MLex: A search has begun for non-executive directors to join the UK Data Protection Authority (DPA) under long-planned changes to its governance structure set out in reforms to the country's privacy rulebook, but advertisements for the roles risk reigniting fears of a threat to the authority's independence. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has started its search for the first four board members, with an intention to appoint candidates towards the end of the year.

MLex: The UK privacy regulator's internal culture and governance face a review after a probe into former Information Commissioner John Edwards found evidence of sexual harassment and bullying, tech minister Liz Kendall told lawmakers. The government will start recruiting for a new chair next week and will appoint new directors. Kendall also said Edwards is 'preparing to serve legal papers' on one of the women at the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) who raised concerns.

This table tracks and summarises all completed claims in respect of an infringement decision or an alleged infringement of UK or (for claims lodged before 1 January 2021) EU competition law publicly acknowledged before the CAT or the UK courts. Due to the large volume of private actions pending before the UK courts, this document groups completed cases into following categories: • Trucks • Air freight • Cathode ray tubes and liquid crystal display (LCD) • Motor vehicle components • Google • MasterCard—MIFs • Visa—MIFs • Polyurethane foam • Power cables • Other actions • Collective actions • ‘Pay-for-delay' For ongoing actions, see UK private actions—ongoing cases tracker. Note—we have only used public sources to track High Court cases; proceedings prior to judgment may thus not be captured in the tracker. Trucks Hertz Autovermietung and Others v DAF Trucks and Others Claim for damages based on the Commission's infringement decision in Trucks (AT.39824) Court Date Development CAT (1355/5/7/20 (T)) 10/09/2025 Order made; settlement agreed 24/09/2024 Order made; action dismissed against Iveco defendants 04/09/2023 Order made; action dismissed 16/08/2023 Order

This table tracks and summarises all current claims in respect of an infringement decision or an alleged infringement of UK or (for claims lodged before 1 January 2021) EU competition law publicly acknowledged before the CAT or the UK courts. Note—this document does not track any other cases (except cases involving a competition defence which has been referred to the CAT) Due to the large volume of private actions pending before the UK courts, this document groups ongoing cases into following categories: • Air freight • Cathode ray tubes and liquid crystal display (LCD) • Motor vehicle components • Google • MasterCard—MIFs • Visa—MIFs • Polyurethane foam • Power cables • Qualcomm—patents • Trucks • Maritime Car carriers cartel • Envelopes • Smart card chips • Forex and Libor • Other actions • Car emissions • Collective actions For completed actions, see UK private actions—closed cases tracker. Note—completed cases are moved from this document to the case tracker for closed cases within seven days of the final decision. Note—we use public sources to track High Court cases; proceedings

REUL(RR)A 2023 also introduces new tests for courts considering whether to depart from assimilated case law, and procedures for dealing with points of assimilated law. From 1 January 2024, unless otherwise stated (or referencing a point in time at or before the end of 2023), references to REUL and associated terms within domestic legislation are read as references to assimilated law and associated terms. For more information, see Practice Note: Assimilated law. Companies or individuals who have suffered loss as a result of a breach of UK competition law can bring an action for damages in the UK against the party (or parties) that engaged in the anti-competitive behaviour. The term ‘damages’ has a wide meaning and refers to any amount of money (excluding costs or expenses) that can be awarded to compensate for losses or harm suffered as a result of a competition infringement. This definition is provided in Schedule 8A, Part 1, 7(2)) to the Competition

Life Sciences analysis: Andrew Austin, partner; Harriet Hanks, counsel; Rachel Duffy, senior associate and Alexandra Yang, trainee associate of Freshfields LLP, consider the UK Law Commission’s project to review the current UK product liability regime for defective products, especially with a view to focussing on the rise of technologies, such as artificial intelligence, and in light of significant recent EU developments.

Law360: Property developer, Hammerson Group, has shifted £90m (US$118m) of its pension liabilities to insurer Just Group, the trustee's advisers said.

Law360, London: Property insurance claims in the UK are expected to reach £5.5bn for 2024, the highest level since 2007 when insured flood losses reached £3bn, according to Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Ltd.

Law360, London: Property insurance claims in the UK are expected to hit a record £6.1bn for 2025, Deloitte said on 11 February 2026, making it 'the most expensive year on record'.

This Practice Note summarises the key elements of the UK public offers and admissions to trading regime in force from 19 January 2026 as set out in: • The Public Offers and Admissions to Trading Regulations 2024, SI 2024/105, (POATRs) • FCA Prospectus Rules: Admission to Trading on a Regulated Market sourcebook (PRM) (and the related FCA policy statement PS25/9), and • FCA policy statement PS25/10: Final rules for public offer platforms, published on 15 July 2025 The POATRs, SI 2024/105, provide the statutory framework for regulating public offers of securities and admissions of securities to trading in the UK and have replaced the prospectus regime set out in the former UK Prospectus Regulation. Two key components of the reforms are the removal of the express statutory requirement for a prospectus and the grant of enhanced rule-making responsibilities to the FCA in relation to admissions to trading and public offers. Whether a prospectus is required and prospectus content requirements are covered in FCA rules. Background to the prospectus regime reforms The UK Listing Review report published

This timeline shows key developments relating to the UK prudential framework for banks and designated investment firms from January 2024 onwards. For earlier developments, see: Capital Requirements Directive IV (CRD IV) and Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR)—timeline [Archived]. 2026 Date Source Document Description 14 July 2026 PRA PS16/26—PRA rule changes to accommodate HM Treasury’s Overseas Prudential Requirements Regime The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) has published policy statement PS16/26—PRA rule changes to accommodate HM Treasury’s (HMT) Overseas Prudential Requirements Regime, which provides feedback to responses the PRA received to consultation paper CP3/26 of the same title. It also contains the PRA’s final policy. 8 July 2026 PRA PS17/26—Regulated fees and levies: Rates proposals 2026/27The Bank of England’s fees regime for financial market infrastructure supervision for CCPs and CSDs 2026/27 The PRA has published PS17/26—Regulated fees and levies: Rates proposals 2026/27, which includes its final policy on the fee rates to meet its annual funding requirement (AFR) for the period 1 March 2026 to 28 February 2027, and amendments to the Fees Part

The UK public procurement case tracker records and summarises the most recent UK case law developments relating to public procurement. For EU case law, see Practice Note: EU public procurement case tracker. 2026 Case citation Court and Date Summary Apasen Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [2026] EWHC 2239 (TCC) King’s Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court)28 August 2026 Abstract: In this case, the Technology and Construction Court refused the defendant’s application to strike out those parts of the claimant's claim seeking the remedy of setting aside interim contracts entered into with four service providers. The defendant sought to strike out paragraphs 22(e), 24 and recital (2) of the prayer for relief pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and the court's inherent jurisdiction, arguing that the conditions for set aside in section 105(1) of the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) could not be met.The key issue was whether the claimant could establish a set aside condition under PA 2023, s 105(4), particularly whether the contract award notice was ‘accurate’ as required by the section.