This Practice Note considers the law and institutional investor guidance relating to the holding of entirely virtual or hybrid general meetings and annual general meetings (AGMs). The interest from shareholders and other company stakeholders in holding meetings via electronic modes of communication has notably increased in recent years. Holding electronic meetings—Companies Act 2006 Even before the coronavirus pandemic, a small number of FTSE 350 companies had begun experimenting with electronic meetings, ranging from online broadcasts (webcasts) of physical meetings, or hybrid meetings where shareholders could choose to participate in either a physical or virtual space. In 2016 Jimmy Choo plc held the first entirely virtual AGM which triggered significant debate about the fairness and effectiveness of virtual participation. Hybrid or wholly virtual electronic meetings and AGMs are likely to be attractive to some companies and shareholders given the perceived ease of access for members, as well as the potential cost savings from not holding a physical meeting on the same scale, or at all. A notable concern with electronic meetings is whether

In recent years, the annual bonus structures for executives have come under particularly close scrutiny, causing remuneration committees to rethink their approach. The abnormal economic conditions brought about through the coronavirus pandemic and cost-of-living crisis have raised the spectre of bonus payments to an even higher level of scrutiny. This Practice Note provides a practical analysis of the items that will need to be considered by companies as they review the nature and the structure of their executive annual cash bonus schemes. Does the cash bonus still have a role? With the dramatic escalation in share-based type rewards over the last 30 years or so, notably in the form of the long-term share incentive plan, does the executive cash bonus still have a role? The answer is that the short-term incentive, defined as the basis for rewarding the achievement of short-term goals after the end of a 12-month financial year, will usually include a substantial element of cash bonus. It would actually not be unusual for the whole amount of the short-term incentive to be

This week's edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes: case analysis of Re E (Section 37 Direction) on the scope of the court's powers under section 37(1) of the Children Act 1989 to direct an LA to carry out an investigation into a child’s circumstances and the consequential power to make interim public law orders under section 38(1)(b). Case reports include R (AA) v Waltham Forest LBC, in which the court ruled on an application for judicial review of a HNAPHP prepared by the LA for alleged failures to fulfill duties under section 189A of the Housing Act 1996; Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership (SSHCLG intervening), in which the court dismissed an appeal finding it just and equitable to make RCOs which can be made in respect of costs incurred before Building Safety Act 2022 came into force; Rose (Mill Road Bridge 2) v Cambridgeshire CC, in which the court considered a judicial review application concerning the validity of a council-ordered traffic regulation; and R (John Morley) v Surrey Heath BC, in which the court ruled on recovery of council tax arrears by the LA but the summons was found to be unlawful and relief refused as it demanded costs for obtaining a liability order and alternatives to judicial review were available. It also includes coverage of the government’s ten-year health plan, the 2025 Keeping children safe in education statutory guidance, Uber’s fights to overturn taxi contract ruling at the UK Supreme Court and the Coronavirus (COVID-19) inquiry Module 1 implementation update. It also includes further updates on Children’s social care, Healthcare, Education, Licensing, Social housing, Highways, Local government finance, Governance, Social care and Planning.

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic heralded a significant change in the ways many of us work. This note is focussed on hybrid working, which refers to a flexibility around where we work. Inevitably, though, it also touches upon flexible working which is about when we work. An historical context Originally, most people worked from, or close to, home, whether working the land, small-scale home-based manufacturing and service provision and so on. The industrial revolution, and with it factories as well as large scale farming, meant people started having to go to a place of work so they could collectively work on the same machine or on the same land or flocks and herds. At the same time, and with the spread of printing and other technologies, commerce meant that there was an explosion of document production. Those whose roles became document based, for example lawyers and accountants, had to be where those documents were kept so as to avoid creating multiple copies of everything. Part of the reason for the advent of the modern day

Updated in January 2026 Introduction The Philippines has continued to demonstrate relatively strong and resilient economic performance, sustaining its position among the faster-growing economies in Southeast Asia. From 2010 to 2019, the country recorded an average annual GDP growth rate of approximately 6.4%, a marked improvement from the 4.5% average between 2000 and 2009. Despite the global economic challenges posed by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in 2020, the Philippines showcased resilience, with GDP growth rebounding to 5.6% in 2023, the highest growth rate in Southeast Asia. In terms of credit ratings, the Philippines has maintained favourable assessments from major international agencies. As of June 2024, Fitch Ratings affirmed the country's Long-Term Foreign-Currency Issuer Default Rating at 'BBB' with a stable outlook, reflecting the nation's strong medium-term growth prospects. This guide aims to highlight some of the key areas that a new business will need to know and address before it begins to operate in the Philippines. This guide should not be

Banking & Finance analysis: This News Analysis provides a summary of the cases we have alerted in LexisPSL Banking & Finance for February 2023.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note tracks the progress of the European Commission’s proposal for a revision of Regulation (EU) 910/2014 (OJ L 257/73), the EU eIDAS Regulation to establish a framework for a European Digital Identity. The EU eIDAS Regulation which was adopted in 2014 repealed the preceding Directive 1999/93/EC, also known as the EU e-Signature Directive. Regulation (EU) 2024/1183, the European Digital Identity Framework, was published in the Official Journal of the EU on 30 April 2024 and came into force on 20 May 2024. The new framework is expected to simplify access to online services; increase user trust and confidence in digital interactions; boost the digital economy by fostering innovation and competition; and reduce risk of identity theft and fraud. The European Digital Identity Framework comprises transitional measures applicable until 21 May 2026 and 21 May 2027. Background Although the use of basic electronic signatures is relatively commonplace in the EU and the UK, the picture is different for digital and other more advanced forms of electronic signatures, even if these became more popular to overcome the practicalities of document signing during the coronavirus (COVID

This Practice Note provides guidance on remote and hybrid hearings, via video-conference and telephone, in the Family Court. It considers what a remote or hybrid hearing is, when a hearing may be conducted remotely and the electronic platforms that are available for remote hearings. The remote participation guidance for the Civil and Family courts and tribunal jurisdictions is also set out, published in June 2026, following the cross-jurisdictional Remote Participation Review. Relevant provisions of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955 are also set out, together with judicial guidance and consultations on remote and hybrid hearings. The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic accelerated the planned move to greater use of technology, remote hearings and online document management in the Family Court. Audio and video technology has long played a part in the Family Court but reliance on this increased as a response to the pandemic. While some individual cases may lend themselves to remote hearings, in others remote hearings may not be appropriate. Guidance as to remote hearings in the Family Court developed

This Practice Note summarises how the common law doctrine of frustration may operate to discharge an agreement and the legal consequences of a contract being frustrated, including issues of partial frustration, party at fault (self-induced frustration) and examples of types of frustrating event. See also Practice Notes: • Frustration event analysis—a practical guide • Frustration—key and illustrative decisions For guidance on drafting a notice asserting frustration of a contract, see Precedent: Contract frustration notice. Interest in the doctrine of frustration particularly came to the fore in light of world events such as the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in 2020 and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and the attendant imposition of sanctions against Russian entities. The 2026 conflict in the Middle East and Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz will likely result in similar interest in this area, see News Analysis: The Middle East conflict—key legal issues for commercial entities. Links to general guidance with regard to contractual relations and these world events is provided in the world events section below. Frustration is distinct

Civil justice reform: see Practice Note: Civil justice reform in Scotland—virtual hearings and electronic submission of documents for guidance on the current rules and practice in the Scottish civil courts in relation to virtual hearings and the electronic signing, transmission and lodging of documents. In particular, the Act of Sederunt (Electronic Signature and Electronic Transmission of Documents) 2025, SSI 2025/302 came into force on 1 December 2025, making permanent the rules on electronic signatures and electronic transmission/lodging of documents which were introduced during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. This Practice Note offers practical and procedural guidance on ordinary actions proceeding in the Court of Session. For information on: • substantive and procedural matters that should be considered before commencing a civil action in the Scottish courts, including the jurisdiction of the Court of Session, see Practice Note: Starting a civil claim in Scotland • the role of the Court of Session, how it is constituted and the binding nature of its judgments, see Practice Note: Civil court structure

Why harmonisation is needed The divergence between Member States' laws has an impact on: • the recovery rates of creditors in different jurisdictions • investment decisions, and • the restructuring of groups of companies A more coherent approach at EU level would not only improve returns to creditors and the flow of cross-border investment, but would also have a positive impact on entrepreneurship, employment and innovation. The World Bank has in the past produced substantial reports to show improved insolvency laws promote greater investment in that country (see Practice Note: Table of advantages and disadvantages of restructuring in various jurisdictions worldwide and News Analysis: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—A nucleus for significant reform), and discrepancies between national frameworks lead to increased costs and uncertainties in assessing the risks of investing in another Member State (as noted by the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB); see: LNB News 12/05/2025 17). The Regulation (EU) 2015/848 (OJ L141 5.6.2015 p 19), Recast Regulation on Insolvency [EU Recast Regulation on Insolvency] does not seek to

Clinical Negligence Claims Agreement 2024 The Clinical Negligence Claims Agreement 2024 supersedes the COVID-19 Clinical Negligence Protocol (2020) (last updated in June 2021) which was initially created as an emergency measure to adapt clinical negligence claims handling and litigation processes during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The 2024 agreement builds on the previous Protocol with various practices now adopted into everyday claims management. The agreement is not contractually binding but places an emphasis on collaborative working between the parties. The agreement can be found here: Clinical Negligence Claims Agreement 2024. The claimant is required to request an extension in accordance with the provisions of this agreement in advance of the primary limitation period expiring. In respect of claims where NHSR is the indemnifying organisation and has not yet been notified of the claim, the written notification should be sent to nhsr.limitationnotification@nhs.net. Separate provisions apply, including in respect of limitation, for those not party to or able to benefit from the agreement. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Extending the limitation period in clinical negligence