header-logo header-logo

19 March 2009 / Claire Andrews
Issue: 7361 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Now for the next Act

Claire Andrews navigates the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008

Consumer and food law, with its origins in weights and measures and food legislation dating from Magna Carta and beyond, has traditionally used punishment to deter breach of regulatory standards. In history, death, fines, flogging, the pillory, imprisonment and excommunication have featured variously as punishments for, and therefore deterrents against, certain offences of selling short weight or adulteration of food.

Limited powers

Today's powers to enforce consumer protection, food safety and hygiene laws are more limited. Personified by the modern-day weights and measures inspector—the trading standards officer—and his colleague the environmental health practitioner, local authority regulatory services have continued to enjoy powers which focus on punishment and deterrent through criminal sanctions. Prior to the Enterprise Act 2002 (and its predecessor, the Stop Now Orders (EC Directive) Regulations 2001), enforcement involved prosecuting off enders, cautioning them or taking informal or no action, and in some types of case, limited powers to prevent the off ending activity, including suspension or forfeiture.

The shift from

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

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