Daniel joined the firm in 1998 and has been a Partner since 2004. Until April, he was Chair of the Employment department and sat on the Management Board. Daniel’s fee earning work includes advising on complex contentious and non-contentious employment matters and, as Chair of Employment, he oversaw substantial growth of the firm’s market-leading Employment practice.

Daniel serves as Managing Partner supported by an Executive Partner team of Johanna Walsh and Daniel Levy alongside the Chairs and other senior management, including the Operations Board. In addition to supporting Daniel in the management of the firm and the delivery of its strategic objectives, the Executive Partners will continue to advise and support their clients without change.

Johanna Walsh leads the White Collar Crime and Investigations team, as well as one of two divisions in the Dispute Resolution department. She joined the firm as a partner in January 2019 and sat on the firm’s Management Board for five years until 2025. 

Daniel Levy leads the Real Estate Litigation team and is Division Head of Property Litigation and Construction. He joined the firm in 2006, founding and leading the Real Estate Litigation team. He has sat on the Management Board since 2025 and, for the past two years, has served as Partners’ representative on the Operations Board. 

Daniel Naftalin, Managing Partner of Mishcon de Reya, said:

“I am very pleased to be taking over as Managing Partner and very proud that my partners put their faith in me to lead this exceptional firm. I care deeply about Mishcon de Reya, its people, what it stands for, and its place in an increasingly competitive market. Over the last few months, I have been working with my team to consult and develop our strategy to face our challenges and thrive. I was involved in the creation of our 2030 vision and our three pillars of private, real estate and innovation are fundamental to how I see the firm succeeding. 

“I want to guide Mishcon de Reya to a successful, profitable, and sustainable future. I want it to remain a values-led firm that rewards hard work and excellence and that people are proud to work for and to recommend. My team and I will work tirelessly to ensure that the firm is even stronger at the end of my tenure than it is today.”

Paying tribute to his predecessor James Libson, Daniel said: 

“James epitomises everything that is special about Mishcon de Reya, someone who is passionate about the law and has blended that with an exceptional commercial and strategic vision of what it takes for this firm to succeed. He has been involved in so many of the cases that have made us great and I am delighted that the Board has asked him to take on the honorary title of Senior Partner and that we will all continue to benefit from his extraordinary wisdom and love for this firm.”

Following Daniel’s election as Managing Partner, the Employment department elected partner Susannah Kintish as Chair of the Employment department from 1 April 2026.

Jez began his career as a graduate trainee at advertising agency Bates Dorland before moving into broadcast journalism, working as a business journalist and producer for organisations including the BBC and CNBC. He launched Quite Frankly Productions in 2003, initially making studio programmes for BBC News, before relaunching the business in 2006 to focus on video production and storytelling for businesses and brands.  

Alongside its commercial work, Quite Frankly runs a Foundation producing pro bono films for charities and causes close to the team. Celebrating 20 years since its relaunch in 2026, the company remains fiercely independent. Jez is passionate about the agility of small businesses and the freedom of building and running a company together with his team. 

The existing duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment now requires them to take what the Act describes as “all reasonable steps” to prevent harassment. 

Mark said what constitutes “all” reasonable steps was undefined, and that there were concerns it would be a difficult standard to meet. “Employers should treat the existing reasonable steps baseline as the minimum,” he said.

Whether an employer met the higher threshold would depend on its size, sector, resources and working environment, he added, with tribunals “likely to take a fact-sensitive, contextual approach”.

Mark also commented on the steps employers should take to ensure they do not breach the duty. He said employers should check whether their commercial contracts with third parties contained appropriate protections against harassment and discrimination. “If there are none, it would be prudent to include them,” he said.

And he said manager training should be a priority. “Providing training to managers is helpful both in terms of supporting a better culture and in demonstrating that “all” reasonable steps have been taken.”

Read the article in full

• A £260m settlement in the collective proceedings brought by Professor Rodger against Google has been approved by the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
• Developers of mobile games and other apps who paid commissions to Google on app sales or in-app purchases may be entitled to a share of the settlement.
• Developers will shortly be able to come forward to claim their share, but should consider taking legal advice as to whether they should instead make their own claim before 18 January 2027.
• This settlement marks an important and successful milestone in the opt-out regime, particularly against the backdrop of recent consultation by the Government into the regime's future.

Background

Professor Rodger brought a claim in September 2024 on behalf of UK app developers (including many game developers), alleging that Google breached competition law by charging excessive commission rates to developers for app sales made on the Google Play Store, and on in-app purchases or subscription sales made on Android apps. Professor Rodger sought compensation from Google. The claim was headed for trial to commence in October 2026, alongside a separate collective proceeding alleging similar breaches of competition law on behalf of consumers (in respect of which trial is currently going ahead). This case follows a similar, successful case brought against Apple, in which the Tribunal ruled last year that Apple's App Store commission rates were excessive and that App Store consumers were entitled to compensation of around £1.5 billion.

Ahead of trial, Professor Rodger and Google agreed to settle the claim for £260m, to be split between app developers and other stakeholders in the claim (including lawyers and the litigation funder). The precise split is yet to be determined, but it is envisaged that at least £100m of the sum will be reserved for stakeholders, with the remaining £160m potentially available for app developers.

In a hearing last month, the Tribunal scrutinised the terms of the settlement. Questions were raised in relation to the proposed plan to distribute the settlement amount to developers. The parties amended the proposed settlement to address these concerns. The Tribunal has now approved the settlement, paving the way for app developers to come forward and claim their share of the settlement pot. However, significant questions about the split of the settlement sum between app developers and other stakeholders, and the entitlements of individual developers have not yet been determined and are expected to be the subject to the Tribunal's scrutiny at a further hearing in due course.¹

Analysis

UK-domiciled app developers who sold their app on the Google Play Store or made in-app sales to Android users between 22 August 2018 and 31 July 2026 and have not opted-out of the Rodger claim may now be entitled to compensation. Developers will receive a share of the £160m class pot pro rata based on the value of their Google sales. A developer's sales will be assessed primarily on the basis of Google's own data until March 2025 (extrapolated for the period until 31 July 2026). Larger developers may be entitled to significant sums.

The £160m class pot represents around 15% of the original total value claimed by Professor Rodger of just over £1.04bn. This is the largest settlement achieved under the collective proceedings regime since its introduction eleven years ago. The Government is consulting on how the regime could be improved, and this settlement will be welcomed as a sign that collective proceedings can and do deliver compensation for those harmed by anticompetitive conduct.

Developers will be bound by the settlement unless they decide to opt-out by 18 January 2027. By opting out of the settlement, developers would be preserving their right to initiate their own proceedings against Google for damages.

Professor Rodger published a notice of the settlement on 16 October 2026 (available here), and will shortly set out the steps developers need to take to claim their entitlement via the claim website. Developers will have a period of four months within which they must come forward. After the claim window ends, there will be a further hearing where the Tribunal approves the final distribution of the settlement pot to class members and stakeholders. Developers who have not opted out will be given the opportunity to make submissions at this hearing if they object to any aspect of the distribution, including if they consider that they have not received a fair share of the settlement pot.

To the extent that there remain undistributed damages from the £160m pot, it will be open to all parties to make submissions on how the undistributed share should be allocated. It may be open to developers who have come forward and who have not opted out to argue that their share of damages should be increased, for example on a pro rata basis.

What should developers do now?

Developers should consider whether they fall within the scope of the settlement, and if so, if they wish to come forward to claim an entitlement under the settlement, or opt-out within the deadline.

If developers do wish to pursue their own claim against Google for damages in relation to this conduct, they must opt-out by 18 January 2027. Developers may wish to seek legal advice to consider their options in detail in advance of this deadline.

Mishcon de Reya LLP advised Dream Games, the developer behind Royal Match and Royal Kingdom, in its intervention in the settlement hearing.

The article examines whether the Budget did enough to retain and attract wealthy investors, noting the absence of an announcement on an investor visa aimed at wealthy foreign nationals.

Steven highlighted that the UK cannot take its appeal as a destination for international wealth for granted. 

He commented: “Wealthy individuals and entrepreneurs have choices, and other countries are competing to attract them with clear immigration and investment routes.”

Related coverage

Financial News: Wealthy investors are leaving the UK. Did the Budget do enough to stop them? (subscription required) 

The article examines HMRC’s proposed approach to wealthy compliance, under which ultra-high-net-worth individuals and their representatives would be offered a customer compliance manager and invited to voluntary discussions about their finances.

Charlie commented: “Clients are certainly asking questions about the letters that have already been received by billionaires and if there is more coming off the back of them.

“They are interested to know what other clients are doing and what HMRC’s approach would be if they don’t provide all the information requested or what they will do with any information they do provide.”

Related coverage

HMRC draws up list of 200 billionaires in super-rich crackdown (subscription required)
 

The annual LexisNexis rankings celebrate exceptional legal professionals aged 40 or under who are demonstrating leadership, innovation and meaningful impact within their organisations and across the legal industry. Together, these accolades highlight Daniel’s standing among the next generation of legal talent and reflect the calibre of the lawyers advising our clients across Asia.

Daniel is a disputes lawyer with a particular focus on arbitration in the energy, hospitality, banking and finance, and insurance sectors. Qualified in Singapore and England and Wales, he acts for clients across Asia, Europe and Africa.

Learn more about the rankings

In this conversation, Mishcon de Reya experts share their views on how businesses can manage the risks of everyday AI use while pursuing more ambitious transformation. They discuss why blanket bans can leave AI activity hidden, how intellectual property rules differ across borders, and the importance of assessing AI use and focusing on genuine business needs.

The discussion covers:

• Managing shadow AI and choosing approved tools that meet business needs
• Understanding differences in IP ownership frameworks across jurisdictions and the risk of AI-generated content infringing third-party rights
• Moving beyond incremental improvements to rethink business models and processes
• Identifying priority use cases and investing in AI-ready data
• Monitoring regulatory change rather than relying on a one-off review

The speakers highlight the importance of looking beyond new tools to consider business priorities, data and the potential for wider transformation. Whether you’re assessing how AI is used across your organisation or planning wider transformation, this video offers practical guidance on setting priorities, managing uncertainty and preparing your business for change.

Featuring Ashley Williams (Partner, Head of the Technology Group), Dan Sinclair (Partner, Strategy & Growth) and Nina O’Sullivan (Client Engagement Partner). 

Learn more by reading our supporting article, From AI ambition to accountability: five priorities for boards and leadership teams or visit our AI resource centre. If you're a multinational organisation, our Corporates hub offers even more useful insights and information.

• The Budget 2026 strengthens the footing for defence technology, but its real value will depend on delivery.
• Rather than another spending aspiration, the UK Autumn 2026 Budget gives defence businesses and investors greater funding certainty and opens up new routes to capital for the defence sector.
• Its strongest contribution is to underpin existing plans and support industrial investment, rather than announce an entirely new strategy.

What has changed?

The Government has confirmed full funding for the £15 billion uplift underpinning the Defence Investment Plan, closing the £4.7 billion gap left when the plan was announced in June. Funding will come through reprioritising capital budgets across Government. The distinction matters: this is not a fresh £15 billion on top of June’s commitment, but the financing of an existing promise. The plan takes defence spending to 2.7% of GDP in 2027–28.

The Budget also sets a target date of 2030 for defence spending to reach 3% of GDP. That is a clearer milestone than the 2025 Spending Review’s ambition to reach 3% in the next Parliament when economic and fiscal conditions allowed. However, the detailed route to NATO’s 3.5% commitment by 2035 will only be set out at the 2027 Spending Review. A dated target is progress, but not yet a fully specified long-term settlement.

Supporting our allies

The Budget also makes available over £10 billion of additional economic and military support for Ukraine. This includes £500 million of urgent military support this winter, a £3 billion increase in UK Export Finance capacity prioritised for military support, up to £5.5 billion of World Bank guarantees and a £500 million contribution to the World Bank’s crisis facility to mobilise £1.5 billion for Ukraine. It sits alongside the existing £3 billion annual military-support commitment until 2030–31 or for as long as needed. This is a significant extension of support, but the headline should not be read as £10 billion of new military procurement: it combines spending, guarantees and financing capacity. For UK defence suppliers, the military and export-finance elements will undoubtedly support further commercial opportunities, although the volume and speed of procurement will depend on subsequent decisions.

Why defence investors should pay attention

One of the most eye-catching developments is a firm commitment for the National Wealth Fund and British Business Bank to deploy up to £5 billion over four years into defence, dual-use and other sectors supporting national security, sovereign capability and resilience. This should improve the prospects for businesses seeking capital to scale production and commercialise technology. It is not a £5 billion procurement budget or a pot reserved exclusively for defence technology. Nevertheless, this is a significant, fully funded, commitment and aligns closely with the increased activity from the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank in defence transactions we have advised on in the last 6 months.

An Innovative Defence Financing Taskforce and planned treaty negotiations on a Multilateral Defence Mechanism aim to mobilise private and international finance and accelerate joint procurement. Their value will depend on the financing terms and projects that emerge. Separately, a joint ten-year, £2.5 billion programme with Rolls-Royce to develop next-generation gas turbine technology for civil and defence aerospace provides a concrete example of long-term industrial backing, rather than solely financial architecture.

These announcements build on, rather than replace, June’s commitments. The Defence Investment Plan already provided for more than £5 billion for drones and autonomous systems and nearly £7.3 billion for the digital targeting web and supporting digital infrastructure. Those allocations should not be presented as new Budget announcements, or confused with today’s separate £5 billion financing commitment.

Regulatory reform is another important part of the investment picture. Alongside the financing measures, the Government plans to legislate so that innovative products, including drones, can be safely tested and scaled up faster, using new cross-economy powers. For drone developers and investors, a more workable testing pathway could shorten development cycles and help turn capital into deployable systems. This is, however, an intention to change the framework, not an immediate exemption from existing testing requirements. Its practical value will depend on the legislation, implementation and safety regulations. Compared with spending commitments alone, tackling the route from prototype to testing and scale is a welcome complementary step.

A meaningful improvement, with conditions attached

Compared with the Government’s previous commitments, the improvement is chiefly in credibility, timing and access to capital: the outstanding funding gap is closed, the 3% ambition has a date, and public finance institutions have a stronger security mandate. For defence technology companies, this could help bridge the gap between promising prototypes and production at scale.

The verdict is therefore cautiously positive. Financing can support industrial capacity, but it cannot substitute for timely procurement decisions, bankable contracts and faster adoption by the armed forces. The next test is whether this firmer financial foundation translates into orders and deployable capability, rather than another round of investment announcements.

How Mishcon de Reya can help

Mishcon de Reya’s specialist Defence & DeepTech Group advises founders, investors and high-growth businesses on funding, protecting and scaling defence and resilience innovation. If you would like to discuss how the Budget measures may affect your business, please contact Toby McCrindle.

• In the 2026 Autumn Budget, the Chancellor announced over £1 billion of new Life Sciences public-private investments, backed by Government support, across three deals.
• The Chancellor emphasised the Government's commitment to supporting innovation and the steps being taken to make the UK an attractive space for new business.

Investment in Life Sciences

The Chancellor stated that the biggest barrier to UK innovation is investment. To tackle this, he led by example, announcing three investment deals in the Life Sciences space, backed by almost £70 million in grant funding, with:

• Convatec: investing over £500 million over the next decade in a new global R&D hub in Manchester
• Vertex Pharmaceuticals: investing over £300 million in a new facility in Oxford
• Kindeva: investing £200 million in Loughborough

These commitments are a welcome change. The UK has historically excelled at generating ideas, but many businesses have found a lack of investor appetite, particularly for complex, innovative Life Sciences products. An additional £20.4 billion for the National Wealth Fund has also been announced. The Chancellor did not go into detail on how private capital would be unlocked. However, greater involvement from the Government in the Life Sciences sector, coupled with any encouragement for private capital such as pension funds to invest in new areas, may help to persuade more private capital to engage with the sector.

Attracting and keeping talent

The Chancellor also highlighted the need for Government to help retain key talent. The High Potential Individual visa will be extended to graduates from the world's top 150 institutions, and non-compete clauses will not prevent start-ups and scaling firms from hiring. Talent retention and acquisition is particularly important in the Life Sciences sector, where often only a handful of people have the required knowledge or skills. The extension of graduate visas may be especially relevant in the case of a university spin-out.

Support for founders

For founders, the most significant developments centre on two new schemes and a tripling of the trading allowance:

• Trading allowance: individuals can now earn up to £3,000 tax free from a new venture, up from £1,000.
• Founders relief: founders of particularly successful businesses will benefit from a new 10% rate of Capital Gains Tax on lifetime gains up to a maximum of £10 million. Details of who qualifies are yet to be released but are likely to require a link to the UK.
• Female founders: a new Government-led scale-up programme, and the British Business Bank is to double its commitment to funds supporting women-led businesses to £200 million.
• Young entrepreneurs' allowance: a new allowance (criteria to follow) will cover an individual's living costs for a year. This will allow entrepreneurs to concentrate on growing their business and free up much-needed capital in that first year.

Our view

These measures speak to the Government's intention of making the UK an attractive location for new business. Of particular interest is the Chancellor's recognition that investment remains a key bottleneck for UK Life Sciences businesses. It will be interesting to see what steps are taken to encourage greater access to initial funding and private capital, as access to early-stage funding can often be a crucial factor in determining where a company launches its products or services.

How Mishcon de Reya can help

Mishcon de Reya's specialist Innovation and Life Sciences teams advise founders, investors and high-growth businesses on funding, protecting and scaling innovation. If you would like to discuss how the Budget measures may affect your business, please contact Patrick Farrant or Kate Pearson.

This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal or other professional advice. 

As climate change, nature loss and related systemic risks become increasingly foreseeable and material, expectations are growing that lawyers can identify and address those relevant to the matters before them. The training aims to build the core knowledge and capabilities needed to advise clients in this changing environment.

Developed by legal professionals for legal professionals and delivered by expert practitioners, the programme’s modular structure allows learners to engage with the content at their own pace.

The initial programme comprises seven foundational modules covering:

• the scale and urgency of the climate and nature crisis;
• the implications for clients’ operating environments and key developments in law and regulation; and
• the relevance of systemic risks to lawyers’ professional duties and everyday decisions on contracts, disputes and transactions.

The modules are designed to help learners identify material impacts, risks and opportunities, understand how these intersect with evolving legal risks and duties, and recognise when matters may benefit from specialist input.

Alongside the core course, a selection of deep-dive modules explores how legal risks and opportunities arise in specific sectors and contexts. These initially focus on energy transition and real estate and the built environment, with more topics to be added over time.

As a founding member of both the Sustainable Markets Initiative’s General Counsel Office and Legal Charter 1.5, Mishcon de Reya has played a leading role in developing the initial programme and contributed directly to two of its seven foundational modules.

The firm’s involvement reflects its belief that exceptional legal advice combines technical expertise with an understanding of the wider forces shaping clients’ businesses.

Tax Lawyers Index:

• Filippo Noseda, Private Wealth & Tax Partner, ranked as Top Flight
• Charlie Sosna, Head of Private Wealth & Tax, ranked as Top Recommended
• Martin Davies, Head of Middle East Group, ranked as Top Recommended
• Patrick Harney, Private Wealth & Tax Partner, ranked as Top Recommended
• Andrew Goldstone, Private Wealth & Tax Partner, ranked as Recommended
• Fiona Lewsey, Private Wealth & Tax Senior Counsel, ranked as Recommended

See the full indices

Contentious Trust Lawyers Index:

• Peter Steen, Head of Private Wealth Disputes, ranked as Top Recommended
• Mark Keenan, Private Wealth Disputes Partner, ranked as Top Recommended

Trusts, Structuring & Offshore Index:

• Elliott Phillips, Private Wealth Disputes Partner, ranked as Recommended

See the full indices

The Spear's Tax & Trusts Indices are an independently researched guide to leading advisers serving high-net-worth and ultra-high-net-worth individuals, families and family offices.

Inclusion is entirely merit-based and independently determined by the Spear's Research Unit.

This article follows on from our overview of Martyn's Law, the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025 (the Act), and should be read alongside it. It focuses on how the Act applies specifically to early years, schools, and further education settings. A separate article will consider the implications of this legislation for higher education settings and universities.

• Early years, primary, secondary and further education premises that can reasonably expect 200 or more individuals to be present at the same time are always treated as standard tier under the Act's special consideration, while higher education settings are not and follow the statutory thresholds.
• The Responsible Person is generally the governing body or proprietor, and for academy trusts the trust board is the Responsible Person across all its sites. Each site requires its own site-specific procedures.
• To avoid being caught out, Education settings should be aware of the special implications for them when hiring external venues for events, or when hiring out their own facilities to external parties.

The special consideration for education settings

Schedule 1 of the Act lists the qualifying uses for premises and this includes education settings across all levels from nursery care to universities.

For all early years, primary, secondary, and further education settings (Qualifying Settings), a significant distinction applies: premises wholly or mainly used for those purposes are always treated as standard tier premises, regardless of how many people (over the 200 person lower limit) are present. This is so whether the school is DfE-funded, charitable, fee-charging, or otherwise privately run. Publicly-funded independent training providers also fall under this special consideration, but privately owned independent training providers do not.

Higher education settings (including universities) are treated differently and do not benefit from the special consideration. They will fall within the standard tier if 200 to 799 individuals can reasonably be expected to be present at the same time, and within the enhanced tier if that figure is 800 or more.

Settings where fewer than 200 individuals can reasonably be expected to be present are out of scope, but falling below this threshold should be verified rather than assumed and all settings are nonetheless encouraged to have plans in place for the safety of their learners and staff.

Standard tier obligations for education settings

Qualifying Settings must identify and notify the Security Industry Authority (SIA) of their Responsible Person. For most education settings, the Responsible Person is the governing body of the institution or, where there is no governing body, the proprietor. For academy trusts operating across multiple sites, the trust board is the Responsible Person across every site.

There will be additional considerations for some groups: for example, proprietors or governing/trustee bodies of MATs, academy chains, and early years groups could be the Responsible Person across multiple sites and must develop site-specific procedures for each, as a single group-wide template will not satisfy the Act.

Events and venues

When a Qualifying Setting provider runs an event at a third-party venue, responsibility under the Act rests primarily with the venue operator who controls the premises. The institution is the hirer, not the Responsible Person. Even so, it is advisable to treat Martyn's Law compliance as a standard due diligence question when identifying and booking venues.

Furthermore, where Qualifying Settings hire out their premises for external events, the position and duties of the Responsible Person are not transferred to the hirer. Responsibility for procedures stays with the setting, though the hire contract can specify what the hirer is expected to deliver, provided the setting maintains oversight. Crucially, an event at premises used for early years, primary, secondary or further education cannot be a qualifying event under the Act, so even if an external organiser expects over 800 attendees on school grounds, the setting does not become enhanced tier premises. This distinction could make educational institutions stand out to those looking to hire venues.

An education in regulation

Education providers are already familiar with inspectors knocking on the door and may now also receive visits or enquiries from the SIA as it builds out its new regulatory role, as described in our general overview. The practical implications for Qualifying Settings are limited to the standard tier penalty regime, since they all fall within that tier under the special consideration described above.

As noted in our overview of Martyn's Law, the SIA has new responsibilities and powers under this legislation so it remains to be seen how well the SIA's experience translates into regulatory activity, but the SIA has stated it intends to take a 'support first' approach, focusing on guidance and compliance before resorting to formal enforcement.

The department for education's role

Alongside the Home Office's statutory guidance, the Department for Education published its own policy paper, 'How Martyn's Law will affect education settings', first issued in September 2025, which sets out how the Act applies to education providers. The DfE is also working with the National Counter Terrorism Security Office and the Home Office to support the sector throughout the implementation period, including through lunch-and-learn webinars, information sheets, and resources for good security practice.

The DfE has made clear that educational providers are not expected to wait for commencement to begin preparing and has published guidance on protective security and preparedness for education settings, encouraging all settings to have preparedness plans in place for the safety of their learners and staff.

Preparing for commencement

Education providers should treat this as an extension of their existing safeguarding and emergency planning obligations. The DfE has published guidance on protective security and preparedness for education settings, and much of the groundwork required under the Act will already be familiar to settings that have been following existing requirements. Providers should be mindful that the special consideration does not reduce the standard of procedures required at larger or more complex sites.

Parents and carers will want to see protections in place for their child and will expect to see this at the top of the agenda for school governors, trustees, and management committees.

How Mishcon de Reya can help

Our Education and Health and Safety teams can advise education settings on preparing for Martyn's Law ahead of the Act coming into force in April 2027. We can help your institution assess where it sits under the Act's special consideration, put compliant procedures in place, and ensure your approach aligns with existing safeguarding and emergency planning obligations.

In this episode of Market Watch, Henrietta Garner and Laura Moore-Gwyn discuss how the London office market is changing and what occupiers are looking for from their workplaces. They cover flexibility, the demand for high-quality space, changing expectations around amenities and sustainability, and the role the office plays in bringing people together. They also look ahead at how technology, retrofitting and changing working patterns could shape London’s offices in the future.

Will the reforms deliver a better rental market? The panel explores the implications for renters, landlords and investors, the practical challenges and potential unintended consequences - before giving their verdict.

adsilico is a University of Leeds spinout developing AI and simulation technology that enables medical device manufacturers to assess device performance across diverse virtual patient populations before testing in real-world settings. 

The company combines generative AI and physics-based modelling to improve the development and evaluation of implantable medical devices.

The funding will support the further development of adsilico’s Virtual Chimera™ platform, expanding its capabilities beyond cardiovascular applications into additional therapeutic areas, including neurovascular devices. The company also plans to significantly grow its team as demand for advanced simulation and modelling technologies continues to increase.

Mishcon de Reya continues to support leading university spinouts and high-growth technology businesses as they translate cutting-edge research into commercial success. The UK’s university innovation ecosystem remains a powerful source of world-class healthcare and deep technology companies, attracting investment to scale transformative technologies with global impact.

Sheena Macpherson, CEO and co-founder of adsilico, commented: "We have valued the expertise and advice provided by Mishcon since spinning out and none more so than in this milestone Series A funding round. We look forward to delivering the next phase of our development with the support of Attilio and the wider team at Mishcon."

Attilio Leccisotti, Partner at Mishcon de Reya, said: "Congratulations to the adsilico team and investor syndicate on closing this round. We are pleased to continue to support university spin out companies across the UK and in particular, as our long standing relationship with adsilico showcases, we have the ability to guide companies through the spin out process and into large institutional funding rounds. This transaction is a great advert for the technology, talent and capital available in Yorkshire and the North of England in general and we look forward to monitoring adsilico's progress."

• Puma challenged the validity of a registered EU design for a pebble-like footwear sole owned by Sir Safety System SpA, based on a significant number of its earlier designs.
• The EU General Court dismissed Puma's challenge, reinforcing the 'overall impression' test as the relevant question in determining whether a design has individual character.
• In particular, the court concluded that, whether a design creates or follows a trend is not relevant when examining its individual character, and that novel features do not automatically confer broader protection on earlier designs.
• The court's decision highlights the difficulties brand owners can face in protecting distinctive design features and overall aesthetics.

Background

In 2022, Puma lodged an application at the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to have a registered design in the name of Sir Safety System SpA invalidated based on lack of novelty and individual character due to Puma's earlier designs for its 'Hybrid' shoe series, which featured a distinctive pebble-like sole (Puma relied upon 30 of its design registrations).

A registered design is considered to have individual character if the overall impression it creates on the informed user differs from the overall impression created by any earlier, publicly available design. In assessing individual character, the designer's degree of freedom in developing the design will be taken into account.

Puma claimed that a central feature of its earlier design was the pebble-like structure on the midsole, which it claimed was reproduced in Sir Safety's design. It stated that the contested design created the same overall impression on an informed user and therefore lacked individual character.

Both the EUIPO's Invalidity Division and, on Puma's appeal, the Board of Appeal, rejected Puma's challenge. Puma appealed to the EU General Court.

What did Puma appeal?

Puma argued that:

1. The contested design lacked individual character, and the Board of Appeal had placed too much importance on minor differences to conclude that it created a different overall impression.
2. In establishing a new market trend in the pebble-like structure of the midsole as part of the design of its 'Hybrid' shoe series, Puma had exhausted the designer's freedom. Therefore, differences between the designs had to be greater to establish there was a different overall impression on the informed user.
3. Puma's prior designs enjoyed broader protection because it had created the pebble-like sole structure.

What did the General Court decide?

On 2 September 2026, the General Court dismissed Puma's appeal, concluding that, while the designs shared certain visual features in the pebble-like structure and thickness of the midsole, there were a number of differences in the undersole, the toe and heel, as well as in the distribution and arrangement of the particles of the midsoles. These differences gave the contested design a distinct overall impression which an informed user displaying a relatively high level of attention would notice.

To the extent that Puma had created a new design trend for shoes, this was relevant, at most, to the aesthetic perception of the design. The relevant question remained whether the overall impression on an informed user differed from that produced by prior designs. This aligns with the CJEU's approach in Deity Shoes.

The court concluded that Puma's degree of designer freedom was high as regards the shape, materials, colours and decorative elements of the pebble sole and its parts, and that this freedom extended beyond the mere use of a particle structure in the midsole. The court also found that any originality attributable to Puma's designs had no influence on the assessment of the individual character of the contested design. In any event, there was no evidence to support the claim that the pebble-like sole structure was completely new on the market when it was registered or disclosed, or that it had exhausted the designer's freedom by creating the sole structure. As a result, the court held that the differences between the designs did not need to be even ‘greater’ to create a different overall impression on the informed user.

The court reiterated that the 'informed user' is somewhere between an expert and an average consumer. While they are not a designer or technical expert, they know the various designs which exist in the sector concerned and show a relatively high level of attention when using them. The informed user was more sophisticated than an average consumer within the meaning of trade mark law, and could therefore make direct comparisons between the designs at issue, as well as be influenced by the practical use of the design (insofar as this allows them to determine the importance of certain visible features of the product).

What are the takeaways?

Overall, the court's decision highlights some potential challenges in protecting distinctive design features and overall aesthetics, as it is a breadth of features that will be used to determine the overall impression of a design on an informed user, not mere stylisation. In placing paramount importance on the overall impression test, the concern is that new designs may be registered that use trend-inspired features from earlier designs by simply adding new details to create a different overall impression in the eyes of a court.

Despite Puma owning a number of registrations for its pebble sole design in various iterations and designs, none of its 30 prior designs were found similar enough to create the same overall impression on an informed user. Designers should keep the overall impression test in mind when seeking protection, to ensure that they are strategically protecting their designs in the best possible way against infringement. For example, other intellectual property rights like copyright or trade marks, may become relevant in providing brand owners with that desired protection.

For more information on the decision and other design protection queries, please get in touch with our Copyright and Design team.

Beyond fears of job losses, could AI create a more prosperous future, and what might that mean for the way we work?

In brief

• Two recent High Court decisions involving VTB Bank, a Russian bank subject to UK sanctions, illustrate how UK sanctions can impact the ability of a designated person to obtain a worldwide freezing order ("WFO").
• Together, the cases confirm that sanctioned litigants can access injunctions as a remedy from the English courts but will not be given any more favourable treatment than a non-sanctioned party, and the practical impact of sanctions can determine whether an otherwise properly obtained injunction survives.

Background: the underlying dispute

VTB Bank obtained a WFO against two Kazakh defendants in aid of substantive proceedings in Russia, who later challenged the order on two fronts.

The set-aside application: is a freezing order an "economic resource"?

In VTB Bank PJSC v Kuanyshev and Askar [2026] EWHC 2140 (Comm), the defendants argued that the freezing injunction breached UK sanctions and should therefore be set aside.

Regulations 11 to 15 of the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 form the core of the UK's asset-freezing regime for persons designated under the Russia sanctions.

Regulation 11 imposes the basic asset freeze on funds and economic resources owned, held or controlled by a designated person. Regulations 12 and 13 prohibit making "funds" available, directly or indirectly, to a designated person or for their benefit, while Regulations 14 and 15 impose the equivalent prohibition in relation to "economic resources".

Section 60 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (SAMLA) supplies the definitions that give those Regulations their scope. "Funds" is defined broadly as financial assets and benefits of every kind, including obvious examples such as cash and bank deposits but extending to a non-exhaustive list of other instruments and interests. "Economic resources" is an even wider concept, encompassing assets of every kind, tangible or intangible, movable or immovable, which can be used to obtain funds, goods or services.

The defendants argued that both definitions were engaged here, regardless of the fact that any funds or economic resources would only be made available to VTB as a result of a court order, since the Regulations prohibit funds or economic resources being made available to a designated person "directly or indirectly", whether or not the person making them available was acting under compulsion of a court order.

A freezing injunction is not itself a payment or transfer of assets: it is an order made by the court against a defendant personally, restraining that defendant from dealing with their own assets pending the resolution of the underlying dispute. However, the defendants argued that the freezing injunction should be considered "funds" under section 60(1) SAMLA, on the basis that it had quantifiable financial value by making VTB's underlying claim more valuable. Alternatively, the injunction was said to be an "economic resource" under section 60(2) SAMLA and Regulation 14, since it could be used to obtain the defendants' assets. A further argument was that the disclosure order breached Regulation 12 (treating the disclosed information as "funds" with intrinsic value) or Regulation 14 (as an "economic resource").

Set-aside decision

Mrs Justice Dias rejected all of these arguments, holding that granting a WFO or a disclosure order to VTB did not involve making "funds" or "economic resources" available to it. A freezing injunction is not "funds", since it gives the applicant no proprietary or other interest in the frozen assets. Nor is it an "economic resource", since there was no evidence that it can be used "in exchange for" funds, goods or services. The same reasoning applied to an asset disclosure order made at the same time as the WFO: the disclosed material had no intrinsic financial value, and simply conveying information does not amount to "funds" or an "economic resource".

The discharge application

Meanwhile, in an earlier decision, VTB Bank PJSC v Kuanyshev and Askar [2026] EWHC 1983 (Comm), Mrs Justice Dias considered the defendants' application to discharge VTB's WFO on the basis that VTB failed to provide fortification for its cross-undertaking in damages.

A cross-undertaking in damages is a promise a claimant gives, in exchange for the court granting a freezing order, to compensate the defendant for any loss caused by the order if it later turns out the order should not have been granted. Where there is a real risk the claimant would not be able to honour that promise, the court can require the cross-undertaking to be fortified by way of security, typically in the form of a payment into court. It was common ground between the parties that fortification is the price a claimant must pay in exchange for the grant of a freezing order.

The difficulty in this case was that VTB, as a sanctioned entity, could not simply make a payment, even into court, without first obtaining a licence from the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI), and the court was told at the outset that an OFSI licence could take anywhere between six weeks and 18 months to grant. As OFSI will only grant a licence in relation to a specific, identified transaction, VTB could not obtain one in advance to cover whatever fortification mechanism the court might eventually order, and each new proposal for how to provide fortification triggered other issues.

Over the following months, VTB attempted to provide fortification in various ways:

• First iteration: VTB proposed ring-fencing funds already frozen in a UK JP Morgan account. There was some confusion at the original hearing granting the WFO as to whether licences were already in place for these funds, but it later emerged that licences would still need to be obtained in order to make the payment.
• Second iteration: Alternatively, VTB proposed using funds held at Barclays Bank instead. VTB suggested that this would avoid the need to obtain a licence from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), as well as from OFSI. The defendants argued neither this nor the JP Morgan proposal offered real fortification unless and until a licence (from OFSI as a minimum) was actually granted, so the court rejected both and instead ordered payment into court (with the amount increased to £500,000, including security for costs), directing VTB to apply for the necessary licence expeditiously.
• Third iteration: VTB proposed using funds already in the Court Funds Office to the account of VTB's subsidiary, which would only require an OFSI licence to authorise an internal transfer between the companies. OFSI took two months to respond with a draft licence, after the defendants threatened to join OFSI to the proceedings, but this draft licence requested further information from VTB. Further, the Court Funds Office was not prepared to accept the proposed transfer without a separate court order, further necessary licences permitting both payment out of and back into a VTB-connected account, and due diligence on the part of the Court Funds Office itself and its correspondent banks - making the mechanism unworkable in practice.
• Fourth iteration: VTB proposed varying the order to allow fortification to be held in its solicitors' client account instead. The defendants opposed this as offering less protection than payment into court, since a licence would still be needed to pay funds out of a solicitors' client account, whereas a licence for payment into court might make a further licence for payment out unnecessary or quicker to obtain. By the time the discharge application came before the court, nearly six months had passed since the original freezing order, and no fortification had been provided.

Discharge decision

Applying the established test of whether discharge would be unjust or disproportionate, the judge accepted that a designated person is entitled to access the courts but should not thereby be placed in a better position than any other litigant. Weighing VTB's more than minimal efforts to comply against the fact that no fortification had been provided after nearly six months, she held that VTB should have a further 13 days to make the payment into court, failing which the order would be discharged.

In the subsequent set-aside judgment, Mrs Justice Dias stood by this earlier decision but held that the WFO should not be discharged until 31 August 2026, to allow time for VTB to appeal the discharge decision to the Court of Appeal. However, she was careful to note that her decision to discharge the WFO was a discretionary decision, made on the particular facts of this specific case, and it should not be taken as determining the position for other designated persons in other circumstances.

On 28 August 2026, the Court of Appeal refused VTB's application for permission to appeal. The WFO was accordingly discharged.

What the cases mean in practice

• Freezing injunctions and disclosure orders are not "funds" or "economic resources", even where they benefit a designated claimant.
• A party which is subject to a freezing order obtained by a sanctioned counterparty may be able to have the order discharged if fortification is not provided within a reasonable time. However, the court will consider this in light of the specific facts of the case.
• Parties seeking a freezing order where sanctions may make payment of fortification challenging should liaise with OFSI as soon as possible and bear in mind that OFSI's typical timeline for granting licences can cause difficulties in practice.

Tim is the co-founder of Bright Ideas Trust, a social enterprise that has supported more than 750 start-up businesses founded by young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. He also hosts 'reWORKING', a podcast exploring work and money, and has held senior leadership roles across business, marketing and social mobility.  

A passionate advocate for education, entrepreneurship and inclusive leadership, Tim is committed to empowering individuals and creating opportunities for people to realise their potential. 

In Brief

• The Review, commissioned by the Department for Education (DfE), makes 27 recommendations and calls for a system-wide, coherent approach to prevention, recognition and response.
• The Review recommends wider adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, strengthened safeguarding guidance, and amendments to the Teachers' Standards.
• The Review also recommends that Ofsted and the Independent Schools' Inspectorate build inspector capability on antisemitism.
• None of the 27 recommendations is yet binding law or statutory guidance but the government has already publicly stated that it accepts all the recommendations; schools should therefore track implementation closely, particularly any changes to Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE) and the Teachers' Standards.

What does the Review actually say?

The Review's central finding is that schools and colleges are generally committed to inclusion, but lack a shared reference point for identifying antisemitism and lack confidence in responding to it consistently. It recommends that the Secretary of State for Education encourage all schools and colleges to adopt the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, first adopted by the UK Government in 2016, as "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews", including its illustrative examples.

Beyond definition, the Review calls for the DfE to strengthen KCSIE so that racism and prejudice, including antisemitism, are expressly recognised as capable of constituting harm and raising safeguarding concerns, moving antisemitism out of a purely behavioural or disciplinary frame. It also recommends updated behaviour and anti-bullying guidance, clearer reporting and recording systems with a dedicated antisemitism category, and amendments to the Teachers' Standards so that antisemitic conduct is expressly incompatible with professional standards, both within and outside school, including online.

On training and curriculum, the Review recommends that the DfE commission a dedicated antisemitism training package for school and college leaders and Designated Safeguarding Leads, and encourage its integration into existing safeguarding, equalities and anti-racism training. It also recommends that antisemitism understanding be embedded in initial teacher training and the early career framework, alongside wider curriculum recommendations covering Holocaust education, religious education, citizenship, media literacy and online safety, and pastoral and tutorial provision.

On staff protection, the Review separately recommends that school and college employers maintain a robust reporting, escalation and response process for antisemitic abuse, bullying or harassment directed at staff and, where relevant, governors and trustees, whether the conduct involves pupils, students, parents, colleagues or third parties. This sits alongside, but is distinct from, the Teachers' Standards amendments already referred to above.

What does the Review say about ensuring accountability in schools?

The Review recommends that Ofsted and the ISI each build inspector training and confidence specifically on evaluating how effectively leaders identify, manage and prevent antisemitism, and that the DfE commission both inspectorates to undertake thematic work on this question, separately and within their respective remits.

Currently, neither inspection framework treats antisemitism as a standalone judgement area; it is assessed indirectly through broader categories such as leadership, culture and safeguarding, or through compliance with the Independent School Standards. It does likely become a theme for inspection and schools should expect inspectors to ask more targeted questions about antisemitism-specific policy, training and recording in future inspection cycles, rather than treating it as subsumed within general equalities or behaviour provision.

What should schools do about political impartiality and controversial discussion?

The Review identifies significant uncertainty among staff about navigating political expression, impartiality duties, and discussion of the Israel-Palestine conflict, with some professionals avoiding the topic altogether for fear of complaint.

The Review recommends that school leaders carefully consider the time, place and manner of political expression, including staff dress codes and pupil uniform policy on political symbols, flags or slogans, ensuring compliance with impartiality duties while remaining mindful of inclusion and respectful dialogue. Notably, Sir David Bell stopped short of recommending an outright ban on political symbols, citing the risk of legally untested or unworkable rules; schools retain discretion, but must exercise it against their existing statutory duties.

What happens next?

The Review creates no new duties of its own. Its recommendations depend on the DfE, Ofsted, the ISI and others choosing to act. Schools should treat the Review as a strong signal of direction.

There is also a genuine tension the Review surfaces but does not fully resolve: the boundary between legitimate political or historical discussion of Israel and antisemitism. The Review itself finds increasing prevalence of anti-Israel attitudes alongside confusion about where legitimate expression ends and antisemitism begins, which will remain a live risk area for staff training, pastoral handling of incidents, and safeguarding judgement calls.

What should schools do now?

• Review current pupil policies against the Review's direction of travel to identify likely areas for amendment: behaviour, anti-bullying, speaking visitors, safeguarding and online safety policies should be checked for whether they would already satisfy a strengthened KCSIE position that antisemitism may constitute harm.
• Enhance capability within recording systems to confirm whether antisemitic incidents can be separately categorised and tracked, rather than folded into general bullying or behaviour logs.
• Assess staff and governor training: consider whether current safeguarding, equalities and anti-racism training gives staff genuine confidence to recognise and respond to antisemitism, including online manifestations.
• Review staff codes of conduct, and HR reporting and escalation procedures, to confirm they provide a clear route for staff, governors and trustees to report antisemitic abuse, bullying or harassment, including incidents involving pupils, parents or third parties.
• Revisit political impartiality practice, particularly uniform and dress code policy on political symbols, and guidance for staff on discussing the Israel-Palestine conflict, against existing Education Act 1996 and DfE guidance.
• Engage with ISI and Ofsted developments as inspector training and thematic review work is rolled out, and monitor DfE announcements on KCSIE and Teachers' Standards amendments before they take effect.
• Be live to working with religious leaders to increase organisational understanding of trends and concerns.

How Mishcon de Reya can help

Our Education team advises independent schools, academy trusts and governing bodies on safeguarding policy, political impartiality duties, equality law, staff conduct and misconduct processes, and engagement with Ofsted and ISI inspections. We can help you benchmark current policies and training against the antisemitism Review's recommendations, advise on handling individual incidents, and prepare your school for the accountability changes likely to follow.

To discuss what the antisemitism review means for your school, please contact a member of the Education Group at Mishcon de Reya.

What happened?

On 21 October 2026, the developers of PHP released emergency security updates for two critical vulnerabilities, known collectively as "PHP2Shell" (CVE-2026-109618 and CVE-2026-109619).

PHP is the programming language behind a large share of the world's websites, including those built on popular platforms such as WordPress, Drupal, Magento and Joomla. It is also built into many commercial software products and online services, so many organisations rely on it without realising.

The flaws allow an attacker to take control of a web server running PHP simply by sending it a specially crafted request. No password or user interaction is needed. Technical details leaked online before the fix was ready, and early attack attempts have already been reported. Several governments and organisations temporarily took websites offline as a precaution while they applied the fix.

The UK's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) has issued an alert urging organisations to take immediate action: Critical security issue affecting PHP.

So what?

Your organisation may be exposed in three ways.

• Your own systems. If your website, client portal, intranet or any internal application runs on PHP, it may be vulnerable. An attacker who takes control of the server could alter your website, steal data held in connected databases, install hidden "backdoors" for later use, or use it as a stepping stone into the rest of your network. Older versions of PHP (8.1 and earlier) no longer receive official fixes, which makes them a particular concern.
• Your suppliers and cloud services. Many software-as-a-service (SaaS) platforms, hosted websites, network appliances and off-the-shelf products run PHP behind the scenes. The Dutch NCSC has already listed more than 600 products from around 430 suppliers that may be affected. Fixing these is your supplier's job, but the consequences are yours: a compromise at a supplier that holds your data can quickly become your data breach, with the operational, contractual and regulatory implications that follow.
• Scams exploiting the headlines. High-profile vulnerabilities are routinely used as bait by criminals. Expect emails, texts and calls impersonating IT providers, web hosts, software vendors or even the NCSC, urging recipients to "install an urgent PHP patch", "verify your account" or click a link to "check whether your site is affected". Similar fake-patch campaigns have previously targeted website owners and led to full compromise of their sites. Legitimate vendors very rarely send security patches by email.

What should I do?

Your own systems

• Ask your IT team or managed service provider to identify everywhere PHP is used, starting with anything accessible from the internet.
• Confirm that the security updates have been applied (PHP 8.5.12, 8.4.27, 8.3.36 or 8.2.35, or an equivalent fix from your vendor).
• If a system cannot be updated quickly, follow the NCSC's advice: apply the temporary mitigations published by PHP or consider taking the system offline until it can be fixed.
• Check systems that were exposed before they were patched for signs of compromise. Patching closes the door, but it does not remove an intruder who is already inside.

Your suppliers

• Identify the suppliers and cloud services that hold your data or support critical operations.
• Ask them, in writing, whether they are affected, whether they have applied the fixes, and whether they have checked for signs of compromise.
• Watch for security notices from your vendors, and review what your contracts say about how quickly suppliers must notify you of a security incident.

Your people

• Brief staff to treat any unexpected message about PHP or "urgent security patches" with suspicion: do not click links or open attachments, and verify the request through a known contact.
• Make clear that software updates only ever come through your IT team or your vendor's official channels.
• Report suspicious emails to the NCSC by forwarding them to report@phishing.gov.uk.

Useful NCSC resources

• NCSC alert: Critical security issue affecting PHP
• Dealing with suspicious messages
• Report suspicious messages or websites
• NCSC Early Warning service (free for UK organisations)
• Dutch NCSC list of potentially affected products

How we can help

PHP Compromise Assessment

A straightforward assessment, designed to give you a clear, independent answer on whether your PHP-based systems show any evidence of vulnerability or compromise.

We review the systems you identify as running PHP, check whether the security updates have been applied, and look for indicators that a system was accessed or altered before it was patched. This can run as a standalone piece of work, or as an independent check alongside an assessment you have already carried out internally or through another provider.

Beyond this assessment, our Cyber Risk and Complex Investigations team can also support you with:

• Cyber Security Consulting: rapid exposure assessments of your systems and suppliers, supplier assurance questionnaires, and clear briefings for boards and senior leadership.
• Digital Forensics: compromise assessments of systems that were exposed before patching, with evidence preserved to a standard suitable for legal and regulatory proceedings.
• Incident Response: hands-on support to contain and recover from an attack, working alongside the firm's data protection and regulatory lawyers on notification obligations, including the 72-hour window for notifying the Information Commissioner's Office under UK GDPR.

If you would like an independent compromise assessment of your PHP environment, or simply want expert support determining whether there is any evidence of vulnerability or compromise, please contact us.

Speaking on his hopes for the future of profession, Hugo said,“I’d like to see much closer collaboration between public and private sector professionals fighting fraud, which remains the UK's most prevalent crime and costs the economy billions each year.

“The opportunity to work together more effectively is staring us in the face; what's missing is the political will to make it happen.”

Read the full profile. 

In brief

• Growth in the UK defence sector is driving demand for manufacturing, R&D and logistics space, but defence occupiers can face particular challenges in the commercial property market.
• Landlord and funder concerns about defence-related uses can affect lease terms and slow the process of securing suitable premises.
• Security, vetting and other sector-specific requirements may also need to be reflected in lease terms that were not designed with defence occupiers in mind.
• Government contracts and procurement cycles can create a further tension between the flexibility occupiers need and the certainty landlords are looking for.
• Addressing these issues early can help occupiers secure property arrangements that work for the way their businesses operate.

The UK defence sector is in growth mode with capital to deploy. Rising government spending commitments, a renewed focus on domestic manufacturing resilience, and a wave of investment in advanced technology, drones and munitions production have sent defence contractors and their suppliers hunting for space, from precision engineering units to secure R&D facilities and logistics hubs. However, defence occupiers are discovering that the commercial property market was not built with them in mind. While the sector is attracting investment and growing, the property market is struggling to adapt to its needs. Key difficulties include:

Landlord nervousness about end use

Many landlords and their institutional funders have ESG mandates, lender covenants or simply reputational caution that make them wary of anything associated with weapons, munitions or military technology - even when the actual activity is benign testing, components manufacturing or software. This can show up subtly: a user clause drafted too narrowly, a reluctance to agree alienation rights, or protracted internal approval processes that slow a deal before terms are even agreed. Because of this, it is crucial from the outset to find a property with a keen landlord and to agree terms that strike the right balance between restriction and flexibility.

Security, vetting and planning complexity layered onto an institutionally standard lease

Defence premises frequently require enhanced physical security specifications, controlled access, vetting of contractors attending site and compliance with government security classifications that go beyond standard industrial, office or tech/lab space leases. These requirements need to be reflected in alterations clauses, service charge provisions, insurance obligations and even rights of entry in a carefully considered way. This demands departure from an institutional landlord's standard form of lease and needs creative, carefully negotiated lease structures rather than off-the-shelf terms.

Government and supply chain dependency creating covenant and term uncertainty

Many defence occupiers rely heavily on government contracts with their own renewal cycles, which sit awkwardly against conventional lease terms, break clauses and rent review structures. Landlords want certainty of covenant and income; defence tenants need flexibility that tracks programme funding and MOD procurement timelines. As the property market is shifting to catch up with demand, there is a growing pool of available landlords that are prepared to work around the needs of the defence sector.

There are some obvious clusters developing that are attracting defence occupiers to meet the Government's ambitions, but a significant amount of additional space needs to be unlocked relatively swiftly. Occupiers need to act quickly and proactively with the right advisers to ensure that real estate demands enhance rather than hinder business growth.

Mishcon de Reya’s Real Estate team advises defence occupiers on the property issues that can arise as they grow, helping clients anticipate landlord concerns, address security and compliance requirements and structure arrangements that work for their business. The Real Estate team is part of Mishcon’s Defence & DeepTech Sector Group, which brings together specialist expertise from across the firm to advise clients operating in the sector. Find out more about Mishcon’s Defence & DeepTech Sector Group here.

The article, The 'pause and the profession', explores the challenges many women face in balancing careers with the often significant physical and cognitive effects of menopause, as well as the growing conversation around workplace support and accommodation. Jennifer shared her perspective on developments in the UK, where awareness of menopause in the workplace has increased significantly in recent years.

Commenting on the rise in menopause-related employment tribunal claims, Jennifer noted that while such claims still represent a relatively small proportion of cases overall, there has been a notable increase in recent years. She observed that this reflects broader cultural changes in the UK, stating: "There's been a huge movement over the last five years or so that's increased public awareness through media exposure about what women go through."

Jennifer also discussed the evolving expectations placed on employers, highlighting that the most significant developments are being driven not necessarily by legislative change, but by greater public awareness and scrutiny of how employers support women experiencing menopause in the workplace. She commented: "We're seeing a big change. Not necessarily in the statute books, but certainly in terms of public commentary and what that means for the government's expectations of what employers do for women in the workplace."

Read the article in full.

In brief

Already in force (since 1 October)

• The ordinary time limit for employees and workers to bring most tribunal claims has doubled from three to six months, in broad terms in relation to events on or after that date.

From 30 October

• Employers must take 'all' reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment.
• Employers will become liable for harassment of their staff by customers, clients and other third parties.
• Independent trade unions will be able to request physical and digital access to workplaces, whether or not the employer recognises them.
• Statutory trade union recognition rules will tighten, union reps gain rights to facilities and time off, and workers will be protected from any detriment for taking lawful industrial action.

What changed on 1 October 2026

Time limits doubled for employment tribunal claims

On 1 October 2026, the three-month time limit for bringing most employment tribunal claims doubled to six months. The new limitation period only applies to claims where, in broad terms, the date of the alleged mistreatment falls on or after 1 October 2026. Existing rules on extensions of time - whether through Acas early conciliation or the employment tribunal's discretion - are unaffected by this change.

Employers should consider the practical consequences of the longer limitation period, including on document retention, witness evidence and settlement negotiations. For more information, read our article: What the extension of employment tribunal time limits means for employers.

What changes on 30 October 2026

Sexual harassment: all reasonable steps

An employer's proactive duty to prevent sexual harassment is strengthened: employers must take 'all' reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace (up to now, the duty has required employers to take 'reasonable steps').

Employers should treat the existing 'reasonable steps' baseline as the minimum. Satisfying the new higher threshold in practice depends on the specific circumstances of each employer including their size, sector, resources and working environment. In particular, employers should keep their risk assessments under regular review and adopt an active prevention strategy, using systems to track harassment complaints, outcomes, and preventative measures taken.

Third-party harassment

Employers become liable for harassment of their staff by customers, clients and other third parties. This covers harassment related to any relevant protected characteristic, not just sexual harassment. Employers avoid liability only if they can show they took all reasonable steps to prevent it. Among other things, employers should review customer-facing policies and training. For more information on how employers can prepare, read our article: Harassment under the Employment Rights Act 2025: What are the key changes employers need to be aware of?

Trade union workplace access

Independent trade unions gain the right to request access to workplaces (both physically and digitally), whether or not any of the workplace's workers are trade union members, and whether or not the employer recognises a union. The statutory timetable for responding to a union's access request is short, so employers should settle on their approach before a request lands. For more information, read our article: The new trade union right of access: what employers need to do now.

Wider trade union reforms

The statutory recognition process changes in two key respects. The ban on unfair practices, such as threats, inducements or undue influence, applies from the moment the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) accepts a union's application, not just during the recognition ballot. In addition, once the CAC receives an application, the bargaining unit is also frozen: employers can still recruit, but new joiners will not count or vote in the ballot.

Employers must, on request, provide union officials and learning representatives with reasonable accommodation and facilities for their union work. Equality representatives of recognised unions also gain a new right to paid time off and to reasonable accommodation and facilities. An updated Acas Code of Practice, expected to take effect on 30 October, sets out what is reasonable.

Under regulations approved by Parliament and due to take effect on 30 October, workers will be protected from any detriment short of dismissal, such as loss of overtime or disciplinary action, aimed at preventing, deterring or penalising their taking part in protected industrial action. Proportionate pay deductions for strike days remain lawful.

How Mishcon de Reya can help

If you would like more information or support on the October changes, or on the other reforms being introduced by the Employment Rights Act, please get in touch with your usual Mishcon de Reya contact or with a member of the Employment team.

In brief

• Debt funds can offer property investors greater speed, flexibility and leverage than traditional banks, particularly for more complex transactions or where timing is tight.
• They can also offer more flexibility around the structure of a facility, including drawdowns, repayment terms and covenants.
• This will usually come at a higher cost, and borrowers should also consider the lender's ability to fund future drawdowns.
• The right choice will depend on the particular transaction and the investor's priorities, including the leverage required and the importance of speed and flexibility.

Debt funds are a firmly established part of the real estate finance sector, with many property investors turning to them ahead of traditional banks. This article takes a look at when a debt fund may be the better choice for a property investor and the risks that they should consider before making that choice.

When does a debt fund make more sense than a bank?

Speed is usually the first thing property investors mention. Banks have to work through regulatory capital rules, liquidity requirements and layers of internal sign-off, which can slow down credit decisions. Debt funds tend to run leaner: fewer people need to say yes, so a term sheet can land in days instead of weeks. If an investor is bidding for an asset in a competitive market, or racing to hit an exchange or refinancing deadline, the speed at which a lender can act may make or break the deal.

Traditional bank lenders tend to prefer assets that sit comfortably within their risk limits and sector caps, whereas debt funds will often be more flexible and willing to finance more complex assets. Terms will also be negotiated directly between borrower and lender rather than pulled off a standard template, so debt funds may have more scope to tailor drawdowns, repayment schedules, interest rates and covenants around the deal. Many debt funds also specialise – by sector, deal size or risk profile – so a borrower can sometimes find a fund whose appetite is genuinely aligned with the deal, rather than fitting the deal to a bank's standard product.

Debt funds are not tied down by the same capital rules banks answer to, which usually means more leverage is on the table. A bank might cap senior debt at around 50-60% LTV; a debt fund running a whole loan or stretched senior facility can push well past that. And if the senior lender still cannot stretch far enough, the gap doesn't have to derail the deal. Mezzanine debt, slotted in between senior debt and equity, is increasingly how investors get to 70-80% of cost, even when no single lender wants to underwrite the whole transaction. Debt funds tend to be the ones writing those junior tranches, since the higher yield compensates them for taking a subordinate position.

The risks of choosing a debt fund

The advantages of debt fund lending do come with trade-offs. The most obvious is price: interest rates and fees on debt fund facilities are typically higher than bank pricing, reflecting the greater risk the lender is taking on and the flexibility it is offering in return.

There is also the question of who is standing behind the money. Banks lend from their own balance sheets; many debt funds lend through special purpose vehicles that draw on committed but not always unlimited capital, so it is worth understanding whether a lender can actually fund future drawdowns before signing up to a facility that depends on them. If a borrower gets into difficulty, a debt fund that has already deployed its capital may not be able to fund further drawdowns under the same facility.

None of this makes a debt fund the wrong choice. It just means the same due diligence an investor applies to the underlying asset should be applied to the lender: track record, capitalisation and how the fund has behaved when deals have gone off plan.

Conclusion

There is no single right answer here. It comes down to the investor's strategy, how much leverage is required, and how much speed and flexibility are worth against the extra cost and risk. And choice is no longer binary: banks and debt funds are finding ways to work alongside each other on the same transaction. But whichever route an investor takes, working through the trade-offs early and talking to lenders about structure, leverage, recourse and their own capacity to fund will save investors from delays and headaches later on.

• Changes to employment law will have practical implications for employers across the real estate sector.
• From 1 January 2027, the qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection will reduce from two years to six months and the cap on compensatory awards will be removed.
• Changes to trade union rights are also expected to increase opportunities for union involvement in the workplace.
• From 30 October 2026, employers will be required to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment and will also face liability for failing to prevent harassment by third parties.
• Employers should review their probation and dismissal processes, employee engagement arrangements and harassment protections in light of the changes.

Employment law reform: what employers in the real estate sector need to know

The Employment Rights Act 2025 implements the most significant reforms to UK employment law in a generation. This article highlights three changes of particular relevance to the real estate sector.

Unfair dismissal: a significantly higher risk profile

From 1 January 2027, the qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection reduces from two years to six months, and the cap on compensatory awards is removed entirely. The compensation cap has historically allowed employers to manage exposure with reasonable certainty. Going forward, awards will reflect actual loss with no ceiling, which is particularly relevant for senior or higher-paid employees.

Employers need to decide whether to retain new joiners much earlier and with more confidence. Robust and proactive probationary reviews, with early intervention, are therefore key. Active management of underperformers is also a priority. Given the higher stakes, ensure managers are trained on fair dismissal procedures, with proper documentation of performance and disciplinary issues.

Trade union rights – a relationship reset

The Employment Rights Act also gives trade unions greater opportunities for influence in the workplace, with many measures already in force or coming into effect by 30 October 2026. This reverses years of anti-trade union legislation, gives unions a right of access to almost any employer premises, and makes it easier for unions to gain recognition to negotiate on behalf of the workforce and take industrial action. The power balance between unions and employers is being reset, heralding a significant increase in union involvement over the next several years.

Employers who prefer to keep the relationship with their workforce direct should now audit their employee voice mechanisms. Staff who feel heard rarely look elsewhere for representation. Understand the current sentiment across your workforce and the quality of existing engagement, ensure staff know of and buy into any arrangements, and build them where they are weak or absent. Credible, effective employee voice arrangements are far more effective preparation than looking to resist a union once it comes knocking.

Enhanced harassment protections

From 30 October 2026, employers will be required to take "all reasonable steps" (rather than merely "reasonable steps") to prevent sexual harassment of employees. The word "all" potentially raises the bar significantly: passive or baseline compliance is not enough, and employers need tailored risk identification and management, active monitoring, and documented preventative actions.

Employers will also become liable for failing to prevent the harassment of employees by third parties such as contractors, tenants, visitors and customers. This is particularly relevant where, for example, concierge, security, cleaning, maintenance and lettings staff regularly interact with third parties on-site.

In 2027, new confidentiality clauses that seek to prevent workers from disclosing discrimination or harassment, including in settlement agreements and NDAs, will be void save in limited circumstances. Whistleblowing protection has also already been extended to disclosures about sexual harassment.

Employers should carry out a detailed risk assessment, put clear reporting procedures in place, and maintain a log of preventative measures and complaint outcomes to demonstrate compliance.

Next steps

Real estate businesses should review their employee voice mechanisms, harassment policies and third-party protections ahead of the 30 October 2026 deadline, and tighten probation and dismissal procedures ahead of the January 2027 unfair dismissal changes.

These are only a handful of the many changes being introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025. Please see our Employment Rights Act Hub for further information.

Our Employment team regularly advises property owners, developers and investors on these issues, including policy reviews, manager training, restructuring strategy and tribunal claims. Please contact the team to discuss the implications for your business.

Among noteworthy developments, last quarter:

• Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) rulings against three travel companies show that advertisers may still be held responsible for misleading claims, even if rule-breaking terminology was created or supplied by third parties.
• The UK Net Zero Carbon Buildings Standard (UK NZCBS) has moved from framework to verification. Building owners, investors, occupiers and lenders should assess how quickly independently verified "Net Zero Carbon Aligned" status may become a market expectation.
• The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has finalised UK Sustainability Reporting Standards (UK SRS) rules for listed companies, adopting a comply-or-explain approach across all categories of disclosure. Despite this relaxation, businesses can expect pressure from markets and investors to comply fully.
• The EU Right to Repair Directive (RRD), Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) and Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (ECGT) have begun to, or soon will, take practical effect. Reinforcing a shift towards regulation of the entire product lifecycle, boards should assess the governance implications.
• Measures adopted by the European Commission confirm product scope changes under the Deforestation-Free Products Regulation (EUDR). Companies should assess whether any changes affect them and ensure operational readiness ahead of 30 December 2026.
• Revised European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) have been formally adopted and consultation has opened on dedicated reporting standards for non-EU undertakings (ESRS-40a). For non-EU businesses in scope of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), this sharpens strategic decisions around future reporting architecture and governance.
• The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHGP) and ISO have announced plans to develop a single global carbon accounting standard, signalling efforts to reduce fragmentation and establish a common methodology for emissions reporting.
• Meta's decision to settle claims alleging that Facebook and Instagram harm children highlights the growing use of product design theories to hold technology companies accountable.
• New Zealand's Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Act has retrospectively extinguished the novel climate tort case of Smith v Fonterra. This unusually targeted intervention underscores the perceived power of climate litigation to establish new duties and liabilities.
• Judgment in the Pan-NOx ("dieselgate") litigation has dismissed most allegations that manufacturers installed prohibited "defeat devices". Departing from recent EU case law, the judgment signals increasing divergence in environmental compliance and litigation risk, post-Brexit.

UK standards and regulation

EU standards and regulation

Global standards and frameworks

ESG litigation

In brief: more flexibility, wider access

Three developments have reshaped the toolkit in 2026:

• February: a new framework for proprietary investment. The DIFC introduced its Variable Capital Company (VCC) regime, allowing different assets and liabilities to be organised into distinct pools within a single governance and administrative framework.
• July: wider access to passive holding structures. The revised DIFC Prescribed Company (PC) regime removed the previous eligibility gateways, opening the structure to a considerably broader range of investors.
• September: a broader audience for ADGM SPVs. ADGM removed its regional nexus requirement, widening access beyond applicants able to demonstrate the required regional connection.
• Wider access does not mean lighter governance. Professional administration remains central: unless exempt, DIFC VCCs and PCs must appoint a Corporate Service Provider (CSP), while ADGM generally imposes a similar requirement on non-exempt SPVs.

What is a DIFC Variable Capital Company?: Different strategies, one framework

For investors managing distinct pools of proprietary assets, the DIFC VCC offers a way to bring them within a common governance structure without treating them as a single investment pool.

It is first and foremost a governance regime for proprietary investment. That distinguishes it from cell-based structures typically associated with fund or insurance activities, and from Singapore’s VCC regime, which is limited to regulated funds.

An investor can establish a DIFC VCC in three principal forms, in each case through a DIFC-licensed Corporate Service Provider (CSP) unless the VCC qualifies for an exemption:

• a standalone company, holding all assets within a single corporate entity;
• an umbrella structure with incorporated cells, each carrying separate legal personality;
• an umbrella structure with segregated cells, where assets and liabilities are separated by operation of law rather than distinct legal personality.

An umbrella VCC may use incorporated or segregated cells, but not both within the same structure. Using an umbrella VCC allows different assets or investment strategies to be allocated to separate cells, ensuring that completely distinct risk profiles can be maintained safely within a wider, streamlined corporate architecture.

Capital that moves with the investments

The flexibility extends beyond the corporate structure. A VCC’s share capital changes alongside the net asset value (NAV) of its underlying assets. Shares are issued and redeemed at prices linked to the relevant NAV per share. On redemption, the shares are cancelled and capital reduces automatically, avoiding the traditional fixed-capital reduction process.

This NAV-centric model also reshapes how returns are distributed to investors. Critically, rather than being restricted solely to realised accounting profits, a VCC can make distributions by reference to a positive NAV, provided the payout does not reduce that value below zero. Crucially for umbrella setups, this financial health is assessed strictly on a ring-fenced, cell-by-cell basis. The financial position of other cells and the VCC’s broader non-cellular estate are completely ignored, creating a highly efficient structure for distributions.

Prescribed Companies: revisit the eligibility question

A passive holding structure that previously fell outside the DIFC’s eligibility criteria may now deserve another look. The DIFC Prescribed Company is a special purpose vehicle (SPV) structure for holding investments and assets. Historically, access to the Prescribed Company regime had been limited to applicants satisfying specific eligibility criteria. The Prescribed Company Regulations 2026, which came into force on 24 July, removed the former eligibility framework. Previously, even a conventional passive SPV could fail to qualify because its owner, assets or purpose did not meet the prescribed criteria. Those gateways included qualifying applicants, GCC registrable assets and qualifying purposes, many of them DIFC-specific. Under the revised regime, a foreign investor should no longer need to demonstrate the same pre-existing DIFC or GCC connection, hold a particular class of GCC asset or fit within a specified qualifying purpose. That materially broadens the range of structures for which a PC may be considered, broadening its appeal for global structures and potentially providing a means for bringing a structure within the scope of applicable investment treaty protections.

Access, however, is only part of the picture. As with a VCC, unless exempt, a PC must appoint a CSP as its principal administrative and compliance interface with the DIFC Registrar of Companies. That role covers incorporation, filings, record keeping and ongoing compliance. Whilst the geographical barriers have been reduced; the governance requirements remain.

Does the ADGM offer a similar structure?

Since its introduction in 2017, the ADGM SPV has laid claim to becoming the go-to option in the region for passive holding companies. However, one of the challenges was the requirement for an applicant to demonstrate an appropriate connection, or geographic "nexus," to the ADGM, the UAE or the wider Gulf Cooperation Council region. As of September, this requirement has been removed, opening up this option to a broader global audience. As with the PC, the ADGM generally requires a non-exempt SPV to appoint a CSP to manage its incorporation and anchor its ongoing compliance obligations.

Looking ahead: greater choice amid geopolitical headwinds

Together, these developments point towards greater international accessibility through the UAE’s financial free zones. As the country seeks to accelerate out of recent geopolitical headwinds, the enhanced toolkit enhances the UAE's attractiveness to global private capital.

How Mishcon de Reya can help

Our Dubai Corporate team advises on asset-holding, investment, financing and succession-planning structures, contact Sandeep Dhama and Isabelle de Beer for advice on vehicle suitability and the wider legal and regulatory implications.

Liz is Chair of Coherence Engine and OLO Robotics. Her work reflects a commitment to making technology and entrepreneurship more accessible, from enabling people to build businesses around robotics to supporting entrepreneurial opportunities for people from deprived backgrounds. Across these activities, she emphasises the importance of community and enabling others to build businesses of their own. 

Martyn's Law received Royal Assent on 3 April 2025 and, with statutory guidance now published and Security Industry Authority (SIA) guidance consulted on, commencement is expected no earlier than spring 2027.

• Qualifying premises fall into the standard tier (200–799 expected individuals) or the enhanced tier (800 or more), with obligations scaling accordingly. The legislation also covers qualifying events.
• The SIA is building its regulatory capability and has a graded enforcement toolkit, from compliance and restriction notices through to penalty notices of up to £10,000 (standard tier) or £18 million / 5% of worldwide revenue (enhanced tier).

This article sets out an overview of this law and its implications and is the first in a series which will consider the implications of Martyn's Law for various sectors.

What's in place?

The long-awaited Martyn's Law is expected to come into force from early April 2027 and as that date approaches its impact on businesses and organisations is becoming clearer. On 15 April 2026, the Home Office published statutory guidance, a detailed document explaining how those responsible for qualifying premises should meet their obligations. On the same day, the SIA) launched a public consultation on its draft guidance, setting out how it intends to regulate and enforce the Act. The consultation closed on 12 June 2026 and a review is ongoing with a report expected to be published in autumn 2026.

On 15 June 2026, the first provisions of the Act came into force, placing duties on the SIA itself to produce its final guidance and set out how penalties will be calculated. On 14 July 2026, the notification deadlines were laid before parliament: responsible persons will have three months from the day the duty starts to notify the SIA, and 28 days for any subsequent changes. The SIA is actively building its regulatory infrastructure, having recruited over 100 new staff and established a new hub in Manchester, and pilot inspections are underway. Organisations that use this period well will be in a substantially stronger position when compliance becomes mandatory.

Qualifying premises and events

The Act applies to premises and events in certain circumstances. Schedule 1 of the Act lists the qualifying uses for premises. Whether and how the Act applies is generally determined by the number of individuals who can reasonably be expected to be present at the premises at the same time. Qualifying premises that can reasonably expect 200–799 individuals to be present at the same time fall into the standard tier, or a premises will fall under the enhanced tier where that figure is 800 or more.

Certain categories of premises benefit from special consideration under the Act, which treats them as standard tier regardless of the number of individuals who may be present. Settings where fewer than 200 individuals can reasonably be expected to be present are out of scope, but falling below this threshold should be verified rather than assumed, and all settings are nonetheless encouraged to have preparedness plans in place for the safety of those who use them.

Requirements under the standard tier

Premises within scope of the standard tier have two core obligations. First, they must identify and notify the SIA of their Responsible Person. Second, they must ensure that appropriate public protection procedures are in place, so far as is reasonably practicable, to reduce the risk of physical harm to individuals if a terrorist attack were to occur at or near the premises. The statutory guidance confirms that 'reasonably practicable' is a genuine qualification: what is required of a small, low-risk premises is not what is required of a concert arena.

The four procedures required by the Act are evacuation (moving people out of danger), invacuation (moving people to a safer place within the premises), lockdown (securing the premises to prevent entry or exit), and communication (alerting people to danger and providing clear instructions). Standard tier settings are not required to implement physical security measures, such as CCTV or bag searches, nor to produce a formal compliance document for submission to the SIA. Those obligations apply only to the enhanced tier.

What is required is that any procedures put in place are genuine, workable, and understood by the staff responsible for carrying them out: a written plan that staff have never seen or practised does not meet the standard. As such, best practice is for procedures to be documented and for those procedures to be well communicated so that those responsible for carrying out public protection procedures understand them and can implement them effectively.

There will be additional considerations for organisations that are the Responsible Person across multiple sites, which must develop site-specific procedures for each, as a single group-wide template will not satisfy the Act.

Additional requirements under the enhanced tier

Enhanced tier premises and qualifying events must meet all of the standard tier requirements described above, and in addition are subject to a further set of obligations aimed at reducing the vulnerability of the premises or event to a terrorist attack, not just the risk of harm if one occurs. Where the standard tier is concerned only with procedures, the enhanced tier adds a requirement to put in place appropriate public protection measures, so far as is reasonably practicable, falling into four categories: monitoring (to help detect suspicious activity or items), movement (controlling, restricting or screening the movement of people, for example through searches, restricted access points, or policies to manage crowds), physical safety and security (such as stand-off zones, vehicle security barriers, or protective glazing, which mitigate the impact of an attack or deter and hinder attackers), and security of information (ensuring that information about the premises or event is not readily available to those who might use it to plan an attack).

Unlike the standard tier, enhanced tier premises and qualifying events must document the procedures and measures that are in place or planned, together with an assessment of how they are expected to reduce the risk of physical harm and the vulnerability of the premises or event, and this compliance document must be submitted to the SIA, kept under review, and updated when there is a significant change to the premises, the event, or the numbers expected to attend. Further guidance on documentation requirements is expected from the SIA.

Where the responsible person is an organisation rather than an individual, it must also designate a senior individual with overall responsibility for ensuring compliance, who cannot delegate that responsibility even though day-to-day tasks can be assigned to others, such as a security manager. Finally, where another individual, organisation or company has control of all or part of the premises or event without being the responsible person, that party must co-operate with the responsible person so far as is reasonably practicable in meeting the Act's requirements.

Regulation and enforcement

Organisations may receive visits or enquiries from the Security Industry Authority (SIA), which has been appointed as the regulator for Martyn's Law. The SIA's background is in licensing commercial security operatives and regulating large public events, so it continues to build on this experience as it develops the systems and teams needed to fulfil its new role.

It remains to be seen how well the SIA's experience translates to regulation for Martyn's Law, and the SIA has stated it intends to take a 'support first' approach, focusing on guidance and compliance before reaching for formal enforcement. That said, the SIA has a range of enforcement tools available where a Responsible Person fails to comply or complies inadequately. It can issue a compliance notice requiring the recipient to meet a specific requirement of the Act within a set period, or a restriction notice imposing restrictions on how the premises may be used. Where financial penalties are warranted, the SIA can issue a penalty notice. For standard tier premises, the maximum penalty is £10,000, with a daily penalty of up to £500 for continued non-compliance. By contrast, enhanced tier premises face a maximum of £18 million or 5% of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater, with daily penalties of up to £50,000. In the most serious cases, where a criminal offence has been committed with the consent, connivance, or neglect of senior personnel, individual prosecution is possible.

Why this matters

This legislation is the result of a passionate campaign by Figen Murray OBE, the mother of Martyn Hett, one of the 22 victims in the 2017 Manchester Arena attack. The Government's 2023 counter-terrorism strategy summarises the current threat facing the UK as 'enduring and evolving', with a domestic threat that is 'less predictable and harder to detect and investigate'. Against this backdrop, with the statutory guidance now published and the implementation period well under way, organisations have both the detail and the time they need to prepare.

The changes aim to ensure that the needs and experiences of women and girls are considered when designing public spaces, streets and other places. Nicholle welcomed the additions but noted that all three references sit within the NPPF’s decision-making policies rather than its plan-making policies, describing this as a “missed opportunity”.

Read the full article (subscription required). 

Firmwide achievements

The firm has secured 12 Band 1 practice, maintaining top-tier status in:

• Art and Cultural Property Law
• Agriculture & Rural Affairs (East Anglia)
• Employment: Employer
• Employment: Employer: High Court Litigation
• Employment: Senior Executive
• Financial Services: Contentious Regulatory (Individuals)
• Gaming
• Real Estate Litigation
• Restructuring/Insolvency: Litigation

We have improved our rankings and moved to Band 1 in:

• Financial Crime: Private Prosecutions
• Intellectual Property: Law Firms With Patent & Trade Mark Attorneys
• Intellectual Property (East Anglia)

Lawyer rankings

22 lawyers have been ranked in Band 1 in at least one practice area:

Adam Bradley, Adam Rose, Amanda Gray, Andrew Williamson, Ben Brandon, Daniel Levy, Danny Davis, David Leibowitz, David Rose, Gareth Minty, Guy Wilkes, Ian Ginbey, Jennifer Millins, Joanna Blackburn, Joanna Lampert, Johanna Walsh, Karen Sanig, Marc Hanson, Nick Nocton, Rupert Melville-Ross, Sarah Houghton and Susan Breen.

The guide also recognises emerging talent across the firm:

Associates to Watch Alexandra Agnew, Alice Mantle, Caitlin Levins, Christina Chambers, Christopher Gribbin, Elizabeth Hope, Lavinia de Nazelle, Louise Moore, Michelle Stroube, Owen Griffiths, Shulamit Aberbach and Sian Harding.

Star Associates Thomas Andrews.

Up and Coming Clare Radcliffe, Harry Eccles-Williams, Laura Odlind, Neil Shanghavi, Sabrina Furneaux-Gotch and Will Hayes.

Individual accolades

Senior Statespeople
Adam Epstein
Sandra Davis

Eminent Practitioners
Daniel Naftalin
Kas Nouroozi

Individually ranked:

• Aarti Thakor
• Alexander Rhodes
• Alexandra Clough
• Alexandra Gooden
• Alexandra Whiston-Dew
• Anita Rivera
• Antonia Felix
• Barbara Reeves
• Ben Lasserson
• Campbell Forsyth
• Charlie Fletcher
• Chhavie Kapoor
• Chris Keen
• Chris Neilson
• Chris Willis Pickup
• Claire Yorke
• Daniel Farrand
• Edward Hughes-Power
• Edwin Chik
• Emily Nicholson
• Emma Macintyre
• Emma Woollcott
• Felicity Jones
• Gareth Dickson
• Greg Campbell
• Greg Falkof
• Hugo Plowman
• Idina Glyn
• Jackie Wells
• James Boyle
• James Rees
• Janet Tobin
• Jeremy Hertzog
• Jonathan Legg
• Justine Ayto
• Kate Clark
• Katie Mahoney
• Katy Colton
• Kizzy Augustin
• Lewis Cohen
• Louisa Dixon
• Mark Reading
• Matthew Ewens
• Matthew Wood
• Michael Frost
• Nicholle Kingsley
• Nick Allan
• Nick Dent
• Nick Minkoff
• Nick Strutt
• Nick Turner
• Nicola Bridge
• Niki Stephens
• Patrick Farrant
• Rachel Ashwood
• Rachel Bevan
• Radford Goodman
• Richard Gerstein
• Richard Leedham
• Robert Hartley
• Robert Lewis
• Robert Rhoda
• Robert Wynn Jones
• Sally Britton
• Sharon Tan
• Shazia Yamin
• Simon Chadwick
• Stephen Hughes
• Steven Bostock
• Stuart McMaster
• Susannah Kintish
• Wessen Jazrawi

We congratulate all our ranked teams and individuals on their recognition.