Law360, London: On 15 May 2025, the UK government published the conclusions of its cross-government review of UK sanctions implementation and enforcement.

Law360, Expert analysis: In the High Court of Justice of England and Wales’ 6 June 2024 decision in Aercap Ireland Capital Designated Activity Co v PJSC Insurance Co Universal, the defendants’ applications to stay the claims against them for breach of exclusive jurisdiction clauses were successful. Abigail Healey, partner, and Genevieve Douglas, associate, at Quillon Law LLP examine the grounds on which the claimants sought to rely and the judge’s reasoning as to why those grounds did not amount to strong reasons. The decision is considered in the context of another recent court decision, involving aircraft stranded in Russia, in which the same judge considered the issue of exclusive jurisdiction clauses with a different outcome.

Acute voluntary intoxication is not a ‘recognised medical condition’ within the Homicide Act 1957, s 2 and therefore cannot give rise to the partial defence of diminished responsibility on an indictment for murder.

The regulatory framework for e-cigarettes consists of a triumvirate of legislation consisting of Directive 2001/83/EC, (the Pharmaceutical Code) and UK implementing legislation the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (HMRs), SI 2012/1916, Directive 93/42/EEC on medical devices (MDD), and the European Tobacco Products Directive 2014/40/EU (TPD). E-cigarettes classified as consumer products The TPD (implemented in the UK by the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, SI 2016/507) sets out rules for e-cigarettes (and refill containers) which set minimum standards for safety and quality, and ensure that information is provided to consumers so that they can make informed choices and protects children from starting to use these products. The European TPD also mandates maximum capacity for e-cigarettes, maximum nicotine strength, packaging and labelling requirements and bans certain ingredients including colourings, caffeine and taurine. Importantly, the TPD mandates that all e-cigarettes

Parties’ rights are often defined, restricted or excluded by a specific contractual clauses agreed between the parties at the outset of their relationship. A set-off clause is an example of such a provision. The benefits of including such clauses are commercial certainty, convenience and equity. This Q&A provides a brief overview of why express set-off clauses are included in finance documents with links to more detailed information. For detailed information on the reasons for contractual set-off, see Practice Note: Contractual set-off. Set-off defined Where ‘A’ has a claim for a sum of money against ‘B’ and ‘B’ has a cross-claim for a sum of money against ‘A’, and ‘B’, to the extent of their cross-claim, is absolved from payment to ‘A’, B is said to have a right of ‘set-off’. Under English law there are five main kinds of set-off: • Legal set-off: this is the basis of a ‘set-off’ defence in civil proceedings, whereby a counterclaim is used to reduce liability under a claim. It derives not

We refer you to Precedent: Consultancy agreement—company and company—pro-client and the Drafting Notes by the right hand side of the Execution clause. The Drafting Notes explain that the purpose of the execution clause, or testimonium, is to link the main body of the deed with the signature block. It evidences the

We have assumed that this Q&A relates section 82 of the Deregulation Act 2015 (DA 2015) which allowed the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee (CPRC) to include in the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 (CrimPR 2015), SI 2015/1490 rules relating to Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) investigation orders. See: explanatory notes to the DA 2015, s 82. Production orders Pursuant to PACE 1984, s 9 and PACE 1984, schedule 1, a constable may obtain access to excluded material or special procedure material for the purposes of a criminal investigation by making an application. PACE 1984, Sch 1 contains the grounds upon which a judge can grant a production order. A production order requires the person who appears to the judge to be in possession of the material to which the application relates to produce it to a constable for him to take away; or give a constable access to it. Subsequent to the coming into force of DA 2015, s 82 the CrimPR 2016, SI 2016/120 amended

Law360, London: 13 February 2024, the Netherlands Supreme Court upheld the use of intercepted messages from the encrypted messaging service, EncroChat.

Law360, Expert analysis: Neil Williams at Rahman Ravelli outlines why European regulatory investigations into cum-ex—a 1990s-era dividend arbitrage trading practice involving tax rebate claims worth tens of billions of euros—are gaining momentum years after the activities that sparked them, and who should be concerned.

Until 2005, ‘no purchase necessary’ (sometimes referred to as NPN) routes were a common feature of the promotional marketing landscape across the UK. A payment for a product was considered as potentially a payment to enter a promotion, which could have rendered it an illegal lottery under the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 (LAA 1976). In Reader’s Digest Association Ltd v Williams, the court clarified that there are three elements to a lottery: • payment • for a chance • to win a prize where the prize is distributed by chance In Imperial Tobacco Ltd v A-G, the court confirmed that paying for goods or services amounted to payment in this context. In 2005, the Gambling Act 2005 (GA 2005) came into force in England, Scotland and Wales and repealed LAA 1976. It confirmed the test in the Readers Digest case but changed the law so that payment for a product would not automatically be a payment

The references to the UK General Data Protection Regulation, Retained Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR) are intentional. As explained in Practice Note: The UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), the general processing or UK GDPR regime is comprised of two main pieces of legislation: • a version of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (EU GDPR) incorporated into UK law (with various amendments made by Brexit legislation) following the end of the Brexit implementation (or ‘transition’) period at 11 pm on 31 December 2020 • the parts of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) that relate to general personal data processing, powers of the Information Commissioner and sanctions and enforcement, as amended by Brexit legislation following the end of the Brexit implementation period (the DPA 2018). As was generally the case with the equivalent application of the EU GDPR in

Why not just reward staff with cash? It is often a simpler, less burdensome way to reward and incentivise employees. This Practice Note analyses the advantages and disadvantages of share schemes as a general concept. For further details on the advantages and disadvantages of each individual type of scheme, see Practice Note: The advantages and disadvantages of each share incentive arrangement. This Practice Note details: • why do companies implement share schemes? • what are the types of share schemes? • the advantages of share schemes (from a company and employee perspective) • the disadvantages of share schemes (from a company and employee perspective), and • use of share schemes in practice Why do companies implement share schemes for their employees? There are numerous reasons why companies choose to implement employee share schemes and many of these depend on the size of the company and its specific objectives. Some common reasons for companies utilising share schemes include, but are not limited to: • recruiting, retaining and motivating employees • offering a competitive remuneration package