“option” includes any right to acquire shares

sentence which takes effect only if the defendant commits another offence punishable with imprisonment within the specified period;

a body which assesses costs;

the parties to an arbitration (the claimant(s) and respondent(s)) are typically able to influence the arbitrator(s) nominated/appointed to determine their dispute. This is considered a major advantage of arbitration as it provides parties with an opportunity to select decision-makers with the right qualifications and expertise, whether legal and/or industry-focused. In ad hoc arbitration, the parties typically appoint their arbitrator(s) directly, or utilise the services of an appointing authority. In institutional arbitration, the arbitral institution typically appoints the arbitrator(s) on behalf of the parties, although they will usually take into account any party nominations, subject to some exceptions. By way of contrast, in litigation, the parties do not select their judge. Most arbitral tribunals comprise a single arbitrator, called a sole arbitrator, chosen by agreement between the parties or by the appointing authority or institution. In larger cases, and sometimes because the arbitration agreement requires it, the tribunal will comprise two arbitrators, one chosen by each side, or three arbitrators, the third or presiding arbitrator being typically chosen by the two party-appointed arbitrators. Beyond the mechanics of appointing arbitrators, diversifying the pool of arbitrators (in terms of gender, nationality, race, ethnicity, nationality, profession, trade background, etc) has become an area of significant focus too. AA 1996—the tribunal—arbitration—England and Wales—overview contains links to practical guidance on subjects related to arbitrators, including their appointment, their duties and powers, and how they may be replaced/removed

party consent is at the heart of arbitration, and the arbitration agreement (or arbitration clause) represents a mutual, contractual agreement between the parties to resolve disputes by arbitration, rather than by submitting to the jurisdiction of national courts. Those new to arbitration may be involved with advising on the initial choice of arbitration and drafting the precise wording of the arbitration agreement or clause. The arbitration agreement is also of central relevance when, for example, commencing/responding to arbitration proceedings, assessing the jurisdiction of the tribunal (both pre- and post-award), and potentially during award set-aside and/or recognition and enforcement proceedings. AA 1996—the arbitration agreement—England and Wales—overview contains links to practical guidance on matters related to arbitration agreements, including how they can be drafted, the requirements for a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement, what disputes are capable legally of being resolved by arbitration (ie whether they are arbitrable), and the ‘separability’ of the arbitration clause from any wider contract in which it is found

Immigration advocacy group the3million and the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA) have written to the Home Office minister regarding a software bug in the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) eVisa system. The software error in July 2025 caused individuals who had previously been granted settled status under the EUSS to be incorrectly downgraded to pre-settled status. The letter states that this error undermines the reliability of the digital-only proof of immigration status, causing distress and practical difficulties for affected individuals, especially when proving their status to employers, banks, or government agencies. It also highlights what the organisations allege is a lack of transparency and quality assurance in the Home Office’s digital systems.

the3million and the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA) have issued a joint letter to the Immigration Minister addressing concerns surrounding eVisas and recent travel documentation changes. This correspondence follows a ministerial statement on 4 December 2024, which allows for the use of Biometric Residence Permits (BRPs) and Biometric Residence Cards (BRCs) which expire on and after 31 December 2024 for travel back to the UK until 31 March 2025.  The letter notes that, while welcome, the measure excludes certain cohorts, including those whose documents expire between 31 October and 30 December 2024 and persons with Immigration Act 1971, section 3C leave. It also raises concerns about carriers' liability and potential boarding denials, urging for urgent remedial measures. Proposals include exempting carriers from  section 40 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 charges and return costs for passengers travelling with expired BRP/Cs or where systems are down and who are refused entry at port. The organisations are also calling for the further rollout of the Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) scheme to be postponed.

the3million and the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA) have jointly submitted a letter to the Home Office regarding ongoing difficulties in linking passports and other identity documents to electronic visas (eVisas). These issues, occurring amidst the expanded roll-out of the Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) scheme, include errors when adding documents, missing functionality, and problems with specific document types. In December 2024, the Home Office implemented a mitigating measure which permitted expired Biometric Residence Permits (BRPs) and Biometric Residence Cards (BRCs) to be accepted by carriers however, this will not assist those who are not, or are no longer, in possession of such an expired document. Difficulties with the ‘update your UK Visas and Immigration account details’ include:

the3million and Seraphus have published a joint Q&A document detailing significant changes to the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) absence rules announced by the Home Office on 24 June 2025. These new rules, effective from 16 July 2025, now provide that pre-settled status holders can demonstrate 30 months of UK residence within the previous 60 months to qualify for settled status, as an alternative to the existing requirement of a maximum of six months absence per 12-month period.

the3million, in collaboration with the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA) and 42 other co-signatories, has issued a joint letter expressing serious concerns over a Home Office policy. The policy in question involves the cancellation of pre-settled status for EU citizens who have experienced a breakdown in their relationship. This correspondence highlights growing apprehension within the legal and advocacy community regarding the potential impact of this policy on vulnerable individuals and its compatibility with the EU Settlement Scheme's objectives.

The EU citizens advocacy group the3million has launched a set of ten policy proposals that it urges the new Labour government to act upon within its first 100 days of term. The policies focus on addressing what it calls the shortcomings and complexities of the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) and the upcoming digitalisation of the UK immigration system, specifically the requirement for migrants holding a Biometric Residence Permit (BRP) or Biometric Residence Card (BRC) to have eVisas or an online UKVI account once the physical documents expire on 31 December 2024. The organisation states that the policies focus on fully protecting the rights of those the Withdrawal Agreement was designed to protect, and targeting the problems created by the UK’s digitalisation of immigration status. The proposed policies are endorsed by various other organisations and law firms.

the3million has published a report examining challenges associated with the UK’s eVisa system, which provides online-only proof of immigration status. The report notes that technical errors and data inaccuracies have affected individuals’ ability to demonstrate their rights to work, rent, travel and access services.