This Practice Note addresses the role often performed by tribunal secretaries (or arbitral secretaries or administrative secretaries) in international arbitration. The Practice Note also considers who performs the role of secretary, some of the issues that have arisen in relation to their use, and the provision for the use of tribunal secretaries in some institutional arbitration rules. This Practice Note is not intended to express a view about the appropriateness of using tribunal secretaries. Instead, it considers the role that tribunal secretaries tend to perform, considers who is best placed to perform that role, touches on some of the issues that have arisen in relation to the use of tribunal secretaries and notes certain recent developments in relation to the use of tribunal secretaries by reference to certain institutional rules. For a discussion of the merits and demerits of the use of tribunal secretaries, see Practice Notes: Tribunal secretaries in international arbitration—the advantages and disadvantages and Appointment arbitration tribunal secretary—Checklist for considerations on appointment of a tribunal secretary. The role of tribunal secretaries The

This Practice Note considers the merits and demerits of the use of tribunal secretaries in international arbitration. It sets out the arguments for and against the involvement of secretaries, and looks at the different kinds of arbitrations and range of circumstances which can affect their utility and/or the decision to use them. For the reasons set out below, whether and to what extent it is advantageous for a tribunal to use a secretary will turn on a number of factors, in particular: • the nature and scope of the dispute • whether the arbitration is institutional or ad hoc, and • how the process of appointment and the management of tribunal secretaries are undertaken This Practice Note does not, therefore, purport come to any general conclusion as to whether the benefits of tribunal secretaries outweigh their potential drawbacks. Tribunal secretaries are most likely to be used in large and/or complex arbitrations, such as those concerning infrastructure projects (see, for example, the comments from LALIVE on the position in Switzerland).

Financial Services analysis: The Upper Tribunal upheld the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) decision to issue James Staley, former Barclays CEO, a prohibition order under section 56 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000) for breaches of Individual Conduct Rule (ICR) 1 (acting with integrity), ICR3 (being open and cooperative with regulators), and Senior Manager Conduct Rule (SMCR) 4 (appropriately disclosing information of which the Authority would reasonably expect) as a result of him not being appropriately forthcoming about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein after the FCA made an enquiry into the same. However, the Tribunal reduced his financial penalty from £1,812,800 to £1,107,306.92 as it found that the FCA had miscalculated Mr Staley’s financial benefit. The judgment acts as an important reminder of (1) the severe consequences of breaching the FCA’s Code of Conduct, (2) the FCA’s responsibility to keep an appropriate record of its enquiries, and (3) the Tribunal’s scope to vary penalties issued by the FCA. Written by Thomas Samuels, barrister at Henderson Chambers.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has issued a Final Notice to Darren Antony Reynolds prohibiting him from financial services and issuing a financial penalty of £2,037,892. The FCA found that Reynolds was dishonest when he gave pension transfer advice and investment recommendations to his customers, causing them significant harm.

Pensions analysis: In Lefort v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, the First-tier Tribunal (the FTT) dismissed the appeal by Mr Lefort (the Appellant) against the revocation of his Fixed Protection 2014 (FP 2014) certificate by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC). An FP 2014 certificate allows taxpayers to access the preserved lifetime allowance of £1,500,000 before extra tax is chargeable on their pensions. Eligibility is dependent on pension contributions stopping before 6 April 2014, but the Appellant’s former employer made contributions to the Appellant’s pension after the deadline. The Appellant argued the protection-cessation event in his case was a mistake eligible for rescission, an equitable remedy. The FTT declined to follow Hymanson v HMRC and held that the FTT cannot apply the tax legislation as if the High Court had ordered any equitable remedies. Additionally, the FTT held it has no jurisdiction over HMRC’s discretion not to revoke an FP 2014 certificate after a protection-cessation event, because they only have jurisdiction over the objective question of whether HMRC revoked the FP 2014 certificates in accordance with the Registered Pension Schemes (Lifetime Allowance Transitional Protection) (Notification) Regulations (the ‘FP 2014 Regulations’), reg 10(1) or 11. Written by Rowena Wisniewska Sethi, barrister, and Isabella Taylor, pupil, at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square.

Pensions analysis: The director of Cambridge Rare Books Ltd (‘the Employer’) referred penalties issued by The Pensions Regulator (‘the Regulator’) to the First Tier Tribunal (‘the FTT’) and successfully obtained variation of an Escalating Penalty Notice because the FTT found it to be ‘not reasonable and disproportionate’. However, the Employer failed to persuade the FTT to dismiss the initial Fixed Penalty Notice, which was upheld. The Employer’s director had been seriously unwell and between April 2023 and July 2023 failed to comply with his pensions scheme contribution obligations under the Pensions Act 2008. The Employer missed three deadlines imposed by the Regulator before referring the matter to the FTT. The FTT placed considerable weight on the Employer’s proposal to pay the unpaid contributions in monthly instalments to remedy the default when coming to its decision. The FTT held it was disproportionate to impose a deadline that ignored a reasonable proposal from the Employer to remedy the unpaid contributions. Written by Rowena Wisniewska Sethi, barrister and Isabella Taylor, pupil at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square.

Law360, London: The chair of a UK competition tribunal raised concerns on 10 September 2025 about the effect 'another' fee dispute between funders and lawyers could have on the collective actions regime during a hearing on unclaimed damages from a claim over train fares.

Employment analysis: Where a litigant in person asserts that they have been subject to detrimental treatment, and resigned as a result, consideration should be given to whether constructive dismissal is being asserted, to avoid falling into the ‘constructive dismissal trap’. Whether or not there has been a constructive dismissal can be relevant not only to dismissal claims but also to contractual claims before the employment tribunal, for example if there has been a constructive dismissal the employer will not be able to rely on a post-termination clause in the employment contract to recoup recruitment fees, according to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

Employment analysis: When deciding whether to extend time for a late response, the starting point, in relation to delay, should be a consideration of the extent of the delay in putting in the response itself and/or (if done later) in applying for an extension. Any further time delay inevitably involved in reaching the point at which a judge determines the application will not be significant to that decision but will not necessarily be irrelevant in every case, according to the EAT.

This Practice Note provides an overview of the key changes in domestic enforcement brought about by the implementation in 2014 of Part 3 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, notably the introduction of the taking control of goods (TCG) regime and the commercial rent arrears recovery (CRAR) procedure. What does the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 cover? In relation to the enforcement of domestic judgments it is Parts 3 and 4 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCEA 2007) which are of relevance: • Part 3: Enforcement by Taking Control of Goods: ◦ Chapter 1 of this Part unified the existing provisions contained in RSC Orders 46-47 and CCR Order 26 concerning the seizure and sale of a judgment debtor’s goods in order to satisfy a judgment debt. It came into force with effect from 6 April 2014. There is now one unified procedure, TCG which is contained in TCEA 2007, sch 12 and related regulations (principally The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, SI 2013/1894 and The

This Practice Note considers the revocation of an arbitrator’s authority under the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996, as amended by the 2025 Arbitration Act) and example arbitration rules, as well as some of the consequences of the resignation or death of an arbitrator. For guidance on applying to the courts of England and Wales to remove an arbitrator under AA 1996, s 24, see Practice Note: AA 1996—applying to remove an arbitrator (s 24). Revocation of an arbitrator’s authority In certain circumstances, the authority of an appointed arbitrator may be revoked while the arbitration is ongoing due to, for example, a demonstrable lack of independence and/or impartiality—see Practice Note: Challenging the tribunal’s independence or impartiality. Before any steps are taken to revoke the authority of an arbitrator, the parties may wish to consider the possible adverse effects of doing so, for example the costs and delays associated with the appointment of a new arbitrator and the additional resources (both in time and in costs) that must be expended to cover any ground already dealt

In Re Phoenix Venture Holdings Ltd (Company No 2692 of 2005) (AKA Phoenix Venture Holdings Ltd v Independent Trustee Services Ltd), the High Court held that a debt can only arise after the commencement of the winding up of a scheme, when the actuary has made the prescribed calculations and a deficit emerges.