Agatha was a talented and well-loved young lawyer who joined us as a trainee in 2022 and qualified into our Reputation Protection and Crisis Management team in 2024, becoming an integral and well-loved member of the firm.

Emma Woollcott, Partner and Head of the Reputation Protection and Crisis Management team said:

"We are heartbroken. Everyone who knew Agatha will miss her tremendously. She was an extremely talented young lawyer, just at the beginning of what would have been a hugely successful and impactful career. We were very lucky to have worked with her. As our colleague and friend, she brought a warmth and energy to every situation and was a joy to spend time with. We hold Agatha and those who knew and loved her in our thoughts at this terribly difficult time."

The challenges

Reduced valuations

Asset values have fallen due to a combination of economic uncertainty and high interest rates. In particular, offices, secondary retail and mixed-use stock are facing valuation pressures. This causes issues for borrowers; increasing loan-to-value ratios and creating refinancing gaps where there is a shortfall when their existing loans mature.

Interest rates

Previous expectations of lower interest rates have been scuppered by the escalating conflict in the Middle East. Interest rates therefore remain a persistent challenge and one that will keep defining this year and beyond. The impact of this is clear – the inflationary pressures will keep the cost of borrowing high putting a strain on cash flow and limiting borrowers' ability to focus spending on other priorities.

Cautious credit environment

More intensive lender engagement can be expected in refinancing discussions as a result of the geopolitical landscape, resulting in conservative underwriting. Lenders are looking at potential loans with increasing scrutiny and may impose tighter credit conditions such as shortening interest-free periods or reducing loan-to-value ratios. Borrowers are seeing stricter financial covenants imposed by lenders which will be closely monitored.

So, what should borrowers do?

Preparation, proactivity and time are a borrower's best friend.

Early engagement with lenders and decisive action is required. Proactive lender conversations could result in borrowers agreeing extensions to their current arrangements, which provide some breathing room before taking next steps. Borrowers need to be prepared to be flexible and open to potentially increasing their leverage, restructuring their loans or providing more security.  Facing the possibility of stricter financial covenants, they need to be alive to their covenant headroom and what they can agree to.

The availability of alternative capital could be a solution. Alternative lenders can offer customised loan structures, flexibility and speed, filling the gap that borrowers may face with traditional lenders. Borrowers are increasingly looking at bridging as a strategic move as opposed to a necessity. Securing short-term financing allows some time for values to stabilise before transitioning to a longer-term solution, but of course this comes at a cost.

For those borrowing now, the key issue is no longer simply replacing existing debt on maturity, but doing so on terms that remain workable in a more constrained financing environment. A refinancing process that once followed a familiar path may now involve a wider range of challenges and strategic decisions. Borrowers who can act early, approach structuring with flexibility and are open to alternative lending solutions will be best placed to navigate this period without sacrificing value in the longer term.

Anna joins from Deloitte Legal, where she led their workplace investigations practice, and supported clients with employment tribunal litigation, the people aspects of M&A and strategic employee relations advice. Anna previously spent eight years at tech-focused legal boutique Kemp Little, working closely with individuals, and start-up, scale-up and emerging businesses, particularly in the digital media and technology sectors.  

Susannah Kintish, Partner and Chair of the Employment department at Mishcon de Reya, said:

“We are delighted that Anna has joined us as a Partner to lead our Employment Innovate practice. Her deep experience in the innovation sector means she is well-positioned to turbo-charge growth in that area of our employment business and to partner with our fast-growth clients in the innovation economy on all aspects of their people needs.”

Anna Byford added:

“It’s a pleasure to join Mishcon de Reya as a Partner in their top-tier Employment team.

I am excited about this opportunity to grow the Employment Innovate practice and continue to offer clients high-quality, pragmatic and strategic counsel, with a deep understanding of the challenges faced by emerging and fast-scaling businesses.

I look forward to working alongside the firm’s corporate, emerging companies and venture capital, and private client teams to help our clients to attract, nurture and retain the people they need for their strategic growth.”

AmpliSi, spun out from the University of Sheffield working with venture builder Cambridge Future Tech, develops porous silicon anode materials for next-generation lithium-ion batteries. The company is addressing a key limitation in existing battery technology, where conventional graphite anodes can restrict energy density, charging performance and overall efficiency. AmpliSi’s material is uniquely designed to replace graphite, enabling lighter, longer-lasting batteries for applications including electric vehicles and energy storage systems.

To achieve this, AmpliSi uses a novel low-temperature process to convert abundant silica into porous silicon. This approach is intended to avoid many of the hazards, costs and scalability challenges associated with conventional silicon anode production methods, which often depend on more complex and energy-intensive processes. As demand grows for higher-performance batteries, particularly driven by EV adoption, AmpliSi is focused on supporting the mobility sector’s need for improved energy density and battery performance.

The new funding will support AmpliSi’s transition from laboratory development to industrial scale-up and early customer engagement.

Dr Ruth Sayers, CEO of AmpliSi, commented:

"We are grateful to Okachi and the wider Mishcon team for their support in helping us complete this investment round. Their commercial and pragmatic advice helped us steer the process efficiently and reach this important milestone as we focus on scaling our technology and moving towards commercialisation."

Okachi Kejeh, Managing Associate at Mishcon de Reya, commented:

"We were very pleased to support Ruth and the AmpliSi team on this important milestone. AmpliSi is doing exciting work in an area with real potential, and it has been a pleasure to help the team as they take this next step in their growth. We look forward to seeing what they achieve in the years ahead."

The Mishcon de Reya team was led by Managing Associate Okachi Kejeh, supported by Hugh Tebay (Partner), Caroline Dry (Managing Associate), Daniel Gray (Associate) and Alyssa Loveres (Trainee Solicitor).

All three join from Watson Farley & Williams (WFW), where Charlotte was Managing Partner of the Dubai office and Head of their Middle East Dispute Resolution practice.

Charlotte is the second Partner to join the UAE Dispute Resolution team this year, following the arrival of Partner Bushra Ahmed in March 2026. Her appointment brings the total number of regional Partners to seven, under the leadership of Managing Partner Christopher Skipper.

Charlotte brings more than two decades of experience advising clients on high-value, cross-border commercial litigation and arbitration matters. She has a diverse domestic and international client base including high net worth individuals, family businesses, financial institutions, major corporates, governments, sovereign wealth funds as well as companies across the energy, infrastructure, real estate, transport and telecommunications sectors.

She has handled disputes across the Middle East, India, Africa, Asia, Europe and the UK relating to joint ventures/shareholder agreements, fraud, debt recovery and enforcement, investigations, construction, real estate, hospitality, insolvency, aviation, maritime and data protection. She has extensive experience in aircraft repossessions in the UAE, KSA, Europe and the UK and in seeking interim remedies, in particular, worldwide freezing injunctions.

Charlotte regularly appears as an advocate before the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts and also has full rights of audience before the English Higher Courts (Civil Division) and the ADGM Courts. She also sits as an arbitrator and is frequently appointed by DIAC and the ICC.

Joining Charlotte are Managing Associate, Haya Al Bawab and Associate, Gabriela Benavides, both experienced disputes lawyers with significant regional and international experience.

The team move comes at the time of the recent announcement that Mishcon de Reya has opened its Dubai office in the prestigious One Za'abeel, offering clients support across a range of practice areas, including corporate, dispute resolution, employment, real estate, private wealth, impact, and innovation. The hires mark a major milestone in the firm's international growth strategy and reinforce its long-term confidence in and commitment to the region.

Christopher Skipper, Managing Partner, UAE, said: “This is another important step in the expansion of Mishcon de Reya in the UAE. Our reputation as a disputes powerhouse makes the firm an attractive home for leading talent. Charlotte, Haya and Gabi, bring strong regional and international experience in complex, high value arbitrations and disputes. Their arrival further strengthens our disputes practice and reinforces our commitment to providing clients with the highest quality legal advice across the region."

Greg Falkof, Partner and Head of International Arbitration at Mishcon de Reya, said, "The arrival of Charlotte, Haya and Gabi further serves to underline our expertise in the most complex, international arbitration and the firm’s position as a dispute powerhouse, and also acknowledges the increasingly international nature of disputes work. Charlotte and the team’s experience in complex, high-value, cross-jurisdictional disputes will enhance our offering to clients and allow us to bring our holistic approach to litigation and arbitration to clients across the region and beyond."

Charlotte Bijlani, Partner and Co-Head of the Dispute Resolution Group in the UAE, added: "I am delighted to join Mishcon de Reya with Haya and Gabi at such an exciting stage of its growth in the UAE and to play a key role in the development of the disputes practice in this region. The firm is known as a dispute powerhouse having built an outstanding reputation internationally for handling complex disputes and delivering exceptional outcomes for clients."

The team appointment aligns with Mishcon de Reya’s Vision 2030 strategy to expand its international disputes capability and support clients involved in multi‑jurisdictional litigation and arbitration.

Jenny had received a dismissive response from the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), after a long delay in responding to her complaint about HMRC. As a result, she sent a pre-action letter threatening judicial review of the decision not to investigate further. Remarkably, the ICO has now volunteered to withdraw its decision and refer it to a different "independent" decision-maker (as yet not identified).

Under the FATCA regime, banks are required by HMRC to send all personal and financial information of any US citizens to US authorities on an annual basis independent of any actual US tax liability. All it takes is for an American citizen to have a bank account outside of America. Jenny and other "accidental Americans" have been arguing for several years that such indiscriminate sharing, as mandated by HMRC, is unfair and disproportionate, and consequently in breach of UK and European data protection law, with the European Court of Justice due to review the matter in the near future (case C-804/25).

It is not known whether the ICO's offer to resolve Jenny's dispute through an "independent" review is connected to the unprecedented governance issues at the ICO, following the initial outcome of an "independent workplace investigation" into the conduct of Commissioner John Edwards, which has found that he has "a case to answer". 

Jenny has asked for clarification on who will conduct the independent review, and what its terms will be.

Partners Adam Rose and Emily Nicholson, along with Senior Data Protection Specialist Jon Baines, are part of the team working with Filippo Noseda to assist Jenny.

• The UK Government has announced that it plans to introduce a total ban on access to social media for children under 16.
• The ban is planned to come into force in spring 2027.
• The ban appears to cover all "user-to-user services", including platforms such as Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X.
• However, it would also go beyond social media services and apply to a wider range that includes livestreaming, certain types of AI, and gaming. Platforms should act now: audit age assurance measures, map interactive features that enable adult-child contact, and ensure Online Safety Act compliance and governance are in order.

Following the conclusion of the recent consultation on keeping young people safe online, the UK Government announced on 15 June 2026 that it plans to introduce a total ban on access to social media for children under 16. The proposed scope, however, is broader than many anticipated and would include blocks on "harmful functions" such as livestreaming and "stranger communication" between adults and children under 16. The current proposal excludes messaging apps like WhatsApp and Signal, suggesting that the ban's implementation, while broad, may incorporate nuanced and thought through exemptions.

The incoming ban would build on the existing Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA) framework, meaning companies that have already engaged with their OSA obligations will be better positioned to meet any new requirements. However, with the Government signalling additional potential measures such as function blocking and curfews, which do not form part of the OSA, it is not yet clear how wide the ban's reach would be.

The Government has also signalled a stronger focus on Highly Effective Age Assurance (HEAA), which it says it will engage Ofcom (the online safety regulator) to review and identify appropriate methods for verifying someone is under 16. HEAA refers to verification methods that go substantially beyond self-declaration, for example, third-party identity checks, or document verification. Ofcom has responded to announce its intention to provide results to Government by October 2026. Services which consider that they may be in scope of the ban should consider what measures need to be in place in the lead up to the ban and be prepared to respond to enquiries from Ofcom.

The proposed ban follows similar action taken recently in Australia, which the Government claims it plans to learn from. It is not yet clear what this means, particularly as early research suggests that the Australian ban has not been completely successful, with more than 60% of underage Australians still said to be using restricted platforms four months after the ban was introduced.

It appears that the ban would be imposed by secondary legislation, as a result of amendments made to the OSA by the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 (CWSA). Although, as the Government announcement indicates, this potentially speeds up the process, secondary legislation is much more vulnerable to legal challenge than primary legislation.

The idea of a ban was criticised during debate of the CWSA by some civil society groups in the social media space who were sceptical of how effective it would be in protecting children. We have also previously commented that such bans are vulnerable to criticism for failing to resolve the issue they were intended for and instead pushing users into darker, less regulated places on the internet, increasing the harm to children. Measures under the OSA requiring HEAA have also been criticised for creating a censored internet, and limiting free speech. Businesses and other stakeholders with concerns about the proportionality or scope of the proposed ban should consider seeking early legal advice, given that the secondary legislation route may present avenues for challenge.

The proposed ban is subject to mixed views and does have some strong support. The Government claims that "children will be given back their childhoods" and some campaigners for children's safety are pleased with a move to reduce children's time online, noting that it "won't be perfect, but if we're protecting some kids, that's better than none". This is a view shared by nine out of ten of the parents who responded to the consultation in support of a ban. Similarly, some women's rights campaigners see a ban as a way of protecting young girls from harm online.

In the meantime, services that may be in scope should be prepared to comply with the proposed ban and their obligations under the OSA. We suggest taking at least the following steps:

• Audit your age assurance measures. Self-declaration alone is not sufficient under the OSA or the proposed ban. Review whether your current methods (for example, credit card checks, device-based signals, or third-party verification tools) meet Ofcom's expectations for HEAA under the Children's Safety Codes and the Information Commissioner's Office's expectations under the Children's Code.
• Map your interactive features. Identify every feature that enables communication or connection between children and unknown adults, such as chat functions, matchmaking, lobbies, guild and clan channels, and assess whether age-segregated modes or restricted matching are technically feasible for your platform. This is where the practical impact of the ban will be felt most acutely, and early modelling will be essential.
• Get your governance in order. Ensure that you have complied with your duties under the OSA, which include completing risk assessments and implementing appropriately stringent compliance and governance measures.

Mishcon de Reya's online safety team advises digital platforms, technology companies, and businesses on their obligations under the OSA and across the wider regulatory landscape for online safety in the UK. If you have questions about how these changes may affect your business, or how to comply, please get in touch with our online safety team who will be happy to assist.

Join Tobias Ellwood for a candid conversation on his new book, Ten Steps to Prevent World War Three, as he sets out what’s really happening beneath today’s headlines and what can still be done to change course.

Drawing on his experience as a former soldier, Foreign and Defence Minister, and Chair of the Commons Defence Select Committee, Tobias brings a clear, unvarnished view of a world where conflict is already unfolding across multiple fronts from Ukraine to the Middle East to the intensifying US–China rivalry.

In this discussion, he will explore:

• how we’ve reached this point of growing instability
• why future conflict won’t look like the wars of the past
• and the practical steps needed now to avoid a much larger crisis

Therefore, while immigration is widely debated, Parliament has very limited power over Immigration Rule changes, or the chance to properly scrutinise them. There are ways in which MPs can try to challenge changes to the rules after they have taken effect, but in practice this happens very rarely, and only seems to have happened twice in the last 50 years.

Why does this matter? We are living in a very different world and immigration landscape to that of the 1970s. The Government is currently proposing major reforms to immigration policy, under its 'earned settlement' proposals, including doubling the standard timeframe to ILR from five to 10 years.

These proposals have already prompted concern among many MPs regarding the nature of the proposals, and the lack of scrutiny they've had over such major changes. This raises the broader question over whether the current system remain fit for purpose.

The consequence has been blunt. To ensure compliance, Anthropic had to disable Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all customers, as the scope of the directive made selective compliance impractical. Rather than try to screen out every foreign national, Anthropic switched both models off for everyone. Its other models, including Claude Opus 4.8, were unaffected.

What actually happened

Anthropic received the directive at 5:21pm ET. The letter provided no specific details of the national security concern. The government's position, as Anthropic understood it, was that a method of "jailbreaking" Fable 5 had been identified.

(NB: A jailbreak in AI terms manipulates an AI model into bypassing its safety guardrails, producing outputs it was designed to refuse.)

Anthropic reviewed what it believes was the basis of the government's directive and concluded that the level of capability displayed was widely available from other models and is used every day by cyber defenders keeping systems safe.

Anthropic complied with the directive while making clear that it disagreed that the finding of a narrow potential jailbreak should be cause for recalling a commercial model deployed to hundreds of millions of people, and that applying this standard industry-wide would essentially halt all new model deployments for all frontier providers.

This did not come out of the blue

The Fable suspension cannot be read in isolation. Anthropic had been in an escalating dispute with the Trump administration for months.

Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth labelled Anthropic a "supply chain risk" - reportedly the first time a US company had ever publicly received such a designation. This label is normally reserved for foreign adversaries.

This dispute began when the Pentagon demanded unrestricted access to Claude for all lawful purposes. Anthropic refused to permit two specific uses: fully autonomous lethal weapons and mass domestic surveillance of Americans.

Anthropic sued, and a US federal judge ruled that the Pentagon's directive could not be enforced, finding that the government's measures appeared designed to punish Anthropic rather than address any genuine security concern.

In that context, Anthropic was already in the administration's crosshairs well before the Fable suspension. The context in which the 12 June export control directive arrived is potentially not one of neutral regulatory oversight. Whether or not the directive was legally motivated by national security rather than political calculation, the effect on customers outside the United States was identical.

The paradox of marketing based on danger

The question of danger is not adequately answered currently. Anthropic itself acknowledged in the Fable launch materials that the frontier cybersecurity and biological research capabilities of Mythos-class models could provide "uplift" to malicious actors - information or assistance enabling serious harm.

It described these risks in significant detail. Before public release, finance ministers, central bankers, and regulators were already alarmed. Technology, finance, and government leaders had expressed serious concerns about the public rollout.

The company stated publicly that the model was too powerful to release before doing just that. The Bank of England's Governor told the BBC the development had to be taken "very seriously." The Canadian Finance Minister described Mythos as "the unknown unknown."¹

Then, when the US government cited a jailbreak as grounds for pulling access, Anthropic's own response was that the capability level demonstrated was widely available from other public models.

That contradiction deserves scrutiny. If the model's capabilities are genuinely available from other public models, the "too powerful to release" characterisation was inflated. If the characterisation was accurate and the capabilities are genuinely exceptional, no satisfactory explanation has been offered as to why the model was released at all.

Safety classifiers (automated filters that screen model outputs for harmful content) and "defence in depth" strategies (layered, overlapping security controls), however carefully designed, are not the same as not deploying the risk in the first place. You cannot simultaneously argue that your model is uniquely dangerous and that the jailbreak found in it provides no meaningful uplift over publicly available alternatives. Both claims may have some truth, but they cannot both be the whole picture.

Anthropic's defence, that its safeguards are strong and the jailbreak was trivial, may well be correct on the technical merits. But it sits awkwardly beside its own marketing.

The bigger problem: AI sovereignty

The Fable suspension illustrates something that should be discussed far more seriously in UK boardrooms, government departments, and regulated firms.

Access to the world's most capable AI systems currently runs through a small number of US companies. Those companies operate under US law. What the directive demonstrates is that a frontier AI capability, sold commercially and relied upon operationally, can be withdrawn from every non-US user by unilateral government action, at a few hours' notice, with no transition period.

The treatment of cutting-edge AI as a national security asset rather than an ordinary export is now established practice, not theory.

This is not unique to AI. It reflects a broader pattern of dependency on US technology infrastructure - cloud computing, software platforms, communications tools - where the sovereign prerogatives of the US government can affect availability, data handling, and service terms in ways that non-US customers have little ability to influence or anticipate. What makes the AI context sharper is the speed and depth of integration that frontier models are attracting, and the fact that capability gaps between US frontier models and anything available domestically remain substantial.

The UK government has begun to acknowledge this. Science Secretary Liz Kendall has spoken publicly about AI sovereignty, describing the aim as "reducing over-dependencies and increasing resilience in key national strategic priorities."

A £500 million Sovereign AI Fund has been announced. UK industry groups are developing domestic models. But the honest position is that no domestically available model currently competes with Fable 5 or Mythos 5 on capability, and that gap will not close quickly.

What the Fable episode makes concrete is the risk that has always been theoretical: that dependency on a foreign technology company, however commercially excellent its product, creates a single point of failure that is entirely outside the control of UK organisations or UK government. The US does not need to be hostile to the UK for this to be a problem. A domestic legal or political dispute in the United States is sufficient.

What organisations should take from this

For business executives, lawyers, and compliance professionals, several practical questions follow from this episode.

This issue extends well beyond AI. The same logic applies to any deeply embedded US technology dependency: cloud platforms, security tooling, chip supply, software subject to US jurisdiction. The Fable episode is an illustration of a risk that compliance and procurement functions have tended to treat as remote. It is not remote.

Operational resilience. What happens to business-critical processes if a frontier AI model is withdrawn at 48 hours' notice - or less? Firms that have integrated Fable or Mythos into core workflows without building alternatives or fallback processes have a concentration risk that is now clearly not theoretical.

Contract and SLA review. Most agreements with AI providers contain broad provisions permitting suspension for regulatory compliance. Organisations should understand what remedies, if any, they have when access is withdrawn for reasons entirely outside their control.

Procurement and dependency mapping. The Fable episode applies to AI, but the underlying dynamic applies equally to cloud infrastructure, communication platforms, and enterprise software. Boards should audit their exposure to US technology dependency, including the risk of that exposure being triggered by US domestic politics.

Regulatory posture. For firms subject to operational resilience requirements - in financial services, critical national infrastructure, healthcare - dependency on a single frontier AI provider from a single foreign jurisdiction is a resilience question, not merely a procurement one. Regulators will ask about it.

The Anthropic situation is, in one sense, a commercial dispute between a US company and the US government. In another sense, it is a clear demonstration that the rules governing access to some of the most strategically significant technology on the planet can change without notice for anyone.

At DFF Ventures, Hidde has helped build a portfolio of more than 45 companies across 15 territories, with the UK as a key market and more than 10 start-ups backed there. A major area of focus is re-commerce, turning existing goods into new value through resale, reuse and circular business models. He is closely involved with Vintage Cash Cow, one of the world’s largest online platforms for antique and vintage items. 

Before and alongside his work at DFF, Hidde has built and supported ventures that sit at the intersection of innovation and practical impact. He co-founded the Spacebuzz Foundation, which brings the wonder of space to children around the world, and SchoolKassa, a fintech business that saves significant time in education through smarter systems. 

At heart, Hidde is a finance person, but his real interest lies in solving complex problems where creativity, technology and data come together. Through DFF Ventures, he works with founders building ambitious businesses in marketplaces, SaaS and re-commerce, with a focus on scalable models, strong teams and long-term value creation.

It is evident that HMRC needs to address the practical and financial burden placed on personal representatives (PRs) within the draft secondary legislation. Two principal concerns have been raised: 

Firstly, HMRC need to provide clear guidance on the evidentiary standards pension scheme administrators should apply when identifying prospective PRs. This is particularly difficult when there is no Will. The rules for those who can apply to be appointed can be legally complex and take time, especially if the deceased is based outside of the UK. We have also raised that the requirement for the grant as part of the process will drive an increase in grant applications where they are otherwise not required, putting further strain on the probate registry.  

Secondly, placing inheritance tax reporting obligations on PRs means that they will bear substantial additional administrative responsibilities under the new regime but have no clear mechanism to recover the associated costs as the pensions usually fall outside of the estate.    

Read more on the Technical note: Inheritance Tax on pensions from 29 May 2026. 

The award recognises Lewis' work advising luxury brands on brand collaborations, franchising and licensing, manufacturing and distribution, and IP commercialisation, his role as a Non-Executive Director and Legal Affairs Committee Chair at Walpole - the official trade body for British luxury - and his long-standing commitment to the sector's future, including nearly 15 years mentoring emerging British luxury brands through Walpole's Brands of Tomorrow programme. 

The Luxury Law Awards recognise leading lawyers, firms and in-house teams working across the luxury sector, celebrating excellence, innovation and impact in a fast-evolving market. 

Jeremy Hertzog, Chair of the Innovation Department and Partner said: "We are so proud of Lewis for winning this amazing award. He has worked so hard and contributed so much to the luxury sector." 

This recognition reflects the firm’s strong presence in the luxury sector and its continued commitment to supporting clients across the industry. 

Read more about the awards 

The contractual control regulations were made by the Government this week.  Although these do not come into force until 6 April 2027, the disclosure obligations apply to any qualifying agreement entered into on or after 8 June 2026.

The types of agreement caught include option agreements, pre-emption agreements, conditional contracts and land promotion agreements. This is part of the Government's plans to increase transparency around the control of land secured for development purposes.

Scope and exemptions

The Regulations apply to contractual control rights over registered freehold estates, or registered existing leaseholds with at least 15 years remaining at the time the right is granted. An agreement for the grant of a new lease is not in scope unless the lease is to be for a term of at least 15 years. 

To be caught, the right must (i) subsist for 18 months or more (or include a right for the grantee to extend the right beyond this period) and (ii) be held for the benefit of a business, charity or the exercise of functions of a public nature.

Both absolute and conditional rights are caught by the Regulations, as are rights which apply to only part of a registered title.

Rights held by an individual are not caught. Mortgage/security documents for finance/loan or overage agreements, national security contracts and certain agreements for wholly non-development purposes, are also not in scope.

Government guidance states that these exemptions will be interpreted narrowly. In cases where an agreement serves multiple purposes, the requirement to provide information may still apply.

Timeline

The Regulations apply to:

• New rights granted on or after 8 June 2026 (the date the Regulations were made) and
• Existing rights (granted at any time), which are assigned or varied in a way that alters any of the contractual control information on or after 6 April 2027.

For rights granted on or after 8 June 2026 but before 6 April 2027, the required information must be submitted to the Land Registry by 6 October 2027. The register is not yet live – see below for further details of reporting requirements.

For rights granted, varied or assigned on or after 6 April 2027, the information must be submitted within 60 days, and before or along with the usual application to the Land Registry to protect the agreement by entry of a notice or a restriction.

The contractual control information

The core information which must be submitted to the Land Registry is intended to make it clear what right has been granted, the identities of grantee and grantor, the land affected and how long the right may remain in effect.

The core information is:

• name of grantee and grantor: the parties to the agreement
• entity identification (if applicable): if either party is a company or other organisation, Companies House or Charity Commission registration number
• date and place of birth of grantor (if an individual): for identification
• type of contractual control right: for example option, pre-emption, or right to acquire land under a conditional contract
• date, parties and title or description of the underlying agreement
• date from which the right can be exercised: or, if that depends on specific conditions being met, a brief description of those conditions
• initial period of control: the period from the start of the agreement to the point at which the right must be exercised or may expire, including any provisions to extend, terminate or renew it.
• title number(s) of the affected land: and, where the right affects only part of a title, sufficient details to identify that part (e.g. a plan or description)
• address and postcode
• sub-surface land: whether the land subject to the right includes subsoil or airspace held separately from the surface.

Reporting requirements and data access

A digital service will be provided by the Land Registry from 6 April 2027. A qualified solicitor must send the required information to the Land Registry on behalf of the grantee.

The Land Registry plans to publish the data as soon as possible after 6 April 2028 in a searchable and downloadable format that will be publicly and freely available.  The Land Registry does not plan to collect or publish the underlying original agreement.

If a contractual control right expires, is terminated or is wholly or partially exercised, the grantee must notify the Land Registry within 60 days of such an event.

Consequences of failing to comply

Failure to provide the required information without a reasonable excuse, or knowingly or recklessly providing false or misleading information, is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment or a fine.  In addition, a contracting party who has not complied with Part 11 may be prevented from protecting their rights at the Land Registry.

Further registers?

The legislation which introduced the contractual control register also gave the UK Government power to require disclosure of information relating to beneficial ownership and national security.  It seems these categories are not being implemented for the time being. There is no indication of whether the Government plans to return to these in the future.

Impact

Investors and developers already have to register most of these types of agreement at the Land Registry, if they want them to be binding on the land. 

However, (a) existing registration is voluntary (though still recommended) and (b) the amount of information currently disclosed is less than under the new register. The Government appears to believe some developers deliberately refrain from registering contracts under the current system, in order to hide their interest in a site they are assembling.

The stated purpose of the new register is to enable local authorities and communities (and rival developers) to understand the likely path of development in their area. However, local land agents, with their expertise and knowledge, already perform this task effectively. We will wait to see if concerned parties feel better informed once they have access to these data sets.

The new register will consume a fair amount of Land Registry resource, both human and technological. Some may consider this resource should be used, instead, to tackle the current Land Registry backlog which causes major disruption to investment, development and day-to-day property management.

In discussion with Alexandra Agnew, Managing Associate in Mishcon’s Politics and Law team, Sir Jeremy joined us to discuss his new book, Can We Be Rich Again?, which looks at how Britain can restore economic growth and regain confidence in its future. He reflected on the barriers holding the UK back, the reforms needed to unlock growth, and why long-term thinking and political courage matter if real change is to happen. 

The session gave us the chance to hear from one of the UK’s most experienced political figures, while exploring the themes at the heart of his new book. 

• Family investment companies (FICs) are often discussed through a tax lens. But for many families, the real attraction is more practical.
• A well-designed FIC can provide clear control over investment decisions, flexibility to adapt as the family evolves, and a sensible way to contain risk, particularly where those “investments include operating businesses rather than a passive portfolio.

What is a FIC?

A FIC is a private company which holds and invests assets. It is typically structured with different classes of shares, allowing a family to separate:

• control (usually through voting shares); from
• economic value (usually through shares with dividend and/or capital rights).

This allows senior family members to retain day-to-day control over investment decisions while gradually sharing the economic growth with children (and, over time, grandchildren), subject to appropriate advice and careful drafting.

Benefit one: a robust decision-making framework

As wealth moves from one generation to the next, governance can become difficult. Multiple family members may be entitled to benefit, but that does not mean every family member should be involved in approving every investment decision.

A FIC can help because it provides a ready-made decision-making framework:

• Voting rights can be kept with a small “stewardship” group so that decisions remain efficient and consistent.
• A board of directors can act as the engine room, making decisions, appointing investment managers, and documenting strategy.
• Documentation can protect “reserved matters” – key decisions such as substantial lending, major acquisitions/disposals, or changes to investment mandates – so that everyone is clear up front which decisions require wider consent.

The result is often a structure that feels more like an organised platform and less like an informal family arrangement that becomes harder to manage as the family grows.

Benefit two: corporate flexibility as the family (and portfolio) changes

Even where a FIC starts with a simple portfolio, it rarely stays that way. Families diversify, liquidity needs change, and one generation’s preferred asset class may not suit the next. A FIC offers flexibility without requiring a complete redesign when circumstances change:

• Different share classes can reflect different objectives (e.g. income-focused rights for some, growth-focused rights for others), within the limits of company law and the constitutional documents (note: jurisdiction choice for a FIC may also be relevant).
• The FIC can act as a single hub for reporting, engagement with investment advisers, and oversight, rather than having multiple individuals or entities hold and manage investments separately.
• It promotes a more professional approach: agreed investment policy, delegated authority levels, and a repeatable approval process for new opportunities.

The “corporate wrapper” is not just packaging. It can be a practical governance tool.

Benefit three: limited liability and sensible ring-fencing (especially for operating businesses)

Where underlying assets include operating businesses, risk and liability are important considerations. Trading brings real-world exposures: employees, customers, suppliers, regulators, leases, contractual disputes, and (potentially) insolvency risk.

A FIC can help manage risk and liability in two key ways:

1. Limited liability at shareholder level – a company limited by shares generally limits each shareholder’s exposure to the amount invested (subject to the usual exceptions in the real world: most notably personal guarantees, wrongdoing, and certain insolvency-related rules).
2. Ring-fencing through group structure – the FIC sits at the top as a holding company, with operating businesses (or higher-risk projects) held in separate subsidiaries. This way, problems in one business, project, or investment are unlikely to contaminate or jeopardise the wider portfolio (although care is needed where lenders require security, cross-guarantees, or group-wide covenants, among other things).

Used properly, this can be one of the most commercially valuable features of a FIC, particularly for families whose wealth is built on family businesses: it separates risks that might otherwise spill across unrelated family assets.

A final word

FICs can be a helpful tax planning tool: for some of the considerations that may apply from a tax perspective, please see our previous article: The advantages of family investment companies - but beware of getting stung. However, FICs are equally valuable tools from a corporate governance and risk management perspective. For many families, they can help control decision-making, build structures that adapt over time, and contain risks and liabilities.

The utility of a FIC will depend on each family's circumstances and how the structure is implemented in practice. Professional advice is essential to maximise that utility. If you would like to discuss any of the issues discussed in this article, please contact us.

Booking.com is accused of raising prices for millions of UK consumers who have purchased hotel and other travel accommodation through its use of ‘price parity’ clauses.

The proposed collective proceedings will allege that Booking.com uses narrow 'price parity' clauses which restrict accommodation providers, such as hotels or B&Bs, from offering lower room prices.  The claim will say this means millions of UK consumers have been overpaying for hotel and travel accommodation, with total damages estimated to be over £2 billion.

Warner has instructed a team at Mishcon de Reya to bring the proceedings.  The case team includes Wessen Jazrawi, Partner, assisted by Luke Horton-Grimes, Managing Associate, at Mishcon de Reya LLP, Counsel from Blackstone Chambers and economists from economic consultancy BRG.     

The claim is expected to be filed in the Competition Appeal Tribunal shortly.

Chris Warner said:

"For many years, Booking.com has imposed price parity clauses on hotels and accommodation providers across the UK.  I believe this has artificially inflated hotel prices in breach of UK competition law, leaving consumers out of pocket.

I will be seeking to represent the many millions of UK consumers who have been harmed by these anti-competitive practices."

Wessen Jazrawi, Partner of Mishcon de Reya, said:

"Booking.com's use of price parity clauses has stifled competition in the hotel and accommodation sector.  We look forward to working with Chris to secure damages on behalf of UK consumers who have overpaid for hotel and other accommodation as a result."

Robert Rothkopf, Managing Partner of Balance Legal Capital, said:

"Balance is pleased to be supporting this action against alleged anti-competitive behaviour.  Without litigation funding and a predictable class action regime, there is no recourse for classes of consumers and businesses affected by anti-competitive conduct by dominant corporations."

I knew I wanted to get into law when … After completing a non-law degree and a relocation to London for what I had hoped would be my 'dream job' (it wasn't), I found myself in an in-house legal team doing French language work. As the language work faded, the legal work grew, and so did my enthusiasm for law.

I came to be in Cambridge because … Having spent eight years at a US firm, I was looking for a role that didn't "force" me to choose between quality work and a life outside of it. TV in Cambridge, was that place.

I chose Employment Law because … The alternative NQ position was Tax.  How many reasons would you like me to give, as to why I chose Employment?!

The thing that motivates me most is …  Knowing that what I do genuinely matters to my clients. Our clients are often at the forefront of innovation, and being woven into that story — not just as an adviser, but as a real partner in their growth — is something I find deeply rewarding.  

The thing that makes Cambridge such a hub of innovation is … The combination of world-class academic thinking and real commercial ambition. Ideas that begin in lecture theatres, routinely become innovative businesses that challenge the competition on a global stage.

One opportunity from the merger is … A brilliant team of Employment knowledge lawyers, with all the expertise that comes with them!

Somebody that has inspired me during my career is … Roger James. He hired me at a moment when my confidence in myself — and in law firms — was at a low ebb. He saw something in me that I hadn't yet seen in myself, and in doing so, kept me "in law". He showed me that the right firm, with the right support and right culture, makes all the difference.

One thing I wish I knew when I started my career is … That understanding the law is really just the beginning. The job places much wider demands on you in aspects such as; sales, business development, finance. administration, and managing people.  There are times when self-taught juggling and counselling skills come into play!  Nobody tells you that at the outset.

One future trend in my practice area is … AI would be the predictable answer — so let's think again….. The impending changes to collective rights under the Employment Rights Act 2025 will significantly strengthen Trade Union powers, and the vast majority of employers are wholly unprepared. This is an area ripe for Employment lawyers."

The one thing you don't know about me is ...  When I need to escape (from work and from the children), I head for open water. I have been swimming outdoors for years, taking on challenges whenever I can, and in 2022 I reached a milestone I am quietly proud of: becoming an official ice swimmer.

In this episode of Oxford+, host Susannah de Jager speaks with Dr Ceri Morgan, Partner at Dalloway Partners, about her three careers and what they reveal about the strengths and structural weaknesses of UK life sciences. Ceri explains why NHS-focused business models were long undervalued by investors, how the UK’s relatively shallow public life sciences market has steered founders towards private capital and trade sales, and why commercial success in science often depends on much more than the science itself.

Now in a new role focused on helping foundational science and first-time founders scale, Ceri discusses the practical work of mentoring leadership teams, unlocking investor networks and strengthening Oxford’s innovation ecosystem. Set against a shifting funding backdrop - with UK biotech raising £1.8 billion in 2025 and early signs of recovery in 2026 - the conversation explores how capital, talent and experience can be recycled more effectively to support the next generation of companies. Drawing as well on her perspective as a cancer patient and patient advocate, Ceri offers a candid view on what it will take to build a system that better supports both innovators and the people they aim to serve.

• The Grand Board of Appeal at the EU Intellectual Property Office has refused trade mark protection for the signs ANIMAL FARM and 1984 in respect of content-related goods and services. The decision follows its rejection of the sign GEORGE ORWELL for similar goods and services in late 2025.
• There were a number of relevant factors behind the Grand Board's decision including the widespread fame of the books, their inclusion in education curricula, and their enduring popularity over several decades.
• While the decision does not rule out trade mark protection for titles of books/films etc, including famous ones, an applicant is required to show that the title would be perceived by the relevant public, not merely as designating the work itself, but primarily as an indication of the commercial origin of those goods or services.
• The Grand Board has called on EU legislators to consider creating EU-wide rights for work titles. This will raise interesting policy debates.   

What is the ANIMAL FARM/1984 case about?

The author George Orwell died in London on 21 January 1950 at the age of 46. As a result, many of his famous books – including Animal Farm and 1984 – entered the public domain in the EU and UK, for copyright purposes, on 1 January 2021.

In 2018, no doubt anticipating Orwell's books entering the public domain, the Estate of the Late Sonia Brownell Orwell filed trade mark applications at the EU Intellectual Property Office for ANIMAL FARM and 1984 (alongside an application for GEORGE ORWELL). The applications covered a range of goods and services including recorded/digital media, printed matter, games and playthings, and entertainment/education related services. Following objections by the EUIPO examiner on the grounds that the signs were descriptive of a characteristic, namely the subject matter or content of the relevant goods or services, the Estate made divisional applications for ANIMAL FARM and 1984 (which led to the marks being registered for a range of other goods and services e.g., clothing etc).

The applications for 'content carriers' and services were ultimately considered by the Grand Board of Appeal, which has recently issued its decision. In refusing registration, the Grand Board defined the decisive question as being – would the title in question be perceived by the relevant public, not merely as designating the work itself, but primarily as an indication of the commercial origin of those goods or services? The Grand Board decided the answer was 'no', in large part due to the fame and cultural significance of the two titles.

The Grand Board's decision on the two book titles followed its decision towards the end of 2025, when it found that the name GEORGE ORWELL itself also could not function as a trade mark for similar goods and services, again because it was descriptive of them. In the GEORGE ORWELL case, the Grand Board had adopted a 'subject matter' analysis for assessing famous names: if the relevant public would immediately understand the name as describing what the goods/services were about or what they contained, the sign would be descriptive and non-distinctive.

The Grand Board also said that relevant factors in this assessment would include: fame and recognition; widespread dissemination and adaptation of the works; social and cultural integration such as prizes, institutions and commemorations; the length of time the author has been known and had remained in public discourse; linguistic derivations (such as 'Orwellian'); and market reality. The Board therefore concluded that the sign GEORGE ORWELL would be perceived by an English-speaking public (i.e., in Ireland and Malta) as an immediate reference to the author, and as an indication that the goods and services were about him. 

The ANIMAL FARM / 1984 decision

Descriptive of goods and services relating to carrying content, and non-distinctive

The Grand Board found both ANIMAL FARM and 1984 to be descriptive of the relevant goods and services. The relevant public (again, the English-speaking Irish and Maltese public), would immediately recognise the signs as titles of the well-known literary works, taking into account the longevity, dissemination and cultural impact of the works. The Grand Board pointed out that the more popular or well known a literary work is, the more likely it was that its title would be readily recognised as referring to that work. It rejected the argument that this had the effect of treating the fame of the book as an arbitrary factor against registration, drawing a distinction between the reputation of a trade mark as opposed to the notoriety of a creation of the mind. 

In particular:

• ANIMAL FARM had a high degree of recognition among the relevant public, and a clear conceptual meaning as the title of the famous novel. It had been described as "the most famous by far of all twentieth-century political allegories", signalling a significant degree of recognition, dissemination and significance of the work in society as a political allegory or fable. This was reinforced by other factors such as its prominence in an educational context; its wide dissemination through film, TV and theatre; and the passage of time since it had been published. Meanwhile, its narrative complexity was not a relevant factor in the assessment of the relevant public's perception of the sign.
• For similar reasons, 1984 enjoyed a particularly high degree of recognition among the relevant public. Again, the Grand Board concluded that it had acquired, in the perception of the relevant public, a clear and immediately recognisable conceptual meaning such that a significant part of that public would readily understand the sign as referring to the famous novel and its underlying political themes.

The Grand Board therefore concluded that both marks provided direct information as to the subject matter of the contested goods and services, and were descriptive. Further, they also lacked distinctiveness in relation to the relevant goods and services, again because they would be primarily perceived by relevant consumers as the titles of, or a reference to, George Orwell's famous novels.

What impact did copyright protection have?

The Estate argued that, as the novels were subject to copyright protection (at the time of filing the applications), the Grand Board should take into account the EUIPO Guidelines which state that, where copyright subsists, there is a presumption of good faith and the mark should, in principle, be accepted for registration.

The Grand Board indicated that the existence or absence of copyright protection may have a bearing on whether a designation is liable to be seen as descriptive of content or character, but it would not be determinative. Copyright could provide contextual background but could not, on its own, confer or preclude distinctive character. Indeed, once copyright has expired, this may lead to multiple adaptations reaching a wide audience, thereby strengthening the immediate association between the sign and the underlying work and its themes. This tends to suggest that trade mark applications for a book title should be made well in advance of expiry of copyright in the book itself.

Were the Estate's commercial activities relevant?

The Estate also relied upon its commercial activities in managing George Orwell's works, including Animal Farm and 1984. In particular, it relied upon the controls it puts in place on adaptations of the works through contractual arrangements. However, the Grand Board said these controls had little bearing on how consumers would perceive the contested signs given that commercial or licensing arrangements were not, as a rule, known to the public.

Other considerations

Given the outcome on descriptiveness/distinctiveness, the following aspects were considered on an obiter basis:

• The proposed marks were not contrary to public policy or accepted principles of morality. In particular, it would not desecrate George Orwell's prestige or renown to register the title of one of his main works as a trade mark.
• They were also not customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practice of the trade for goods and services. Such an objection could however perhaps arise in another case – for example, where a title has been used to a significant extent as a common term to designate books themselves or books with certain characteristics.
• The titles also could not consist of a characteristic which gives substantial value to the goods.
• Finally, the marks were not misleading simply because the applicant was neither the author, their heir, or the holder of any copyright.

What book titles have been registered as trade marks?

Despite the outcome in this case, titles of books and films remain registrable. Further, the fame of a literary work is not, in itself, a ground for refusing registration. The key to registered trade mark protection is in demonstrating that the sign applied for has an indication of origin function in respect of the relevant goods/services, i.e., it has distinctive character. According to the Grand Board, a title will only fulfil the requisite trade mark function if the relevant public perceive it as departing from its primary descriptive role, and that it is "understood, first and foremost, as an indicator of origin."

The Estate had pointed to the fact that there are a number of book titles that have been successfully registered as trade marks for similar goods and services – in the EU these include GOLDFINGER, OLIVER TWIST, WINNIE THE POOH, HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE, THE DA VINCI CODE, PETER PAN, and THE HOBBIT. However, on the other side of the line, a number of book titles have been treated as descriptive for certain types of goods and services. Alongside now ANIMAL FARM and 1984, these include: THE JUNGLE BOOK, PINOCCHIO, THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANK (in Belgium and the UK), and various titles of books by Hans Christian Andersen (in Denmark). The UKIPO also in 2022 upheld objections against registration of ANIMAL FARM and 1984 in respect of similar goods and services (but, as with the EUIPO, allowed registration in respect of other goods and services).

Can book titles be protected as copyright works or in other ways?

Under both EU and UK law, a book title may be protectable as a copyright work. To do so, however, it would be necessary to show that the title meets the originality test, requiring that it is the author's own intellectual creation. In this case, the Executive Director of the EUIPO suggested that, where a title includes invented or fanciful terms related to the story or characters, it is more likely that it will meet the originality requirement. In each case, it will require an assessment as to whether the originality test has been met.

Alternative protections may be available in particular jurisdictions, including unfair competition law (passing off in the UK), or a sui generis form of protection (as in Germany and France).

Comment

The Grand Board concluded its decision in the ANIMAL FARM / 1984 case by recommending that the EU legislator consider whether an EU-wide right for work titles should be created. Whether this is an appropriate policy decision in light of the time-limited term of protection for copyright works (compared to potentially unlimited protection for registered trade marks) will be an interesting point of debate.

Meanwhile, the Grand Board's decision refusing registration for GEORGE ORWELL is under appeal to the EU General Court, and it seems likely that the Estate will therefore also appeal this latest decision. It is worth noting that the Grand Board's decision focuses only on inherent distinctiveness and so it is possible that, in other cases, an applicant may be able to demonstrate that the relevant signs have acquired distinctiveness as a result of the use that has been made of them.

• In Pandora Jewellery UK Ltd & Anr v EML Payments Europe Ltd [2026] EWHC 1047 (Comm), the High Court dismissed retailers' claims that they were entitled to post-termination payments of expired funds on their gift cards, ruling that the payment services provider could retain the funds instead.
• A specific express provision overrode a general provision that the retailer relied on to claim post-termination payments.
• The court emphasised that its role is not to rewrite clear contractual language based on what might appear fair and reasonable, even where one party gets an unexpected windfall.

The facts

In March 2011, the claimant (Pandora) and defendant (EML) entered into an agreement by which EML agreed to implement a gift card scheme for use in Pandora's retail stores and online. Under the agreement, funds collected from customers by Pandora were initially paid into a deposit account and were then transferred to a scheme account, where they were held on trust by EML.

The cards expired after 12 months, after which any remaining balance could no longer be used by the customer. These "expired funds" were to be paid to Pandora as "breakage payments" until termination of the agreement. The agreement expired on 31 March 2024, but a transition period and run-off period were put in place to allow for the scheme to be wound down.

EML made a payment to Pandora on 18 April 2024 for breakage payments that had accrued before 31 March 2024. However, no payments were made in respect of breakage payments accruing during the transition period and run-off period. Pandora issued proceedings for those sums, but EML contended that under the terms of the agreement it was entitled to keep the funds for itself and sought reverse summary judgment.

The key clauses

Section 2.2.g provided that:

Upon the expiry of a Gift Card, … [the Expired Funds] will be remitted to [EML] from the Gift Card Account and paid to [the claimant] in accordance with the Breakage Payment as outlined in Fee Schedule D.

Fee Schedule D specified that:

For the period commencing on the … Commencement Date through the termination of this Agreement (the 'Breakage Payment Period'), [EML] will pay [Pandora] an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the Expired Funds … The Breakage Payments will terminate upon termination of this Agreement.

Section 7.3 of the agreement dealt with the transition period and run-off period, and provided that:

Upon termination of this Agreement, the [scheme] will continue to operate for a transition period … up to and including the 30th September 2024 (the 'Transition Period') in order for the parties to wind down the [scheme]. During the Transition Period, the [scheme] will continue to operate in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. For clarification the Transition Period is not a part of the term of the Agreement, but rather a post-termination service…

c.  Run-off. The parties will cooperate to run-off the existing Card Accounts over time in an orderly fashion until the Card Accounts have a zero balance. During the run-off, redemptions on the Cards at the Distributor Locations will continue to be settled and the Expiry Date will continue to be assessed against the Card. …

Under section 7.4, section 7.3 survived termination of the agreement, and section 2.2.g survived "during and as required for the run-off".

The judgment

As Judge Baumgartner noted, the legal principles relating to the construction of contracts are now well established. The court must ascertain objectively, with the benefit of the admissible background, the meaning of the words that the parties have used.

In this case, the judge noted that, while section 2.2.g read in isolation might give the impression that expired funds would always be paid to Pandora, it was only a general provision – it did not provide the claimant with a free-standing or unqualified right to receive expired funds. Instead, EML's obligation to pay was expressly conditioned by and referable to the breakage payment regime set out in Fee Schedule D, which provided in clear and unqualified terms that breakage payments would terminate upon termination of the agreement.

Judge Baumgartner rejected Pandora's argument that sections 7.3 and 7.4 extended EML's payment obligations beyond termination. Whilst section 2.2.g survived termination "during and as required for the run-off", that did not enlarge or alter its substantive content – it continued to operate according to its terms. The fact that section 7.3.c required the parties to cooperate "until the card accounts have a zero balance" also did not compel a different conclusion.

While this construction may result in a "contractual bounty" for EML, the fact that it was a surprising or commercially unreasonable result did not justify departing from the clear language of the agreement. The court's task was to interpret the bargain the parties made, not the bargain they might be thought to have made.

The judge also rejected Pandora's further argument that EML held the expired funds on resulting trust. Whilst, pursuant to the agreement, the card funds were to be held in the scheme account by EML as trustee, section 2.2.g expressly permitted expired funds to be remitted to EML. Once that occurred, the trust was discharged. Any obligation to make a breakage payment thereafter was purely contractual.

Key takeaways

• As this decision emphasises, under English law, plain language prevails in commercial contracts.
• Even where an agreement delivers an apparently unintended windfall to one party, the courts will not invoke business common sense to depart from clear and unambiguous contractual drafting.
• It is therefore vital to give clear consideration to the commercial implications of contractual terms at the outset, rather than seeking to rely on arguments of commercial reasonableness at a later stage.
• The interaction between general operative clauses and specific provisions must also be considered carefully, as inconsistencies between the two are likely to be resolved in favour of the specific provision. For retailers, this decision is a helpful reminder that, when entering into payment services and gift card arrangements, they cannot assume that expired customer funds will automatically be returned to the retailer.

In most cases, British citizens are now expected to enter the UK using a valid British passport, or a Certificate of Entitlement to the right of abode.

This represents a big change for many dual nationals who have previously travelled using a non-British passport. Changes to carrier checks mean that individuals without a current British passport may now face delays, or may even not be permitted to board.

It is also important to factor in timing. Applications for British passports can sometimes take several weeks, or longer in more complex cases, for example where there are differences in personal details, such as the spelling of a name between passports. Timeframes to get a Certificate of Entitlement also vary.

There are some limited and temporary exceptions, including for certain people with Settled Status issued under the EU Settlement Scheme and, in some cases, where expired British passports may be accepted, all subject to strict conditions.

However, these concessions are not guaranteed and remain subject to carrier approval.

It is imperative that British citizens ensure they have the appropriate documentation before traveling to the UK.

Before founding Social-Ability, John worked as a corporate lawyer at Linklaters. He ultimately chose to leave law behind to build a company focused on improving the lives of people living with dementia through joyful, interactive, light-based activities designed to bring connection, engagement and wellbeing into care settings. 

Alongside his work at Social-Ability, John regularly delivers workshops on how to live well with dementia and supports a number of organisations at board level in their efforts to improve dementia care. He is also a member of the UK’s National Standards Committee on Ageing Societies. 

Founded by John, Social-Ability is dedicated to revolutionising care through innovative, activity-based experiences that help people living with dementia lead more joyful and meaningful lives. 

Mishcon de Reya, an international law firm with more than 650 lawyers globally, operating at the intersection of complex disputes, global capital and economic transformation, today announced the official opening of its Dubai office, further strengthening the firm's operations in the UAE.

As Gulf economies diversify and cross-border capital flows increase in volume and complexity, businesses and investors in the region require legal partners capable of advising across multiple jurisdictions and regulatory frameworks simultaneously. The firm's practices in Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) and Dubai are structured to do exactly that, advising clients across the UAE.

Mishcon de Reya's new Dubai office is located at One Za’abeel, one of the city’s most prominent commercial destinations. Established within the Dubai World Trade Centre (DWTC) Free Zone ecosystem, the office provides the firm with a strategically positioned base in the heart of Dubai’s central business district, supporting its continued growth across the UAE and wider region.

DWTC Free Zone is a competitive business ecosystem and licensing jurisdiction that connects companies to markets across the Middle East and beyond. Home to more than 2,700 companies spanning regional and international markets, it offers an enabling environment for global businesses seeking a strong operational presence in Dubai. Mishcon de Reya’s establishment within the free zone reflects its long-term commitment to the UAE and reinforces Dubai’s continued appeal as a global hub for investment, innovation and cross-border commerce.

Mishcon de Reya's new Dubai office will work closely with the rest of the firm, including MDR Mayfair, which it will continue its close relation and co-location with. The office will service clients across a range of practice areas, including corporate, dispute resolution, employment, real estate, private wealth, impact, and innovation.

Christopher Skipper, Managing Partner, UAE, said: "It is a pleasure to announce the opening of our office in the landmark building of One Za'abeel. We have been advising clients in this region for over 30 years. The UAE continues to provide an attractive ecosystem for families, investors and businesses, and this announcement further highlights our commitment to and confidence in the UAE as a significant global financial centre."

James Libson, Managing Partner, said: “We are delighted to open our office in Dubai and provide a base from which to service our clients' needs. Our presence in One Za’abeel underlines our commitment to the region and our international ambitions.”

Abdalla Al Banna, Vice President of Free Zone Regulatory Operations at DWTC Free Zone, said: “The establishment of Mishcon de Reya’s Dubai office within DWTC Free Zone underscores Dubai’s growing appeal as a global hub for business, investment and cross-border advisory services. At DWTC Free Zone, we are committed to enabling international companies through a business-friendly regulatory framework, strategic location and a connected ecosystem that supports long-term growth. We are pleased to welcome Mishcon de Reya and look forward to supporting the firm’s continued success.”

The opening forms part of Mishcon de Reya's Vision 2030 strategy, a five-year plan centred on three sectors where the firm has deep heritage and a growing client base. These include private wealth and private capital, the innovation economy, and real estate, alongside its commitment to remaining a disputes powerhouse, all of which are areas of significant and growing activity across the Gulf.

Drawing on lessons from its international expansion across Singapore and Hong Kong, and with its significant client base in the region, the Dubai office represents the next phase of Mishcon de Reya’s growth in the UAE, building on the firm’s existing operational presence in Abu Dhabi and strengthening its capabilities in line with client demand.

As a writer of historical fiction, Louisa Treger explores not only the historical record but also the rich emotional lives of her characters. In her previous novels, she has brought to life the little-known stories of Dorothy Richardson, Virginia Courtauld, Nellie Bly and Dora Maar. In her fifth book, A Fatal Love, published on 27 August by Bloomsbury, she turns to the story of Ruth Ellis, the last woman to be hanged in Britain.

Although these women are rooted in specific moments in history, they continue to fascinate us because of their deeply human stories - stories with which we can still empathise today.

Like many women before and after her, Ruth suffered within a physically abusive relationship with David Blakely. Was it her vulnerability following the breakdown of her marriage that made her more likely to endure such treatment? And what is the “right” way to rebuild one’s life after divorce?

In this talk, Louisa Treger and Sandra Davis draw on Ruth Ellis’s story, on the lives of the other women Louisa has written about, and on their own personal experiences to explore the emotional impact of divorce. Together, they consider how it is possible not only to rebuild a life, but ultimately to thrive.

• Insolvency Practitioners (IPs) purchase insolvency practitioner bonds (IP Bonds) to cover claims arising from the appointments they take on. These IP Bonds specifically cover claims for losses caused by fraud or dishonesty on the part of the IP.
• As the appointments that the IPs take on are not known at the time the bonds are issued, the bonds are issued for the benefit of the IPs' regulating bodies (the Regulators). In Nicholson v Insolvency Practitioners Association the High Court considered the basis on which the Regulators hold these IP Bonds.
• The court concluded that IP Bonds are held on trust for the estates of the insolvent companies that the IPs have been appointed over. Accordingly, these companies are entitled to claim under the IP Bonds assigned to them.
• It also confirmed that these companies' rights under the bonds are "property" for the purposes of section 234 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Therefore, the Regulators can be compelled to transfer them at the request of subsequently appointed IPs (Successor IPs).
• As a result, companies and Successor IPs will now have a clear route to pursuing claims under IP Bonds where previous IPs have acted improperly.

Overview

IPs are entrusted with great responsibility when appointed over an insolvent company. As a result, fraudulent or dishonest conduct on their part can cause significant harm to the companies they are appointed over.

To mitigate this risk, and provide insolvent estates with a route to recover losses caused by such behaviour, IPs are expected to take out IP Bonds. The High Court's judgment in Nicholson v Insolvency Practitioners Association [2026] EWHC 686 (Ch) has resolved an important uncertainty as to who can enforce these bonds and on what basis, with significant practical consequences for insolvent estates and successor office-holders.

The decision in Nicholson strengthens the position of such companies and their Successor IPs. The clarification of their status as the beneficiaries of a bare trust makes clear that they have the authority to direct the way in which the bondholder Regulators pursue and enforce those rights on their behalf.

What is an insolvency practitioner bond and who benefits from it?

What is an IP Bond?

IP Bonds are a statutory protection for insolvent estates against fraud or dishonesty. IPs are required to obtain a bond under the Insolvency Practitioner Regulations 2005.

IP Bonds are effectively insurance bonds. As set out in the Insolvency Service Guidance on IP Bonds:

"The bond makes the surety (the insurer who issued the bond) jointly liable with the insolvency practitioner for losses in relation to the insolvent estate caused by the fraud or dishonesty of the insolvency practitioner (whether acting alone or in collusion), or the fraud or dishonesty of any person committed with the connivance of the insolvency practitioner."

As such, they are different from professional indemnity insurance that IPs may also have, which covers professional negligence on the part of an IP.

Who Benefits from an IP Bond?

However, although IP Bonds protect the companies that IPs are appointed over, they are to the Regulator responsible for the relevant IP. This is because when they are issued it is not known what companies the IP will be appointed over.

As a result of this structure, the following question arises: Who controls the right to claim under an IP Bond?

Because they are held by the Regulators, there has been a degree of uncertainty as to who can enforce claims under IP Bonds, and on what basis. In particular, historically they have not been treated as estate assets for the companies over which an IP is appointed. The accepted position has been that it is for the bondholder (i.e., the relevant Regulator) to decide whether and to what extent to pursue a claim under a bond, or alternatively to assign the claim to a company with a claim against the IP.

This was the approach adopted by the bondholder in Nicholson.

The parties' positions

The Regulator argued that it was entitled to determine how claims under the IP Bonds should be enforced. It submitted that:

"its practice is to encourage [Successor IPs] (in this case the Claimants) and the Surety (in this case Intact) to negotiate and agree a sum of money to be paid by the Surety to the SIPs for the benefit of the creditors claiming in the relevant insolvency estate. Once the sum is agreed a tripartite agreement is entered into between the Surety, the SIPs and the IPA (“Tripartite Agreement”) providing for the agreed sum to be paid by the Surety to the SIPs, which is then distributed by the SIPs to the creditors of the relevant insolvency estate."

However, in this case, settlement discussions between the surety and the Successor IPs reached a stalemate. The Successor IPs argued that they were effectively blocked from pursuing these claims by the Regulator's refusal to either pursue them itself or assign the benefit of the claims under the IP Bonds to them to pursue.

The Successor IPs therefore applied to the court for a declaration that: the IP Bonds were held on trust for the insolvency estates of the companies over which the IPs were appointed; and, as such, they were property of the companies which the Successor IPs were entitled to take possession of. They further argued that an order to that effect could be made under section 234 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

The regulators hold bond rights on trust

The Court agreed with the Successor IPs. It held that IP Bonds are held by the Regulators on trust for the companies over which the IPs are appointed.

The court considered several issues in reaching this conclusion. First, whether the Regulators are fulfilling a public function by holding the bonds. The judge held that the Regulators hold the bonds voluntarily. There is no "direct statutory obligation" on the Regulators requiring them to do so. Further, the judge was not persuaded that the government would have been obliged to undertake this role if the Regulators had declined to do so. Finally, they concluded that the "functions and powers" of the Regulators in respect of the bonds were "not public functions and powers". On this basis, the judge concluded that the regulatory bodies are not fulfilling a public function by holding the bonds.

Having reached this conclusion, the judge considered whether the Regulators hold claim rights under the IP Bonds on trust for the insolvent estates. The judge concluded that the Regulators entered into the bonds "to benefit the insolvency estates which incurred losses as a result of the fraud or dishonesty of its IP members". They also held that the Regulators must "have an implied fiduciary or contractual duty to act in the best interests of the insolvency estates". Finally, they concluded that (in the absence of any public duty) a trust must exist in order to create a legal obligation on the Regulators to ensure that claims under the bonds can be pursued, and compensation obtained, by the relevant insolvent estates. The judge was also satisfied that all the legal requirements for a trust to exist were met. Accordingly, they held that IP Bonds are held by the Regulators on trust for the insolvent estates.

Section 234 of the Insolvency Act 1986 gives office-holders a statutory route to compel transfer

The judge also considered whether claim rights under IP Bonds are "property" of the relevant insolvent estates for the purposes of section 234 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Section 234 grants IPs statutory rights to compel third parties to deliver up any property of the insolvent entities that they hold. These rights can be enforced by application to the Court if needed. The Regulator sought to argue that the claim rights were not "property" that could be subject to section 234, as they were rights that had to be assigned before they became the property of the insolvent estates.

The judge rejected this argument. They held that, as the insolvent estates are the beneficial owners of the claim rights under trust, the rights were their property. Accordingly, the regulatory body could be compelled to transfer them to the insolvent estates under section 234 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

What this means in practice for office-holders and successor IPs

This judgment has several important practical consequences for Successor IPs and insolvent estates.

Regulators cannot refuse to pursue or assign claim rights under IP Bonds where an insolvent estate has a valid claim. As a result, IPs will be able to drive claims under IP Bonds at their own pace and in the manner they consider appropriate. Where a Regulator refuses to cooperate, section 234 of the Insolvency Act 1986 provides a direct statutory route to compel transfer of the claim rights. The court's jurisdiction under section 234 can be invoked at the Successor IPs' discretion.

This decision establishes a clear legal framework for enforcing IP Bond claims and removes a potential obstacle to recovery for creditors of insolvent estates.

• The High Court has granted a website blocking injunction requiring major UK internet service providers (ISPs), such as BT, Virgin and Sky, to block websites selling counterfeit and unlicensed versions of Novo Nordisk's semaglutide and other prescription-only medicines.
• This is the first website blocking application concerned with the supply of counterfeit and unlicensed prescription-only medicinal products.
• The wrongdoing included advertising and offering for sale of unlicensed prescription-only medicines, which is a criminal offence under the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, as well as IP infringements.
• The court confirmed that the blocking injunction jurisdiction is not confined to intellectual property rights and extends to both civil and criminal wrongdoing, including regulatory offences.

What is a blocking injunction?

A website blocking injunction is an order requiring ISPs to prevent their subscribers from accessing specified websites. Rather than targeting the operators of infringing or unlawful websites directly - who are often anonymous, located overseas and beyond practical reach - a blocking injunction is directed at the ISPs through whose networks UK consumers access those sites and who are unwittingly mixed up in the wrongdoing. Blocking injunctions can have immense practical utility, particularly given their ability to tackle sources of unlawful material where other enforcement methods have failed and where mirror websites may be expected to arise.

Blocking injunctions were initially developed in the copyright context under section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 in relation to pirated music. The Supreme Court in Cartier International AG v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Others then extended the principle to trade mark infringement under the court's inherent jurisdiction. In Nintendo v BT & Others, the court extended the jurisdiction further to include the blocking of websites offering for sale and distributing circumvention devices designed to circumvent the technological protection measures within the Nintendo Switch console, whose purpose is to prevent piracy and the playing of unauthorised and infringing games (Mishcon acted for Nintendo - we reported on this here: Nintendo obtains novel blocking injunction). The recent Novo Nordisk case takes that extension further still.

The legal test for a blocking injunction

The threshold requirements for an order are that: (i) the ISPs are intermediaries; (ii) either the users or the operators of the website are infringing the claimant's rights or committing a legal wrong; (iii) the users or operators are using the services of the ISPs; and (iv) the ISPs have actual knowledge of this.

Once jurisdiction is established, the court must be satisfied that the order is proportionate. The injunction must be necessary, effective, dissuasive, not unduly costly or complicated, must avoid barriers to legitimate trade, strike a fair balance between the fundamental rights engaged, be proportionate and be safeguarded against abuse. Proportionality is the key consideration. To ensure proportionality, it is appropriate to include safeguards in the order, such as a sunset clause (bringing the block to an end or requiring further review) and obligations to notify affected website operators.

The Novo Nordisk case: a novel application

Semaglutide is the active ingredient in Novo Nordisk's diabetes and anti-obesity medications, marketed under registered trade marks including OZEMPIC, RYBELSUS and WEGOVY.  These products have been enormously successful; global sales of GLP-1 products in 2024 exceeded £17 billion. That commercial success has attracted a proliferation of potentially dangerous fakes.

Although semaglutide is not a generic medicine, and Novo Nordisk holds regulatory exclusivity until 2031, the popularity of these products has led to: outright counterfeits labelled as OZEMPIC or other Novo Nordisk brands; third-party manufactured unlicensed versions marketed under their international non-proprietary names; and products substituting a different substance or dosage altogether, such as insulin.

Routine applications for blocking injunctions are often decided on the papers, but this application was listed for a hearing owing to two unusual but related features. First, it was the first blocking injunction application concerned with counterfeit and unlicensed prescription-only medicinal products. Second, one of the legal wrongs relied upon - the advertising and offering for sale of unlicensed prescription-only medicines, a criminal offence under the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 - had not previously been considered in relation to such injunctions. This was in addition to the trade mark infringement and passing off claims.

Criminal wrongdoing as the foundation

The court accepted that each of the target websites was committing a number of criminal offences under the 2012 Regulations, wherever they advertised, offered to sell and sold unauthorised medicinal products. These included selling unauthorised medicinal products (contrary to regulation 46), supplying prescription-only medicines without a valid prescription (contrary to regulations 214 and 220), and publishing unlawful advertisements (contrary to regulations 279 and 284).

Critically, the court held that any form of civil or criminal wrongdoing will suffice to ground the court's jurisdiction, because that jurisdiction derives from ordinary principles of equity under which there is no relevant distinction between being mixed up in a civil or a criminal wrong. The Novo Nordisk decision is the first to apply this principle to pharmaceutical regulatory offences in a blocking injunction application.

The MHRA's involvement

The UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) had itself attempted, without success, to bring the websites down and had accordingly sought Novo Nordisk's assistance - a request which ultimately prompted the application. The court drew on this regulatory support in concluding that Novo Nordisk had the necessary standing to seek the injunction.

Public health and proportionality

The court placed significant weight on the public health dimension. Falsified products may not have been manufactured to the same quality-control standards, potentially containing impurities and allergens. For example, Novo Nordisk's evidence to a US Senate Committee identified over 300 serious health issues, 100 hospitalisations and 10 deaths linked to falsified semaglutide products. Meanwhile, the World Health Organisation has warned that substandard or fake products sold online could cause as many as one million deaths annually, with and that 50% of medicines sold online may not be genuine.

The court also noted that blocking was likely to be highly effective, with previous cases indicating average reductions in UK visitors of 98%, notwithstanding attempts to circumvent orders. It also accepted that, without a blocking order, the situation would likely devolve into a game of "whack-a-mole" as sites moved to mirror or replacement locations and resumed operations.

Comment

Novo Nordisk is significant for several reasons:

• The court accepted that blocking can protect the public from dangerous medicinal products and assists in protecting the value of rights and investment in developing and promoting useful medicines.
• It confirms that the blocking injunction jurisdiction is broad enough to encompass criminal regulatory wrongdoing under the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, not merely IP infringement.
• It establishes a precedent for pharmaceutical and life sciences companies to deploy this remedy against illicit online sellers of counterfeit (and other unlicensed prescription-only) medicines.
• It demonstrates that regulatory support and involvement - in this case from the MHRA - can assist in establishing standing and persuading the court of the merits of an application; companies seeking to pursue enforcement in this area should engage the regulator early.
• While the application addressed a new form of online wrongdoing, the court was satisfied that the order was proportionate for essentially similar reasons to those accepted in Cartier, Nintendo, and other website blocking cases, underscoring the flexibility of the framework.
• Brand owners facing online counterfeiting at scale should consider blocking injunctions as a primary enforcement tool alongside traditional IP remedies, particularly where the counterfeit products carry a public health risk.

How Mishcon de Reya can help

For more information on blocking injunctions, please get in touch with our IP Enforcement team, who advise on the protection and enforcement of IP and related rights, across a range of sectors and technologies.

The talk marks the first public presentation of their Pride parade project thus far, opening up material not previously shared. Bex sets out both historical and current conditions, including visibility, risk, and the role of corporate involvement, showing how these images shape how Pride is understood today. The talk introduces the wider project and its reach, closing with a direct question about what the future of Pride holds.

• Godwin v Godwin concerned a burial dispute between two brothers and raised important questions about the use of AI in witness statement preparation.
• The court directed that their father be buried in England, confirming that a deceased's expressed wishes are significant but not determinative, the overriding concern is disposal with proper respect and without unnecessary delay.
• AI-assisted witness statements drew judicial criticism, with the court giving them less weight as it could not be satisfied they were in the witnesses' own words.
• Consider will validity early in any burial dispute; the court retains broad discretion; and AI should be used with caution in witness statement preparation, with original drafts retained.

Background to the burial dispute

Michael Godwin (Mr Godwin) died on 5 November 2025. He was survived by his two sons, William and Jason, a third son having pre-deceased him.

The case arose out of a dispute between the two brothers as to how Mr Godwin's body would be disposed of: William wanted Mr Godwin to be cremated following a ceremony in England, whereas Jason sought a Christian funeral and then for Mr Godwin to be buried in Hargeville Cemetery, in France, or alternatively some other cemetery in the South of France.

After his retirement, Mr Godwin had lived in the South of France for around 30 years. However, he had never fully integrated into French life, not speaking the language and having few friends there.

On 25 April 2003, whilst in hospital for a heart procedure, Mr Godwin had handwritten a will expressing a wish for his body to be: "interred in the plot reserved from me at the cemetery in Hargeville…France, with Arlette attending”.

'Arlette' was his then partner, Arlette Thomas, who had reserved burial plots in Hargeville cemetery for her and Mr Godwin - Hargeville being the area where her family was from.  However, their relationship had ended some 15 years before his death, the plot which she had reserved for Mr Godwin was no longer available and Hargeville was not somewhere Mr Godwin himself was connected to, it being around 600 miles from where he had made his home in the South of France.

Notwithstanding this, an image of Hargeville was found among MrGodwin's papers, seemingly printed after his split from Ms Thomas and bearing the caption: "This is church for my funeral. In the graveyard I have a plot I share with Arlette Thomas adjacent to the Thomas family grave. Please bury me there."

The brothers' respective positions

William wanted Mr Godwin to be cremated on the basis that:

• his mother and brother (Mr Godwin's other son) had both been cremated;
• a cremation is cheaper than a burial and he was concerned that the funds in the estate may not cover a burial, on top of its other debts; and
• a cremation could be organised more quickly than a burial in either country.

He opposed a burial in Hargeville on the basis that the family had no connection to it, the plot reserved for Mr Godwin was no longer available and there was a chance that Ms Thomas may not even be buried there in the future. He also stated that he would not attend any funeral in Hargeville.

Jason wanted Mr Godwin to have a Christian funeral and be buried in Hargeville (or some other cemetery in the South of France), on the basis that:

• he wanted to give effect to Mr Godwin's wishes;
• France is the place he most closely associated with Mr Godwin, and where he had made his most lasting memories of him; and
• an attended funeral would allow him to properly pay his respects to his father  

He opposed a cremation for both religious (Jason being a Seventh Day Adventist) and emotional reasons, feeling that he could not properly commemorate his father without a marked grave and saying that he could not think of his father being cremated.

The Decision

As no grant of representation had yet been made, and the judge was uncertain whether the 2003 will would be valid under French law, or would entitle William to take a grant of representation in England and Wales, he considered parties were equally entitled to a grant of administration. He therefore appointed William as administrator under section 116 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, with this authority limited to dealing with the disposal of Mr Godwin's body.

This is a notable conclusion for the judge to have reached, as ordinarily if there is a will, then the authority of the executor appointed in the will (including their authority to dispose of the body of the Deceased) derives from the will itself, rather than from any grant of representation. If the will was valid and validly appointed William as executor, then he had the power to deal with the disposal of the body. However relatively little (if any) consideration was given to the potential validity of the will, perhaps because the two brothers were both unrepresented and may not have been aware of this point.

In addition, the judge directed that Mr Godwin would be buried in England following a Christian funeral there, on the basis that he considered that a Christian funeral and burial reflected Mr Godwin's wishes. Burial in France would risk delay and uncertainty, there was no family connection to Hargeville and Mr Godwin's grave was unlikely to be visited if he was buried there. There was also a possibility that a French funeral would have little meaning given the likelihood that none of the mourners would speak French.

In making his decision, the judge gave consideration to the principle that the court's overriding focus in such cases should be to ensure that a body is disposed of with "all proper respect and decency and without any unnecessary delay" (per Hartshorne v. Gardner [2008] EWHC 3765 (Ch)) and followed the dicta in Oldham MBC v Makin [2018] Ch 543 that whilst the deceased's own wishes were a weighty factor, they were not determinative.

It is notable for the judge to direct what actions should occur, despite appointing William on a limited grant to deal with this issue, as it seems somewhat redundant to appoint someone to make such decisions, but then tell them what decisions they must make. Questions arise as to whether the outcome may have been different had the parties had legal representation in court, rather than acting as litigants in person.

Use of AI

Both Jason and his ex-wife had submitted witness statements to the court, which, on their own admission they had had "limited assistance from a 'digital assistant'" in drafting. They claimed that they had drafted the initial drafts themselves but then used ChatGPT (the 'digital assistant' in question) for "grammar, spelling, and 'presentation'", with ChatGPT not adding, removing or re-arranging any words when compared to their first drafts.

The judge expressed several concerns about this use of AI, including that, in their view, there was "no good reason" for either Jason or his ex-wife to have used it, given that they both struck the judge as "sophisticated people"; that referring to ChatGPT as a 'digital assistant' was unconventional and raised concerns that the extent of AI involvement was being obscured.  No first drafts of the statements had been provided to the court.

As a consequence, the judge decided that less weight should be given to these witness statements as they "cannot be sure that the…witness statements are in their own words" and that they were required to "approach the…evidence cautiously".

This approach reflects the broader judicial trend of recent years, illustrated by the introduction of Practice Direction 57AC in the Business and Property Courts, towards requiring witness statements to be expressed in the witnesses' own words, with restrictions placed on the assistance that may be provided in their preparation

Comment

This decision gives rise to three learning points.

First, as noted, where a valid will appointing an executor exists, that executor's authority to deal with the disposal of the body derives from the will itself and not from any grant of representation. It is important to ensure that questions of will validity are considered at the outset, before any application to the court is contemplated.

Second, given that the court's clear concern in burial disputes is to ensure disposal of the body with all proper respect and decency and without unnecessary delay, this can result in the court reaching a decision which is different to any of the proposed outcomes from the different parties and any wishes expressed by the deceased. Whilst the deceased's expressed wishes remain a weighty factor, they are not determinative.  The court will consider the weight to be placed on wishes that may have been formed many years before death and in materially different circumstances.

Finally, consideration needs to be given to whether the use of AI to assist in drafting witness statements, and if AI is used, any initial drafts should be retained, so that they can be produced to evidence the true extent of the AI's involvement.  In this case there was no real suggestion, as there has been in other cases, that AI hallucinated or included facts which were not there. The decision to give the witness statements less weight on this basis therefore seems somewhat draconian, particularly given that, as noted above, the parties all acted as litigants in person. It is also difficult to see any material difference in outcome between AI assisting with drafting a witness statement and a legal representative assisting with drafting a witness statement on behalf of a client (albeit one would hope that legal representatives are less prone to possible hallucinations and similar errors).

In a previous briefing, we wrote about the amendment to Article 43 of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 – which mirrored section 53(3) of the Trusts (Guernsey) Law 2007 (the "Trusts Law")  – in light of the 2019 Guernsey Court of Appeal decision of Rusnano Capital AG (in liquidation) v Molard International (PTC) Limited and Pullborough International Corp ("Rusnano").^[1]

Guernsey has now almost caught up and is proposing a targeted update to its trust legislation, with an amendment to section 53(3) of its Trusts Law being one of the key proposed changes. This section is the local statutory approximation of the rule in Saunders v Vautier,^[2] an old English case that established the principle that where all persons entitled absolutely and indefeasibly to the whole of the income and capital of the trust property have been ascertained, and have full legal capacity to act in their own right, they are entitled to call for the termination of the trust and the distribution of the assets to them.

Current position under section 53

The relevant wording of section 53(3) is

"[…] where all the beneficiaries are in existence and have been ascertained, and none is a minor or a person under legal disability, they may require the trustees to terminate the trust and distribute the trust property among them."

In Rusnano, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision that a sole beneficiary can use section 53(3) of the Trusts Law to bring a trust to an end, notwithstanding there being a power to add beneficiaries.

This caused much disquiet amongst trust practitioners, as the power to add beneficiaries is sometimes a way in which trusts are used to keep the identity of the primary beneficiaries of a trust confidential. These are typically known as 'Red Cross trusts', where one beneficiary – usually a charity such as the Red Cross – will be named as the sole or default beneficiary, and the power to add beneficiaries will be exercised at a time when the primary beneficiaries (usually described in a Letter of Wishes) are due to benefit.

The Rusnano decision meant that beneficiaries of trusts whom the settlor never intended to benefit could collapse Guernsey law trusts in their favour. It is therefore unsurprising that Jersey amended Article 43 of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 to prevent the termination of a trust where there is a power to add.

The proposed amendment

It is proposed that the section 53(3) be amended so that it can only be used to terminate the trust where the class of beneficiaries is closed, which will not be possible if there is a power to add beneficiaries.

Practical implications

If implemented (and these authors cannot see why it should not be, given the positive reception the proposal has received so far), this amendment will bring the Trusts Law into line with the prevailing view in English law and other common law jurisdictions that the existence of a power to add will prevent a termination of a trust. It will also ensure that the intentions of most settlors of Red Cross trusts are protected.

In legal practice, we increasingly rely on predictions. Case outcomes, risk assessments, and AI tools shape everyday decisions.  But how reliable are they? And what risks might they introduce?

Join Professor Carissa Véliz (University of Oxford) for a discussion of what happens when those predictions are wrong, and how that affects legal judgement.

Carissa will cover:

• why more data doesn't always improve decisions.
• how predictive tools can increase risk and reinforce bias
• what this means for professional judgement, ethics and client advice

You’ll come away with a clearer view of how to use (and question) predictive tools, and how we can prepare more effectively for uncertainty.

• The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA) introduces a new statutory requirement for organisations to implement internal data protection complaints processes from 19 June 2026.  
• Individuals will be expected to raise complaints directly with organisations first, before escalating issues to the ICO.  
• Organisations must ensure complaints are handled through clear, accessible procedures, with timely acknowledgement, investigation and response. 

Setting the background  

A significant change to UK data protection law will come into force on 19 June 2026, introducing a new statutory complaints handling framework for organisations. 

The changes are introduced by the DUAA, which amends the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018). As part of these reforms, organisations will be required to establish and operate an internal complaints-handling process. Individuals must use this process before escalating concerns to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). 

We previously discussed the wider implications of the DUAA and its key reforms to UK data protection law. If you would like to explore the other key changes that have been introduced, you can read our overview here.  

What is changing? 

The DUAA introduces a new section 164A into the DPA 2018, creating a statutory right for individuals to raise data protection complaints directly with organisations. 

Previously, while individuals had the right under Article 77 UK GDPR to lodge complaints with the ICO, there was no express legal requirement for organisations to maintain a dedicated internal complaints process. The new section 164A regime formalises this obligation. 

From 19 June 2026, organisations must ensure they have an appropriate complaints handling process in place. ICO guidance provides that organisations should: 

• give individuals a clear and accessible means of submitting a data protection complaint; 
• acknowledge complaints within 30 days of receipt; 
• investigate and respond to complaints “without undue delay”, keeping complainants informed throughout the process; and 
• notify complainants of the outcome without undue delay. 

The reforms also change the complaints pathway for individuals. Rather than approaching the ICO in the first instance, individuals will be expected to raise their complaint with the relevant organisation before escalating the matter to the ICO. This reflects the ICO's broader aim of encouraging complaints to be addressed and resolved directly wherever possible. 

What steps should organisations take? 

With the commencement date approaching, organisations should review their existing data protection governance arrangements to ensure they can meet the new requirements. 

In practice, this is likely to involve: 

• updating privacy notices and template responses to inform individuals of their right to make a data protection complaint, including when personal data is collected and when responding to data subject rights requests;  
• ensuring complaints are identified and acknowledged within the 30-day period, including where received electronically;  
• reviewing internal policies, procedures and staff training to ensure complaints are recognised, investigated and handled consistently; and  
• reviewing processor arrangements to ensure contracts require processors to notify and support controllers where complaints are received. 

For many organisations, these changes may involve refining existing processes rather than creating entirely new ones. Nevertheless, early preparation will be important to ensure compliance and avoid operational challenges once the new requirements take effect. 

How Mishcon de Reya can help 

If you would like advice on updating privacy notice wording or implementing compliant complaints handling procedures, do not hesitate to get in touch with our Data experts. 

He is also the Founder of Spire Ventures, his principal investment platform focused on scaling and aggregating real asset–backed operating businesses across sectors including property services, infrastructure and asset management.

With a background spanning venture capital, private equity and entrepreneurship, Faisal has built, scaled and exited businesses while investing across both high-growth technology and traditional real assets. His work sits at the intersection of AI, infrastructure and real estate, with a focus on backing category-defining companies and platforms globally.

He holds an MBA with Distinction from the University of Oxford and a degree in Business Economics and Computer Science from UCLA.

Aselle Ibraimova joins the firm’s Data team with expertise in data protection, cybersecurity and AI. She advises clients on a broad range of compliance, governance and incident response matters, and has particular experience in evolving cybersecurity regimes including NIS2 and DORA, as well as data sharing, data training issues, and complex outsourcing and technology contracts. Her clients span the media and entertainment, healthcare, technology and financial services sectors. Aselle also brings valuable in-house experience from roles at the BBC and Cerner, now Oracle Health, which gives her a strong understanding of how businesses operate and the demands placed on in-house legal teams. She joins Mishcon de Reya from Reed Smith, where she was Counsel, having previously practised at Squire Patton Boggs.

Paolo Sbuttoni is an international technology, data protection and commercial lawyer with more than 20 years’ experience. Dual-qualified in England & Wales and Hong Kong, Paolo advises on data protection and cybersecurity compliance, technology transactions (including major cloud and outsourcing projects) and AI and other evolving technologies. He brings significant cross-border experience, having spent 13 years practising in Hong Kong before returning to the UK in 2023. Paolo joins Mishcon de Reya from Foot Anstey, where he helped grow the firm’s technology and data capabilities, and previously practised at Baker McKenzie in Hong Kong, where he led the Hong Kong technology and data team.

Jeremy Hertzog, Chair of Innovation at Mishcon de Reya, commented: “Paolo and Aselle are excellent additions to our Innovation department. Their combined expertise across technology, data, cyber and AI significantly strengthens an area of strategic importance for the firm. As we continue to build our Innovation Economy offering, their experience advising clients at the cutting edge of technological change, both in the UK and internationally, will be invaluable. We are delighted to welcome them both to Mishcon de Reya.”

Aselle Ibraimova commented: “I am very pleased to be joining Mishcon de Reya’s Innovation department. The firm has an excellent reputation in data and technology, and I am excited by the opportunity to contribute further expertise in data, AI technology and cybersecurity compliance. I look forward to working with colleagues across the firm to help clients address evolving regulatory and operational challenges.”

Paolo Sbuttoni commented: “I am delighted to be joining Mishcon de Reya at a time when demand for legal advice on technology, data, AI and cybersecurity is growing so rapidly. The firm’s strength in innovation, its international outlook, and its commitment to Hong Kong and other key growth markets make it a compelling platform for my practice. I look forward to helping clients navigate complex technology and data issues across the UK and internationally.”

James Boyle, Partner and Head of the Data Group at Mishcon de Reya, added: "Paolo and Aselle joining the team represent a significant step forward for us, and underscore the remarkable growth trajectory we have been on. Their combined expertise in data protection, cybersecurity and AI brings real depth to our offering at a time when client demand in these areas has never been higher. This continued investment in top-tier talent reflects our ambition to be the go-to firm for businesses navigating the most complex data and technology challenges. I am thrilled to welcome them both to the team."

Under the proposals, applicants would be assessed according to new metrics, including their level of 'integration' and 'contribution' to British society. A key proposal is to double the standard qualifying period for settlement from five years to ten, as well as plans to remove the 10-year long residence route, and change how family members qualify.

While some people, such as high earners, could qualify for settlement faster, for many, things could become longer and even more complex.

Reading the proposals, you could easily think that qualifying for settlement is just a matter of having spent five years in the UK. This is not the case, and there are already very specific rules that you need to meet, including around the number of days you spend in the UK, your level of English language and other visa specific rules. 

The proposals have attracted a lot of attention, with over 200,000 consultation responses and a range of concerns raised, including from Labour MPs, the Law Society and a range of other stakeholders. Once of the most controversial aspects of the proposals is the potential for changes to apply retrospectively to those already in the UK, effectively changing the rules mid-way through the game for those already on their immigration journey.  Other key concerns include the impact on families, vulnerable people and what this may mean for the UK’s ability to attract international talent. 

The biggest question at present is what any change in leadership could mean for the proposals. With all eyes on the Makerfield by-election (expected on 18 June 2026), this remains a fast-moving and closely watched area.
 

Bushra Ahmed, Partner at Mishcon de Reya, has successfully acted as counsel for the winning party in a significant Court of Appeal judgment from the DIFC Courts, which clarifies the scope of enforcement powers under the new DIFC Courts Law 2025. The decision confirms that a judgment creditor enforcing a Dubai Court judgment through the DIFC Courts can require a judgment debtor to provide full information about its assets — not just those situated within the DIFC. 

What happened? 

In the case of Ostin v Oleda DIFC CA-001-2026, the Appellant obtained a judgment from the Dubai Court of First Instance for approximately AED 81.6 million arising from a construction contract dispute. Having registered and recognised that judgment in the DIFC Courts, the Appellant applied for a Part 50 examination order — a procedural tool requiring a representative of the judgment debtor to attend court and answer questions, under oath, about the debtor's assets and means of satisfying the judgment. 

The judgment debtor applied to set the order aside. The Enforcement Judge agreed to vary it, limiting the scope of any examination to assets within the DIFC only. The Appellant appealed. 

What did the Court of Appeal decide? 

The Court of Appeal, sitting before Chief Justice Wayne Martin, Justice Sir Peter Gross and Justice Robert French, allowed the appeal and restored the original order in full. 

The Court held that the DIFC Courts' enforcement jurisdiction under the 2025 Courts Law is not territorially confined to assets within the DIFC. Once a Dubai Court judgment is recognised in the DIFC Courts, the full suite of enforcement tools is available — including Part 50 examinations covering assets wherever they are held. A Part 50 order is an information-gathering mechanism, not an act of execution against a specific asset, and its availability is not conditional on first knowing where assets are located. 

Why did we say the restriction was wrong? 

The Enforcement Judge's approach created a circular problem: a judgment creditor would need to demonstrate that assets existed within the DIFC before using the very tool designed to find out whether any such assets existed. That produces a self-defeating result and one wholly at odds with the purpose of Part 50. The Court agreed and found that the restriction imposed at first instance was based on an unduly narrow reading of the 2025 Courts Law. 

Why does this matter? 

This decision has two important practical consequences for parties enforcing judgments in the UAE. 

The DIFC Courts are a genuinely effective enforcement forum, not just a recognition gateway. Businesses and their legal teams should not assume that DIFC enforcement is only useful where a debtor's assets are already known to be within the DIFC. Following this decision, the DIFC Courts can be used proactively to compel disclosure, map a debtor's full asset position, and build the evidential foundation for recovery across multiple jurisdictions. 

For creditors in construction, real estate and other sectors where large sums are in dispute and assets may be dispersed or obscured, Part 50 is now a more powerful first step. Rather than waiting to identify assets before commencing DIFC enforcement, creditors can use the examination process itself to obtain that picture under oath, and with the full authority of the Court behind it. 

This is one of the first appellate decisions interpreting the enforcement provisions of the DIFC Courts Law 2025. For companies or organisations considering enforcement action in the UAE, or that have an existing judgment they are struggling to convert into recovery, this decision may open options that were previously thought unavailable.