CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 26 July 2012; it is no longer maintained. See further, case facts and timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the acquisition by United Technologies of Goodrich (Case M.6410). Latest developments The Commission cleared the merger subject to commitments on 26 July 2012. Commitments included the divestment of Goodrich's electrical power generation (AC) business and engine controls for small aircraft engines business. Rolls Royce have also been given an option to acquire Goodrich's lean burn fuel nozzle research and development programme. In

Pensions analysis: What impact has the judgment in Granada Group Ltd v The Law Debenture have on UURBS and SUURBS? Mark Blyth, partner at Linklaters, examines the case and its implications for the validity of such pensions ‘top-up’ arrangements.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has announced that Uber Eats driver, Pa Edrissa Manjang, has received a financial settlement, following allegations that facial recognition checks required to access his work app were racially discriminatory, which led to him being unable to access the Uber Eats app to secure work.

Law360, London: Uber told the UK Supreme Court on 2 July 2025 that private hire vehicle (PHV) operators outside London needed to contract with passengers to provide a taxi service, in a case with wide implications for the agency model.

EU Law analysis: Over the summer, the Data Protection Authority (DPA) in the Netherlands (the Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens or AP), imposed a fine of €290m on Uber. The AP issued the fine in respect of transfers of personal data of Uber drivers from the EU to Uber’s headquarters in the US over a period of more than two years for retention on Uber servers in the US. The AP found that Uber had carried out these transfers without implementing appropriate safeguards as required by Chapter V of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR). The personal data involved included sensitive information of the Uber drivers such as location data, identity documents, and in some cases criminal and medical data. Dr. Paul Voigt, partner and Wiebke Reuter, senior associate, at Taylor Wessing Germany, consider the implications.

MLex: Uber has been fined €825 million (USD 960 million) by the Dutch Data Protection Authority under EU data protection rules for deactivating driver accounts without adequately informing them. The Dutch regulator found that Uber failed to provide drivers with sufficient information about the reasons for the deactivations, preventing them from properly understanding and challenging the decisions. Uber's appeal avenues could take several years to exhaust, MLex understands.

'Utmost good faith'

Arbitration analysis: The Uganda Commercial Court recently confirmed the enforceability of unilateral, sole-option or asymmetric arbitration agreements or clauses in Uganda, noting that its function was not to rewrite the parties’ agreement but to construe and effect their intention, including an intention to vest the sole option to arbitrate in one party. In a loan agreement, the parties agreed that the lender would have the sole right to refer a dispute to arbitration while the borrower was limited to a regulatory complaint followed by court action. Relying on the arbitration clause, the borrower sought an interim measure of protection to restrain the lender’s repossession of the loan collateral (a vehicle) pending arbitration. The lender objected, arguing that it had not exercised its sole right to refer the dispute to arbitration, thereby precluding the motion for interim measures of protection pending arbitration. Rejecting the borrower’s plea that the unilateral or sole-option arbitration clause was discriminatory, unjust and contrary to the Ugandan Constitution’s guarantee of equality, the court held that its function was not to rewrite the parties’ agreement but to construe and effect their intention. In this case, the parties bindingly agreed to vest the sole option to arbitrate in the lender, and that arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable. The application for the interim measure of protection was therefore dismissed, there being no evidence that the lender had invoked or intended to invoke its unilateral or sole option to arbitrate. Produced in partnership with Hussein D. Gulam of MMAKS Advocates.

Arbitration analysis: In a bold ruling, the Uganda Commercial Court has broken with binding Supreme Court precedent and its own prior decisions, holding that it has authority to extend the one-month statutory time limit for applying to set aside an arbitral award where there is prima facie a serious ground for setting aside and the interest of justice requires that time be extended. Though open to doubt, the ruling is likely to influence future legislative reform. The court also clarified the effect of an arbitrator’s lien over an award (exercised due to non-payment of their fees) on the timeline for setting aside, holding that the one-month time limit for the setting-aside application begins to run on the date on which the arbitrator actually avails the award to the parties (including the party in default of payment) or makes it available for their collection (typically from the institution administering the arbitration) and not on the date on which the arbitrator informs the parties that the award is ready but has been withheld under lien or even on a prior date on which the award may have been dated and signed but not availed. This is so regardless of who is to blame for the exercise of the lien or who has paid more than their fair share of the arbitrator’s fees to access the withheld award. This holding might incentivise rather than discourage deliberate non-payment of arbitrators’ fees with the intention of delaying issuance of final awards. Written by Hussein D. Gulam, MCIArb, arbitration and litigation attorney at MMAKS Advocates.

Arbitration analysis: The court dismissed a challenge to a Uganda-seated award premised on a public policy ground that the award dealt with a claim (recovery of contractual retention) that was res judicata having been determined in a prior arbitration. Dismissing the challenge, the court held that it was prohibited by the Arbitration Act, c. 5 (a Model Law statute) from reviewing the correctness of the arbitrator’s decision on the res judicata objection except upon a showing that the decision was perverse or based on wrong propositions of law, which the applicant failed to demonstrate. The court’s reasoning also indicates that (in relation at least to Uganda-seated arbitration), the applicable res judicata test is the same as that which ordinarily applies in litigation under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, c. 282, ie, that the claim or issue was already heard and finally decided by a competent court/tribunal in a prior dispute in which the same claim or issue was also directly and substantially in issue between the same parties or parties under whom they claim, litigating under the same title. The court also rejected a bare, unsubstantiated claim of evident partiality or bias, as well as an allegation of computational error in the award that ought to have been raised before the arbitrator in a timely request for correction of the award. Written by Hussein D. Gulam, MCIArb, associate at MMAKS Advocates.

NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in France and throughout the world are met, see further: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Ugandan merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Uganda? The Ugandan Competition Act 5 of 2024 (Act) was assented to by the President on 2 February 2024 and commenced on 19 April 2024. The Act applies to anti-competitive practices, anti-competitive agreements, abuse of a dominant position, and effects of mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures on competition. While technically effective since 19 April 2024, the Act did not have implementing regulations for over a year. However, on 8 August 2025, the Minister of Trade published the Competition Regulations, 2025 (Regulations) which establishes a technical committee responsible for implementing the Competition Act (Technical Committee). The Regulations also implement the merger control regime and provide key guidance on the thresholds and process for merger notification in Uganda. As such the Ugandan merger control regime is now effective. Although the

As of 4 February 2025 victims of domestic abuse whose relationship to a Ukrainian national under the Ukraine Scheme breaks down will be included in the concession that grants three months leave outside the rules with the right to work and access to public funds. It is likely people facing this situation will want to seek individualised immigration advice, because for many people the concession's short period of leave will not provide a better form of leave than the person's current leave, but it may be relevant where a person finds out unexpectedly that they may not be entitled to apply to the Ukraine Permission Extension Scheme because their relationship has broken down and their current leave is ending. Ukraine scheme former-partners have not been included in Appendix Domestic Abuse (which provides a further application route to apply for settlement), just in the time-limited concession, which was previously expanded to include partners of people on work and study visas.