<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">

<channel>
	<title>Lupton Fawcett LLP - Openbrief » Business Regulation</title>
	
	<link>http://www.openbrief.com</link>
	<description>An update service from Lupton Fawcett LLP</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:17:54 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/Openbrief_business-regulation" /><feedburner:info uri="openbrief_business-regulation" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><feedburner:feedFlare href="?format=xml" src="http://www.logos.com/media/blog/feedburner/browser_chicklet.png">Subscribe with Your Browser</feedburner:feedFlare><item>
		<title>Misleading Advertising - a recent ASA decision</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_business-regulation/~3/x5KzKj-v5o0/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2010/08/23/misleading-advertising-a-recent-asa-decision/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:31:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Fiona Kingscott</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Business Advisory Services]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Business Regulation]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law &amp; Regulatory]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Corporate Defence &amp; Prosecution]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Dispute Management]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/?p=802</guid>
		<description>The ASA Council (Non-broadcast) has recently held a retailer in breach of the CAP Code for having insufficient stock to meet anticipated demand.  It found that internet retailer, Simply Be, has breached the CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 16.4 (Availability of products), 27.4 (Sales promotion rules) and 30.1 (Availability), by an email it [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_business-regulation/~4/x5KzKj-v5o0" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2010/08/23/misleading-advertising-a-recent-asa-decision/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2010/08/23/misleading-advertising-a-recent-asa-decision/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Employer’s Liability for Noise Exposure Could Reach as Far Back as 1978</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_business-regulation/~3/tN-FT7nolnQ/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2009/09/29/employer%e2%80%99s-liability-for-noise-exposure-could-reach-as-far-back-as-1978/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:44:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tanya Forret</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Business Advisory Services]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Business Regulation]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/?p=550</guid>
		<description>Employers running businesses where noise is an issue may now face claims from employees dating as far back as 1978 following a recent Court of Appeal ruling in the case of Baker –v- Quantum Clothing.
Quantum Clothing was found liable for the deafness of a former employee following a detailed consideration of the case by the [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_business-regulation/~4/tN-FT7nolnQ" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2009/09/29/employer%e2%80%99s-liability-for-noise-exposure-could-reach-as-far-back-as-1978/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2009/09/29/employer%e2%80%99s-liability-for-noise-exposure-could-reach-as-far-back-as-1978/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Bribery Bill</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_business-regulation/~3/VZVQ8WBbgMo/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2009/09/29/bribery-bill/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:43:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tanya Forret</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Business Advisory Services]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Business Regulation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/?p=549</guid>
		<description>In recent times there has been a distinct change in the emphasis by investigating authorities such as the Serious Fraud Office and Financial Services Authority. The draft Bribery Bill was laid before Parliament in March of this year and will doubtless be joining the plethora of other statutes covering business activities in due course.  [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_business-regulation/~4/VZVQ8WBbgMo" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2009/09/29/bribery-bill/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2009/09/29/bribery-bill/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>OFT bans estate agent</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_business-regulation/~3/u0Rb1FOKWfU/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2009/09/23/oft-bans-estate-agent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:03:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Sykes</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Business Regulation]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/?p=544</guid>
		<description>The Offie of Fair Trading (OFT) has issued the first ban against an Estate Agent for failing to take part in the redress scheme. More information is in the OFT press release availabe here http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2009/116-09.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_business-regulation/~4/u0Rb1FOKWfU" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2009/09/23/oft-bans-estate-agent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2009/09/23/oft-bans-estate-agent/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>REACH - chemicals</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_business-regulation/~3/7XiMt0uUrsQ/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/08/11/reach-chemicals/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:33:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Fiona Kingscott</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Business Regulation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/?p=218</guid>
		<description>The ECHA has published its first list of Substances of Very High Concern (SVHCs); see http://echa.europa.eu/consultations/authorisation/svhc/svhc_cons_en.asp.  Anyone who wants to challenge a substance&amp;#8217;s classification as an SVHC on this list must do so by Thursday 14 August 2008.  The EU Regulation known as REACH (1907/2006/EC) has serious implications for any business which imports [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_business-regulation/~4/7XiMt0uUrsQ" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/08/11/reach-chemicals/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/08/11/reach-chemicals/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Website legal information</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_business-regulation/~3/rQO1EOPZGDE/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/02/26/website-legal-information/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:09:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Fiona Kingscott</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Business Regulation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/02/26/website-legal-information/</guid>
		<description>Virtually every commercial website should comply with the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002.  Between these Regulations and the Companies Act, the requirements for websites are to display, in an easily accessible manner, the company or firm&amp;#8217;s
i)	full name (including &amp;#8216;Ltd&amp;#8217; etc.; this may be different from its trading name);
ii)	email address;
iii)	geographic address;
iv)	registered office (if a [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_business-regulation/~4/rQO1EOPZGDE" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/02/26/website-legal-information/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/02/26/website-legal-information/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Some basics of data protection</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_business-regulation/~3/ViabFmWAG14/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/02/26/some-basics-of-data-protection/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:07:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Fiona Kingscott</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Business Regulation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/02/26/some-basics-of-data-protection/</guid>
		<description>There are some basic rules to obey in data protection.  It is generally not a criminal offence to breach the rules but you may get an &amp;#8216;enforcement notice&amp;#8217; and breach of that would be a criminal offence.  The basic rules are generally as follows.
(i)	Keep customers informed.  Tell customers (a) that you keep [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_business-regulation/~4/ViabFmWAG14" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/02/26/some-basics-of-data-protection/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/02/26/some-basics-of-data-protection/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>The ‘red tape’ on recycling obligations and packaging</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_business-regulation/~3/7PVbl7GFaoE/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/01/30/the-red-tape-on-recycling-obligations-and-packaging/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:01:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Fiona Kingscott</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Business Regulation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/01/30/the-red-tape-on-recycling-obligations-and-packaging/</guid>
		<description>Absolutely any business which produces waste has a duty of care to dispose of that waste correctly, which usually means passing its waste on to a waste carrier, and checking that that carrier has a waste management licence or is exempt from the requirement to have one.
Businesses which make or buy in packaging must ensure [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_business-regulation/~4/7PVbl7GFaoE" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/01/30/the-red-tape-on-recycling-obligations-and-packaging/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/01/30/the-red-tape-on-recycling-obligations-and-packaging/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>WEEE - Waste Electrical And Electronic Equipment</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_business-regulation/~3/KhswpI4SheA/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2007/10/08/weee-waste-electrical-and-electronic-equipment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:42:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Fiona Kingscott</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Business Regulation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2007/10/08/weee-waste-electrical-and-electronic-equipment/</guid>
		<description>If you manufacture or retail electrical or electronic equipment (EEE), then you should be aware of the WEEE Regulations 2006 which came into force this summer. The costs of compliance could be significant. Put very simply, if you manufacture, import or re-brand EEE and place it on the UK market, you must join a Producer Compliance Scheme [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_business-regulation/~4/KhswpI4SheA" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2007/10/08/weee-waste-electrical-and-electronic-equipment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2007/10/08/weee-waste-electrical-and-electronic-equipment/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	</channel>
</rss>

