Misleading Definition

See All Glossary Terms

Related Glossary Terms

Related Legislation Acts

Case studies

"LexisPSL and the other Lexis solutions support our business in exactly the way we want. They enable us to quickly turn around work and deliver the best possible service to our clients."

SBP Law

Access all documents on Misleading

GET ACCESS NOW

GLOSSARY

Published by a ��ɫ�� Corporate Crime expert

What does Misleading mean?

The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 (TDA 1968), s 3(2) provides that a trade description which, though not false, is misleading in that it is likely to be taken as an indication of such of the matters specified in TDA 1968, s 2 and, as such an indication, would be false to a material degree, shall be deemed to be a false trade description.

What distinguishes a 'normal' false trade description, ie one caught by TDA 1968, s 3(1) as being false to a material degree, from one which, though not false is caught by TDA 1968, s 3(2), has been judicially explained in the following terms. The distinction may be between an indication which tells a lie about itself and one which, whilst accurate on its face, misleads by its associations in the mind of the consumer.

Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

DPA suitability checklist

DPA suitability checklist Court's oversight of the interests of justice and fairness, reasonableness and proportionality The UK deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) regime provides for judicial oversight of DPAs. After negotiations as to the terms of a DPA have commenced and before it has been concluded, the court must determine: • whether it is likely to be in the interests of justice, and • that its proposed terms are fair, reasonable and proportionate Therefore, each factor must be supported by clear and persuasive proof in order to seek to persuade the court to approve the DPA. The declarations given under Schedule 17 Part 1, para 8 to the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (CCA 2013) to date provide insight into the court's approach as to when a DPA is suitable and this has, in turn, fed into the prosecutor's approach (see Practice Note: The SFO's approach to Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) [Archived]). For detailed information on DPAs in general, the process followed by the court when considering whether to...

Seller's SPA drafting guide (unconditional completion)—checklist

Seller's SPA drafting guide (unconditional completion)—checklist This Checklist serves as a guide of certain key matters for the seller’s solicitors to consider when drafting, or commenting on, a share purchase agreement (also known as SPA or share sale agreement) recording the sale and purchase of the entire issued share capital of a private limited company, where the transaction involves simultaneous exchange and completion. Parties The drafter should: • check to see if the legal and beneficial title to the sale shares is split, ie check to see if the seller's sale shares are held in the name of a nominee, requiring the beneficial owner to: ◦ be named as the seller in the SPA instead of the registered holder, and ◦ procure the sale of the sale shares to the buyer • check to see if the transaction involves any parties connected with company directors, which may constitute substantial property transactions requiring certain approvals (see Practice Note: Substantial property transactions—requirement to obtain members’ approval) • resist proposals to include in...

Discover our 45 Checklists on Misleading

Misleading actions under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 [Archived]

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.From 6 April 2025, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, SI 2008//1277 have been revoked and replaced by the Digital Market, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA 2024). However, CPUTR 2008, SI 2008/1277 will still apply to any conduct occurring prior to 6 April 2025. For information on misleading actions under DMCCA 2024, see Practice Note: Misleading actions under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.Misleading actionsAn action can be misleading in relation to a commercial practice under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR 2008), SI 2008/1277, in two different ways. The first way under CPUTR 2008, SI 2008/1277, reg 5(2) is if it:•contains false information and is therefore untruthful in relation to any of the matters set out in regulation 5(4) or if its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer in relation to any of the matters in that paragraph, even if the information is...

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (pre-6 April 2025) [Archived]

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.This Practice Note summarises the law, guidance and practice in relation to protecting consumers from unfair trading. It reviews the key aspects of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, SI 2008/1277 (CPUTR 2008)—in particular the unfair commercial practices of misleading actions, misleading omissions, aggressive practices and banned practices, and it considers the changes that the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA 2024) will bring about. This Practice Note also briefly considers the criminal offences created by the CPUTR 2008, enforcement and the private right of redress.The DMCCA 2024In July 2021, BEIS, now the Department for Business and Trade, launched a consultation on reforming competition policy, consumer rights and consumer law enforcement. Key proposals in the consultation included:•updating consumer rights by tackling subscription traps, preventing online exploitation of customers through fake reviews, and creating better prepayment protections•reforming the enforcement of consumer law by giving stronger powers to enforcers—including financial penalties, supporting customers and traders to resolve disputes independently, tackling...

Discover our 597 Practice Notes on Misleading

Claim against a driver for a collision caused by misleading signals

Claim against a driver for a collision caused by misleading signals IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert] Claim No: Parties 1 A B Claimant and 2 X Y Defendant _____________________________________________________________________________ PARTICULARS OF CLAIM _____________________________________________________________________________ 1 At all material times, the Claimant was the owner and driver of a [insert make and model of vehicle] registration number [insert registration number]. The Defendant was the owner and driver of a [insert make and model of vehicle] registration number [insert registration number]. 2 On [insert date], the Claimant was lawfully waiting at the intersection of [insert street name] and [insert street name, town, county]. The Claimant was stationary and preparing to turn left. As she waited, the Defendant’s vehicle approached from the Claimant’s right. The Defendant’s vehicle slowed and signalled to turn left into the Claimant’s street. In reliance on the Defendant’s signal, the Claimant commenced her left turn. The Defendant failed to turn left and proceeded across the junction, colliding with the Claimant’s vehicle. 3 The accident was caused...

Publicity—annual review—law firms

Publicity—annual review—law firms 1 General information Date of review Person(s) conducting review [Insert date] [Insert name(s)] 2 Review and findings Item reviewed Findings Have all publicity materials listed in your Publicity register been reviewed in the last year? ☐ Yes☐ No (set an action point at section 3 below) Is the Publicity register up to date? ☐ Yes☐ No (set an action point at section 3 below) Does the firm’s letterhead comply with requirements set out in Practice Note: Publicity—law firms? ☐ Yes☐ No (set an action point at section 3 below) Do the firm’s letterhead, website and emails show the firm’s SRA authorisation number and the words ‘authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority’? ☐ Yes☐ No (set an action point at section 3 below) Does the firm’s website display all relevant information required by the SRA Transparency Rules? ☐ Yes☐ No (set an action point at section 3 below) Is all publicity material up to date, accurate and not misleading? ☐ Yes☐ No...

Dive into our 109 Precedents related to Misleading

I act for a small company which is having trouble obtaining bank finance—would an issue of mini-bonds be a viable alternative?

I act for a small company which is having trouble obtaining bank finance—would an issue of mini-bonds be a viable alternative? IP COMPLETION DAY: 11pm (GMT) on 31 December 2020 marks the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period entered into following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. At this point in time (referred to in UK law as ‘IP completion day’), key transitional arrangements come to an end and significant changes begin to take effect across the UK’s legal regime. This document contains guidance on subjects impacted by these changes. Before continuing your research, see Practice Note: What does IP completion day mean for DCM lawyers? [Archived] BREXIT: As of 31 January 2020, the UK is no longer an EU Member State, but has entered an implementation period during which it continues to be treated by the EU as a Member State for many purposes. As a third country, the UK can no longer participate in the EU’s political institutions, agencies, offices, bodies and governance structures (except to the...

Where an unsuccessful job applicant submits a data subject access request in relation to the reference supplied by their employer, is it reasonable for the reference to be withheld from disclosure if it was stated as being ‘given in confidence’, but it only contained standard information, such as the applicant’s job title, employment dates and absence record, all of which was information already know to the applicant?

Where an unsuccessful job applicant submits a data subject access request in relation to the reference supplied by their employer, is it reasonable for the reference to be withheld from disclosure if it was stated as being ‘given in confidence’, but it only contained standard information, such as the applicant’s job title, employment dates and absence record, all of which was information already know to the applicant? A reference will include personal data relating to the individual and may, depending on the circumstances, include special category data (or special categories of personal data, formerly known as sensitive personal data), eg where it includes information concerning the individual’s sickness absence record, ie health. Before processing personal data in relation to an individual, an employer will need to consider whether that processing is lawful under Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679, UK GDPR (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018). For further information, see Practice Note: References, under the section dealing with ‘Data protection issues’. For information about the lawful processing...

See the 124 Q&As about Misleading

Misuse of AI in court and the consequences (Ayinde v Haringey & Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Divisional Court has ruled on the consequences of misusing artificial intelligence (AI) in court proceedings. Following two referrals arising from actual or suspected misuse of generative AI by lawyers, the court used its inherent powers to enforce the duties owed by lawyers to the court (the Hamid jurisdiction). The judgment provides vitally important guidance to practitioners on their duties to the court and to their professional regulators when using AI. It also explains the sanctions likely to apply for misuse of AI including public admonishment, strike out and costs sanctions, referrals to regulators, contempt of court and, in the most egregious cases, referral to the police for criminal investigation. The judgment also provides a comprehensive index of cases from around the world where fake citations (or other misleading material) have been placed before the court. Written by Harriet Campbell, senior knowledge lawyer at Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP.

Revocation of court orders and declarations (Bayerische Landesbank v RusChemAlliance)

Arbitration analysis: This decision is one of a series of judgments relating to the granting of anti-suit injunctions (ASI) to restrain Russian court proceedings commenced in breach of agreements to arbitrate, arising in connection with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the measures taken by the Russian government and the Russian courts following the invasion and its aftermath. In this matter, the three claimant banks (Bayerische Landesbank, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg and Commerzbank AG) sought not only the revocation of the final ASIs they had obtained, but also sought the revocation of declarations regarding jurisdiction, governing law, and breach of contract. This decision therefore provides guidance on the circumstances in which the English courts will revoke orders and declarations they have made. Written by Oliver Browne, partner at Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP.

Read the latest 215 News articles on Misleading

Top

Trial

��ɫ��

GLOSSARY