header-logo header-logo

07 April 2011
Issue: 7460 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Beware of bribery

Cautious approach should be taken to new legislation

Lawyers are advising companies to take a “cautious approach” to the Bribery Act following the issuing of guidance last week by the Ministry of Justice on how companies can put “adequate procedures” in place to avoid prosecution.

The 2010 Act, due to come into force on 1 July 2011, creates a new offence of failure by a commercial organisation to prevent persons associated with it from bribing others on its behalf.

The guidance sets out some simple steps that can be taken to resolve bribery risks, and advises senior management to become personally involved in addressing these. As before, corporate hospitality will be allowed and “facilitation payments” will be unlawful.

Mathew Rutter, partner at Beachcroft, says it is important to bear in mind that “the wording of the Act itself is unchanged, and this guidance does not create a safe harbour”.

Sam Eastwood, partner at Norton Rose LLP, says: “The guidance may have limited weight in the English courts—the guidance does not have the force of law and can be revised by the secretary of state at any time.

“The ultimate effect of the Act will depend on how it is interpreted by prosecutors and, ultimately, the courts, and there remains a risk that they will take a stricter line on some issues like ‘associated persons’ or the territorial scope of the Act.”

Ed Crosse, partner at Osborne Clarke, says that for the majority of ethical businesses, adopting a common sense, proportionate and risk based approach should address their obligations. “However, if companies operating in high risk sectors or jurisdictions fail to protect themselves by properly assessing the risks presented by their business, they will be seriously exposed under the new regime.”

Last week, the director of public prosecutions and the director of the Serious Fraud Office also jointly issued guidance for prosecutors on how to decide whether to bring a prosecution.

Issue: 7460 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll