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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paying tribute to his predecessor James Libson, Daniel said: 

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

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

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

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

Read the full profile. 

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

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

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

Read the article in full.

In brief

Already in force (since 1 October)

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

From 30 October

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

What changed on 1 October 2026

Time limits doubled for employment tribunal claims

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

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

What changes on 30 October 2026

Sexual harassment: all reasonable steps

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

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

Third-party harassment

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

Trade union workplace access

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

Wider trade union reforms

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

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

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

How Mishcon de Reya can help

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

Among noteworthy developments, last quarter:

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

UK standards and regulation

EU standards and regulation

Global standards and frameworks

ESG litigation

In brief: more flexibility, wider access

Three developments have reshaped the toolkit in 2026:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capital that moves with the investments

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

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

Prescribed Companies: revisit the eligibility question

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

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

Does the ADGM offer a similar structure?

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

Looking ahead: greater choice amid geopolitical headwinds

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

How Mishcon de Reya can help

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

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

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

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

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

What's in place?

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

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

Qualifying premises and events

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

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

Requirements under the standard tier

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

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

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

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

Additional requirements under the enhanced tier

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

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

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

Regulation and enforcement

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

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

Why this matters

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

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

Read the full article (subscription required). 

Firmwide achievements

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

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

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

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

Lawyer rankings

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

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

The guide also recognises emerging talent across the firm:

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

Star Associates Thomas Andrews.

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

Individual accolades

Senior Statespeople
Adam Epstein
Sandra Davis

Eminent Practitioners
Daniel Naftalin
Kas Nouroozi

Individually ranked:

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

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

As the first Black woman to swim for Great Britain, Rebecca navigated the pressures of elite sport while grappling with questions of race, representation and self-worth. Since retiring from competitive swimming, she has become a powerful voice on inclusion, mental health and the importance of creating environments where everyone can thrive.

In this candid and thought-provoking discussion, Rebecca will share her personal journey, reflect on the lessons she has learned from navigating spaces where she often felt she didn't belong, and explore what genuine inclusion looks like today.

This promises to be an inspiring conversation about courage, resilience, identity and the impact we can all have in creating a greater sense of belonging.

In a world where organisations are navigating constant change, uncertainty and increasing expectations around leadership and inclusion, Will offers a remarkable perspective on what it means to adapt, persevere and thrive when life takes an unexpected turn. Following life-changing injuries sustained during the Mumbai attacks, Will's journey has challenged conventional thinking about resilience, independence, strength and success. Today, he works with organisations to explore how lived experience can shape more thoughtful leadership, stronger cultures and more inclusive workplaces.

In brief

• An independent Premier League Commission has found Manchester City in breach of financial rules over nine seasons, alongside significant failures to cooperate with its investigation.
• The focus now turns to sanction and the club’s intended appeal, with Manchester City strongly disputing the findings.
• The eventual outcome could have far-reaching sporting, commercial and contractual consequences for the club and the wider Premier League.

Read more

When sponsorship money is frozen: the Premier League, Sorare and the growing regulatory risk of sports partnerships 

In brief 

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court has extended an account freezing order over more than £10 million held by the Premier League while the National Crime Agency (NCA) continues an investigation connected with the league’s former fantasy football partner, Sorare. The Court expressly found that there was no suggestion that the Premier League itself had engaged in unlawful conduct. (Courts and Tribunals Judiciary) 
• Separately, Sorare is being prosecuted by the Gambling Commission for allegedly providing gambling facilities in Great Britain without an operating licence. Sorare contests the charges and its trial is currently listed for June 2027. (Gambling Commission) 
• The case highlights an increasingly important risk for sports organisations: regulatory or financial-crime issues affecting a commercial partner can have direct consequences for the rights-holder, even where the rights-holder is not accused of wrongdoing. 

Read more

Moving the goalposts: the impact of the Sporting Events Bill on event marketing and media  

In brief

• The Sporting Events Bill proposes a common legislative framework to apply to major sporting events in the UK. 
• The Bill establishes five provisions relating to ticket touting, advertising, trading, unauthorised association and transport, any of which can be applied to future event-specific regulations. 
• The aim is to make the UK more competitive in bidding for major sporting events by protecting sponsors and event partners from 'ambush marketing', unauthorised advertising and trading.  
• Media reporting is expressly excluded, but content made for promoting something other than the sporting event is not. Attention should therefore be paid to whether reporting could be classed as a commercial promotion. 

Read more

Against this backdrop, Mishcon de Reya has once again been recognised among the country's leading disputes firms. In Solomonic's latest rankings of claimant-side litigation activity, the firm remains in the top ten most active claimant law firms, recording 44 claims issued during the first three quarters of 2026, placing it seventh overall. The firm also ranks in the top ten most active firms across all claims, acting in 73 of all disputes issued in the same period, and in the top 15 most active defendant law firms.

The findings follow Mishcon de Reya's recent recognition as the firm appearing most frequently in Solomonic's list of the 15 most-tracked High Court cases of H1 2026, underlining both the volume and profile of the disputes handled by the firm's lawyers.

The latest report highlights several trends that align closely with Mishcon's broad disputes practice, including increased activity in banking and finance disputes, continued growth in insolvency-related litigation and sustained volumes across commercial, real estate and professional services claims. These trends reflect the increasingly complex risk environment facing businesses, institutions and individuals operating in the UK and internationally.

Hugo Plowman, Chair of Mishcon de Reya's Dispute Resolution department, commented:

"The latest Solomonic data paints a picture of a disputes market that remains exceptionally active. Businesses are having to compete in a more complicated economic, regulatory and geopolitical environment than at any point in recent years, and that inevitably gives rise to contentious issues.

It is encouraging to see Mishcon once again recognised among the busiest disputes firms in the market. More importantly, it reflects the breadth and depth of our disputes practice and the trust clients place in us to handle complex, high-value and business-critical matters across all major sectors. As litigation volumes continue to grow, our focus remains on delivering outstanding results and helping clients navigate increasingly challenging disputes."

Mishcon de Reya's Dispute Resolution practice comprises more than 350 disputes lawyers and advises corporates, financial institutions, investors, entrepreneurs, insolvency practitioners, governments and high-net-worth individuals across the full spectrum of contentious matters from offices in London, Singapore, Hong Kong, Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

The full Solomonic report, Q3 2026 Litigation in Numbers, highlights that more than 2,300 claims were issued during Q3 alone, making it the busiest quarter recorded since before 2019, while litigation involving the banking and finance sector increased by 22% compared with the same quarter last year.

• On 7 October 2026, Mishcon de Reya's Insolvency & Restructuring team welcomed emerging insolvency professionals to our future leaders seminar. We focused on three areas where technical knowledge and sound judgement can make a significant difference: the appointment of administrators, the use of Insolvency Practitioners' insolvency powers, and giving evidence in court proceedings.
• Across three sessions, speakers highlighted that effective insolvency practice is not just about knowing the law, but about applying it carefully, documenting decisions thoroughly and being able to justify them when challenged.

Below is a summary of each panel and our top three takeaways.

Getting administration appointments right from the start

This panel, with Charlie Matta and Matthew Scola from Mishcon de Reya explored the mechanics of administration appointments and the consequences of getting the process wrong.

Key takeaways

• The appointment process is a compliance exercise, not a formality - Successful administration appointments depend on rigorous checks of eligibility, authority and purpose before filing. Robust processes will help to prevent costly challenges later.
• Small procedural mistakes can have significant consequences - Even seemingly minor procedural errors can invalidate an appointment, making careful document preparation and filing essential from the outset.
• Purpose matters as much as process - A valid appointment requires not only compliance with the technical requirements but also a clearly documented and genuine statutory purpose capable of withstanding scrutiny if challenged.

Using insolvency powers with precision rather than force

This session, with Tyrone Rees-Davies and Megan Bryan from Mishcon de Reya focused on the proper use of Insolvency Practitioners' powers under sections 234 and 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Key takeaways

• Start with the right questions - Effective use of insolvency powers begins with identifying who holds the information or property, what is needed, why it is required and how it should be obtained, ensuring requests remain focused, proportionate and effective.
• Reasonable need remains a central principle - Applications under sections 234 and 236 should be supported by a clear purpose, a reasonable evidential basis and carefully defined scope, rather than broad or speculative requests.
• Powerful tools still have clear limits - While sections 234 and 236 can be very effective, they must be used strategically and within their legal boundaries, with careful consideration given to privilege, confidentiality and the rights of others.

Giving evidence: the importance of preparation, memory and credibility

The final session, with Jessica Williams and Harrison Berg from Mishcon de Reya, alongside Andy Hobbs of Assurety Training and Barrister and Assurety trainer Ciara O'Duffy, examined one of the most challenging aspects of insolvency litigation: giving evidence under cross-examination.

Key takeaways

• Insolvency practitioners occupy a unique position as witnesses - Insolvency practitioners must often give evidence based on investigations, historic events and information gathered from others, making it essential to clearly distinguish between personal knowledge, documentary evidence and conclusions reached through investigation.
• Contemporaneous records remain invaluable - Clear attendance notes, file records and contemporaneous communications can significantly strengthen witness credibility and provide vital evidence when decisions are later scrutinised in court.
• Confidence and accuracy are not the same thing - Effective witnesses are not those who appear most confident, but those who are well-prepared, communicate clearly and are honest about the limits of their recollection and knowledge.

In summary

Although the three sessions addressed very different topics, several common themes emerged. Whether appointing administrators, exercising statutory powers or giving evidence in court, success often depends on the same fundamentals: preparation, precision, good record-keeping and sound judgement.

The feedback submitted by attendees reflected many of those themes, with practical application, confidence and insight featuring strongly among participants' reflections.

We would like to thank all of our speakers and attendees for contributing to a highly engaging and practical afternoon.

Mandy brings many years of experience across a range of complex commercial disputes, international arbitration and regulatory investigations, and has acted for major corporate groups, listed companies and high net worth individuals in a wide range of contentious matters. She is qualified to practise in Hong Kong, England and Wales and is fluent in English, Mandarin and Cantonese.

Mandy will be based in Mishcon de Reya's Hong Kong office. She joins several recent additions to the Hong Kong Disputes and Innovation departments, including partner Mark Davis, and new partners Robert Rhoda and Paolo Sbuttoni, who are all dual qualified in England and Wales, and Hong Kong.

Mandy said, "I am thrilled to join Mishcon de Reya. They are a great team with a great reputation as a disputes powerhouse, in addition to market-leading expertise. I look forward to work with them to expand their presence in Hong Kong and across Asia."

Managing Partner Wei Zhang said, "We are very happy to welcome Mandy to the team. She brings with her not just a breadth of expertise across a range of commercial disputes, arbitration and investigations, but also excellent language skills. She follows a string of recent appointments to Mishcon's Hong Kong Disputes and Innovation departments, and will be a great addition to the firm."

Days later, you receive correspondence from a union referencing their new right to request workplace access. In the first 24 hours, you need to decide how to respond, if at all, to the request's assertion that some of your employees are already members. The next week is spent deciding on what union access might look like, and whether it may even be enforced against your will. For months that follow, you might wrestle with compulsory recognition and collective bargaining negotiations. This wasn't part of your business's strategy. You worry about how an outside organisation may disrupt relations with your workforce.

Join us for this Nightmare Scenario session, where Robert Lewis (Employment Partner), Jon Baines (Senior Data Protection Specialist), and Luke Watkeys (HR Consultant, Compose HR) will walk through critical engagements with trade unions, which are significantly more likely under the new regime coming into force from 30 October.

In this Nightmare scenario session we will explore:

• Access – assessing legal risk in the first 24 hours, responding appropriately, and navigating the risks of physical and digital access to your employees
• Information – in the weeks that follow, meeting obligations to share employee data without exposing your business to risk
• Recognition – understanding voluntary and involuntary processes which may last months, as well as bargaining units, and the balloting of employees
• Collective bargaining – navigating lengthy negotiations with unions, setting boundaries, and incentivising individual performance
• Segmentation – going forward indefinitely, treating employees fairly when you have data showing some of your employees are union members and some are not

Cassie Hill, Partner at Mishcon de Reya, commented in World IP Review on the implications for brand owners and the importance of considering protection at the design stage.

She commented: “The injunction against the Lidl entities was expressly limited to the territory of the Netherlands. So, in principle, a retailer could sell the same product lawfully in Germany while facing an enforceable injunction the moment it crosses into the Netherlands." Cassie also noted the importance of considering the criteria for potentially relevant IP rights during the design process: "If you’re designing something functional and want copyright optionality later, the discipline has to start at the drawing board, not in the witness box.”

Read the full article (subscription required)

Sam has created iconic hairstyles for Princess Diana, Kate Moss, Lady Gaga, Naomi Campbell and Sienna Miller. Through collaborations with major fashion houses and photographers, he has amassed more than 200 magazine covers. In 2017, he launched Hair by Sam McKnight, a haircare and styling brand rooted in his belief that everyone should have the tools and confidence to feel great about their hair. He continues to work on fashion shows and develop new products, with no intention of retiring.  

• Speaking at the Innovation Nation Summit in Manchester earlier today, Prime Minister Andy Burnham confirmed that the Government will legislate to restrict the use of non-compete clauses in employment contracts.
• He described the move as the "Bosman ruling for the innovation sector", citing the 1995 European Court of Justice decision that famously allowed footballers to move freely to another club at the end of their contract without a transfer fee.
• The announcement comes nearly a year after the Government published a working paper setting out proposals to reform the law on non-compete clauses in employment contracts.
• The options in the working paper range from an outright ban to statutory duration caps and salary or company-size implementation thresholds.
• Whilst the Prime Minister's statement is a clear signal of intent to legislate, the detailed legislative proposals have not yet been announced.

Why is the Government reforming non-compete clauses?

The Government's Working Paper identified four objectives behind the proposed reform: boosting labour market dynamism, reducing barriers to recruitment, promoting competition and innovation, and protecting workers from extended periods out of the labour market. The Prime Minister's announcement today echoes this, characterising non-competes as a "drag on innovation" that leave workers "held back and unpaid" and prevent the UK's most talented people from starting new ventures or joining competitors.

Why changes to non-compete clauses might be made?

The options in the working paper, and which may inform any legislation, include:

• a statutory cap on the permitted duration of non-compete clauses;
• an outright ban on non-compete clauses;
• a ban on non-competes below a specified salary threshold;
• a statutory duration cap that varies by company size (for example, a shorter cap for larger employers and a longer cap for smaller employers); or
• a combined approach involving a ban below a salary threshold together with a duration limit above it.

What do employers think about non-compete reform?

We surveyed our employer clients on their use of non-competes and their views on reform in light of the Government's working paper, and the results suggested that change of this kind would be unwelcome for most businesses.

The most common preference was for the Government to maintain the status quo and refrain from changing the law in relation to non-competes. There was very little appetite for an outright ban, which was considered unnecessary and harmful to business, especially SMEs/early-stage companies. Similar sentiments were expressed in relation to restrictions generally, with respondents noting that restrictions on non-competes could redirect investment away from the UK. Proposals to vary restrictions by reference to employer size and employee salary were also unpopular. Such proposals were considered blunt tools that failed to appreciate the multifactorial and nuanced reasons for non-competes. The Government's most popular proposal was for a statutory limit on the duration of non-competes, with respondents expressing preferences for 6-month or 12-month caps.

What should employers do now to prepare for non-compete reform?

Although the detail is still to come, employers that rely on non-competes can start preparing now by:

• Reviewing existing non-compete clauses, including their duration, scope and the roles to which they apply, to understand the potential exposure when restrictions are introduced.
• Considering whether key protections (confidential information, client connections, team stability) can be secured through other means, such as non-solicitation or non-dealing clauses, garden leave, and incentive structures.
• Looking out for the detailed legislative proposals. It is hoped that any statutory cap or ban will distinguish between existing and future arrangements, so the timing of recruitment, promotions and contract renewals may matter.
• Engaging in any further consultation, directly or through trade bodies, if you have concerns about how reform will affect your business or sector.

In the meantime, please get in touch if you would like to discuss how these proposals could affect your business.

Kirpal Kaur commented: "We were delighted to have represented Cynergy Bank on this transaction, in particular given the complexities and time pressures that were involved. It was a pleasure to work with Bryan and Sarabjeet at Cynergy who were able to make swift decisions under pressure. It was also good to have Tony Tadros of SHC Capital (the team that had structured the transaction) on hand to assist in navigating the complex issues that this transaction involved."

Bryan Hawkins of Cynergy Bank commented: "We are pleased to have completed this financing and to support our client's continued growth strategy in the UK retail and mixed-use market. The transaction was delivered against an exceptionally tight timeframe and required close collaboration between all parties. This deal demonstrates Cynergy Bank's commitment to supporting businesses with pragmatic financing solutions for high-quality real estate investments."

The Mishcon de Reya team was led by Commercial Real Estate Partner Kirpal Kaur, supported by Tom Middleton (Partner), Venessa Toofanny (Of Counsel), Claudia Brush (Managing Associate), Daniel Wigman (Managing Associate) and Chloe Chatton (Managing Associate) from the Commercial Real Estate team; Nick Strutt (Partner), Alice Bucharova (Managing Associate) and Emma Magee (Associate) from the Real Estate Finance team; and Thomas Ren (Associate) from the Planning team.

The CMA has recently published revised MAGs as part of its broader push to improve the pace, predictability, proportionality, and process (the "4Ps") across the merger control regime. The key development is the introduction of substantially expanded guidance on how the CMA will assess rivalry-enhancing efficiencies – and what the parties will need to do and show if they want those efficiencies to form part of the CMA's assessment of their transaction.

For businesses navigating UK merger control, understanding how to engage with the CMA on rivalry-enhancing efficiencies has become an increasingly important part of deal planning and merger clearance strategy.

What are rivalry-enhancing efficiencies?

Rivalry-enhancing efficiencies are cost savings, quality improvements or innovation gains generated by a merger that may make the merged business a stronger competitor – and which the CMA may weigh against any anticompetitive effects that it has identified. Under the statutory test and framework for assessing efficiencies (which remains unchanged in the revised MAGs), rivalry enhancing efficiencies must:

• enhance rivalry in the market in which the SLC may otherwise arise;
• be timely, likely and sufficient to prevent an SLC;
• be merger-specific; and
• benefit customers in the UK.

On merger-specificity, the revised MAGs make clear that the question is not merely whether the efficiencies could theoretically be achieved another way. The CMA will ask whether alternative means to achieve the efficiencies are feasible and commercially rational and would deliver the same scale of benefits, and will consider the relative costs and risks of these alternatives.

Why might they arise?

The CMA has expanded on potential situations giving rise to rivalry-enhancing efficiencies. Most notably, they expressly recognise the potential for dynamic efficiencies: efficiencies that increase the ability or incentive of the parties to innovate and invest in ways that benefit customers. The guidance also confirms that efficiencies may arise across both price and non-price parameters of competition, such as improvements to product quality.

Although efficiencies must still be timely enough to prevent an SLC, the guidelines now recognise that different types of efficiencies may crystallise over different timeframes. For example, certain dynamic efficiencies such as increased R&D productivity may not be fully realised for several years.

This flexibility is helpful, particularly for innovation-heavy sectors. But parties should assume that more uncertain or future gains will carry less weight in the overall competitive assessment than efficiencies that are closer, clearer and better supported by the evidence.

How can parties demonstrate they exist?

Merging parties will need verifiable evidence to support efficiency claims. The nature of this evidence will vary by transaction, but the revised MAGs point to familiar categories of "ordinary-course" evidence, such as operational and financial data, synergies analysis and integration plans, and internal strategy documents.

The CMA now also recognises that bespoke analysis may have a role to play, particularly where ordinary-course, internal documents do not address every element of the efficiencies framework. Bespoke evidence is purpose-built analysis commissioned specifically for the merger review and may include analysis of the parties' incentives to innovate or to pass benefits on to customers.

Some consultation responses pushed for bespoke analysis to play a greater role, but the CMA declined to go further. The final guidance is clear: bespoke evidence can be helpful to supplement other evidence, but ordinary-course materials are likely to carry the greatest weight.

When should parties present their evidence?

Historically, rivalry-enhancing efficiencies have been considered only if the CMA identified that a merger gives rise to anticompetitive effects. In the revised MAGs, the CMA confirms that it will now assess the strength of efficiencies claims when considering the impact of the merger on competition.

Consistent with the CMA's focus on process, parties are therefore encouraged to engage with the CMA early in the merger review process, ideally during pre-notification. This gives the CMA time to properly consider the parties' submissions and gather further information where needed.

This also allows the evidence to be considered in the round as part of the competitive effects assessment, rather than as a defence or mitigation tool.

Importantly, the CMA has confirmed that making an efficiencies claim does not imply an acceptance of an SLC. Parties should not be deterred from presenting well-evidenced efficiency arguments at an early stage. To the contrary, timing matters: if evidence is provided too late, the CMA may give it less weight.

Where next?

Although the statutory framework is unchanged, the revised MAGs reflect that the CMA's willingness to engage with efficiencies arguments has expanded significantly. Practically, however, the guidance is clear that efficiencies claims will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and the evidentiary bar is high.

Parties should prepare convincing submissions supported by "ordinary-course" evidence (and possibly bespoke evidence) and engage early to make the most of the opportunity. If there are doubts as to the likelihood and timeliness of the claimed efficiencies, it is also worth giving serious thought to potential remedies to secure efficiency commitments.

The revised MAGs were preceded by updates to the CMA's guidelines on merger jurisdiction and procedure, and the merger remedies guidance. If you have any questions on how any of these changes may affect your transaction, please contact Chanelle Cattin or another member of Mishcon's Competition team.

Joe Hancock, Head of Cyber Risk and Complex Investigations at Mishcon de Reya, has been quoted Drapers on the attackers’ approach and the pressure that direct communication with customers can place on businesses.

Joe commented: “It is unusual to see messages addressed to a DPO. Attackers have previously had an adversarial relationship with IT security teams, but may now realise that the data aspects of an attack carry more weight. Pushing the messages directly to customers is also novel, and could be a very effective way for the attackers to apply pressure on Asos.”

On the continuing threat to businesses, Joe added: “Ransom-based attacks and cyber-crime show no sign of receding. While groups believe that organisations will pay, this is likely to continue.”

Read the full article

• The UAE continues to position itself as one of the world's leading talent hubs. The ability to attract and retain internationally mobile talent is therefore a priority for employers in the region.
• However, hiring from a competitor carries real legal risk. Non-compete obligations, confidentiality duties and the potential liability associated with senior moves all require careful legal assessment before any offer is made. Pre-hiring risk assessments offer essential protections for employers seeking to hire potentially restricted individuals.
• The UAE's rapid growth as a business centre has created particular risks for employers scaling quickly, including through Professional Employer Organisation (PEO) or Employer of Record (EoR) arrangements, which introduce their own distinct compliance and liability considerations.
• Retention is increasingly a legal challenge as much as a commercial one. Properly structured Long-Term Incentive Plans (LTIPs), clawback provisions, and other contractual tools can be powerful retention mechanisms, provided they are drafted with enforceability in mind from the outset.
• It is also important to avoid issuing well drafted retention documents which are then forgotten about until implementation – especially where employees rise though a company's ranks or are employed for a length tenure. 

Why does talent matter so much right now?

The UAE has evolved rapidly from a regional commercial hub into a global destination for senior professionals across financial services, technology, professional services and beyond. The combination of a favourable tax environment, world-class infrastructure and an increasingly sophisticated legal and regulatory framework makes it a magnet for internationally mobile talent, creating competitive dynamics unlike those in most other jurisdictions.

For employers, this creates both opportunity and risk.

What are the legal risks when hiring from a competitor?

Hiring from a competitor can be attractive, particularly where the individual is already established in the UAE. However, the legal risks are considerable and should be assessed properly before any approach is made. Those risks are significantly higher where a potential hire involves a team move.

What should a pre-hiring risk assessment cover?

A structured pre-hiring risk assessment is the essential first step before any offer is extended to a candidate coming from a competitor. At a minimum, this should address the following:

• Review of existing contractual obligations: the prospective employer should review relevant extracts of the candidate's existing employment documentation to identify non-compete clauses, notice periods, garden leave provisions, confidentiality obligations, and any restrictions on soliciting clients or colleagues. Restrictions may also exist in incentive documents or shareholder or other commercial agreements.
• Scope and enforceability of restrictions: not every restriction is enforceable on its face. The prospective employer should take legal advice on whether, and to what extent, the relevant obligations can be enforced.
• Assessment of the information risk: what confidential information does the individual hold, and what is the risk of it being used in the new role? It is common practice for incoming employees to confirm in writing that they will not bring or use their former employer's confidential information and will not introduce any such material into the new employer's systems.
• Onboarding safeguards: the risk assessment should not end when the offer is signed. Employers should give clear written instructions during onboarding prohibiting the individual from bringing, uploading or using documents, data, contacts or, pricing information or other materials belonging to their former employer. Depending on the risk profile, it may also be appropriate to delay contact with certain clients, limit access to particular accounts or implement clean-room arrangements for an initial period.
• Litigation risk appetite: some former employers will threaten legal action as a matter of course even where there is no breach of contract. Understanding the likely reaction of the outgoing employer based on sector norms, the seniority of the hire and the nature of the restrictions, is an important part of the risk assessment.

In some cases, legal risk is unavoidable. However, following best practice, including the steps set out above, will mitigate that risk and, in the worst case, provide a defensible position for the new employer. 

What are the legal risks of rapid expansion in the UAE?

The UAE's talent market moves quickly, and the legal risks of rapid expansion are proportionately significant. Employers scaling up in the region - whether through direct hiring or intermediate structures - should be alert to the following:

What are the risks of using PEO or EOR arrangements?

PEOs and EORs  have become increasingly popular in the UAE as a way of engaging talent quickly, particularly for businesses entering the market or scaling rapidly where visa quotas are limited. While these arrangements can offer genuine operational advantages, they carry legal risks that should be understood before adoption.

Can LTIPs, clawbacks and incentive schemes be enforced in the UAE?

In a competitive talent market, salary alone is rarely a sufficient retention tool. Offering senior individuals a meaningful economic stake in the business is one of the most effective retention mechanisms available. The right structure will depend (amongst other factors) on the nature and ownership of the business, but the underlying principle remains of aligning the individual's long-term financial interests with those of the business.

Remuneration is only part of the retention picture. In practice, senior employees are also more likely to stay where there is a credible career path, visible leadership commitment and, for internationally mobile employees, certainty around mobility, family relocation and long-term plans in the region. Properly structured LTIPs and other deferred compensation arrangements can be powerful retention tools. But poorly drafted schemes can be difficult to enforce and may create unintended financial and regulatory exposure.

How can Mishcon de Reya help?

Our Employment team advises businesses across the full spectrum of talent-related legal risk, from pre-hiring assessments and the management of move risk through to the design and implementation of retention strategies, LTIP structures and clawback arrangements. We have significant experience of the UAE legal landscape, including the onshore regime, the DIFC and the ADGM, and we regularly advise both employers and senior individuals on competitive hiring, restrictive covenant disputes and incentive scheme documentation.

Whether you are building a team in the UAE for the first time, scaling rapidly and seeking to audit your existing arrangements, or designing a remuneration structure that retains your best people, we can help. Please contact Natalie Jones or Elizabeth Coyle to discuss your specific circumstances.

Africa accounts for only a tiny number of large-scale data centres. By some estimates, only about 10% of the data-centre demand in Africa is currently served. There is a huge market opportunity for online and connected services, all of which lies on top of data-centre capacity.

Data-centre infrastructure is becoming a global issue. They require enormous amounts of power and water, and deep capital investment. In Africa they can potentially become a force for change, being anchor loads for energy expansion that benefits the countries and communities in which they are located.

The push for data sovereignty and localisation will drive demand higher on a per-country level. Data sovereignty has evolved from an aspiration into a strategic policy lever and will likely continue.

Energy disruption and development challenges

Reducing power disruption across Africa is essential to drive further economic growth. World Bank Enterprise Survey-based analysis found that African firms lose around 5% of annual sales to power outages. The Center for Global Development, using data on more than 3,000 firms in 37 countries, found some firms lose as much as 31% of sales. Costs are also driven up. Backup generation is costly – almost three times the cost of the same energy from the grid.

Standard Bank's Africa Trade Barometer (2024) puts Nigeria's outage losses at $26 billion a year, not counting $22 billion spent on generator fuel. For South Africa, Bloomberg, citing CSIR research, reports that load-shedding cost the economy R2.9 trillion ($169 billion) in 2023, "about a third of GDP", and up to R481 billion ($28 billion) in 2024.

These numbers are a little old and the methodology behind them is uncertain. However they speak to the scale of the problem. There are some green shoots – South Africa has not seen load shedding as frequently – but more capacity is needed.

It is not all about generation capacity, however. EPRA's 2025 Energy and Petroleum Statistics Report puts installed capacity in Kenya at 3,192 MW, against a record peak demand of 2,316 MW in 2025. Once capacity is online, the challenge in Kenya becomes transmission infrastructure.

Investment direction

South Africa's Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies, Solly Malatsi, opened GovTech 2026 in Durban with a speech on the national digital-sovereignty agenda. He described digital sovereignty as a country's ability to make meaningful choices about its data, infrastructure, and online rights without being wholly dependent on third parties.

Malatsi had met officials from Operation Vulindlela in the Presidency to explore positioning South Africa as a global submarine-cable and digital-infrastructure hub, at a time when conflict in the Middle East is disrupting global communications. President Ramaphosa said in SONA 2026 that more than R50 billion of data-centre investment is expected over the next three years.

This push for data localisation will act as a demand lever. The Africa Data Centres Association (ADCA) argues that "clear localisation and data-protection requirements create predictable demand for compliant, in-country infrastructure”.

Hyperscale loads can underwrite new generation where the host system has spare generation and transmission, or where the developer builds captive supply. Where neither applies, as in Kenya, a single campus competes directly with households and industry.

Powering future data centres

Data Center Map counted 243 African data centres in January 2026, nine per cent more than six months earlier, with 60 in South Africa and 22 in Nigeria.

There are a range of power models available for new data centres. In South Africa, operators combine Eskom supply with wheeled renewables and on-site solar.  Rack Centre's 13.5 MW off-grid gas plant and Tetracore's planned 100 MW on-site gas plant represent the Nigerian model of bypassing the grid entirely. Kenya has delivered a geothermal approach which offers firm, low-carbon power, but the Olkaria project shows that resource availability does not resolve transmission, redundancy and fiscal constraints.

Africa still has a major renewables advantage. There are abundant solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal opportunities; however, diesel backup is still the universal backup strategy across many communities and businesses.

A major driver for data-centre capacity is AI and the value it may create. The IMF (July 2026) estimates AI could make Sub-Saharan Africa's economy around 4% larger over a decade, but it is conditional on electricity, internet access and skills.

Challenges of concentration

Africa had roughly 360 MW of active data-centre capacity at the start of 2026 (Africa Data Centres Association), about 0.6% of global capacity, and the IEA projects Africa's data-centre consumption per head will remain under 2 kWh in 2030. The problem is not continental energy balance; it is that single campuses of 100 MW to 1 GW land on national systems of 3 to 5 GW.

Regulatory choices

One focus area is accelerating AU Member States' capabilities in energy infrastructure, broadband, computing, and data centres.

Data Centres for AI usage require advanced hardware, much of which is of US origin. US concerns about Chinese AI dominance have led to restrictions on external supply. US GPU access is now tied to "full-stack" American packages. How do African governments preserve genuine choice in their AI infrastructure?

We see a small number of key policy decisions:

• open, regulated third-party access and wheeling regimes;
• transparent large-load connection rules that allocate grid-reinforcement costs to the connecting customer;
• sequencing localisation mandates against verified in-country capacity;
• water-use disclosure for cooling
• designation of data centres and grid control systems as critical infrastructure with enforceable security standards.

Sharing cost and risk

These regulatory changes need to be supported with a clear view of who bears risk, and how it can be shared to drive investment.

It is likely that initial investment will come from Hyperscaler, the largest-scale cloud computer and data centre providers, and their balance-sheets. They are well resourced and can offset ramp-up costs in Africa against excess demand elsewhere in the world.

Providing power infrastructure will need a different model to relying on these providers. The hyperscalers market and data centre customers expect power and cooling to be a solved problem to some degree, which is based on their experience in their home countries with highly developed infrastructure.

There will be a need for transmission risk-sharing, where developers, governments and utilities providers share the financial or delivery uncertainties of accessing and enhancing high-voltage power-lines. South Africa's ITP programme and Credit Guarantee Vehicle are the most developed African attempt to move transmission risk off the sovereign balance sheet, and it may signal a model others can follow.

There will be a risk of emerging US export controls in relation to the technology required to support AI infrastructure. The Biden administration's AI Diffusion Rule would have imposed a worldwide licence requirement on advanced chips and tiered country access. These risks are only likely to increase in the current geopolitical climate.

It is still not clear who bears the stranded-asset risk, where data centres values are not supported by the market or the inherent currency risks of international expansion. Data centres are not filled overnight, and there is a risk that demand takes time to build beyond what initial project valuations may expect. Many of the obvious financial backers will be concerned more about currency risks, given that building and running costs are denominated in local currency, while investors’ balance sheets are in hard currency.

There is a wider backdrop of physical security and resilience needed. Data Centres share much similarity with oil and gas sites, where there is a well-trodden security path. They differ however in that the impacts of an incident are felt far beyond the location of the data centre, and the data centre itself is heavily reliant on country and continent level connectivity.

Major continental connectivity is via subsea cables. These have been thrown into sharp focus given their targeting by major countries such as Russia. Aside from deliberate damage or misuse, subsea cables can be vulnerable when they are near the seabed surface. For example, Recorded Future's Insikt Group logged 44 cable damage events across 32 locations between 2024 and mid-2025, around a quarter linked to anchor dragging.

• UK tax for HNW individuals has changed more significantly in the last two years than in the previous several decades.
• The detail of how HNW individuals plan for the UK has changed, but meaningful, effective planning remains available for those who engage with the new rules.
• The core reasons the UK attracts global wealth were never purely tax-driven, and those reasons still hold true today.
• Taken together, the UK remains one of the most compelling jurisdictions for internationally mobile wealth, even as the rules continue to evolve.

A period of unprecedented change

The HNW community and their advisers had perhaps grown somewhat used to a degree of continuity in the UK's tax treatment of international wealth. That continuity shifted materially in 2024, when significant personal tax reforms were introduced following the Autumn Budget 2024.

Over a short period, the UK has abolished the non-dom regime that had stood for over a century, rewritten the inheritance tax (IHT) rules in a way that fundamentally changes how IHT applies to individuals and trusts, including reductions to long-standing IHT reliefs relating to businesses and farms, abolished the protected trusts regime and introduced an entirely new personal tax regime for individuals arriving in the UK.

Since the Autumn Budget 2024, the focus on how the UK should tax private wealth has remained. Although the changes in the Autumn Budget 2025 were more limited in scope, they did for example introduce the "mansion tax" and brought subtle changes to anti-avoidance legislation. As we now approach the Autumn Budget 2026, there continues to be considerable discussion around concepts such as wealth taxes, exit taxes, and increasing CGT rates.

The HNW community has the means to relocate. But a move driven by tax considerations alone is rarely sustainable. What is needed in periods of uncertainty is measured advice that considers the full picture before any decisions are made.

Removal of the remittance basis (the "non-dom regime")

With effect from 6 April 2025, the remittance basis of taxation was abolished. The regime could be claimed by individuals with a non-UK domicile for up to 15 years without having to leave the UK. Individuals claiming the regime were not subject to UK tax on their foreign income and gains, provided they did not bring (remit) them to the UK. This allowed non-UK individuals to come to the UK for extended periods of time, without being subject to UK income tax or capital gains tax (CGT) on their worldwide income and gains.

The remittance basis had its complexities, requiring detailed and specialist advice to remain compliant. Its replacement regime, the Foreign Income and Gains regime (the FIG Regime), represents a significant shift in approach.

The most commonly noted difference between the two regimes is the length of the FIG Regime, at four years compared to the 15 that was available under the remittance basis. The FIG Regime should not, however, be considered the "remittance basis 2.0". It is a new regime with its own distinct framework. What is particularly noteworthy is that the initial four years under the FIG Regime are extremely favourable, indeed more so than the remittance basis. For clients who are coming to the UK for the first time (or for clients who have been out for 10 years), the FIG Regime opens up some genuinely unique planning opportunities.

Inheritance tax reforms

Domicile, which historically determined whether an individual's non-UK situs assets fell within the scope of UK IHT, has been removed as the relevant connecting factor. In its place, the UK has moved to a residence-based test, under which any individual will be within the full scope of IHT where they have been UK tax resident for 10 of the previous 20 tax years (making them a "long-term-resident" (LTR)).

Under the old rules, an individual could often maintain their non-UK domicile for extended periods of time, potentially indefinitely, notwithstanding that they were living in the UK. However, upon reaching 15 years of UK tax residence, an individual would become "UK deemed domiciled" regardless of their actual domicile. In that sense, the new rules have only shortened the position by five years, at least on the surface. The full picture, however, is more significant than a simple five-year shift, and to understand why, it is necessary to look at what has happened to trusts, which is where the old regime's real long-term planning value was found.

Before turning to trusts, however, it is worth noting that a winner of these changes is the UK-domiciled individual living abroad. Under the old rules, it could be challenging for such an individual to demonstrate that they had acquired a domicile of choice outside the UK, particularly if they retained ties to the UK. This meant that many UK-domiciled individuals overseas faced considerable uncertainty as to whether IHT would apply to their worldwide estates. Under the new rules, an individual who has continuously been non-UK tax resident for a sufficient period will fall outside the scope of IHT on their non-UK assets. Moreover, they may even be able to return to the UK for several years before being brought back within scope.

The taxation of trusts

These are among the most significant of the recent changes.

Under the old rules, whilst an individual was non-UK domiciled and provided they had not yet spent 15 years in the UK, with correct planning they could settle non-UK assets into trust and achieve the following outcomes:

• Excluded property trust: non-UK assets in the trust would be protected from IHT indefinitely. This enabled individuals to mitigate the impact of the UK deemed domiciled rule mentioned above; and
• Protected trust: the settlor of the trust would not be subject to income tax or CGT on the income or gains arising within the trust, even where they were a beneficiary of the trust (although they would be taxed if they received a distribution). This in effect allowed HNW individuals to "extend" the benefit of the remittance basis beyond 15 years, by adding all or most of their non-UK assets into an offshore trust shortly before year 15.

Both concepts have now been removed, meaning that once an individual is within the scope of UK tax (4 years for income tax and CGT, 10 years for IHT), a trust will not achieve the same outcomes. This has narrowed the range of scenarios where trusts are efficient for UK tax purposes. There are scenarios where trusts remain the most effective option, in particular where the settlor remains outside the UK but has beneficiaries living in the UK that are benefiting from the trust.

Planning ahead amid speculation

Beyond the substantive changes already enacted, the period preceding each fiscal event has itself become a relevant factor in planning. In advance of recent Budgets, there has been considerable commentary from the press, think tanks and, at times, from within government regarding potential further measures affecting private wealth.

Much of this commentary does not translate into policy. However, its recurrence has practical implications: planning increasingly needs to account not only for the rules as they stand, but also for the prospect of further reform. In practice, this can mean accelerating decisions that might otherwise have been taken at a more measured pace, and structures should be designed with sufficient flexibility to accommodate change.

How to plan for UK tax changes

It would be wrong to assume the tax reforms leave HNW individuals with no room to plan. On the contrary, the new landscape has given rise to a range of planning opportunities:

• for individuals who qualify for the FIG Regime, the initial four years provide unprecedented planning opportunities, particularly if they are anticipating significant liquidity events and can simultaneously cease tax residence in their home country;
• IHT planning strategies have opened up to UK-domiciled individuals living overseas in ways that were previously not available, including the ability to establish trusts for the benefit of family still based in the UK;
• corporate structures are increasingly being considered as alternatives to trusts, such as family investment companies or family limited partnerships; and
• the benefits of favourable double tax treaties are being explored more than ever, where previously advisers may not have had to consider them due to the remittance basis.

The practical implication for HNW individuals and their advisers is that static planning is no longer viable. Structures need to be reviewed regularly, built with flexibility in mind, and stress-tested against the possibility of further reform rather than designed solely around the rules in force today.

Why the UK still matters

Notwithstanding the planning opportunities outlined above, the scale of these changes naturally raises the question of whether the UK has become a less attractive place for HNW individuals to live. That has not been our experience. What has changed is not whether clients want to be here, but how they plan for it.

The reasons for that endurance are, for the most part, not tax reasons at all. HNW families continue to value the UK's world-class education, institutional stability, independent courts and reliable legal system, deep and sophisticated professional advisory ecosystem, and the quality of life, cultural richness and connectivity that London and the wider UK offer. Families thinking in generational terms tend to place particular weight on the UK's schools and universities, on a judiciary and rule of law that have evolved over centuries rather than been assembled to attract capital, and on a concentration of tax, legal and wealth planning expertise that few other jurisdictions can match at the same depth.

When viewed against a backdrop of conflict and political uncertainty in other parts of the world, these qualities matter more, not less. Tax rules can, and evidently do, change; institutional stability, legal certainty and quality of life are harder to replicate elsewhere, and far more difficult to rebuild once lost. It is this combination, rather than any single tax advantage, that continues to make the UK a jurisdiction where HNW families choose to live, invest and, increasingly, call home.

How Mishcon de Reya can help

The recent changes to the UK's tax framework for internationally mobile individuals and families require careful, forward-looking planning. Our Private Wealth and Tax team advises on all aspects of the new regime, including the FIG regime, inheritance tax exposure, trust and wealth structuring, succession planning and cross-border tax considerations. We work closely with individuals, families and family offices to review existing arrangements, identify planning opportunities and create flexible structures that remain effective as the rules continue to evolve.

Western sanctions required aircraft lessors to terminate aircraft leases with Russian airlines after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. But Russia blocked the return of the aircraft, leaving leasing companies unable to recover their planes while the airlines continued to use them.

The trial, starting on Monday 5 October, follows a ruling in June 2025 on separate policies bought by the lessors. The central issue in that trial was whether the aircraft had been permanently 'lost' — and, if so, why and when.

Chris said the biggest difference with the upcoming trial is that the policies arranged by the Russian airline operators and their international reinsurance are governed by Russian law. "It also involves a scenario where the operators have not made claims on the insurance because they are still in possession of and continue to use the aircraft," he said.

Chris commented that the claims under the operator policies arise from a similar pattern of facts to the claims under the lessor policies as they are linked to the loss of aircraft leased by lessors to Russian operators. But, unlike the earlier litigation over policies bought by the aircraft lessors, the upcoming trial will focus on policies arranged by the Russian airline operators and reinsured in the international market.

He also said that a crucial question is whether Russian law allows the lessors to recover for their separate losses. Reinsurers argue that, unlike under English law, the lessors' rights to claim depend on those of the operators. They also contend that the "cut-through" clauses in the policies — intended to allow claims directly against reinsurers — do not give the lessors an enforceable right to sue them.

The lessors face several hurdles under Russian law before the court can consider questions such as whether the aircraft have been lost for insurance purposes. "Other than being an interesting and high-stakes case it will have limited if any application to English law policies," commented Chris.

Read the article in full (subscription required)

Agenda

• 12:00 - 12:30 | Registration and Networking
• Welcome refreshments and an opportunity to connect with fellow attendees.
• 12:30 - 13:30 | Panel Discussion
• 13:30 - 13:45 | Q&A
• 13:45 - 14:00 | Closing Remarks
• Key takeaways from the discussion and final comments from the panel.

Additional speakers to be announced.

In brief

• Geopolitical shifts are reshaping the art market, influencing collectors’ decisions on buying, selling, lending, storage and legacy planning.
• Cross-border ownership and movement of art require careful consideration of sanctions, tax, provenance and competing legal frameworks.
• Art loans, exhibitions and cultural philanthropy call for early planning around political sensitivities, reputational risks, security and contractual protections.
• This article discusses the legal and practical considerations for collectors and cultural philanthropists operating in an uncertain geopolitical landscape.

Why geopolitics matters in the art world

Great art is often political. Consider the recently displayed Bayeux Tapestry: its impact works in both a historical and contemporary context. As you walk the 70 metres of the tapestry, you travel with the protagonists back and forth over the English Channel (or La Manche, depending on your preference), drawn into a world of court diplomacy, power shifts and ambition.

Though by no means certain, it is believed to have been embroidered by English women weavers and possibly commissioned by Bishop Odo of Bayeux (William’s half-brother) — an external projection of political might. Given the circumstances, a commission arrangement is likely to be too generous a description of the contractual terms.

On some readings, particularly in the margins, the content is earthy and subversive — with glimpses into a woman’s lot at that time. At its most obvious, the narrative is a trajectory leading to William’s conquest, with the final sections missing from the piece: a clear statement of rule to all those who could read the Latin, and a visual rendering for the majority who could not.

To this day the Tapestry continues to cause ripples- and the list under discussion is extensive- the act of the loan from France to the UK, its transportation, the fragility and conservation of the work, access and cost to the exhibition, the manner and place of display, the time you can spend in the gallery and what it could augur (or not) for movement on unresolved debates around other cultural property such as the Parthenon Marbles. All these points continue to be hotly debated in the wider press- the object has a magnified significance and becomes totemic of wider political tensions and issues.

Artworks can find themselves unwittingly caught up in political turbulence war and occupation as objects of value. Aside from targeted attacks on cultural sites, portable artworks and cultural artefacts continue to remain displaced and globally adrift. For example, looted objects from Nazi occupation continue to surface and often find themselves in the centre of title disputes, complicated by inter-family disputes, competing laws and jurisdictions, hindered by the elapse of time. We have worked with families seeking to recover artworks or sale proceeds, (and also good faith purchasers who have been caught up in these circumstances) where artefacts have appeared out of private collections in auction and on public display many years later.

How geopolitical events are changing the art market

Stasis in the flow of the business of art, or a sudden shift in market behaviour, is often an early warning sign for wider financial uncertainty triggered by the shock of world events. As part of the luxury asset sector, this is unsurprising.

How collectors are responding to political and economic uncertainty

On an individual level, collectors’ psychology and approach to buying or selling art may change. This can manifest in a number of ways:

• Stasis — neither buying nor selling artworks — which can be led by wider circumstances of capital flow, economic cooling or liquidity. This can feed an appetite to play the longer game, i.e. retaining art collections to assess any changes in value.
• Collectors see this “downtime” as an opportunity to loan artworks to institutions, which, in the right circumstances, can elevate the standing of the collection or artwork. Alternatively, artworks can be used as assets for security-backed lending. By doing this, collectors retain title in the artwork and release liquidity for other projects. There has been an increased appetite in this area.
• A change in approach to artworks to be acquired or sold by the collector — for example, some collectors working at the top level choose blue-chip artworks as safer investments. These are artworks with established due diligence histories and are more likely to maintain value, as opposed to less “safe” options where there have been contractions in the market. There have also been some reports of collectors pivoting to smaller domestic works or ceramics — objects that are more portable and, on a practical level, do not require significant storage arrangements.
• Favouring different jurisdictions for sale, purchase or exhibition due to concerns around security or political volatility that could lead to sanctions, tariffs, increased tax exposure, or delays in movement, which could also impact contractual arrangements.
• Greater thought being given to how artworks are legally held and where; life-time legacy planning; and the appetite for ownership among subsequent generations. This is particularly so where a collection is split across jurisdictions, which may be subject to different political regimes and/or climatic instability.
• Heightened utilisation of art storage facilities and use of freeports.

Art Market behaviour

Changes in collector behaviour, combined with world events and political decisions, have translated into how the art market operates. By way of example, in 2022, in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine and the Russia-Ukraine war, Russian Art Week saw Christie’s, Bonhams and Sotheby’s cancel Russian art sales due to the imposition of sanctions regulations — a direct relationship between external world events and the art market. More broadly, the art sector now operates within a regulatory framework and has to be careful to adhere to sanctions and anti-money laundering regulations. There has been a focus by authorities on enforcement, with some cases being brought, such as R v Oghenochuko Ojiri (discussed previously) and R v Hauser & Wirth Gallery Limited & Artay Rauchwerger Solomons Limited [2026] EWCR 7 (previously commented on here). 

The headwinds of Brexit and consequent trade hurdles were keenly felt across the UK art sector, which remained resilient but is now a leaner and tougher market. Spin-off commentary pitted Frieze London against Art Basel Paris on issues spanning quality, attendance and purchasing power, and parallels will probably still be drawn this year. In this ever-changing global environment, art fairs have had to be nimble. For example, facing regional conflict, Art Dubai reconfigured its offering in 2026 and downsized to have a greater focus on gallerists from the MENASA territories. In these ever-changing global circumstances, collectors and dealers have to adapt and navigate cross-border logistics and storage, shifting supply-chain models, admission protocols, tax and changing VAT regimes.

Art loans, exhibitions and cultural philanthropy in a changing world

Owners and collectors are often also culturally engaged within the art world as trustees, donors and lenders to institutions. As with the commercial world, changes in global politics can have an impact on board or funding dynamics, such as the imposition of sanctions, which has affected funding decisions. In times of political uncertainty, social media and instant public debate, those involved on either side of lending or borrowing art, and cultural philanthropy, also need to give thought to those arrangements and the broader impact they may have on either party.

On loans, prior to agreeing terms, it is wise for both lending and borrowing parties to consider the wider cultural context of an exhibition and whether there are any controversial elements that may need to be managed or factored into the terms of an agreement. For example, security, exhibition sponsors, and the inclusion of politically sensitive or highly prominent works that could be a target for attack or political demonstration all require a careful approach, alongside early discussions on insurance, location and physical protection. If an exhibition is due to tour internationally, could the artwork potentially be seized, and what laws or legal protections are in place?

Art, collecting and geopolitics: key takeaways

It can be no surprise that artwork and cultural property play an active role in our political and societal narrative. Political shifts and geopolitical events have a direct impact on the commercial and public business of art, affecting movement, value and appetite for market engagement.

How Mishcon de Reya can help

Our Art Law team advises collectors, family offices, institutions and cultural philanthropists on the full lifecycle of art ownership, from acquisition and lending through to succession and legacy planning.

We provide strategic advice on provenance, title disputes, sanctions, cross-border movement, tax, ownership structures, security-backed lending and reputational risks, helping clients navigate the legal and practical challenges that can arise in an increasingly complex geopolitical environment. We also support lenders, borrowers, trustees and donors in structuring exhibitions, loans and philanthropic arrangements that protect both cultural and commercial interests.

In brief

• Tax and policy changes - from the end of the UK’s non-dom regime to VAT on private school fees - are fundamentally reshaping how ultra-high-net-worth individuals and families approach property ownership in the UK.
• Rather than prompting an exodus, agents report the response has been one of adaptation: families are restructuring how they own, use and manage property across multiple jurisdictions.
• Prime central London is seeing a surge in American buyers in particular - as US citizens are already taxed on their worldwide income, the end of the UK’s non-dom regime carries less weight in their decision-making - alongside other international buyers drawn by values sitting well below their 2014 peak and the city’s enduring lifestyle appeal.
• The buying agents we spoke to report a significant increase in high-value rental searches, as UHNW clients increasingly treat renting as a strategic choice rather than a stopgap.
• There is also sharply rising demand for professional property management, as globally mobile clients require expert oversight of homes they occupy for only part of the year.

For most wealthy individuals, property is about far more than bricks and mortar. It is bound up with family life, financial planning, tax residency, schooling, security and legacy. But in recent years, a wave of political and fiscal change has made the question of where and how to own property considerably more complex.

The UK has been at the centre of much of this. The end of the non-domicile regime, rising stamp duty land tax, VAT on private school fees and a broader tightening of the tax landscape have all prompted wealthy families - both domestic and international - to think again about their relationship with property. Yet what we hear from leading buying agents is not a story of retreat. It is one of adaptation and, in many cases, renewed appetite.

Adapting, not abandoning

The introduction of VAT on private school fees is an example of how policy changes ripple through property decisions. Rather than driving families out of London, agents report it is prompting a reconfiguration of how they live.

“We are seeing families who might previously have moved out of London for schooling choosing to stay in the capital, where there is still a great choice of state schools, and buy a second home in the country instead,” says Mark Parkinson, Co-Founder & Managing Director of Middleton Advisors. “It means they can keep their London base and schooling, but still have a country house for weekends and holidays.”

Middleton Advisors reports a 60% increase in second-home buyers in the country, with 80% of those retaining London as their primary residence.

Middleton Advisors also reports that this adaptability extends to the way larger properties are owned and operated. Rising costs and changes to tax reliefs mean buyers are thinking about the economics of estate ownership much earlier in the process.

“In 2026, 40% of our estate enquiries have included a commercial element, compared with 30% five years ago,” Middleton Advisors notes. “Increasingly, clients are considering from the outset how a property will work for the family over the long term, rather than treating the commercial or operational aspects as something to address after acquisition.”

London through a value lens

While changes to the non-dom regime have altered the composition of demand in prime London, Camilla Dell, Managing Partner of Black Brick Property Solutions, explains that those taking a longer-term view are finding real opportunity.

Dell points to the numbers: “According to the latest Savills research, Prime Central London values are now 26.3% below their 2014 peak. For many of our clients, both domestic and international, this represents a compelling buying opportunity.”

Dell says buyers are very aware of tax, ownership structures and residency planning, but they are also being pragmatic. “Despite the negative headlines about ‘another billionaire leaving the UK’, we are busy transacting for our clients. For those taking a longer-term view, there is a growing sense that the combination of prices at a significant discount to their peak, increased negotiating opportunities and London’s enduring appeal as a global city makes the current market an attractive entry point.”

She adds: “Policy may be changing how clients buy and use London property, but it certainly hasn’t removed their appetite to own it.”

The rise of strategic renting

One of the most notable shifts in the UHNW property market is the growing role of the prime rental sector. What was once viewed as a temporary measure is now a deliberate, strategic choice for many international clients.

Black Brick has seen increased demand for its rental search service from overseas families relocating to London under the new FIG regime. “In many cases, these clients anticipate being here for three or four years and renting a high-quality family home makes considerably more sense than buying when taking the cost of stamp duty into account,” Dell explains. “Renting also gives clients time to consider if the area will work for them long-term should they decide to remain in the UK.”

Jo Eccles, founder and Managing Director of Eccord, echoes this trend. “We’ve seen a 20% increase in high-value rental searches over the last two years,” she says. “Rather than viewing renting as a short-term stopgap, it’s now often a deliberate choice and clients are approaching their rental searches with the same exacting requirements as they would have with a purchase.”

Eccles adds that this shift is also creating another option for property owners: “This is good news for high-end sellers who can't achieve the sale price they're aiming for and would consider renting out the property instead,” she notes.

Eccles highlights the role of stamp duty land tax in this shift. “To give context, our Property Search team are helping a hedge fund client acquire an £11m London home at the moment, and his Stamp Duty bill will be just over £1.2m. If he was a non-UK resident purchasing a second home, it would be £2m.”

The American wave

One trend stands out with particular clarity: the growing prominence of American buyers in the London market. It is a shift we are experiencing directly within our own Residential Property practice, where an increasing proportion of new instructions are from US clients acquiring a second home in London.

Middleton Advisors reports increased activity from US buyers, particularly in areas such as Notting Hill, the Cotswolds and Surrey. Black Brick notes strong demand from Americans for secure, highly serviced ‘lock-up-and-leave’ apartments, with branded and serviced developments such as The Whiteley proving particularly popular.

For Eccord, the numbers are striking. “Americans make up a significant proportion, accounting for approximately 40% of the buyers we’ve worked with this year - either buying London pied-à-terres or relocating here and putting down roots for work and children's schooling,” says Eccles. “As they are already subject to US tax on their worldwide income, local tax policies such as the end of the UK’s non-dom regime tend to carry less weight in their buying decisions. Political uncertainty in the US is driving demand, but lifestyle and safety are the leading reasons for our American clients buying here, as well as work-life balance, which can be much more forgiving and family-friendly, especially compared to the East Coast.”

Managing a multi-jurisdictional life

Underlying all of these trends is a deeper structural shift: wealthy individuals and families are increasingly spreading their time and assets across multiple countries, and their property portfolios reflect this.

“We are seeing tax policies, such as the UK’s inheritance tax, playing a much larger role in influencing our clients’ lifestyle choices and property decisions compared to ten years ago,” says Eccles. “High-net-worth individuals and families are being even more strategic with their tax residencies and are increasingly spreading their time and wealth across different jurisdictions. Among our own clients in prime central London, approximately 70% own two or three properties around the world.”

Eccles reports that this mobility has created surging demand for professional property management. “The number of properties managed by our Home Management team has doubled in the past three years,” she notes, “as homeowners seek to ensure that their properties are secure and proactively maintained during periods of absence, and insurance obligations are met with regular inspections.”

Middleton Advisors sums up the broader picture: “What we are seeing more broadly is a willingness to adapt - whether that means retaining a London base while adding a country home, responding to changes in the buyer landscape or finding a more sustainable way to own an estate - rather than making decisions based on any single policy change in isolation.”

How Mishcon de Reya can help

Navigating the intersection of property, tax and cross-border planning requires specialist advice. Our Residential Property team advises UHNW and HNW clients on all aspects of buying, selling and owning prime residential property in the UK, while our Private Wealth team works with families, founders and family offices to structure property ownership, manage residency and domicile issues, and advise on the tax implications of acquiring, holding and disposing of residential property in the UK and internationally. Together, they provide a seamless, integrated service covering the full lifecycle of a property decision.

Whether you are considering a purchase, restructuring existing holdings or reviewing your position in light of recent policy changes, we can help you make informed decisions that align with your wider wealth strategy.

To discuss any of the issues raised in this article, please contact Dee Aylward in our Residential Property team at  or Charlie Sosna in our Private Wealth & Tax team.

Ahead of African Energy Week 2026 in Cape Town, Joe Hancock and John Sendama consider how the settlement cycle may create a window for consensual resolution, and how asset intelligence can support lenders' existing security and enforcement strategies in those cases where a borrower or sponsor does not engage.

The end of forbearance

The withdrawal of forbearance has crystallised a long-deferred problem in energy lending into a recognised one. From 2020, regulatory forbearance allowed Nigerian banks to restructure loans to sectors including oil and gas and power without classifying them as impaired. Ghanaian lenders face a comparable adjustment under a fixed timetable. The Bank of Ghana has directed each regulated institution to reduce its ratio of non-performing loans (NPLs) to performing loans to no more than 10 per cent by the end of December 2026¹.

The rise in reported NPLs is best understood as the recognition of losses that originated elsewhere in the payment chain. In the power sector in particular, distress has often begun with distribution companies and state offtakers that were unable to pay generators and gas suppliers.

Why banks now need to resolve these loans

A combination of circumstances has given lenders a reason to resolve legacy energy exposures now rather than carry them. Regulators proactively wanted a resolution, to boost commercial bank solvency and increase market and institutional liquidity. Alongside this, institutional lenders and the World Bank wanted states to clear the backlog before they would extend lending to states, which in turn put pressure on resolution by either payment or restructuring, therefore to identify good and bad debts. Finally, states needed to have certainty of the performance of energy and utilities, to ensure businesses and other users could remain open, and to preserve their own state credit.

Previous direction, such as the Central Bank of Nigeria's circular of 13 June 2025, requires banks operating under forbearance to suspend dividend payments and defer bonuses to directors and senior management until the forbearance is fully exited and their capital adequacy and provisioning are independently verified.

In Ghana, institutions that exceed the 10 per cent ceiling after December 2026 must notify the regulator within 10 days and submit a board-approved reduction plan, and Graphic Online has reported that missing the target could lead to a ban on dividend and share bonus payments from January 2027.

Separating cannot pay from won't pay

A large proportion of these loans will be resolved without enforcement. Some are simply bad debts that cannot be realised. Many will be restructured on terms that reflect the borrower's realistic capacity to pay, and some power-sector exposures will be 'cured' by government settlement of arrears, equity relief or by absorption of the debt onto national balance sheets.

For recovery purposes the relevance of these payments is narrow. Once a borrower's arrears from the state have been settled the borrower can no longer attribute its default to government non-payment, and a continuing failure to pay becomes a clearer indication that the exposure should be treated as an enforcement case.

Where intelligence supports enforcement

The loans that remain after restructuring and settlement are likely to be those where the borrower or its sponsor can pay but has not, or where value has moved out of the obligor group.

It is probable that most energy exposures will be resolved consensually, through restructurings that reflect settlement receipts. Where a borrower or sponsor does not engage, however, the effectiveness of the lender's existing security and enforcement strategy may depend on an accurate picture of where value is now held, which in a cross-border group may extend to London, the UAE and offshore structures. Even where there is a settlement, they may be challenged as unfair/improper as corrupt restructurings.

For example, AMCON's managing director has stated that 350 obligors account for more than 80 per cent of the loans it acquired and that nearly 300 of them are in litigation, and recent high-value receiverships in the Nigerian oil and gas sector have been contested at length through the appellate courts. AMCON has itself stated that it expects its recovery partners to identify obligors' assets, "both pledged and unpledged".

Intelligence gathered through open-source research, corporate and property records, human sources and forensic review of transactional data can inform applications in England and Wales for worldwide freezing orders, Norwich Pharmacal and Bankers Trust disclosure against third parties, and the recognition and enforcement of Nigerian, Ghanaian or South African judgments, whether by registration under the applicable statutory regime or by action at common law. Used in this way, the investigation extends the reach of the lender's security and existing judgments; it does not replace them.

Borrower- and sponsor-side indicators

Settlement periods tend to create movement within obligor groups. Lenders may wish to monitor related-party transactions, particularly those involving newly formed entities or entities outside the obligor group; the transfer or assignment of receivables, bond allocations or settlement proceeds to accounts or companies outside the security net; encumbrances over assets that were not disclosed at the time of lending or restructuring; changes of control, directorship or beneficial ownership shortly before or after settlement payments; and the relocation of assets or management to other jurisdictions.

Practical points for lenders

• Settlement mapping: lenders may wish to identify, for each exposure, whether the borrower or its counterparties participate in a settlement programme, and the timing and form of expected receipts.
• Documentary coverage: it will be prudent to confirm that security and account arrangements capture settlement cash and any non-cash instruments allotted to the borrower.
• Early engagement: a settlement receipt is likely to present the most favourable moment for a consensual restructuring.
• Proportionate intelligence: where engagement stalls, a targeted asset review ahead of any enforcement step can help the lender decide which remedies to seek and in which jurisdictions. It is key to understand in advance, what is being proposed by States in terms of settlement, equity and changes to laws which prevent ongoing collection.

Questions lenders may wish to ask

• Has the obligor received, or does it expect to receive, settlement proceeds or bond allocations, and into which accounts, or the benefit of payment relief or settlement through another means?
• Have any receivables, assets or instruments moved outside the obligor group since the exposure was restructured?
• Are there assets or related entities in England, the UAE or offshore jurisdictions that could be reached through existing judgments or freezing relief?
• Has there been any change in control or beneficial ownership that the lender has not been notified of?

A recent Interpol report, the African Cyberthreat Assessment Report 2026¹, found that artificial intelligence is enabling 55 per cent of reported cybercrimes across Africa. Financial losses are mainly attributable to AI-facilitated scams, credential harvesting, and automated social-engineering campaigns.

The report covers January to December 2025 and draws on survey returns from law-enforcement agencies in 36 member countries, cross-referenced against data from security and payments companies. It states that 2025 marked the definitive transition from AI as a supporting tool to AI as the core operational driver of cybercrime in Africa.

The detail beneath those headline figures deserves a closer reading, particularly by companies headquartered outside Africa with operations on the continent. Read carefully, however, the report is also a record of how little is reliably known about individual incidents.

Mobile devices are central to victimisation

Mobile is the primary access point to the digital economy across Africa. Mobile devices are simultaneously the continent's main gateway to the internet and the financial system, and the path by which cybercriminals reach their victims.

Mobile money platforms are the dominant financial infrastructure and, as a result, the dominant fraud target. Mobile money fraud was the most prevalent scam type reported, cited by 97 per cent of countries responding to the Interpol member-country survey.

Mobile channels carry scams end to end, from initial lure to payout. Romance-baiting scams recruit victims via Facebook and move them to WhatsApp for video calls, where they are coerced into sending money. Sextortion operations similarly establish fake relationships on Facebook, move victims to WhatsApp, capture explicit content, and then demand payment via mainstream mobile-money wallets such as M-Pesa or MTN Mobile Money.

There are currently approximately 600 million 2G/3G users who will migrate from legacy networks as they are removed to smartphone-based access, further increasing the dominance of mobile as a platform.

AI-related incidents

Deepfakes were the most visible manifestation of the move towards AI-enabled cybercrime. They are a prevalent problem. Much reporting focuses on cases that involve a major fraud, target a well-known brand, or are carried out in an especially audacious way. However, in practice most of the observed use is against individuals and involves low-value frauds.

This is likely the result of three converging factors: widespread access to AI tools, mobile-centric access that puts deepfakes easily in front of victims, and digital payment mechanisms that allow money to be transferred quickly.

Tackling deepfakes requires those being impersonated to act; the burden cannot be left to victims alone, who can only report issues when they occur on social media or web platforms. Further, legislation is often behind the times with regard to this type of online crime globally, making prosecution difficult.

High-profile incidents

The Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (UETCL), the state-owned utility that runs the country's high-voltage network, is described as having suffered a suspected ransomware incident in August 2025. Qilin, a criminal group operating a ransomware-as-a-service model, listed UETCL as a victim that month and claimed to hold contracts, identity documents, and financial statements.

Cybercrime legislation is fragmented across Africa

The African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection, known as the Malabo Convention, was adopted in 2014. It came into force on 8 June 2023, once the minimum of 15 ratifications had been reached. At a continental level, there have been 20 ratifications among 55 member states.

Locally, however, the picture is better. UNCTAD, the UN trade and development body that tracks cyber-law adoption, reported in 2020 that 72 per cent of African states had cybercrime legislation, while a separate count published by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) put the figure at 46 states, or 85 per cent.

The issues now lie in international co-operation, given the cross-border nature of cybercrime. The Malabo Convention has been described as not going far enough to create an actionable framework to support this, and there are gaps in offences concerning online content that isn't caught by traditional laws for the physical world.

AI readiness in law enforcement agencies remains alarmingly low

Ninety-four per cent of responding agencies said they lacked adequate digital forensic tools; sixty-six per cent said ransomware victims were generally unable to recover encrypted files; and eighty-nine per cent named cross-border co-operation as the most significant barrier to a successful investigation.

South Africa leads in connectivity and incident reports

South African public bodies have continued to be targeted in 2026. In March, Statistics South Africa, the national statistics agency, confirmed a breach by a group calling itself XP95, which claimed to have exfiltrated 154 gigabytes of data and demanded US$100,000. The agency said it would not pay and reported the breach to the Information Regulator.

The same group had already claimed to have taken 3.8 terabytes of data from the Gauteng provincial government that month, which was then offered for sale.

Sophos, the security vendor, reported in September 2026 that South African respondents to its survey put the average cost of recovering from ransomware at more than ZAR 17 million, excluding any ransom, and that only 40 per cent had recovered within a week, the lowest proportion among the countries surveyed.

What will drive change

Three areas stand out.

• Without change at a continental level, there is a risk that the 900 million people currently offline in Africa will connect into a dangerous digital economy. Initiatives to support device affordability, digital skills, and relevant services must be underpinned by cybersecurity and fraud prevention.
• International co-operation will need to increase, with a focus on the countries that lead in connectivity. There is an opportunity for countries across the continent to take the lead in making Africa safe online.
• Law-enforcement capability will need to be strengthened, not just to deal with cybercrime, but to manage all crime where mobile devices or digital evidence feature.

Join us as we explore what's changing as early as January next year, what it means for your organisation, and how to prepare. 

Our seminar will be made up of two parts (with a short coffee break between sessions). 

Part 1: Unfair dismissal reform. From 1 January 2027, the qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection disappears and the compensation cap is lifted. For early stage and growing businesses, this is not just a compliance issue. A single contested dismissal can consume management time, cash and focus at a critical stage of growth, and the removal of the cap means managing exits will come with much higher stakes.  

Will Winch will take a practical look at what this means day to day: how dismissal risk changes once the qualifying period disappears, and how employers and HR leaders should adapt before problems escalate. 

Part 2: Other key changes. Unfair dismissal is only one part of a broader UK employment law reform programme. Our Employment Innovate team will look ahead to other significant changes coming into force over the next year so you don’t miss them, including: 

• Changes to the hire and fire regime, and their impact on amending employment terms; 
• Changes to how flexible working requests should be considered; 
• Significant changes affecting zero and low hours contracts; and 
• Informing employees of their right to join a trade union (and other trade union matters). 

This session will look at what these changes mean for your organisation, as well as identifying the practical steps you should be taking now, to prepare for the changes. 

eprivateclient surveyed more than 100 family law firms, with the objective of the programme being to identify, acknowledge, and showcase the leading family law firms.

Our firm's inclusion underscores the exceptional standard of counsel we offer to our clients.

Read the full rankings

Key takeaways

• Age assurance implementation triggers dual-regime compliance obligations under both the UK's Online Safety Act 2023 (the OSA) and the UK's data protection framework, consisting mainly of the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.
• The regulatory regimes under the OSA and data protection laws operate from different perspectives, so complying with one does not necessarily mean compliance with the other.
• Both regimes have extra-territorial effect and businesses outside the UK are potentially within scope, if their services are available to UK users and they have sufficient links to the UK.
• Facial age estimation is emerging as the developing market standard for age assurance.

Facial age estimation: the developing standard for age assurance

On 15 June 2026, the UK Government proposed a social media ban for under-16s that it plans to commence in early 2027.

This announcement is predicted to make the implementation of highly effective age assurance (HEAA) the top of many online services' compliance agendas. For platforms planning age verification or age estimation for the first time, the choice of tool now carries real regulatory risk. This article explains the compliance risks of choosing the wrong age assurance tool.

While there are many options for the implementation of HEAA, facial age estimation is emerging as the go-to market standard, given its ability to estimate a user's age without needing to establish their identity (and therefore reducing privacy risks to the user). Facial age estimation is also generally regarded as being a method that has lower friction for users than other types of HEAA, such as those that require the upload of government-issued ID documents. Facial recognition is not the same as facial age estimation and, by contrast, is designed to determine identity, not age, and is not, on its own, as effective a method of age assurance. Given the sensitivity of the personal data processed by any facial-based tool, HEAA implementation is likely to straddle two regulatory regimes: those for online safety and for data protection.

In the UK, these regimes are governed respectively by the OSA and by UK data protection law, in particular UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. Implementation of any form of HEAA is therefore likely to have to comply with both regimes. Similarly, the protection of children online is also regulated to a significant extent by both regimes, though from different perspectives, so any alternatives to these tools are also likely to be required to comply with both.

Online safety and HEAA

Part 3 of the OSA places duties on providers of regulated user-to-user (U2U) services (i.e., where content is generated, uploaded to, or shared on the service by a user, and may be encountered by another user or users of the service). In practice, this covers social media platforms, messaging apps, and other user-generated content services operating in the UK. These providers must assess whether children access their services and encounter illegal or harmful content.

Where that risk exists, Ofcom, the UK's online safety regulator, requires certain mitigations to be implemented to reduce this level of risk. The OSA also requires certain services (such as Part 5 pornography services) to implement HEAA to reduce the likelihood of children accessing such content. Other services, including some Part 3 services, while not required to implement such measures, are free to implement HEAA to reduce the regulatory and compliance burden posed by children accessing their services. Examples of such "other services" include online gaming platforms, dating apps, and discussion forums that carry a risk of children encountering age-inappropriate content even though HEAA is not mandated for them. While Ofcom does not prescribe specific technologies that services must use to implement HEAA, it does require that HEAA tools comply with certain requirements, including that the tools must be technically accurate, robust, reliable, and fair.

Data protection and age assurance

The Information Commission's Office (ICO), the UK's data protection regulator, has developed a comprehensive framework for children's data protection, anchored in the Age Appropriate Design Code (also known as the Children's Code), which sets out 15 standards that online services likely to be accessed by children must meet. These include requirements to configure default privacy settings to high, limit data collection to what is strictly necessary, and ensure that children's data is not used for profiling or targeted advertising by default. Following Ofcom's HEAA guidance, the ICO has updated its dedicated age assurance guidance making clear that any age assurance tool, whether or not it is highly effective under Ofcom's guidance, must itself comply with data protection principles. In particular, it requires that the implementation of any age assurance is proportionate, in line with data protection principles such as data minimisation, and does not expose individuals to new data risks.

A dual-regime compliance approach to HEAA

The Joint Statement on Age Assurance by Ofcom and the ICO clarifies how organisations must satisfy both the OSA and data protection regulatory regimes simultaneously when planning to implement age assurance measures. The Joint Statement confirms that neither regulator considers the following to be an effective method of preventing underage access:

• self-declaration of age
• age verification through online payment methods (debit cards can be issued to under 18s)
• contractual restrictions on the age of users to receive services

The regulators suggest that organisations should instead deploy other technologies such as facial age estimation, credit card checks, open banking, digital identity, mobile-network operator age checks, email-based age estimation, or one-time photo matching.

There is, however, a structural tension between Ofcom's requirements for HEAA and the ICO's focus on upholding the fundamental principles of data protection for all users, not just children. While Ofcom's HEAA framework is performance-based and focuses on the degree to which the tool correctly determines age, reliably and without bias, the ICO's requirements are design-based, focusing on issues such as how much data the tool processes, for what purpose, and for how long. A HEAA tool involving facial age estimation / facial recognition can easily satisfy one regime's requirements and fail the other.

Notably, the ICO goes further than Ofcom by emphasising that age assurance measures must comply with the "data minimisation" principle. This means organisations must collect and process only the personal data strictly necessary to confirm whether a user meets the relevant age threshold.

An approach that collects more data than required, even if it satisfies Ofcom's HEAA criteria, will not be compliant with UK data protection law. This point is reiterated in the Joint Statement where the ICO and Ofcom state that:

"You can process personal data for age assurance, as long as the method you use is necessary, proportionate to your risks and complies with data protection principles." (emphasis added)

It is not yet clear how the ICO will enforce the data protection principles in the deployment of Ofcom-compliant HEAA. When the ICO brought enforcement proceedings in 2024 in relation to deployment of facial recognition technology (albeit not in an online setting), its focus was on the necessity and proportionality of collecting biometric data for employee monitoring purposes. The ICO found that insufficient attention had been paid to whether there had been alternative means of achieving the same outcome. As a result, the use of facial recognition was held not to be a targeted and proportionate way of achieving the purpose and the controller in question was ordered to stop using facial recognition. With the media and regulatory focus on children and digital ID, it is likely that compliance with the necessity and proportionality principles will continue to be a focus for the ICO.

What does this mean for facial age estimation as HEAA?

Before considering how the regulatory regimes apply to facial age estimation, it is worth noting a fundamental distinction between facial age estimation and facial recognition solutions:

• Facial recognition: This is used to determine a user's identity by taking biometric identifiers and comparing them against an existing record, whether this is an identity document or an existing database. Such processing of biometric data which is used to identify an individual is special category data under the UK GDPR and therefore requires that a specific Article 9 condition is met, along with an appropriate lawful basis under Article 6.
• Facial age estimation: This is used to determine a user's age only, using tools to analyse facial features in order to predict someone's age. It is likely that this will only require a lawful basis under Article 6 of the UK GDPR, as long as biometric data is not processed specifically to identify the individual.

By contrast with facial age estimation, some facial recognition tools are likely to be designated as HEAA under Ofcom's guidance, because they can prove that they are technically accurate and robust. However, the processing and retention of biometric data in this manner is exactly what the data minimisation and storage limitation principles of the data protection regime caution against, making facial recognition a less attractive option than facial age estimation for most services.

Bias in facial recognition tools is a recognised regulatory concern. Some tools may have been trained on biased datasets, resulting in a tool which treats individuals of a particular gender or race differently from others. For example, the Law Society's 2019 report on Algorithms in the Criminal Justice System noted that "commercially available facial recognition software has been shown to have error rates which differ based on demographic. Such systems have been demonstrated to perform poorly on Black individuals, and in particular on Black women". In this case, it is likely that the tool would fail to satisfy the fairness requirements under both regimes.

If a facial age estimation tool can achieve Ofcom's HEAA standard without creating a persistent biometric template or enabling actual identity verification, it is more likely to be able to satisfy the requirements of both regimes in relation to the degree of technical accuracy and data minimisation.

However, every tool must be carefully considered, as it is possible that a facial age estimation tool might still fail to satisfy the fairness requirements of the data protection regime (and also, potentially, the Equality Act 2010), where it is unable to assess all individuals on an equally accurate basis regardless of gender or race.

Assessing the appropriateness of a tool to a specific service and its users is therefore central to ensuring compliance with both regimes. While some tools may be marketed as a "one-stop-shop" solution, the reality is that some services may be able to deploy a mix of less invasive tools to achieve a compliant solution, without deploying more invasive ones like facial recognition.

Is facial age estimation GDPR compliant?

Facial age estimation can be GDPR compliant, but compliance depends on how the tool is built and deployed, not on the technology label alone. A facial age estimation tool is more likely to meet UK GDPR requirements where it: (1) estimates age only, without creating a persistent biometric template or verifying identity; (2) processes no more personal data than necessary to confirm the relevant age threshold; (3) is tested for accuracy across different genders and ethnicities; and (4) is backed by a Data Protection Impact Assessment and a clear transparency notice. A tool that meets Ofcom's HEAA standard will not automatically satisfy the ICO's data protection requirements, so each tool needs to be assessed against both regimes separately.

HEAA in practice

So, what steps should online services take to comply with both the Online Safety Act and UK GDPR when implementing age assurance? In short: map the service against both regimes, select a tool proportionate to the data it needs to collect, document the decision, and monitor regulatory updates. Each of these steps is set out below.

Both the OSA and UK data protection law should be considered at every stage of the age assurance design process, from identifying the purpose for implementation and selecting an appropriate solution, through to considerations relating to data retention and transparency for users.

Services that may be in scope need to be prepared to comply with the proposed under-16 ban, along with regulatory obligations. We suggest taking at least the following steps:

• Assess whether services are in scope: map the service against the OSA's U2U and search services definitions, and against the scope of the proposed under-16 ban.
• Select the appropriate tool for service's risk profile: consider whether facial age estimation can meet the HEAA standard before reaching for full facial recognition. Facial age estimation is faster, less data-intensive, and less likely to engage Article 9 of the UK GDPR, but accuracy at the specific age margin that matters should be tested, with a fallback for borderline cases.
• Document compliance: commission a Data Protection Impact Assessment before procurement of any services, ensure the transparency notice is clear and accessible, and give users a mechanism to challenge an incorrect age determination. OSA record-keeping duties also require a written record of age assurance methods and how data protection has been considered.
• Watch out for Ofcom's October 2026 update: Ofcom is expected imminently to publish its assessment of what constitutes HEAA for the under-16 ban, which is expected to address facial age estimation specifically. Organisations should build flexibility into their age assurance plans now.

EU KIDS Act and age assurance

The practical steps set out above are focused on the UK's dual-regime framework under the OSA and UK data protection law. But the EU has also recently turned its attention to children's online safety, with the European Commission adopting the EU Keeping Internet Digital Spaces Accountable and Trustworthy Act (EU KIDS Act) as a proposal on 17 September 2026. The EU KIDS Act is the EU's answer to age verification regulation, and platforms operating across both the UK and EU will need to track both frameworks. This EU KIDS Act sets out proposed EU-wide measures including:

• A requirement that users prove that they are above the minimum age of 15 to be able to open their own social media accounts;
• Access to social media for 13- to 15-year-olds to be limited to a "mini" account connected to their guardian's own account, with access further limited to one hour per day; and
• A prohibition on platforms allowing children under 13 to access social media.

The proposal requires that social media platforms make use of privacy-preserving age assurance methods, raising similar questions to those being considered in the UK around how online safety objectives interact with data protection obligations under EU GDPR. Platforms operating in both the UK and the EU will need to consider both regimes and assess what appropriate age assurance is for their service.

In summary

Online services planning age assurance for UK users should treat the OSA and UK GDPR as two separate tests, not one. Facial age estimation is currently the technology best placed to satisfy both, provided it is deployed without creating a persistent biometric record and with proper data protection documentation in place. Facial recognition remains available for services that need identity verification, but it carries a higher data protection burden and should be chosen deliberately, not by default. Mishcon de Reya's Online Safety and Data Protection teams advise on exactly this kind of dual-regime assessment, from tool selection through to Data Protection Impact Assessments and regulatory engagement.

How can Mishcon de Reya help?

Mishcon de Reya's Online Safety team and Data Protection team advise digital platforms, technology companies, and businesses on their obligations under the OSA and data protection in the UK, including on age assurance strategy, HEAA tool selection, and compliance with both regulatory regimes. Our lawyers regularly advise clients on choosing between facial age estimation, facial recognition, and other age verification methods, and on documenting that choice for Ofcom and the ICO. For questions about how to comply, please get in touch with our team.