An important realignment and an opportunity missed? The law applicable to the arbitration agreement, jurisdictional re-hearings, stays to court proceedings, and the Arbitration Act 2025

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to introduce the readership to the consultation being held by the Law Commission concerning proposed revisions to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Design/methodology/approach – Discussion of the consultation being held by the Law Commission concerning proposed revisions to the DoLS. Findings – These are as yet unknown as the consultation period is ongoing – it is planned that a future paper will examine the findings and recommendations from the consultation process. Practical implications – There has been criticism of the DoLS since their introduction in 2009. A new scheme provides the opportunity to respond to some of the criticisms and to develop more appropriate processes. The paper invites readers to take part in the consultation process and to respond to the proposals that have been developed. Social implications – A new and more appropriate scheme would be beneficial for service users and families/caregivers. Originality/value – This is the first opportunity for a revision to the DoLS scheme and introduction of the proposed scheme and the consultation process to the readership is highly appropriate and valuable to the Journal.

The Arbitration Act 1996 has regulated arbitrations in England and Wales for almost thirty years. Given the evolution of arbitral practice during this time, the UK Government in 2021 asked the Law Commission to consider potential amendments to the Act to ensure that it continues to be ‘state of the art’. The Law Commission concluded that wholesale reform of the Arbitration Act was not necessary or desirable in order to achieve that aim. The Law Commission instead proposed a series of targeted amendments, which are due to be implemented in legislation during the course of 2024. This article provides an overview of the Law Commission’s review process before discussing its key recommendations and their potential impact on London’s position as a preeminent seat for international arbitration. The article also discusses the rationales underpinning the Law Commission’s recommendations. In summary, some proposals merely modify the wording of the Arbitration Act without changing the substance of English law. A second category represents a conscious effort towards progressive development of the arbitration framework in England and Wales, to ensure in particular that London remains competitive internationally. A third category of changes seeks to build on the strengths of the English courts to ensure that the Arbitration Act continues to reflect the evolving world of arbitration. Taken together, the authors consider that the Law Commission’s targeted recommendations should go some way to ensuring that England – and London – continue to have a prominent place in that world. Arbitration, Arbitration Act 1996, Dispute Resolution, Reform, Law Commission, Consultation, England, London, Model Law, New York Convention

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to inform readers about the Law Commission's review of hate crime offences and provide information on key stages. At the time of writing the review is at consultation stage and people are being invited to participate in this process.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is structured in a question and answer format and provides an overview of existing hate crime offences and the stages of the Law Commission's review.FindingsThe consultation will consider the effect of the Law Commission's review of hate crime law on people with disabilities.Originality/valueThe author is a member of the Law Commission's criminal law team and answers questions on what's involved in the consultation process. The Law Commission wants to make sure that people who could be affected by any changes to the law on hate crime have their say.

The Referral and Consultation Entrustable Professional Activity: Defining the Components in Order to Develop a Curriculum for Pediatric Residents

The Green Energy and Green Economy Act (2009) was an omnibus bill that affected a number of other acts. Due to the breadth of its effects, it should have seen a rigorous consultation and review process; this is especially true given how it would impact First Nations and its explicit mention in the Bill. However, it took less than three months for it to receive Royal Assent and become an act. This timeline is extremely short, even among similar bills within the same context. One of the core reasons for this swift transition is due to its labeling as green energy, which has benign connotations. This effectively allowed the bill to be expedited through the consultation process. The consultation process had many hurdles of its own that inhibited meaningful consultation including its timeframe, location of hearings, accessibility, and other factors. The term green energy was also never defined within the Act, meaning it only served as a form of signaling. This raises many questions with respect to the Government of Ontario’s conduct in the situation and how they handled their legal duty to consult with Indigenous people of Ontario, Canada. There are many voices that have raised issues with this process. If nothing else, this example serves the purpose of demonstrating the dangers of green-labelling, especially to Indigenous people of Canada and other Indigenous groups worldwide.

This article critically examines a an ongoing review commenced in 2012 by the United Kingdom’s Law Commission into new wildlife laws for England and Wales by considering four interlinked elements of the process. First, it outlines the underlying subject matter and regulatory aims of wildlife law. It then describes the scope of the Law Commission’s Wildlife Law Project, identifying some of the key problem areas it sought to address and referencing its consultation process conducted in the later part of 2012. Next the article summarises the Law Commission’s view for a new wildlife law regime. The fourth element explores the current and potential roles of criminalising and non-criminalising sanctions. With a continued focus on the underlying subject matter and regulatory aims, discussion centres on the greater use of non-criminalising civil sanctions in wildlife law. The paper supports the Law Commission’s argument that the creation of a civil sanctions regime is not tantamount to decriminalisation in its true sense but simply widens the available regulatory enforcement options.

The Law Commission of England and Wales is currently reviewing the English Arbitration Act 1996 with a view to its being reformed. In September, it published a consultation paper making various recommendations on a preliminary basis. This article respectfully suggests that the Law Commission should revise its approach in respect of its proposed amendment to section 67 (challenges to jurisdiction) and its decision not to include in the review the question of the law governing the arbitration agreement: the former in order to protect the legitimacy of arbitration; and the latter in order to enhance legal certainty and clarity. Arbitration Act 1996, law reform, Law Commission, section 67, law applicable to the arbitration agreement

The Law Commission was tasked with reviewing the Arbitration Act 1996, to determine whether any amendments to the Act were needed to ensure that the Act remains fit for purpose and continues to promote England and Wales as a leading destination for commercial arbitration. As part of that process, the Law Commission engaged with many different stakeholders across the arbitration community. The London Court of International Arbitration was one of those stakeholders. Accordingly, this article seeks to offer readers an insight into the perspective of an arbitral institution on the topic of reform of the Act. While this article does not address comprehensively all of the Law Commission’s proposals, it provides an insight into the London Court of Arbitration (LCIA)’s responses to the Law Commission’s consultation and the competing considerations that are at play with respect to the duty of confidentiality, the duties of impartiality, independence and disclosure, discrimination, section 67 of the Act, and the law applicable to the arbitration agreement.

THE NEW ZEALAND Arbitration Act was enacted on 2 September 1996 and will come into force on 1 July 1997.2 A number of changes have been made to the Bill as a result of the Select Committee review process which was carried out in the course of its enactment. The Government Administration Committee re-ceived and considered 14 submissions and also conducted private consultations with members of the judiciary, the Ministry of Justice and Department for the Courts, and the Law Commission whose recommendations had led to the Bill.3 Although a number of issues were raised in the course of submissions and consultation, most of these could be easily resolved or were determined to have been adequately dealt with under the Bill. Indeed, many of the changes made to the Bill in the Act as finally enacted simply reflect minor drafting and technical improvements. The Committee reaffirmed the Law Commission's conclusion that the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration should be adopted as the model for arbitral law reform in New Zealand, both with respect to international commercial arbitration and (with some modifications) with respect to domestic arbitration.4 The policy was clearly that parties to commercial and similar contracts should have the freedom ‘to choose their own method of resolving their disputes involving their own tribunal, procedure and law’.5 This is consistent with the position of the Law Commission in developing the Bill. Its report on arbitration reflects a ‘contractual’ rather than a ‘jurisdictional’ approach to arbitration,6 with the authority of the arbitral tribunal treated as deriving from the agreement of the parties rather than from the recognition accorded by the State.7 Particular issues as to the arbitrability of disputes (including consumer arbitration agreements), the liability of arbitrators for negligence, and the scope of …

Appointment of Judges in Higher Judiciary: An Interpretational Riddle

<p align="LEFT">Partial defences are special defences only available in England & Wales to defendants charged with murder. They include provocation, diminished responsibility, infanticide and killing pursuant to a suicide pact. These are known as the ‘voluntary manslaughters’ where homicide with intent otherwise sufficient for murder (‘malice aforethought’) is reduced to manslaughter because of defined mitigating circumstances. Provocation and diminished responsibility have proved most problematic and will be the focus of this article. The mitigating factors arise from abnormal mental states, and psychiatric evidence has been at the centre of disputes regarding these defences. In this journal, Kerrigan set out recent problems that have developed with provocation in case law. The degree to which mental disorder can be considered when deciding the standard of behaviour required of the defendant who pleads ‘provocation’ has fluctuated markedly in recent years. Diminished responsibility, on the other hand, has aroused concern, inter alia, over its expansive use to cover a wide range of mental conditions, and the frequency with which expert psychiatrists comment on the ‘ultimate issue’ of whether all limbs of the test are met. Both problems might be said to arise from vague terms in the statutory definition that are incompatible with contemporary psychiatric practice.</p><p align="LEFT">Following the controversial case of R v Smith (Morgan James), which permitted mental disorder a much greater effect on provocation, the United Kingdom Government asked the Law Commission to consider and report on the law and practice of the partial defences provided for by the Homicide Act 1957. This progressed to investigation into wider homicide law and a process of consultation and review which has now passed to the Ministry of Justice. This paper will outline briefly the review process before considering in greater detail the current proposals for new definitions of provocation and diminished responsibility. The Commission would like these to exist within a radically re-structured law of homicide. The implications for mentally disordered defendants and therefore expert psychiatric opinion will be considered.</p>

The purpose of these guidelines is to provide dietitians in Australia and New Zealand with a summary of evidence based clinical guidelines related to the dietetic management of adult patients with chronic kidney disease. The patient target group is any adult patient fulfilling the definition and diagnostic criteria of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD), excluding those with nephrotic syndrome. These guidelines by definition also exclude acute renal failure and transplantation. The clinical questions were as follows: • At what level of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) should patients be referred to the dietitian in order to maximise nutritional intervention opportunities? • Which specific measures best reflect nutritional status or change in nutritional status in CKD? • What are the goals of nutrition intervention for CKD? • What is (are) the appropriate nutritional intervention(s) to optimise nutritional status in CKD and prevent malnutrition? • What is the optimal method of implementation and follow up to ensure nutritional status is maintained or improved? These guidelines are meant to serve as a general framework for handling patients with particular health problems. It may not always be appropriate to use these guidelines to manage clients because individual circumstances may vary. The independent skill and judgement of the health care provider must always dictate treatment decisions. These guidelines for practice are provided with the express understanding that they do not establish or specify particular standards of care, whether legal, medical or other. 1

Worldwide, researchers are being asked to There are practical, ethical, and regulatory reasons better communicate their science to the public for involving local communities in research (Pearce et (Lubchenco, 1998). In Nunavut, Canada, where al., 2009). On a practical level, research often depends on dozens of research projects take place each year, commucommunity resources, including local knowledge, guides, nity consultation and engagement have been legally manand equipment, in order to complete work either within dated by the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (INAC, the community or on the land (Gilchrist et al., 2005). 1993). Relevant portions of the Act include Sections Researchers also have an ethical obligation to engage com 5.1.2(h), 5.2.37, and 5.2.38, and Article 33 as it extends to munities in the work, as research findings may be relevant field research. Thus, each research project that takes place to local management decisions (Pearce et al., 2009). In in Nunavut must undergo community review as part of the Canada's North, where land-claim agreements have been permitting process before any work is authorized. signed, researchers also have a legal obligation to engage The permitting and consultation process in Nunavut is and involve communities in local studies, complex for those unfamiliar with the existing protocols, Community involvement in science programs has also and it varies with the scientific approach and duration of been identified as a priority to improve local community a project. Briefly, each research project must acquire perdecision making, and it is recognized as a key to success mits from various regulatory agencies, which may include ful co-management of resources (Fazey et al., 2006; Lebel the Canadian Wildlife Service, the Department of Fisheret al., 2006). Involvement of communities increases local ies and Oceans, and the Nunavut Research Institute. Most investment and support in completing the project. Timely, of those permits require evidence of prior consultation with relevant, and accessible information delivered as part of the community that is geographically closest to the study a two-way dialogue can also increase community under 1 area. Experience has shown that this process is greatly standing of findings from a variety of disciplines, which facilitated when the research team has first contacted and can increase community capacity, stewardship, and public consulted with the community on the proposed work and, participation in local governance related to the environment if relevant, discussed results of previous studies. Given the (EMAN, 2002). importance of consultation, some government departments Despite the obligations and benefits of involving local have initiated broader consultation processes that give local community members, many researchers by their own organizations the opportunity to comment on any research admission simply do not have the contacts, skills, or plan in their jurisdiction, as well as updating them on terresources to actively engage community members beyond ritory-wide efforts (Gearheard and Shirley, 2007). As part the required permitting process (Gearheard and Shirley, of this procedural review, the community groups that are 2007). At the same time, many educators in the North | involved in the review boards have the opportunity to comwould like to incorporate more integrated learning expe ment on projects and to request more information (ITK riences into their teaching curricula, but while researchers and NRI, 2007). The primary purposes of this extensive are often keen to contribute to educational programs, they application, review, and consultation process are to provide lack the resources to do so (Salmon et al., 2011). As a result, northern residents the opportunity to comment on research although legislation and consultation practices have been conducted near their communities and to identify potential implemented, and community members do assist, inform, risks to the local flora and fauna. Unfortunately, although and learn from research activities (usually hunters, Hunt great efforts have been made to rectify the in, fly out ers and Trappers' Organizations (HTOs) members and approach that has sometimes been practiced by researchguides), many northern community members—particularly ers in the past (Korsmo and Graham, 2002; Gearheard and students and educators from elementary to post-secondary

Since its inception in 1974, the Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP) has provided a unique forum for decision-making processes among developer-proponents and between government departments at federal, provincial and territorial levels. In the past decade, a wealth of panel reports and recommendations has been assembled in a series of publications, many of which focus on development proposals on federal lands in the Canadian north. Here, the degree to which EARP recommendations have influenced the federal decision-making process is assessed generally. It is concluded that most EARP panel reports have exerted a profound effect on proponent developers, proponent-departments or associated federal, provincial or territorial agencies. In most cases, the review process has worked to enhance the coordination and delivery of a complex matrix of government services. One of the major benefits of the EARP is that it provides an arena for the numerous government departments to openly consult, communicate and begin to negotiate future roles, responsibilities and involvement in projects. The force of scrutiny, in a forum open to members of the general public, appears to have facilitated the resolution of jurisdictional responsibilities and roles in project developments among regulatory bodies. Importantly, EARP panel consultations allow government agencies and interest groups to openly assess proposals without concern over conflicts of interest. Critics have pointed out several significant drawbacks and jurisdictional overlaps of the EARP process. Given the existing complexity of the Canadian regulatory system, these concerns may be less significant than the advantages provided by the process for inter-and intra-governmental coordination and public consultations. In many cases, it is considered that the existence of the EARP has forced government departments to factor environmental and/or socio-economic concerns into their decision-making processes. Although difficult to quantify, this may be one of the primary influences of the EARP on Canadian governmental decision making in both the public and private sectors.Key words: environmental reviews, environmental assessments

BackgroundCarers and patients are more empowered than ever to be involved in end of life care at home. To facilitate prompt resolution of symptoms, it is important that we standardise...