firms despite initially confirming flagrant anti-competitive conduct. The CMA has responded that allowing the ‘due process’ appeals on this reasoning is a ‘fundamentally misconceived’ procedural point and will be appealing. The CAT has indicated that it would be minded to grant such permission. The CAT appeal decisions relate to a finding by the CMA on 15 July 2021 that Auden Mckenzie and Actavis UK (now known as Accord-UK) charged the NHS excessively high and unfair prices for life-saving hydrocortisone tablets for almost a decade (ie between October 2012 to June 2016) and the pharma companies breached market sharing competition laws by abusing their market dominance when they paid off potential rivals to avoid them competing with their own versions of the drug and to preserve their ability to increase prices. The CMA fined Accord-UK and its former parent Allergan, as well as Advanz and its former parent Cinven (and all former and current parents) £106m for the illegal anti-competitive pay to delay agreements. All parties appealed to the CAT, whose judgments have now been published.