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

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

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

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

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

Current position under section 53

The relevant wording of section 53(3) is

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

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

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

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

The proposed amendment

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

Practical implications

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

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

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

Carissa will cover:

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

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

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

Setting the background  

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

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

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

What is changing? 

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

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

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

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

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

What steps should organisations take? 

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

In practice, this is likely to involve: 

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

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

How Mishcon de Reya can help 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happened? 

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

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

What did the Court of Appeal decide? 

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

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

Why did we say the restriction was wrong? 

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

Why does this matter? 

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

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

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

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

Abigail is passionate about building a hospitality brand rooted in energy, kindness and excellent guest experience. Alongside leading the business, she founded Hotels with a Heart, St Giles’ charitable initiative supporting local communities, with a particular focus on underprivileged children, education and hospitality-sector wellbeing. 

With degrees in business management and international management and innovation from the University of Exeter, Abigail combines strong commercial leadership with a clear sense of purpose. Outside work, she is known for her adventurous spirit, from flying helicopters and riding motorcycles to boxing, playing guitar and spending time with her young son and dog, Elmo.

This is because the King recently proclaimed an extra bank holiday on 15 June in Scotland to recognise its men's football team's presence at the World Cup.

So why is that relevant for the rest of the UK (or, indeed, anywhere in the world where a controller is subject to the UK GDPR)? Well, Article 4A says that references in the UK GDPR to a period expressed in hours, days, weeks, months or years are to be interpreted in accordance with Article 3 of the assimilated Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No. 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June 1971 determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time limits (the "Periods of Time Regulation"). Article 3 of the Periods of Time Regulation says that "where the last day of a period…is a public holiday, Sunday or Saturday, the period shall end with the expiry of the last hour of the following working day". Article 2 of the Periods of Time Regulation explains that "‘public holidays’ means a public holiday in any part of the United Kingdom" (emphasis added).

And so it is that, if a controller in England, or Wales, or Northern Ireland (or anywhere in the world, if it is subject to the extra-territorial provisions of the UK GDPR), as well as Scotland, received a DSAR on 13, 14 or 15 May this year, they will get an extra day to deal with it. Whether they support the Scotland national football team or not.

In this episode of Oxford+, host Susannah de Jager speaks with Riham Satti, co-founder and CEO of MeVitae, about her journey from studying neuroscience at Oxford to building an AI-driven platform that is transforming workforce decision-making. Riham explains how cognitive biases shape recruitment, why ten seconds of CV screening can derail a hiring process, and how organisations can use data and responsible AI to make fairer, faster, and smarter people decisions. 

With recent research showing that recruiters using biased AI tools mirror those inequitable choices up to 90% of the time, the conversation could not be more timely. Riham discusses how MeVitae combines neuroscience, anonymised recruiting, and transparent algorithms to help organisations identify hidden risks, improve candidate experience, and build genuinely inclusive workplaces. She also shares how she built the business from academic research and grant funding into an award-winning company working with major enterprise clients, offering a practical blueprint for turning scientific insight into commercial impact. 

• On 7 May 2026, the Council of the EU announced that a provisional political agreement had been reached with the European Parliament on the “AI Omnibus” (part of the EU’s Digital Omnibus simplification agenda) to streamline parts of the EU AI Act ahead of key compliance deadlines.
• The text still requires formal adoption by the Parliament and Council and publication in the Official Journal before it becomes law. This is expected before 2 August 2026.
• The agreement simplifies parts of the EU AI Act by:
  • extending key compliance deadlines for high-risk AI systems;
  • adding new prohibitions on AI-generated non-consensual intimate imagery and child sexual abuse material;
  • reducing regulatory duplication for AI embedded in industrial products;
  • clarifying the supervisory role of the AI Office; and
  • introducing tailored accommodations for SMEs and small mid-cap enterprises.

Context and changes to the EU AI Act's timeline

The EU AI Act entered into force in August 2024 as the world's most comprehensive cross-sector AI legislation. Two years later, it has become a leading target of the EU's own competitiveness agenda, partly driven by sustained industry pressure. The Omnibus is the result: it is a targeted recalibration, rather than an entire change of heart, on the EU's regulatory approach to AI (which UK businesses that offer AI systems for use in the EU will still need to comply with). The risk-based framework and its core obligations remain intact, but businesses that lobbied hard for simplification now have more time to prepare, and a somewhat narrower compliance perimeter.

The provisional agreement reached between the Council and Parliament revises the key high-risk deadlines as follows:

• 2 December 2027: implementation of provisions relating to standalone high-risk AI systems listed in Annex III of the Act (for example, those used in employment, education, biometrics, critical infrastructure, and migration and border contexts).
• 2 August 2028: implementation of provisions relating to high-risk AI systems embedded in products covered by EU product-safety regimes listed in Annex I.

The extended compliance deadlines are significant. Many providers and deployers were not on course to meet the 2 August 2026 deadline, and the harmonised standards needed to support conformity assessments were not yet in place. Regulators are likely to treat the extended deadlines as an opportunity for businesses to build structured compliance programmes, rather than as permission to defer action. Meanwhile, the Commission has only recently published for consultation draft guidelines on the classification of high-risk systems under the Act.

The Act's requirements on synthetic-content marking and labelling (Article 50) have also been extended, but in a limited and targeted way. Providers of generative AI systems who placed their systems on the market before 2 August 2026 have until 2 December 2026 to comply with those watermarking obligations. Systems placed on the market on or after 2 August 2026 must still comply from that date. Other transparency obligations in Article 50 also continue to apply from 2 August 2026. Again, the guidelines relating to transparency and the Code of Practice on marking and labelling remain to be finalised.

“Nudifiers” and AI-assisted child sexual abuse material (CSAM) explicitly prohibited

The co-legislators have added a new prohibition to Article 5 of the Act targeting AI systems used to generate non-consensual sexual or intimate images of real identifiable persons (commonly referred to as "nudification" or "deepfake-nude" tools) and AI systems used to generate child sexual abuse material (CSAM). This prohibition will apply from 2 December 2026.

The prohibition operates in two ways: it applies to systems where generation of such content is the intended purpose, as well as systems where that generation is a reasonably foreseeable and reproducible outcome and the provider has not put in place reasonable and adequate technical safety measures to prevent these outputs. Deployers are prohibited from using any AI system for the purpose of generating or manipulating such material.

This is a clear enforcement signal, particularly for multimodal and image-editing tools. If your products involve image generation or content editing, assess your systems against both limbs of the prohibition and document your controls now rather than waiting for the December deadline. Violations of the Act's prohibited-practice provisions can attract fines of up to €35 million or 7% of total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher.

Streamlined regulation for industrial and product AI (especially machinery)

A core political contest – how the AI Act interacts with sectoral product-safety law – has landed on a pragmatic compromise.

First, AI systems in machinery will now primarily be governed by sectoral rules rather than the full AI Act high-risk regime (which will be achieved by moving the Machinery Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 from Section A to Section B of Annex I). To avoid a protection gap, the Commission must adopt delegated acts amending Annex III of the Machinery Regulation to reflect the relevant AI Act requirements, applicable by 2 August 2028. In the interim, manufacturers may rely on harmonised standards or common specifications adopted under the AI Act for a presumption of conformity.

Second, the Commission, via delegated acts (to be adopted by 2 August 2027), will be able to disapply specific AI Act requirements where EU harmonisation legislation listed in Annex I already provides an equivalent or higher level of protection for health, safety or fundamental rights, provided the overall level of protection under the AI Act is not reduced.
 

Key definitional clarifications

AI systems that solely assist users or optimise performance will not automatically trigger high-risk treatment where their failure would not create health or safety risks. If you are in manufacturing or product design, review your existing high-risk classifications against this clarification.

Although the Commission's original proposal to exempt certain lower-risk systems from having to be registered in a publicly accessible EU database under Article 49(2) of the Act was not adopted, the burden of registration information has been reduced, with points 7 and 9 of Section B of Annex VIII having been deleted.

Bias testing: using sensitive data processing

The provisional agreement extends the right to process special-category personal data for bias detection and correction to providers and deployers of all AI systems, not only high-risk ones.

The conditions are strict: processing must be strictly necessary and cannot be achieved by other means including synthetic or anonymised data; the data must not be transmitted, transferred or otherwise accessed by third parties; appropriate technical security and access controls must be in place; and records must document why processing was strictly necessary and why the objective could not be achieved otherwise. Legal, data protection, and technical teams will need to work together to make practical use of this.

Governance and sandboxes

The agreement gives the AI Office a significantly expanded enforcement toolkit. Originally, the AI Office had a general ability to request information, conduct evaluations, and request measures. The new provisions add: on-site and remote inspection powers; the power to launch formal investigations; the ability to accept binding commitments; authority to issue non-compliance decisions; and the power to impose fines and periodic penalties, with standard procedural safeguards for those subject to investigation.

The AI Office will also now have exclusive competence over AI systems where the same provider, or providers forming part of the same undertaking, develops both a general-purpose AI model and a downstream system built on it. The "same undertaking" limb is new and commercially significant: within corporate groups where model development and system deployment sit in different subsidiaries, the AI Office holds exclusive supervisory competence. National competent authorities retain oversight in specific regulated sectors, including law enforcement, financial services, and border management.

The deadline for Member States to establish national AI regulatory sandboxes is pushed back to 2 August 2027. An EU-level sandbox is also being created, with priority access for SMEs (including start-ups) and small mid-cap enterprises (SMCs).

New definitions of SMEs and SMCs

The agreement introduces formal definitions for SMEs and SMCs into the AI Act and extends a range of accommodations to both categories, including simplified technical documentation, proportionate quality-management-system requirements, reduced fine caps, and priority access to AI regulatory sandboxes.

AI literacy obligation softened

The Omnibus text rewrites Article 4, replacing an outcome-based duty to "ensure a sufficient level" of AI literacy with a softer obligation to "take measures to support the development of" literacy, without mandating any specific level of competence. The change reflects sustained pressure from smaller businesses, which argued that a uniform, enforceable literacy standard was disproportionately burdensome given the wide variation in how different organisations use AI. Recital 5 of the agreed text acknowledges that a one-size-fits-all approach was "not suitable for all types of providers and deployers" and that imposing it risked creating compliance costs without meaningfully advancing the underlying goal.

Interestingly, the official press release does not mention this change at all. Yet Recital 5 of the agreed text states that "AI literacy should be a strategic priority, regardless of regulatory obligations and potential sanctions". In other words, while the legal standard may have been lowered, the regulatory expectation has not. Providers and deployers that treat the revised wording as permission to do nothing will be exposed: where an AI system causes harm and an investigation reveals that staff lacked the basic understanding to operate it safely, the absence of any structured literacy programme will be difficult to defend.

Businesses should therefore document the measures they have taken, tie literacy initiatives to the specific AI systems their staff actually use, and ensure that training records are maintained.   The Commission and Member States are required to support these efforts, including by publishing practical examples on the AI Act's single information platform.

Key next steps

• Use the extra time for 'high-risk' compliance wisely. Although the Omnibus delays the high-risk obligations, it does not remove the need to build system inventories, risk-classification logic, supplier due diligence, and evidence packs. The additional time will likely raise the bar for what regulators consider reasonable preparedness.
• Prioritise transparency now. Many organisations are already in scope for Article 50 because they run chatbots, generate content at scale, or publish AI-assisted materials, well before the high-risk rules apply. Providers of systems on the market before 2 August 2026 have until 2 December 2026 to comply with rules around marking and labelling of artificially generated or manipulated content (but all other transparency rules apply from 2 August).
• Reassess content-safety controls and map product AI overlaps. The new prohibited-practice provisions on non-consensual intimate imagery and CSAM carry some of the highest penalty exposure in the Act and should prompt an immediate review of safeguards across image-generation and content-editing pipelines. Separately, if you are in product AI, start mapping overlaps with the machinery and sectoral regimes now rather than waiting for delegated acts to materialise.

Note that, until the agreement is formally adopted and published in the Official Journal (intended to happen before 2 August 2026), the original implementation date of 2 August 2026 remains in place, rather than any of the proposed extended deadlines.

For further insights and practical guidance on all things AI (including governance and compliance frameworks), visit our AI resource centre.

• Following a consultation in 2021 and recommendations made by an independent panel in 2024, the Government has decided to proceed with implementing a UK re-domiciliation regime.
• Re-domiciliation enables a company incorporated in another jurisdiction to change its place of incorporation – in this case to the UK – while maintaining its legal identity as a corporate body.
• Highlighting UK growth as a key mission, the Government has confirmed the regime will be inward only.

What is redomiciliation and why might a company re-domicile?

Re-domiciliation enables a company incorporated in another jurisdiction to change its place of incorporation while maintaining its legal identity as a corporate body. Re-domiciliation gives companies maximum continuity over their business operations, because the business continues in its existing form in the existing body corporate. The body corporate just changes its place of incorporation. Where re-domiciliation is not possible, as is currently the case in the UK, a business would need to incorporate a new company in the UK and then transfer its business and operations to that new entity. This breaks continuity and significantly increases administrative burden.

A company might choose to re-domicile for a variety of reasons. Among the examples given in the consultation paper are to gain better access to capital, simplify group structures, access less burdensome tax regimes and for other commercial, economic or political reasons.

Why is the Government consulting on implementation of a re-domiciliation framework?

In 2021, a consultation sought views on whether to establish a UK corporate re-domiciliation regime to make it easier for foreign companies to move to the UK. Following positive stakeholder views, an Independent Expert Panel (the Panel) was established, which published a Report in October 2024. The Government is now responding to the Panel's recommendations and setting out its detailed proposals for its proposed framework.

The Government believes that the UK is well-placed in attracting companies wishing to re-locate due to its business-friendly environment, competitive tax regime, world-leading company law framework, dynamic capital markets and large skilled workforce.

Research has found that a significant proportion of demand for a re-domiciliation regime is likely to come from multinationals restructuring their group, predominantly moving blocks of intermediate holding companies to the UK. The research also indicated it may be particularly attractive to companies within the financial services sector, for example, those wishing to take advantage of the UK’s highly competitive tax regimes for asset holding companies and captive insurance companies.

Having considered the potential merits of an outward facing regime, the Government has concluded that the potential drawbacks outweigh the benefits and will focus instead on an inward regime addressing demand for companies wishing to move to the UK.

The proposed framework

The Government agrees with the Panel’s general approach for a UK regime. The key features of the proposed framework are:

• Re-domiciliation to the UK should be available to a body corporate which is solvent and intends to carry on business following its re-domiciliation.
• The protection of the members, creditors and others in its existing jurisdiction will be a matter for the law of that jurisdiction.
• Applicants for re-domiciliation will have the flexibility as to whether to become a private or public UK company upon re-domiciliation.
• Once a body corporate has re-domiciled to the UK, it should be treated broadly in the same way as a company originally incorporated in the UK.

Information that will be required from a body corporate re-domiciling

The proposal is that a body corporate re-domiciling to the UK will become subject to UK company law and therefore any such body corporate will need to provide the same information as someone applying to form a company in the UK. As the foreign body corporate already exists as a legal entity, it will also be required to provide additional information in respect of any existing obligations and assets.

Among the information to be provided will be the applicant's current form, jurisdiction in which it is registered, registered number (if applicable) and registered office address.

In line with the Panel's recommendations, it is proposed that persons who will be directors when the applicant becomes a UK company should be required to make a solvency statement based on the requirements for a reduction of capital (as set out in section 643 of the Companies Act 2006).  

Administering the regime – the role of Companies House

The Government intends that Companies House will administer the regime and determine applications for re-domiciliation to the UK, and it is likely that Companies House would issue non-statutory guidance, which could cover expected timeframes for example.

The 2021 consultation proposed that the eligibility criteria for applications to re-domicile should include a requirement that the application poses no threats or risks to national security, with discretion for UK authorities to assess potential risks. Since then, however, the role of Companies House has evolved – it has new powers to require, remove and share information and new measures have recently  been introduced requiring directors and PSCs to verify their identities (see our recap here).

On incorporation of a new company a statement is now required that the company will be formed for a lawful purpose. Companies House has a new power to strike a company from the register where information in the registration application is false or misleading. The Panel recommended in its Report that applicants for re-domiciliation should be subject to an equivalent requirement to new incorporations when making their application to confirm that future activities will be lawful. The Government agrees that this, combined with Companies House's new role and powers, would present adequate protection in addition to existing laws relating to national security which would apply on an ongoing basis.

Other issues to consider

Assuming that the regime is implemented, the list of issues for a body corporate considering re-domiciling to consider will depend on its circumstances. For example:

• If the company has issued bearer shares (which no longer exist as a concept in UK company law), it will need to consider how to deal with these, likely having either to cancel them or convert them to registered form.
• If the company has shares that are subject to existing security interests, these will need to be carefully reviewed before an application is made: the validity and priority of charges created before re-domiciliation is likely to involve a determination under the law applicable before re-domiciliation along with, to the extent applicable, UK conflict of law rules.
• If the company is already registered on the UK's Register of Overseas Entities (which records the beneficial owners of foreign entities that hold UK land), it is proposed that the corporate body will be under a duty to de-register from the ROE within a specified period.

Next steps

Implementation of a UK corporate re-domiciliation regime will require primary legislation to make the required changes to company and tax legislation. The Government plans to introduce legislation as soon as possible “when parliamentary time allows.” Operational implementation will also be required, and this will be led by Companies House. The consultation closes on 19 June 2026.

You can read the full article on the EGR website.

Ed’s main point is that investors will need to show they are genuinely improving housing supply, quality and affordability if they want to retain public and political support.

You can read the full article here (subscription required).

The portfolio includes five large distribution centres in Coventry, Reading, Burgess Hill, Barnsley and Wakefield, covering nearly 1 million sq ft in total. The buildings are let to well-known occupiers, including DHL, GXO, Puma and Evri.

The sale is an important step for Equites, helping it realise value from its UK assets and recycle capital into its South African development pipeline. It also highlights continued demand for high-quality logistics space in strong locations across the UK.

Mishcon de Reya advised Equites on all aspects of the transaction, with teams from Real Estate, Corporate, Tax, Banking, Construction and Planning working together to support the deal.

Riaan Gous, Chief Operating Officer at Equites Property Fund, commented: "We are pleased to have completed the sale of the Springbox portfolio to ICG Real Estate. This transaction is an important milestone for Equites, allowing us to realise value from a mature UK portfolio, support balance sheet flexibility and recycle capital into higher-yielding development opportunities in South Africa. The Mishcon de Reya team, led by Anju Suneja, provided excellent support throughout this process with their ability to bring together expertise across multiple disciplines proving invaluable in delivering the transaction for us."

Anju Suneja commented: "Having advised Equites since their entry to the UK market, it has been a privilege to support them on this landmark transaction. It shows the continued appeal of well-let logistics assets to investors, and the value of a collaborative approach across different legal disciplines on complex deals."

With over 140 fee earners, including 46 partners, Mishcon de Reya's Real Estate department is one of London's largest and most diverse property teams. Our Real Estate department includes well-regarded specialist practice areas and provides a one-stop shop for all of our clients' property requirements, delivering a seamless service from investment, structuring, funding, acquisition and planning, through to construction, development, tax and litigation advice. Real Estate is one of the three key strategic sectors outlined in the firm's Vision 2030 strategy.

• The Court of Appeal has unanimously overturned the CAT's finding that HOKA manufacturer, Deckers, infringed competition law when it refused to allow one of its retailers, Up & Running, from selling its shoes on a discount website.
• In doing so, the court has clarified when controls in a selective distribution system amount to a "by object" restriction under the Competition Act 1998, confirming that such a finding requires assessment not just of the arrangement's objective or purpose, but also its content and scope, legal context, and economic context (including market structure and market shares).
• Applying this framework, the court found that there was no basis upon which the CAT could have reached the conclusion that the arrangement had the object of restricting competition,  placing significant weight on the narrow scope of the restriction, the strength of inter-brand competition, and the parties' relatively small market shares in the market.
• The court further found the conduct would have been block-exempt in any event, as the relevant hardcore restrictions were not made out on the facts and each party's market share was well below the 30% threshold.
• This judgment will be good news for businesses operating selective distribution systems as it sets the record straight on the importance of the economic reality to any "by object" analysis and confirms that "hardcore" pricing restrictions are not automatically restrictive by object. The scope and objective of restrictions on distributors remain important and in-house legal teams should ensure their arrangements are carefully designed and criteria are applied consistently and objectively.

On 8 May 2026, the Court of Appeal handed down its highly anticipated judgment in Deckers UK Limited v Up & Running (UK) Limited, overturning the earlier judgment by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). At the heart of the appeal was a fundamental competition law question: when do controls imposed by a supplier within a selective distribution system on the outlets through which goods are sold and which impact price competition, amount to a restriction of competition “by object” under section 2 of the Competition Act 1998 (CA98)? Otherwise known as the "Chapter I Prohibition", this provision prohibits agreements that may affect trade within the UK and have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the UK.

Selective distribution systems are a widespread and generally lawful distribution model used by brands across premium retail, sports goods, fashion, and specialist consumer goods sectors, under which a supplier limits resale of its products to retailers that meet defined qualitative or quantitative criteria.

The Court of Appeal's finding is of real practical importance to businesses operating selective distribution systems, particularly in retail settings, where the desire to have control over online sales, pricing and brand presentation often sit in uneasy tension with competition law.

Background

The appellant, Deckers, supplied its HOKA-branded running shoes to Up & Running (U&R) on a wholesale basis via its selective distribution system from 2016 to 2021. U&R, founded in 1992, is a UK specialist running retailer selling shoes, including HOKA shoes, and accessories through both physical stores and its website, upandrunning.co.uk.

Deckers structured its distribution around two distinct channels: a "Main Retail Channel" for seasonal stock, supplied to an authorised network of retailers who were expected to align with HOKA's positioning as a prestige product; and a "Clearance Channel" for a group of specifically appointed online retailers to sell residual, out of season HOKA stock. Notably, Deckers also sold HOKA products directly to consumers (both online and through its own bricks-and-mortar stores)  in both the Main Retail Channel and the Clearance Channel, placing it in direct competition with its authorised distributors, such as U&R.

The key controls imposed by Deckers can be found in Clause 15 of the terms and conditions imposed upon Deckers' distributors, and an email Deckers sent to its retailers in July 2019. Clause 15 required distributors to obtain Deckers' permission before they could sell HOKA shoes online. By email dated 10 July 2019, Deckers further said that retailers' websites should have a domain name that is "identical or similar" to the name of the retailers' physical store, otherwise they must notify Deckers.

In July 2020, U&R proposed the launch of a new, anonymised, unbranded clearance website: "runningshoes.co.uk". The idea was prompted by the need to clear excess stock built up over the COVID-19 period, but the site would be retained as a permanent clearance channel. Deckers refused permission, saying that the proposal cut across the “fundamental principles of its brand strategy”. Nevertheless, U&R went ahead with the launch, and, in response, Deckers terminated supply to U&R on grounds of breach of contract.

U&R brought proceedings against Deckers in the CAT, alleging that Deckers’ terms and conditions amounted to a restriction of competition by object in breach of section 2 of the CA98, in two closely related ways:

1. First, they restricted U&R’s ability to market and sell HOKA products online, and more generally to make effective use of the internet as a sales channel (the Online Sales Restriction); and/or
2. Secondly, Deckers’ attempt to prevent U&R from selling HOKA-branded shoes through its website was attempted retail price maintenance (RPM), and the decision to rely on Clause 15 to terminate supply was motivated by a desire to shut down the website in order to maintain higher prices for HOKA products (the RPM Restriction).

Deckers denied that there was a breach of the Chapter I Prohibition and argued that its selective distribution system was exempt from the prohibition by virtue of the Metro "safe harbour" criteria (Case C-26/76 Metro v Commission) and the Vertical Block Exemption (Commission Regulation (EU) 330/2010) (VBE).

The CAT's findings

The CAT found in favour of U&R on liability, holding that Deckers' selective distribution system failed the Metro criteria and infringed the Chapter I Prohibition "by object" by reason of the Online Sales Restriction and the RPM Restriction.  Fundamentally, the CAT found there was no "legitimate aim" or "plausible explanation" for the Clause 15 and its application, other than to restrict intra-brand competition (that is, U&R's freedom to make passive sales via the internet) and to prevent discounting by retailers on clearance websites. On the CAT's reading of case law such as Super Bock, if the only plausible explanation for conduct is the restriction of competition, it necessarily falls within the scope of a "by object" infringement: there was no need for any wider economic assessment.

Having concluded that Deckers had committed two separate infringements of the Chapter I Prohibition which the CAT found to be "hardcore restrictions" in terms of the VBE, the CAT found that the VBE did not apply to relieve Deckers of liability.

The CAT observed that the facts of the case were unusual – including because it found that Deckers’ selective distribution system was "incomplete and flawed in its design and operation" and Deckers could not evidence its position. The CAT was therefore careful to emphasise that its decision should not be taken to mean that selective distribution arrangements falling outside the Metro "safe harbour" will generally amount to restrictions by object or hardcore restrictions. Acknowledging that the limitation of price competition is inherent in selective distribution systems, the CAT said compliance is about ensuring there is a legitimate aim and a clear link between that aim and a well-designed set of vertical restraints.

Deckers appealed the CAT's decision on the grounds that the CAT:

• mischaracterised Deckers' conduct as involving hardcore RPM;
• failed to apply the correct test in law for establishing a "by object" infringement;
• failed to properly apply the correct law to the facts of the case (and if it had, the CAT would have had to conclude that Deckers' conduct was not capable of sufficiently harming competition); and
• failed to properly apply the VBE.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) intervened in the appeal, noting that it too considered the CAT’s judgment to contain a material error of law. The appeal was heard in February 2026, with judgment handed down on 8 May 2026.

The Court of Appeal's judgment: clarifying the legal test

The Court of Appeal allowed Deckers' appeal in its entirety, agreeing that the CAT had indeed erred in law. Critical to the Court of Appeal's judgment was its rejection of the CAT's interpretation of case law including Cartes Bancaires,¹ Ping,² Generics³ and Super Bock⁴ regarding the approach to assessing "by object" restrictions. Where the CAT saw objective or purpose as dispositive of the question of infringement, the Court of Appeal confirmed that such a finding requires a sufficient degree of harm to competition, assessed not only by reference to objective or purpose, but also:

1. the content of the agreement or its scope;
2. its legal context; and
3. its economic context, including market structure, inter-brand competition, and market shares.

With reference to this framework, the Court identified five specific errors in the CAT's conclusions:

1. That the test for assessing a "by object" infringement depends on the objective or purpose of the restriction and that, absent a plausible explanation, a clause with a restrictive purpose is a restriction by object.
2. That other factors were treated as irrelevant to this analysis.
3. That a selective distribution agreement falling outside the Metro "safe harbour" was, or was very likely to be, a restriction by object.
4. That classification as a "hardcore" restriction under the VBE was equivalent to a restriction by object under the Chapter I Prohibition (which it is not).
5. That unfettered discretion in contractual terms was inherently an object restriction because it could be used for an anti-competitive purpose.

Applying the test to the facts

Applying the test to the CAT's own factual findings, the court ultimately tested whether Deckers' termination of supply to U&R could ever have sufficiently impacted competition. Its conclusion was clear: it could not.

Working through each element in turn:

1. On content, the court emphasised that the narrower the restriction, the more limited its ability to exert harm. In this case, a number of factors combined to underscore the restriction's limited scope including, for example, that it concerned a tranche of clearance stock, that it was targeted at a single retailer and a single anonymised website only, and that the number of pairs of shoes affected represented only a tiny subset of the relevant product market.
2. On objective, the court accepted that Deckers' conduct was linked to concern about the level of price discount that U&R intended but emphasised that objective was one factor, not the whole test. Because the CAT identified a pricing-related objective, it failed to consider and give appropriate weight to the fact that Clause 15 and the July email were also legitimately designed to protect the integrity of Deckers' distribution system.
3. On legal context, the court canvassed relevant case law and noted that restrictions inherent in selective distribution systems which mute price competition or those which prohibit particular types of internet sales are not, without more, a restriction of competition by object - and the classification of a restriction as "hardcore" under the VBE did not, of itself, alter that analysis.
4. On economic context, which proved crucial to the outcome, the court referred to the economic evidence that Deckers was the sixth largest supplier in a market where approximately 10 suppliers shared 70% of the market, and there were no material barriers to entry. Taken together with the limited scope of the restriction, the share of the market that would be affected by the restriction was therefore very small. Further, the classification of the agreement as vertical rather than horizontal gave the court comfort that it presented "systemically lower risk to competition", especially given the evidence of strong inter-brand competition.

On the VBE question, the court found that the relevant "hardcore" restrictions (RPM and passive sales) as that term is used in the VBE were only triggered if they restricted pricing freedom or customer access to goods (respectively) in a "real and practical sense". This was not made out on the facts, particularly because of the narrow scope of the restriction in this case. In addition, each party's market share was well below the 30% threshold. Accordingly, the court was satisfied that the challenged conduct would have been block-exempt.

The court declined to remit the case to the CAT, finding that the CAT had all the relevant findings before it but simply failed to draw the inevitable conclusion. On those facts, Deckers' conduct did not amount to a restriction by object under the Chapter I Prohibition – and in any event, it would have been exempt under VBE.

Key takeaways

Although the Court of Appeal's judgment is grounded heavily in the specific facts of this case, three useful points emerge, particularly for suppliers operating selective distribution systems.

1. "Hardcore" pricing restrictions are not automatically restrictive by object
   
   Even conduct that is classified as "hardcore" RPM cannot be automatically treated as a restriction "by object": these two concepts are not co-extensive. There must still be an assessment of whether the restriction reveals a sufficient degree of harm in its full legal and economic context bearing in mind the restriction's scope/content, objectives, and legal and economic context. 
    

2. The scope and content of any restriction matters – and context can be decisive
   
   Where the CAT appeared to focus almost exclusively on the purpose of the restriction, the Court of Appeal clarified this is only one of the factors to be considered. The Court of Appeal placed significant weight on the genuinely narrow scope of the restriction in this case as well as the competitive market dynamics (including the strength of inter-brand competition and market shares).

3. Draft controls carefully and apply them consistently
   
   Whilst the Court of Appeal rejected the idea that a broad, unfettered discretion is inherently unlawful "by object" merely because it could be abused, wide discretion still significantly increases risk. Businesses should ensure their online channel controls have clearly articulated, objective, non-price rationales (such as brand presentation, consumer experience standards, and anti-free-riding protection) and apply those criteria consistently across the network, building procedural safeguards into refusal and termination decisions.

This judgment helpfully clarifies the approach to assessing selective distribution restrictions beyond the Metro "safe harbour" and confirms that even when a restriction is partly motivated by curbing price competition, it will not automatically infringe competition law. This should give greater confidence to suppliers operating well-structured selective distribution systems pursuing legitimate commercial aims. However, the emphasis is on the context: suppliers with significant market positions or those seeking to enforce broader restrictions than seen in Deckers can expect much greater scrutiny. And as always with selective distribution, the quality of design, documentation, and consistent application remains critical.

Mishcon de Reya's Competition team advises businesses across a broad range of sectors on the design, review, and compliance assessment of selective distribution systems under UK competition law, including in relation to the Vertical Agreements Block Exemption Order and the Chapter I Prohibition.

If you would like to discuss what this judgment means for your distribution arrangements, please contact Chanelle Cattin or Victoria Hirst of our Competition team.

• From 1 January 2027, employees gain unfair dismissal rights after six months' service, not two years.
• Anyone continuously employed on or before 1 July 2026 gets unfair dismissal protection from 1 January 2027.
• Six-month probationary periods no longer leave a safe dismissal window, as statutory minimum notice protection can push a decision made shortly before the six-month point into unfair dismissal territory.
• Employers therefore need to make decisions far sooner about whether an employee should be kept on past their probationary period, if they wish to avoid the risk of an unfair dismissal claim.
• Employers should tighten their probationary processes to ensure they actively review the new joiner's progress during probation and make a decision whether to keep or terminate them before they acquire unfair dismissal rights.

Background

Unfair dismissal is a statutory right that protects employees from being dismissed without a fair reason and a fair process, but an employee must first complete a minimum qualifying period of continuous service before they qualify for the right (unless they are dismissed for an 'automatically unfair' reason such as whistleblowing or maternity leave, in which case they are protected from 'day one'). At present, the qualifying period is two years.

The length of the qualifying period has ranged between six months and two years over the past half century, with Conservative Governments consistently favouring a longer period and Labour Governments a shorter one. The current Labour Government had originally intended to make unfair dismissal a 'day one' right, but following a "series of constructive conversations" between trade unions and business representatives, the Government eventually compromised on a six-month qualifying period. This change, which still marks a substantial reduction from the current two year threshold, is just one of the major changes introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025) which we cover in our Employment Rights Act Hub.

Changes to the qualifying period have typically been made by secondary legislation (statutory instruments) rather than primary legislation. The ERA 2025 goes a step further: it removes the power to vary the qualifying period by secondary legislation altogether, meaning any future Government wishing to lengthen the period will need to pass primary legislation to do so - a significantly higher bar.

What is changing and when?

The new six-month qualifying period comes into force on 1 January 2027. Any employee who has been continuously employed for at least six months at the date of their dismissal will be entitled to protection from unfair dismissal. In practice, this means that any employee employed on or before 1 July 2026 will already have accrued the requisite six months' service by the time the change takes effect. For example, an employee hired on 1 May 2026 will have eight months' service by 1 January 2027 and will be able to claim unfair dismissal from that date.

Increase in tribunal claims

In its ERA 2025 Economic Analysis, dated January 2026, the Government estimates that around 6.3 million employees (approximately 22% of those aged 16 and over) have between six months' and two years' service with their current employer, and will benefit from the increased job security the change brings.

Together with the additional ERA 2025 unfair dismissal reform to remove the compensation cap on unfair dismissal claims (as we discuss in a forthcoming article in this series), the Government expects the reduction in the qualifying period to generate around 9,000 additional Acas early conciliation cases and approximately 3,000 additional Employment Tribunal claims per year, making these reforms the largest expected driver of increased caseload across all the Employment Rights Act 2025 reforms.

This will clearly have a financial impact on businesses; arising not only from the cost of settlements and the legal costs of handling Acas and Employment Tribunal claims, but also from more resource-intensive dismissal processes. In its Economic Analysis, the Government has acknowledged this and highlighted that small and micro businesses are likely to be disproportionately affected because they are more likely to employ staff with six months to two years' service, are less likely to have formal contractual probationary processes in place, and have more limited HR and legal resources to draw on.

Practical implications for employers

There are a number of practical implications of the reduced qualifying period.

The most immediate impact is on probationary periods. Many employers currently operate six-month probationary periods for new staff, relying on the two-year qualifying period as a buffer that allows them to part ways with a new employee whose performance or conduct has not met expectations, without the risk of an unfair dismissal claim. Under the new regime, that buffer will be significantly reduced, because by six-months, the unfair dismissal right will already be engaged.

Employers would therefore be wise to shorten probationary periods to either no more than five months without any extension, or to four months, with the option of a one-month extension if needed, so that the total does not exceed five months. This preserves a window in which a managed exit remains lower risk, whilst still giving some time to properly assess a new hire. An initial four-month period also provides essential headroom once the statutory minimum notice addition is taken into account (see below).

Probationary periods should also include structured, regular review points. Concerns, training needs and performance issues should be well-documented throughout, so that any decision to dismiss does not come as a surprise to the employee.

An important and frequently misunderstood point concerns the interaction between the qualifying period and statutory minimum notice. Once an employee has completed one month's service, they are entitled to a minimum of one week's statutory minimum notice. Where an employer dismisses without giving that statutory minimum notice, the date used to calculate unfair dismissal qualifying service is deemed to be the date on which the statutory minimum notice would have expired. This applies whether or not the employment contract contains a payment in lieu of notice (PILON) clause and regardless of whether payment in lieu is made. The only exception here is where the employer dismisses because the employee has committed gross misconduct, in which case no statutory minimum notice is added. In practice, this means that an employer who dismisses (or pays in lieu) at five months and three weeks will find that the deemed date of termination for calculating unfair dismissal qualifying service falls one week later. This takes qualifying service past the six-month threshold and the employee will acquire unfair dismissal protection. The safe course for employers is therefore to make the dismissal decision early enough that the six-month qualifying period isn't reached, even after taking into account an extra one week's statutory minimum notice. With a four-month probationary period and a one-month extension, a decision made at or before five months leaves sufficient headroom.

More broadly, employers should review and tighten disciplinary, grievance and performance management processes now, ahead of 1 January 2027. Good processes are the primary defence against an unfair dismissal claim succeeding. Even where an employee has not yet accrued six months' service, it is good practice to follow a minimum process and give a reason for dismissal. An aggrieved employee may still bring claims (for example, discrimination or whistleblowing) that carry no qualifying period, and a poorly handled dismissal increases litigation risk.

Finally, there is a concern that the reduced qualifying period may lead some employers to become more risk-averse in their hiring decisions, potentially to the detriment of candidates who are perceived as less certain to succeed. This carries genuine risks of unconscious (or even conscious) bias in recruitment, which can give rise to discrimination risks. Employers should be alert to this.

Employer action points

• Invest in thorough recruitment processes, including structured interviews, proper reference-checking and robust onboarding programmes. The shorter qualifying period means there is less room to correct a poor hiring decision once an employee is in post.
• Review probationary procedures and update HR policies to reflect the new six-month qualifying period with effect from 1 January 2027.
• Train managers on effective performance and disciplinary management and how to use probationary periods properly. The Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures sets out the baseline that Employment Tribunals expect employers to have followed. Managers should be familiar with it and understand how to apply it in practice. Equally important is ensuring that training is actually implemented - training that is delivered but not applied is of limited value when a claim is brought.
• Set expectations with a new joiner for performance and conduct clearly and in writing from the start of employment, and follow up promptly when those expectations are not met. Early intervention is key: issues that are left to drift become harder to address fairly and harder to rely on as grounds for dismissal.
• Do not avoid difficult conversations. Concerns that are not clearly communicated cannot be properly understood or acted upon by the employee. An employee who is dismissed without having received clear prior warnings is far more likely to perceive the process as unfair, and far more likely to bring a claim as a result.
• Apply robust employment processes. Ultimately, robust processes, consistent management and fair treatment remain the most effective tools for minimising both the risk of a successful unfair dismissal claim and the wider reputational and operational costs of a contested dismissal. Employers who invest in getting this right now will be well placed when the new regime takes effect in January 2027.

How Mishcon de Reya can help

Our Employment team regularly advises employers on all aspects of the employment lifecycle, from recruitment and onboarding through to performance management, disciplinary processes and dismissals. We can help you review and update your probationary procedures, employment contracts and HR policies ahead of the January 2027 changes, and provide tailored training for managers on how to handle these issues in practice. If you would like to discuss how the reduced qualifying period may affect your business, please get in touch with your usual contact or a member of the Employment team.

In her contribution, Jennifer highlights that while there may be a case for targeted reform, there is little appetite among professionals for sweeping legislative change. She notes that “neither employment lawyers nor their clients… are calling for a ban on non-competes,” cautioning that comparisons with jurisdictions such as California can be misleading given the distinctive legal and commercial ecosystem there.

Jennifer also emphasises the importance of the current common law framework, which she describes as striking a “careful and workable balance” between protecting employers’ legitimate business interests and preserving employee mobility.

Read the full article

Before founding ivee, Amelia built her career in Foreign Exchange Sales & Trading at Goldman Sachs. She is also a published fellow at Cambridge University, specialising in skills prediction and analysis, and is a current member of the Women in Tech UK Government Taskforce. Outside work, Amelia is an ex-international athlete, having represented England in both lacrosse and rugby. 

Lydia brings a strong background in technology, operations and investment. She is recognised as one of the Top 50 Women in Tech in the UK, and previously worked in Venture Capital at Deloitte Ventures, focusing on the future of work, as well as in management consulting at Deloitte and as an analyst at Macquarie Investment Bank. 

Founded by the sisters, ivee helps individuals and businesses build and measure AI capability in a practical way. Users improve their skills through accessible, task-based learning, while companies can upskill teams, drive AI adoption and hire from a network of AI-fluent talent. Each user builds a dynamic AI Skills Profile that updates as they learn, giving employers clear visibility of capability across their organisation. 

The conference reflected the breadth and depth of the firm’s disputes practice, with litigators and arbitration specialists from across the business sharing perspectives on the changing disputes market, client expectations, innovation in delivery, and the increasingly international nature of disputes work. 

Sessions throughout the day highlighted the scale of Mishcon’s disputes offering across a wide range of court systems, tribunals and arbitral seats worldwide, and showcased the strength of the firm’s cross-practice and cross-border collaboration. 

The conference also explored the strategic priorities shaping the future of the practice, including talent acquisition and retention, international growth, and the use of technology and AI in disputes. 

A strategy session led by Daniel Naftalin, Managing Partner Elect, and Hugo Plowman, Chair of the Dispute Resolution Department, placed disputes at the centre of Vision 2030 and reflected on the role that landmark litigation has played in shaping the firm’s identity - from its earliest disputes heritage through to more recent significant matters including the Gina Miller constitutional cases, the Hiscox COVID litigation, the case for the Federal Republic of Nigeria against P&ID and the work that the firm has done advising the liquidators on the collapse of China Evergrande.

A separate session led by Nick West, Chief Strategy Officer, focused on the role of technology in disputes, including the way AI and structured workflows are beginning to reshape how complex matters are delivered.

The conference concluded with a discussion on the future growth of the practice and the importance of deeper collaboration across teams and jurisdictions. 

Hugo Plowman said: “We’re a disputes powerhouse, but our ambition is to make Mishcon an internationally recognised leading disputes firm. To do this, we need to present our collective strength to the outside world and continue to drive value for our clients across teams, disciplines and offices. This event was an important step in revitalising our shared identity as a firmwide disputes team and in developing a common understanding of the strategic direction of this important part of our business.”

Lauren said that although executors can begin sorting possessions before probate is granted, they should avoid giving away or selling items of value at this stage. Some institutions may still need to see the grant of probate before releasing or selling items.

She added: “Where there’s no will, personal representatives must wait until letters of administration are issued, which can delay the process. The personal representatives must also ensure appropriate contents insurance is in place while the possessions remain within their control.”

Read the full article

Amanda Gray comments on these generational and cultural shifts, explaining that younger generations are redefining car collecting by prioritising sustainability, innovation, and personal values. She notes: “No longer are collectors solely driven by just acquisition, but different forms of value assessment come into play, such as clean energy, sustainability and efficiency… What we drive and what we collect are projections, emblematic of personal values and identity.”

Read the full article

 Lydia commented: “They’re generally distinguished from prior generations by a longer-term approach to investments, a greater tolerance for complexity, and an increasingly sophisticated, values-driven approach to how and where they commit capital”, and expects to see more HNW Millennials diversify their portfolio beyond public equities and bonds and into alternative asset classes.  

 Read the full article  

Coinciding with Mental Health Awareness Week, Matt joined us to discuss his new novel, The Midnight Train, a moving exploration of love, regret and the choices that define us. He reflected on how we make sense of the past, what we might do differently if given another chance, and how identity and self-compassion influence us.

The session gave us the chance to hear from one of today’s most thoughtful and relatable voices, while exploring the themes at the heart of his new book.

Infrawatch is building what it describes as the Internet Infrastructure Intelligence Layer, a cybersecurity platform designed to help organisations identify, track and disrupt the infrastructure behind cyberattacks, fraud, scams, phishing and online abuse. Founded by Lloyd Davies, the company enables security, fraud and investigations teams to classify malicious infrastructure in real time. 

The platform processes tens of billions of events each day, transforming internet-scale visibility into clear, actionable intelligence. By helping organisations understand how infrastructure behaves, who may be operating it and whether it should be trusted, Infrawatch aims to help teams move from reactive monitoring to a more pre-emptive defence posture. The new funding will support the company’s next stage of growth, including further engineering and research hires, accelerated product development, early enterprise deployments and expansion into the United States. 

Lloyd Davies of Infrawatch commented: "I would like to thank the Mishcon team for helping navigate Infrawatch through the investment process and ensuring the deal got over the line in a timely and focused manner. I look forward to continuing our great work with Attilio, John and the wider Mishcon team as we focus on building the platform and growing the business." 

Attilio Leccisotti, Partner at Mishcon de Reya, commented: “Infrawatch is addressing a fast-evolving and increasingly important area of cybersecurity. Its approach to infrastructure intelligence has the potential to give organisations a clearer and earlier view of cyber threats, fraud and online abuse. We are pleased to have supported Lloyd and the team on this important milestone.”

In our next episode, we speak with James Clarke, who leads Flint Global’s Defence Advisory Practice, advising clients on defence policy, procurement strategy and stakeholder engagement. He works closely with defence companies and investors, helping them navigate complex defence and security risks. 

Before joining Flint, James served as Special Adviser to the UK Secretary of State for Defence, where he played a key role in providing strategic advice and co-ordinating crisis responses to military issues arising from international conflicts. He has also advised on major defence procurement programmes, including the integration of advanced technologies such as the DragonFire laser weapon system. 

A decorated infantry officer with direct experience of UK Special Forces operations, James also brings wider experience as an international consultant, adviser to FTSE 250 and government leaders, founder of a creative digital agency, and leader of political-military engagement initiatives. In this episode, he shares his perspective on defence innovation, procurement and the strategic issues shaping the sector’s future.

What we will cover

• Shareholder rights - A clear and practical overview of the rights available to shareholders, from information and inspection rights through to derivative and unfair prejudice claims. What shareholders can demand, and what boards need to be prepared for.
• Director rights and obligations - A review of directors' duties under the Companies Act 2006 and at common law, how those duties interact with shareholder interests, and the personal exposure directors face when disputes arise.
• The landmark Jardine decision - In Jardine Strategic Holdings Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd [2025] UKPC 34, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council abolished the so-called 'Shareholder Rule' - a long-standing principle that had prevented companies from asserting legal advice privilege against their own shareholders in litigation. The Board's decision fundamentally changes the privilege landscape in shareholder disputes, and carries immediate practical consequences for every board that receives legal advice.
• Practical implications for boards - What does the end of the Shareholder Rule actually mean for how your board operates day-to-day? We will examine the impact on:
  • How and when legal advice should be commissioned and recorded
  • The drafting and retention of board minutes and supporting documents
  • Governance protocols for managing legally sensitive communications
  • Structuring board decision-making to preserve privilege in anticipated disputes
  • Managing the tension between board confidentiality and shareholder transparency

• The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has delivered its long-awaited Grand Chamber ruling in Pelham II, providing the first authoritative EU definition of "pastiche" in copyright law.
• Pastiche, as defined by the CJEU, is not a broad creative licence: it requires the new work to evoke an existing one, but also to be noticeably different from it, and to use characteristic protected elements in a recognisable artistic or creative dialogue.
• In the UK, genuine style imitation or a true medley is required for pastiche to be relied on as a potential defence to copyright infringement. Where copying is used to impersonate and deceive rather than to engage in creative or critical dialogue, a pastiche defence will fail.
• For AI-generated outputs, Pelham II's "dialogue" requirement is likely to focus attention on the human user's creative contribution: the more the output resembles a substitute rather than a recognisable creative conversation with the source, the less likely a pastiche defence will succeed.

What is a pastiche?

The UK introduced section 30A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) in 2014 to implement Article 5(3)(k) of the InfoSoc Directive (2001/29/EC), permitting use of a copyright work for the purposes of caricature, parody or pastiche, provided the use amounts to fair dealing.

However, "pastiche" is not defined in either the UK or EU legislation, and there has been limited case law as to the limits of the exception. There have been a small number of UK cases (discussed further below) and we now have the first EU decision, with the CJEU's Grand Chamber handing down its ruling in Pelham II.

What did the CJEU decide in Pelham II?

Pastiche requires recognisable dialogue

The Pelham litigation stems from a decades-old dispute over a two-second rhythmic sequence sampled from Kraftwerk's 1977 recording Metall auf Metall and looped in a track by Sabrina Setlur called Nur Mir. In this latest reference to the CJEU, the German court asked whether such sampling could be permitted as pastiche.

The CJEU held a work qualifies as pastiche where it:

1. evokes one or more pre-existing works;
2. is noticeably different from those works; and
3. uses characteristic protected elements of the source material in a way that engages in an artistic or creative dialogue that is objectively recognisable as such.

The CJEU held it is not necessary to prove that a creator subjectively intended to make a pastiche; what matters is whether the pastiche character would be recognisable to a person familiar with the pre-existing work.

The CJEU drew a firm line against concealed imitation: pastiche presupposes overt, recognisable creative engagement and cannot legitimise plagiarism dressed up as homage.

While acknowledging sampling as a legitimate artistic technique engaging freedom of expression, the CJEU held it will fall within the pastiche exception only where the resulting work meets all three elements of the test - in particular, where it creates a recognisable dialogue with the source. The German court must now apply this test in the context of the two-second sample used in this case.

What is the position in the UK on pastiche?

Shazam: the UK's first case

The first UK case to consider the pastiche defence (as well as the related defence of parody) was Shazam Productions v Only Fools The Dining Experience (which we previously reported on: Court confirms copyright can protect characters: Cushty!), arising from an immersive dining experience based on the iconic TV show Only Fools and Horses.

The court identified two routes to establishing pastiche: imitating the style of pre-existing works, or assembling a medley of elements from them. In either case, the resulting work must be noticeably different from its sources.

The defence in this case failed. The defendants' dining experience reproduced the characters, backstories and catchphrases of the TV show in a live format that was designed to make the audience feel they were meeting the originals. The court held this was reproduction, not pastiche.

The fair dealing analysis was equally unfavourable to the defendants. Even assuming pastiche had been established, the use would not have constituted fair dealing, not least because licensed theatrical exploitation of the same works already existed, meaning the dining experience competed directly with a normal exploitation of the copyright.

Branding something as a "tribute" or "homage" is therefore not enough. If the exercise is designed to replicate rather than converse with the copyright work, the pastiche defence is unlikely to get off the ground.

Samherji: when activism becomes deception

A more recent UK pastiche case, Samherji HF v Fridriksson (which we reported on: Does the end justify the means? Striking a balance between IP and freedom of expression), arose in a very different context. The case demonstrates both the potentially complex interplay with arguments of freedom of expression, as well as the challenges for brand owners in dealing with parodic/pastiche use of their brands. The defendant, an artist and activist, created a website designed to resemble the Icelandic fishing company Samherji's official UK site, incorporating its logo and brochure alongside a fake press release containing admissions the company had never made. This was a form of 'culture jamming', with the defendant using the claimant's brands and copyright works to draw attention to its role in a particular scandal.

The defendant sought to invoke defences of fair dealing for the purposes of criticism, review, parody and pastiche. The court accepted the underlying subject matter (alleged corporate wrongdoing in the 'Fishrot' scandal) was of legitimate public interest. However, creating and disseminating a false press release through a website impersonating the claimant's official site crossed the boundary between lawful expression and unfair dealing.

The pastiche and related fair dealing exceptions protect creative and critical expression, not deception. The form of the use matters as much as its stated purpose.

Does the UK have to follow Pelham II?

Post-Brexit, the CJEU's decisions are not binding on UK courts, though the courts can take those decisions into account.

Given that section 30A CDPA was enacted to implement Article 5(3)(k) of the InfoSoc Directive, and domestic pastiche case law remains limited, the CJEU's decision in Pelham II is likely to carry real persuasive weight as an aid to interpreting the UK exception consistently with its legislative origins.

The CJEU's "dialogue" framework is therefore likely to influence how judges in this jurisdiction approach novel pastiche claims.

What does this mean for AI?

Generative AI tools that reproduce stylistic elements of existing works - whether through music generation, image synthesis or text imitation - may also give rise to consideration of whether the pastiche exception applies to their outputs. Indeed, the defence was going to feature in the Getty Images v Stability AI claim but, given the claimant in that case decided to abandon its copyright infringement claim relating to outputs, the pastiche defence also fell away. 

Should this issue arise in a future case, the objective recognisability test from Pelham II may assist AI users to some degree: the question is whether the output reads as pastiche to someone familiar with the source, not whether the user can articulate a creative intention.  But this is not a low bar. The prohibition on concealed imitation is directly relevant to AI outputs designed to be indistinguishable from a human creator's work, particularly where the goal is substitution rather than dialogue.

The "dialogue" requirement is therefore likely to focus scrutiny on the human user's creative contribution: the prompting decisions, iterative refinements and editorial choices shaping the final output.  For example, where a user simply instructs a model to generate content "in the style of" an artist and publishes the first plausible result, they may struggle to argue that the output satisfies the requirement of an objectively recognisable creative conversation.

The UK's fair dealing requirement adds a further layer. Even where an AI output might in principle qualify as pastiche, the court will also ask whether more of the copyright work was taken than necessary and whether the use competes with normal exploitation of the source work.

Comment

The emerging picture of the pastiche exception is that it protects creative dialogue, not reproduction; expression, not deception; and imitation that is overtly recognisable, not concealment.

For rights holders, these decisions are broadly reassuring: the exception does not operate as a general transformative-use safe harbour, and courts have shown a willingness to scrutinise the substance of what is claimed to be pastiche.

For creators (human or AI-assisted), the closer a work comes to substituting for the original, the harder it will be to invoke the exception. Ensuring that dialogue with the source is visible and genuine will matter both legally and artistically.

As AI-generated content becomes more prevalent, courts will inevitably face difficult questions about where to draw the line between inspiration and infringement.

How Mishcon de Reya can help

For more information on how developments around the pastiche exception and the use of creative works in AI may affect you, please get in touch with our Copyright team, who advise on the protection, commercialisation and enforcement of copyright and related rights, across a range of sectors and technologies.

The Crime and Policing Bill 2025 received Royal Assent on 29 April 2026, becoming the Crime and Policing Act 2026 (CPA). Enacted to rebuild public trust in policing, the CPA introduces significant reforms spanning areas including offensive weapons, stalking and public order, confiscation, and corporate criminal liability.

The provisions of the CPA related to corporate criminal liability, which come into force on 29 June 2026¹, represent one of the most significant developments in UK corporate criminal law in recent decades.

CPA: Serious crime and corporate criminal liability

The CPA equips law enforcement agencies with a range of new powers to tackle serious and organised crime. Particularly significant for businesses is section 250, which establishes corporate criminal liability where a senior manager commits any criminal offence while acting in the scope of their actual or apparent authority.

This is distinct from the position prior to the CPA whereby a company could only be held criminally liable for the actions of an individual where that individual was "the directing mind and will" of the organisation. Particularly within large or complex corporates, it was difficult in practice for law enforcement to meet this threshold. The CPA is therefore expected to make it significantly easier for organisations to be held accountable for the criminal actions of their people.

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023: The first shift 

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) enables an organisation to be held criminally liable where a senior manager commits a specified economic crime. The definition of "senior manager" was expanded to take into account the individual's role, responsibilities, and managerial influence within the organisation, rather than job title alone².

The CPA adopts the definition of "senior manager" from ECCTA. The definition of a "senior manager" will often extend beyond a company's board and most senior executives, encompassing others who have significant responsibility in relation to the running of the business, with enforcement agencies looking beyond titles to what an individual is actually doing within their role. This reflects the reality of modern company structures, where "directing minds" are distributed across multiple functions, and is likely to facilitate prosecutions that may not previously have been possible under the identification doctrine.

The CPA: A major expansion of liability

The CPA replaces sections 196 to 198 of ECCTA and represents a substantial expansion of corporate criminal exposure. It extends corporate criminal liability beyond economic crime to cover any criminal offence committed by a senior manager acting in the scope of their actual or apparent authority. This may include health and safety offences, sexual misconduct, and regulatory breaches, among others. Critically, liability may arise even where the senior manager acted outside any express authority granted by the company or in breach of the company's policies³.

International businesses are not exempt: where part of the offence, the victim, or relevant business activity has a UK connection, UK criminal liability may follow⁴.

Defences

Notably, the CPA does not replicate the "reasonable procedures" defence available under ECCTA's "failure to prevent fraud" offence. It is irrelevant whether the senior manager in question was expressly directed by the corporate to carry out the conduct in question, or whether the individual intended for the corporate to benefit from the criminality.

Under section 250, the only available defences are:

• all of the conduct constituting the offence occurred outside the United Kingdom; or
• the organisation would not commit the offence had that conduct been attributable to the organisation directly, rather than to the senior manager.

Penalties

Convicted companies face unlimited fines for most serious offences in addition to any sentence imposed on the individual offender. Furthermore, the CPA substantially overhauls the confiscation regime under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), including reforms aimed at making it easier to calculate a defendant's benefit from crime, thereby enabling realistic, enforceable orders, and clarifying the requirements for restraint orders to make it easier to preserve assets during an investigation.

Comment

The introduction of new corporate criminal liability under both the ECCTA and CPA reflects an unequivocal intention to increase enforcement in this area. Companies must carefully consider how responsibility is delegated within the organisation with effective oversight; how decisions and processes are documented; and their approach to regulatory compliance (including cross-border compliance for international organisations). Despite the lack of "reasonable procedures" defence under the CPA, strong compliance frameworks remain an essential preventative measure and may be of assistance by way of mitigation or in the context of public interest considerations in the event of suspected criminality.

What companies should do now

Companies should now, if they have not already, be taking proactive steps to prepare, taking account of both the relatively new failure to prevent fraud offence under the ECCTA, which came into force in September 2025, and the corporate liability provisions of the CPA. The approach will vary depending on a corporate's sector(s) of operation, size and geographical footprint. The White Collar Crime and Investigations Team at Mishcon de Reya has deep experience and is well placed to assist with:

• Risk assessments and compliance policy review, drafting or enhancements;
• Training for senior managers and in-house risk and compliance teams;
• Conducting internal investigations where criminality or misconduct is suspected; and
• Representing companies under investigation by enforcement agencies.

Please do not hesitate to contact our White Collar Crime and Investigations team.

An inquest is the public inquiry, conducted by the coroner, to establish the facts surrounding the death. Whilst an inquest is an inquisitorial (rather than adversarial) process, they are often conducted under intense scrutiny, and can carry significant legal, reputational and personal consequences for those affected; particularly if there are ancillary proceedings.

The statistics reveal that in 2025, 36 000 inquests were opened; and the average time taken to complete an inquest remained at 31.3 weeks (around 7.5 months).

Suicide

Suicide conclusions are often the most difficult and emotionally complex inquests. In 2025 there were 5,298 suicide conclusions recorded: an increase to the highest level since the start of the series in 1995. The increase was driven by male suicides, with female suicides falling. It is important to note that these conclusions are recorded after an inquest and so may relate to deaths from the same or earlier years.

The other most common short form conclusions were death by misadventure (9,724) and drugs and alcohol (4,659). Industrial disease conclusions fell by 5% in the last year (to 1,828 cases), the lowest level since 1996.

Prevention of Future Death Reports

In 2025, 654 Prevention of Future Death (PFD) reports were issued by coroners. Coroners have a statutory duty to make a PFD report where, during an investigation, they identify circumstances that create a risk of future deaths. The coroner must issue a report to a person or organisation which has power to take relevant action to prevent future deaths. A PFD report can be issued at any point by a coroner; they need not wait until the end of the inquest.

There is a legal obligation to provide a written response to a PFD report in 56 days; although there is no statutory sanction for failing to do so. There is a presumption that the PFD report and the response will be published online to ensure open justice and to promote learning; however, it is possible to make representations against publication.

Whilst there is no penalty or sanction, failure to respond to a PFD report can now result in being publicly named and shamed – with the name of the organisation or individual who did not respond within the statutory timeframe being published online. It was anticipated that the public "badge of dishonour" would prompt responses. Individuals and corporate bodies will have to carefully consider what they may be able to say in their public response compared to any public criticism associated with not responding.

Please contact Min Wiggins for more information on inquests and the coronial statistics.

At the EU level, the picture is shaped significantly by the Court of Justice’s well-known ruling in Illumina/GRAIL (2024), which curtailed the European Commission’s (“EC”) ambitions for extending its reach over below-threshold transactions. The EC claimed jurisdiction to review Illumina’s acquisition of GRAIL under Article 22 EUMR, asserting that a Member State can refer a deal to the EC even if it falls below filing thresholds. The EC had been pursuing this policy for several years, arguing that it enables review of so-called “killer acquisitions” (the acquisition of an innovative start-up by a larger company) which otherwise often escape scrutiny due to the target’s size. The Court rejected this, noting that it would undermine the predictability and legal certainty that must be provided to businesses. This was a welcome development, but the ruling did not impact the ability of national authorities to introduce or exercise below-threshold call-in powers to assess the competitive effects of a deal in their jurisdiction. Indeed, there has been significant activity on that front.

Read the full article (pages 19-20).

Key takeaways

• This is a fundamental change: The Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA) introduces a new organisation-wide trigger for collective redundancy consultation, meaning multi-site employers will no longer be able to avoid the regime just by keeping redundancy numbers below 20 at any one establishment.
• The precise multi-site trigger threshold is to be confirmed: The Government's lead proposal is a single fixed number of proposed redundancies between 250 and 1,000, with an alternative considered proposal of having a tiered fixed threshold calculation based on employer size.
• The financial costs of getting it wrong have already risen: Since 6 April 2026, the maximum protective award for failing to comply has doubled from 90 to 180 gross calendar days' uncapped pay per affected employee.
• Start preparing now: The new rules are expected to take effect in 2027, but the operational work - particularly tracking redundancy proposals across sites - should be in place well before then.

Why this matters now

For multi-site employers, the practical consequence of the reform is that small scale redundancy decisions taken at different sites, for different operational reasons, may need to be consulted on as a single exercise. Under the new trigger, redundancy proposals at different sites across the employer will need to be monitored and aggregated centrally, which can be difficult where decisions are being made at the site-level by local managers and sites are not connected through joined systems.

Sectors such as retail, hospitality and leisure are likely to feel this acutely. Operating models in those sectors typically involve large numbers of locations with relatively small headcounts per site, and modest, site-by-site programmes have often remained below the existing 20-employee trigger. Under an organisation-wide threshold, that pattern will increasingly tip into collective consultation territory.

The financial implications have also changed. The maximum protective award for breach of collective consultation requirements has doubled from 90 to 180 days’ pay from 6 April 2026. The protective award is calculated on uncapped gross pay, which makes the doubling particularly significant for higher-earning workforces. For example, in a 40-employee redundancy exercise where each affected employee earns £50,000 a year, the potential maximum exposure for failure to collectively consult rises from about £493,000 under the old cap to about £986,000 under the new one. 

When collective consultation obligations are triggered, an employer is also required to notify the Secretary of State of the proposed collective redundancies. Failure to do so is a criminal offence punishable by an unlimited fine. The new organisation-wide trigger extends the circumstances in which that notification obligation arises, meaning that notifications will be required in more cases than have previously been the case.

What the new rules require - and where the gaps remain

Under the existing collective redundancy framework, an employer proposing to dismiss 20 or more employees as redundant at one establishment within a 90-day period is required to collectively consult with employees or trade union representatives. In addition, as mentioned, the employer must notify the Government via an HR1 form (with a separate HR1 form for each establishment).

In practice, this has meant that redundancy programmes spread across multiple sites have, in many cases, fallen outside the regime entirely.

The ERA introduces an organisation-wide threshold sitting alongside the existing single-establishment one. Collective consultation obligations will therefore be triggered where an employer proposes to dismiss as redundant:

• 20 or more employees at one establishment; or
• at least the new threshold number of employees across different establishments within the employer's organisation.

The existing 90-day window remains unchanged. The Government is consulting on what the new organisation-wide threshold will be, and how it will be calculated. It has proposed the following options:

• Single fixed threshold (lead proposal): A single threshold number, somewhere in the range of 250 to 1,000 redundancies, applying to all employers, regardless of their size.
• Tiered fixed thresholds (secondary proposal): This approach would set a cross-establishment threshold by reference to the employer's size:
  • 250 redundancies for employers with up to 2,499 employees
  • 500 redundancies for employers with 2,500 to 9,999 employees
  • 750 redundancies for employers with more than 10,000 employees.

If this method is adopted, employer size would be assessed against an annual snapshot date of 5 April.

• Percentage-based methods (weakest proposals): Two other trigger options would be either (i) a single percentage of the total workforce, or (ii) a percentage for smaller employers combined with a fixed number for larger employers. The Government has expressly deprioritised these proposals, not least as percentages make the calculations more complex.

Counting is done at employing entity level, not group level. This means redundancies at different sites aggregate only where the same legal entity is the employer at each site. Multi-site groups with several employing entities are therefore better placed under the new regime than those where staff are all employed through a single entity.

The new organisation-wide threshold will not extend to Northern Ireland. This means that where employer size is relevant, it will only be assessed by reference to employees in England, Wales and Scotland. Employers with a Northern Ireland presence will therefore need to think carefully about how those employees are counted, if at all, when assessing whether the new threshold has been met.

What employers should be doing now

The proposed changes have wide-ranging implications. Four key areas need attention before 2027:

The need for centralised tracking

Employers need to set up centralised systems that monitor and record redundancy proposals across all establishments on an ongoing basis. The statutory trigger turns on proposed redundancies, not when dismissals take place. HR systems are typically designed to record actual headcount changes; few track proposals as they emerge across the business.

Employers should also ensure that their tracking systems capture any internal restructurings and movements of employees between establishments, since changes to how the workforce is organised - including the reallocation of employees from one site to another - can affect how headcount is attributed across the business and, in turn, whether either of the triggers for consultation have been met.

Consultation logistics

Where multiple sites are caught by a single trigger, the logistics of running a coherent consultation across different locations and operational rationales become significantly more complex. Helpfully, the ERA expressly updates the collective consultation legislation to provide that employers are not required to consult all appropriate representatives together, nor to reach the same agreement with each of them. This preserves flexibility to run combined or separate exercises across the business.

Consider standing employee representative bodies

Larger multi-site employers without a trade union presence may also wish to consider establishing standing employee representative bodies now, rather than relying on ad hoc elections once the new trigger is engaged; doing so can materially shorten the lead time to constituting a consultation forum when redundancies later arise, and could help simplify the consultation process for multi-site redundancy situations.

Preparing for the Code of Practice

A Code of Practice on collective redundancy obligations will be the subject of a separate consultation later in 2026. The Code is likely to shape how employment tribunals assess compliance with the new regime, and employers should track its development.

If you would like more information or support on the changes 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. 

Mary was a trailblazer in women’s football, becoming the first Black captain of the Lionesses, playing in the 1995 Women’s World Cup, and winning a quadruple with Arsenal in 2006. Now head coach of Peckham Town FC, she shares how she has adapted to life with multiple sclerosis (MS). Join Mary to learn how to navigate setbacks, build resilience, and stay physically and mentally strong.

The company was specifically created 15 years ago to disrupt the established approach to the promotion and delivery of large scale residential led Strategic Sites. 

James qualified as a barrister before advising the Government on planning issues and cross-qualifying as a solicitor.  

Prior to being one of the founder members of Urban&Civic, James was part of the senior executive team of Lend Lease Europe with responsibility for town planning and risk management.  

Within Urban&Civic, James heads up strategy, planning and communications.  

Having previously served as a non-executive director of East Thames Housing association and sat on the Development Committee of L&Q, James is currently a senior advisor to Dorrington PLC and a non-executive of Natural England.