The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, James Murray, has announced that public service pensions in payment will increase by 3.8% from 6 April 2026, in line with the Consumer Prices Index to September 2025. Pensions that have been in payment for less than a year will receive a pro-rata increase. Murray confirmed that revaluation in the career average revalued earnings (CARE) schemes will apply 3.8% for the prices measure and 4.8% for the earnings measure, as required by the Public Service Pensions Act 2013. The effective revaluation date is 1 April 2026, although some schemes will use 6 April 2026 to align with the annual tax allowance. The announcement also sets out the revaluation percentages for the main public service schemes: police (5.05%), firefighters (4.8%), civil service (3.8%), NHS (5.3%), teachers (5.4%), LGPS (3.8%), armed forces (4.8%) and judicial (3.8%). These increases ensure pensions reflect rises in the cost of living and maintain purchasing power.

A limited company may hold, or deal with, shares in itself, if certain conditions set out in CA 2006, ss 724–729 are met. Those shares are held in treasury and referred to as the company's treasury shares.

A company’s own issued shares that it has bought but not cancelled. Rule 4.5 prohibits an offeree accepting an offer in respect of treasury shares until after the offer is unconditional as to acceptances.

HM Treasury has added the following three documents: the Public Service Pensions (Exercise of Powers, Compensation and Information) (Amendment) Directions 2024; McCloud Remedy Interest Rate: Letter from Government Actuary's Department to HM Treasury (15.03.2024); and the McCloud Remedy Interest Rate: Letter from HM Treasury to Government Actuary's Department (14.03.2024) in line with the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022.

Dame Siobhain McDonagh's Treatment of Terminal Illness Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 15 January 2025. This Bill establishes regulations regarding the accountability of medical practitioners, and the institution which employs the practitioner, when a practitioner prescribes unauthorised medication or dispenses sub-standard treatment to a terminally ill patient; to initiate provisions regarding the import, storage, and utilisation of equipment and unlicensed medications for the purpose of prescriptions, treatments and for related matters.

Family analysis: In WX v HX, the court considered the treatment of matrimonial and non-matrimonial property—specifically, whether the husband’s contribution to the wife’s non-matrimonial assets, which were treated as the wife’s separate assets during the marriage, should be reflected in the division of assets. The court considered aspects of the structure and management of the parties’ wealth, including the husband setting up trust structures during the marriage to minimise tax, and how the value of the assets within the trust structures should be reflected when dividing the assets between the parties, among other matters. Sophie Groves, director, and Valeria Gampl, assistant solicitor, at Vardags, examine the judgment and its implications for family law practitioners.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This was the sanction hearing for a Part 26A Restructuring Plan proposed by CB&I UK Ltd (‘CB&I’). One of the unsecured creditors, Reficar, was owed approximately US$1.3bn pursuant to an arbitration award (‘Award’) against the CB&I. Under the Plan Reficar was going to receive payment of 0.24% of the Award at best and this amount was wholly contingent. Following Reficar’s original opposition to the Plan negotiations had commenced but Reficar had failed to accept ‘a deal that gave it everything it had been asking for’ by the final day of the trial. The Plan was approved. The Plan company proved on the balance of probabilities that the relevant alternative was a worldwide formal liquidation. Reficar’s actions in negotiations outside the trial had completely undermined their argument in respect of a negotiated relevant alternative. It had been conceded that the Plan Company’s Relevant Alternative would leave Reficar no worse off under the Plan. Written by Andrew Mace, barrister, 9 Stone Buildings.

In Parry v Cleaver, the House of Lords applied the principle that, in the calculation of damages for loss of earning capacity, any ill-health pension to which a claimant is entitled, although it needs to be brought into account in respect of his loss of retirement pension, is not deductible in assessing damages for loss of earnings.

This Practice Note considers the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) expectations of firms’ treatment of customers in vulnerable circumstances in line with the FCA’s finalised guidance (FG21/1) on the fair treatment of vulnerable customers, FCA supporting guidance: Delivering good outcomes for customers in vulnerable circumstances—good practice and areas for improvement, and the standards expected under the FCA’s Consumer Duty. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with the that on the FCA’s Consumer Duty, The FCA Consumer Duty—essentials, and relevant sector-specific practical guidance, for links see: Consumer protection and FCA Consumer Duty—overview. Key points • firms’ treatment of vulnerable consumers is a key supervisory and enforcement focus for the FCA • the FCA’s Consumer Duty requires firms to act to deliver good outcomes for all retail customers; the FCA is particularly focused on firms delivering positive outcomes for vulnerable customers • the FCA’s 2025 review of firms’ treatment of vulnerable customers concluded that firms must improve their outcomes monitoring, customer support, communication and product and services design and firms are expected to perform gap analysis against the FCA’s

Introduction The term ‘treaty’ is usually defined as an international agreement, concluded in writing between States, which creates rights and obligations governed by international law. There can also be treaties between States and international organisations, and agreements between groups of States, often referred to as ‘multilateral’ or ‘plurilateral’ arrangements. In the UK, the government negotiates, signs and ratifies treaties under the royal prerogative. The general rule is that the power to make or unmake treaties is exercisable without legislative authority and that the exercise of that power is not reviewable by the courts. That general rule is now subject to the (possibly exceptional) decision in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, where the Supreme Court held that, in circumstances where withdrawal from the EU would remove certain domestic rights, it was impermissible for the government to withdraw from the EU Treaties without prior parliamentary authority. The UK is a dualist state which, in practice, means that international law has to be applied by Parliament

Responding in the House of Commons to a statement about a UK-EU agreement about Gibraltar, Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee Dame Emily Thornberry praised the successful negotiation of the agreement while criticising the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2005 (CRGA 2010) treaty scrutiny process. Thornberry described the CRGA 2010 process as ‘rubbish’ and ‘unfit for the 21st century'.

The general principle that a design and build contract will contain an implied fitness for purpose warranty (without express contractual provision to the contrary) has been rendered less clear by the Court of Appeal judgment in Trebor Bassett v ADT which upheld the first instance decision that there was no fitness for purpose obligation in respect of the supply of a 'system'.