This note gives guidance as to the requirement of professional advisers to deliver up the books and records of a company in liquidation or a bankrupt to the liquidator or official receiver (OR) where, in the absence of an insolvency procedure, there would be an enforceable lien. In these cases, the collective

Family analysis: In Standish v Standish [2024] EWCA Civ 567 the Court of Appeal heard cross-appeals from the decision of Mr Justice Moor who had awarded the wife £45m out of total assets of £132m at first instance. On appeal, the wife sought half of the assets (£66m) whereas the husband sought a reduction of the award to the wife to £25m. The Court of Appeal dismissed the wife’s appeal and allowed the husband’s cross-appeal, reducing the wife’s award under the sharing principle to £25m. However, the case was remitted to first instance to consider the question of whether £25m would meet the wife’s needs, Moor J not having made any such assessment. Tim Bishop KC of 1 Hare Court, who acted for the husband, analyses the issues.

The unexplained wealth order (UWO) Unexplained wealth orders (UWOs) are an investigative power available to enforcement authorities in High Court civil recovery proceedings issued under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002). They were introduced on 31 January 2018 with retrospective effect, meaning it does not matter whether the property was obtained by the respondent before this date. For a detailed analysis of UWOs and why they were introduced, see News Analysis: Criminal Finances Act 2017—unexplained wealth orders. UWOs require a person who is suspected of involvement in, or association with, serious criminality to explain the origin of assets that appear to be disproportionate to their known income. Briefly stated, an order requires the respondent to provide a ‘statement’ setting out the nature and extent of their interest in the property specified in the order, including an explanation of how the property was obtained. A failure to provide a full response gives rise to a presumption that the property is recoverable property for the purposes of POCA 2002, Pt 5 and the

Corporate Crime analysis: The National Crime Agency (NCA) has for the first time been granted two unexplained wealth orders (UWOs) to investigate whether UK properties worth £22m were paid for legally. Jo Torode, senior financial crime lawyer at Ropes & Gray, says these ‘far reaching and draconian’ powers could prove a ‘game changer’ for law enforcement agencies.

The Digital Market, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 The Digital Market, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA 2024) received Royal Assent on 24 May 2024. The Act introduces major reforms to the UK’s consumer protection regime, including revoking and replacing the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR 2008), SI 2008/1277. Replacement provisions relating to the protection of consumers from unfair trading are found in DMCCA 2024, Part 4, Chapter 1 and they largely mirror the provisions under CUTPR 2008, SI 2008/1277 by prohibiting traders in all sectors from using unfair commercial practices towards consumers that prevent them from making free and properly informed buying decisions. These provisions (save for DMCCA 2024, ss 232–235), as well as the revocation of CUPTR 2008, take effect from 6 April 2025. The main changes under these provisions are the addition of certain commercial practices which are considered unfair in all the circumstances and the expansion of the existing prohibition against the omission of material information from an invitation to purchase. For further analysis of unfair commercial

Introduction This Practice Note addresses practical questions arising when applying the unfair commercial practices provisions in Part 4, Chapter 1 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA 2024). It focuses on areas where the statutory rules require particular judgment in practice, including invitations to purchase, responsibility across multi-party customer journeys, variable and mandatory pricing, vulnerable consumers and consumer reviews. For further information, see Practice Notes: • Consumer protection from unfair trading under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 • How to avoid unfair commercial practices • Promotional marketing and price claims • Consumer reviews under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 • Unfair commercial practices offences under DMCCA 2024 The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has published the following detailed guidance on the unfair commercial practices provisions of DMCCA 2024, which are essential reading for those advising in this area: • CMA: Unfair commercial practices guidance: CMA207 (UCP Guidance) • CMA: Fake reviews guidance: CMA208 (Fake Reviews Guidance) • CMA: Price transparency guidance: CMA209 (Price Transparency Guidance) This Practice Note addresses

Introduction This Practice Note answers frequently asked questions on the fairness, transparency and enforceability of terms in contracts between traders and consumers. The principal framework is contained in Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015), which applies to individually negotiated and standard terms, as well as contractual and non-contractual consumer notices. It should be considered alongside the statutory restrictions on excluding liability for the supply of goods, services and digital content in CRA 2015, Pt 1. For further information, see Practice Notes: • Consumer Rights Act 2015—unfair terms • Boilerplate clauses in business-to-consumer contracts—general principles • Boilerplate clauses in business-to-consumer contracts—specific clauses • Exclusion and limitation of liability—business-to-consumer Helpful guidance has also been provided by the Competition and Markets Authority: Unfair contract terms guidance: CMA37 (CMA Guidance), last updated in July 2026. This Practice Note addresses the following frequently asked questions: • When is a term in a consumer contract unfair and what is the effect of an unfair term? • Does the fairness test apply to individually negotiated terms as well

The concept that an employer has not dismissed the employee for a potentially fair reason or under a fair procedure and as such the dismissal was unfair.

Where an employment tribunal upholds an employee's unfair dismissal claim, the following remedies are possible: • an order for reinstatement—ordering the employer to give the employee their old job back and to make good any loss of earnings from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement • an order for re-engagement—ordering the employer to give the employee a job comparable to their old job and to make good any loss of earnings from the date of dismissal to the date of re-engagement • an order for compensation, comprising: ◦ the basic award, and ◦ the compensatory award, and • an award of additional compensation The way these possible remedies are applied is as follows: • the tribunal will explain to the claimant that it can make an order for reinstatement or re-engagement, and the circumstances in which they may be made • if the claimant expresses a wish for an order for reinstatement or re-engagement to be made, the tribunal may make such an order (but is not obliged to do so) • if

The test for whether the territorial jurisdiction of unfair dismissal protection covers an employee who works at least partly abroad has developed since the House of Lords judgments in Lawson v Serco. Where the claimant is employed wholly abroad, a comparison must be made between Great Britain and the jurisdiction in which the claimant works. If the employment has much stronger connections both with Great Britain and with British employment law than with that other jurisdiction, the employee will be protected if the British connection is sufficiently strong. If the employee lives abroad as well as working there, an especially strong British connection will be required to make an exception in his favour. No comparison between the connection to different jurisdictions is needed if the employee works partly in Great Britain; in such cases all that is required is a sufficiently strong connection between the employment and Great Britain and British employment law. EAT: Dhunna v Creditsights.

This Practice Note considers the time limit for presenting or submitting an unfair dismissal claim in the employment tribunal under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996). It looks at possible qualifications to the standard time limit beginning with the effective date of termination (EDT), the tribunal’s discretion to extend the time limit if it is not reasonably practicable to present a claim in time and extending the time limit for the early conciliation requirement. It also considers the date the time limit starts to run where there is a dismissal with notice. For detailed guidance on the application and calculation of time limits in the tribunal generally, see Practice Note: Time limits for presenting employment tribunal claims. The general rule—time limit runs from the effective date of termination The time period within which a claim for unfair dismissal claim must generally be presented to the employment tribunal depends upon whether the EDT occurs before, or on or after, 1 October 2026: • where the EDT occurs before 1 October 2026, the claim must be presented

Most regular police officers will be office holders and therefore not employees. Individuals who are not office holders but who are employed in police service are subject to certain exclusions, including from the right not to be unfairly dismissed. A person is employed in police service if he is employed (1) in service as a member of a constabulary maintained by virtue of an enactment, or (2) in service in any other capacity by virtue of which he has the powers or privileges of a constable. The EAT has clarified that, in determining whether a person falls within the first part of the definition, the question is not whether he is a police officer or constable, but (1) whether he is a constable, (2) whether he is a member of a constabulary, and (3) whether that constabulary is maintained by virtue of an enactment. EAT: LB of Redbridge v Dhinsa.