Ellis was hanged in July 1955 after being convicted of murdering her partner, David Blakely, in north London. She was the last woman in Britain to be hanged, and her family have long campaigned for a pardon.

Her family, supported pro bono by law firm Mishcon de Reya, argued that evidence of the abuse she suffered at the hands of Blakely was not properly considered at trial. Victor Mishcon was brought in to fight for a last minute reprieve for Ellis during her lifetime, as such, this is a full circle moment for the firm.

Katy Colton, Partner and Head of Politics and Law, said: "The granting of a posthumous conditional pardon to Ruth Ellis is a landmark moment — for her family, for the British justice system, and for every victim of domestic abuse failed by the courts.

"Mishcon de Reya is proud to have acted for Ruth's grandchildren, alongside our colleagues at Matrix Chambers. This application had to be brought. The evidence was compelling, and we are pleased the Justice Secretary has recommended His Majesty grant Ruth Ellis a posthumous conditional pardon.

"Today's decision does not only right a wrong done over seventy years ago. It sends a clear signal about the aspirations of our justice system. Violence against women and girls remains a national emergency. The Government's public acknowledgement that the abuse Ruth Ellis endured should have impacted the outcome of her case reflects an important principle: that survivors of domestic abuse today deserve a justice system that properly understands and recognises the impact of that abuse.

"Our founder, Victor Mishcon, who fought to secure a last-minute reprieve for Ruth, would be immensely proud. We congratulate Ruth's grandchildren on their tenacity and courage in pursuing this application. It has been a privilege to stand alongside them as a firm."

Grace Houghton, Associate, Mishcon de Reya LLP, Solicitor for the Grandchildren said: "The granting of a posthumous conditional pardon for Ruth Ellis is both legally significant and historically important.

"The application demonstrated, on the evidence, that Ruth suffered from what is now understood as battered woman syndrome, and that the cumulative impact of the abuse she sustained would, under the law as it stands today, have supported defences of both diminished responsibility and loss of control. Had Ruth Ellis been tried just two years later, following the passage of the Homicide Act 1957, the outcome would have been very different.

"The Justice Secretary has exercised the Royal Prerogative of Mercy on a principled basis: that legal and social developments since 1955 make clear that the punishment imposed on Ruth was unjust.

"Today's pardon is a reminder that the law must reflect on its own history - and, where it finds injustice, must acknowledge those failings. We are honoured to have acted for Ruth's family in securing this outcome, and we hope they can now begin to heal from the generational trauma that has haunted them for decades."

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.

• R v Osmond is the first reported case which considers the elements of the tipping off offence under Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ('POCA 2002').
• The judgment is a helpful clarification – and confirmation – of the scope of the offence for individuals and businesses in the regulated sector who may become aware of investigations into their clients.
• Although the judgment leaves open the prospect that a tipping off offence may not be committed where the investigation is already in the public domain, this will be highly fact specific.
• The judgment also confirms that information leading to a tipping off offence is not restricted to information received in the course of providing a regulated service to a client; it is enough that information is received by the individual in their capacity as "a person carrying on business in the regulated sector".

The offence of "tipping off"

Section 333A(3) of POCA 2002 provides that a person commits an offence if:

1. The person discloses that an investigation into allegations of an offence under Part 7 of POCA 2002 is being contemplated or is being carried out;
2. The disclosure is likely to prejudice the investigation; and
3. The information which the disclosure is based on came to the person in the course of a business in the regulated sector.

In regard to (b), it is not necessary that the disclosure actually prejudices the investigation, but only that prejudice is "likely". It is also not a defence if no prejudice is caused by the disclosure.

In regard to (c), the requirement is that information is obtained in the "regulated sector". For the purpose of R v Osmond, the regulated conduct was "the participation in financial or real property transactions", which explicitly includes "the buying and selling of real property […] or business entities".

The mental element required for a tipping off offence is found in section 333D(4): a person does not commit a tipping off offence if the person "does not know or suspect that the disclosure is likely to have the effect mentioned in section 333A(3)(b)", ie. of prejudicing the relevant investigation.

Case background

Mr William Osmond was the senior partner of a law firm, Osmond and Osmond Solicitors. In 2013, Mr Osmond acted for his long-standing client, Mr James Ramsay, when he provided a £4 million loan, which the borrower put towards a purchase of an £8 million residential property in Mayfair. As Mr Ramsay routed this loan through an offshore company, Mr Osmond dealt with the purchase of a new "off-the-shelf" British Virgin Islands company through which to grant the loan. Mr Osmond also prepared the relevant loan documentation. The £4 million was then paid into Mr Osmond's client account and transferred onwards to the borrower and purchaser of the residential property.

Mr Ramsay's £4 million loan came to the attention of the Serious Fraud Office ('SFO') during its investigation into a company called Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Limited ('ENRC'). This investigation began in 2013 and was prompted by allegations of fraud, corruption and money laundering. During the SFO's investigation, it transpired that the recipient of Mr Ramsay's loan and purchaser of the £8 million Mayfair property was the wife of a senior ENRC official and daughter of one of ENRC's founders.

On 7 June 2018, Mr Osmond received a call from an SFO investigator regarding the Mayfair property purchase; Mr Osmond was requested to provide documents related to the loan transaction, details of his client relationship with Mr Ramsay and details of the explanation given by Mr Ramsay for contributing to the borrower's purchase price. The SFO investigator followed up with Mr Osmond in writing on 15 June 2018, sharing a formal notice under the Criminal Justice Act 1987 (CJA 1987), with more detailed requests and questions which could assist the ENRC investigation. Unbeknownst to the SFO investigator, Mr Osmond had at this stage already telephoned Mr Ramsay on 8 June 2018 about the SFO's enquiries and travelled to Malta (Mr Ramsay's country of residence) on 14 June 2018 and returned to the UK the following day.

At first instance, Mr Osmond was also found guilty of forgery under section 1 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 ('F&CA 1981'). This arose because, when asked by the SFO investigator to provide a copy of the engagement letter provided to Mr Ramsay for the loan transaction, Mr Osmond created a false letter of engagement back-dated to five years prior – 24 October 2013 – and provided this to the SFO. On the contrary, no such engagement letter existed between Mr Osmond and Mr Ramsay at the relevant time.

Trial

The issues at trial in Mr Osmond's case broadly fell under three categories:

• Investigation in public domain: At first instance, an argument was made on Mr Osmond's behalf that his disclosure of information related to the SFO's enquiries was not capable of prejudicing the investigation because the ENRC investigation was already widely publicised and inevitably already known to Mr Ramsay (and anyone connected with ENRC). The prosecution's position was that the "investigation" capable of being prejudiced was not the entire ENRC investigation, but rather a separate investigation in relation to the Mayfair property purchase which Mr Ramsay provided financing for.
  
  HHJ Trowler KC made a pre-trial ruling in favour of the prosecution, finding that "there is no sensible basis on which it can be argued that a person cannot commit the offence of 'tipping off' simply because the broader investigation is already
  known to the relevant parties".
   
• Context of receiving information: An argument was also made at first instance that the information about the investigation into the property purchase was not received by Mr Osmond "in the course of his business in the regulated sector" – rather, he had received information about an already well-known investigation from a prosecuting authority exercising its powers under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 ('CJA 1987'). The prosecution's position was that Mr Osmond received the information in the course of his business as a lawyer, being a business in the regulated sector, and asked questions in his capacity as Mr Ramsay's solicitor.
  
  On this point, HHJ Trowler KC made a pre-trial ruling in favour of the prosecution's position. To the question whether the information came to Mr Osmond in the course of a business in the regulated sector, she ruled: "in my view […] the only possible answer to this question is 'yes'."
   
• Duty of recipient of forged letter: With regards to the forgery offence, Mr Osmond's counsel argued that the engagement letter was not received by the SFO investigator "in connection with his performance of any duty" (a requirement of the offence under section 10 of the F&CA 1981); rather, the SFO had a power to carry out an investigation but no duty to do so. This was rejected by the Judge at first instance on the basis that the SFO investigator had a duty to his employer to carry out the investigation.

In relation to the tipping off offence, the jury were then directed that a tipping off offence will have occurred if the jury was sure that: (i) Mr Osmond disclosed an SFO investigation into the Mayfair property purchase to Mr Ramsay; (ii) the disclosure was likely to prejudice the investigation; (iii) Mr Osmond knew or suspected prejudice was likely to be caused; and (iv) the information related to the disclosure was likely to have the prejudicial effect in question.

The jury convicted Mr Osmond on both counts of tipping off and forgery. He was later sentenced to nine months' imprisonment suspended for 18 months.

Appeal

The application for leave to appeal on Mr Osmond's behalf argued that the following matters for the jury were unfairly narrowed by HHJ Trowler KC:

1. The information had come to Mr Osmond from the prosecuting authority – not in the course of a business in the regulated sector. This was contrary to the purpose of Part 7 of POCA 2002, which was intended to criminalise a situation where Mr Osmond himself made a report to a designated authority and thereafter informed Mr Ramsay of his own report.
2. It was for the jury to decide what the SFO investigation was and whether the Mayfair property purchase investigation was merely a part of the already well-known ENRC investigation. Had the jury found that the property purchase investigation was part of the wider ENRC investigation, then the jury's decision as to the likelihood of prejudice arising as a result of the investigation would have been different.

Regarding (a), the Court of Appeal found that "there is no reason why an investigation should not be capable of being the subject of a disclosure under section 333A(3) even if that investigation is also an aspect of (or strand within) a wider investigation"; (a) therefore did not give rise to any issue of fact for the jury. Regarding (b), the Court of Appeal found that Mr Osmond was "undoubtedly" a business in the regulated sector and the source of the information given to Mr Osmond was immaterial to the tipping off offence:

"51. The fact that the information about the SFO investigation came from the SFO does not assist the defence. That is precisely what paragraph (c) of subsection (3) is directed towards. Its objective is to prevent a person carrying on business in the regulated sector from tipping off their client that an investigation by the SFO or other agency is under way. The subsection is not concerned with the source of the information (which will typically be the SFO or other investigating agency) but with the capacity in which the defendant receives it."

In relation to the forgery conviction, the Court of Appeal also rejected an argument on Mr Osmond's behalf that it should have been open to the jury to conclude that the SFO investigator was not performing any relevant duty when he received the engagement letter.

Accordingly, the Court refused leave to appeal, but, as the case represented the first occasion the tipping off provisions had been considered by the Court of Appeal, gave leave for the judgment to be cited and reported. 

Key observations

The tipping off offence in the regulated sector under s.333A POCA, together with the broader offence of prejudicing a money laundering investigation under s.342 POCA, has long created a difficult tension for professionals who have submitted a Defence Against Money Laundering (DAML) request or Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) and are subsequently unable to explain the resulting delay to their client. The judgment in R v Osmond serves to underscore the importance of the risks associated with disclosure to a client in the context of a potential money laundering investigation.

Although individuals in regulated sectors may take comfort from the finding in the judgment that a tipping off offence may not be committed where the investigation is already in the public domain, this should be approached with caution. The reality of money laundering investigations is that it will seldom be possible for any third party to be confident as to the scope or substance of the investigation, particularly in complex or long-running investigations with multiple strands.

In practice, the safest course remains to assume that any disclosure of an investigation to a client carries a risk of prejudice, however public the wider matter may appear, and to seek advice before communicating with a client whose conduct is under scrutiny.

Contacts

If you have any questions about the UK SAR regime or would like to speak to someone about the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, please do not hesitate to contact our White Collar Crime & Investigations team. 

Pixel-Flo, a University of Sheffield spin-out, is developing technology to address a key challenge in the manufacture of MicroLED displays. Its proprietary Continuous-Flow Mass Transfer platform is designed to improve the scalability and cost-efficiency of MicroLED production, an area that has traditionally been limited by the constraints of conventional mass transfer methods. 

MicroLED is widely regarded as a next-generation display technology, offering improved brightness and efficiency compared with traditional display formats. However, adoption at scale has been held back by manufacturing complexity and cost. Pixel-Flo’s technology is intended to support more efficient production and help make MicroLED products more commercially viable across a wider range of applications. 

Founded by Dr Rick Smith, Dr Suneal Ghataora and Simon Jones, the company builds on research developed at the University of Sheffield, combined with significant commercial experience in the display industry. 

The new funding will support Pixel-Flo’s transition from laboratory development towards industrial scale-up, including further team growth, expansion into new lab and office space, and early customer engagement in key international markets. 

Rick Smith, CEO and Co-founder of Pixel-Flo commented: "I would like to thank the Mishcon team for supporting us through the spin out process and helping us to close this milestone funding round. I look forward to continuing our great work with Attilio, Emma and the wider Mishcon team as we focus on expanding our team and demonstrating our unique technology to new international markets." 

Attilio Leccisotti, Partner at Mishcon de Reya, commented: “We are delighted to have supported Rick and the team on this seed funding round. The potential of Pixel-Flo was clear from as early as our first meeting during the NG Studios venture building programme so it is great to see that this international investor syndicate has been able to provide meaningful backing at this early stage.”

This edition covers key upcoming legal developments in the retail sector. The Employment Rights Act continues its phased implementation, with fire and rehire restrictions and the new unfair dismissal regime both confirmed for January 2027, and Employment Tribunal time limits doubling to 6 months from 1 October 2026. The Crime and Policing Act 2026, which received Royal Assent in April 2026, creates a standalone offence of assaulting a retail worker and removes the £200 threshold for shop theft. In the EU, the ban on destroying unsold apparel, clothing accessories and footwear under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation took effect on 19 July 2026 for large enterprises, and the Right to Repair Directive applies in EU Member States on 31 July 2026. The Government has also introduced the Commercial Payments Bill, which proposes a hard cap of 60 days on payment terms and makes the statutory interest rate on late payments mandatory.

Our Retail Group is here to support you in navigating these developments and ensuring your business remains compliant and competitive.

For more information please get in touch with Sally Britton or Lewis Cohen. 

• The European Commission has published the final version of its Guidelines on the transparency obligations under the EU AI Act, which largely apply from 2 August 2026. This contains a number of important clarifications and updates compared to the draft version issued in May.
• In particular, the finalised Guidelines address key issues of scope, such as the territorial reach of the obligations, the cumulative application of multiple obligations to a single AI system, and which parties (providers, deployers, intermediaries and open-source providers) are caught, with specific wording directed at AI agents.
• Providers and deployers of in-scope AI systems should pay close attention to the updated guidance on transparency for interactive AI systems, machine-readable marking and detection of AI-generated content, and labelling of deepfakes. This includes the Commission's strict approach to what constitutes a deepfake, and the limited scope of the exception for obvious AI interactions.

The European Commission has published the final version of its Guidelines on the implementation of the transparency obligations for certain AI systems under the EU AI Act. We discussed the four categories of transparency obligation under the Act in our recent article, in which we also explored the draft version of the Guidelines published in May, as well as the Code of Practice issued by the Commission (which has now also been approved). In this article, we highlight some of the key additions in the updated Guidance.

Scope

The Guidelines provide further guidance on the territorial reach of the Act's transparency provisions:

• Providers outside the EU are subject to the Act if the output of their AI system is used in the EU. However, any incidental, unforeseeable or unauthorised downstream use should not, on its own, trigger application of the obligation (subject to assessment by the relevant market surveillance authority).
• In relation to a deployer outside the EU, the transparency obligation will apply where it foresees dissemination and use of the AI outputs in the EU (e.g., by posting deepfakes on the internet), but not where the content reaches EU audiences through unforeseeable channels outside of its control.

The Guidelines also deal with the situation where an AI system engages more than one of the transparency obligations, confirming that the obligations apply cumulatively. So, for example, if an AI system generates images as part of a direct interaction with a natural person, that would mean the provider must engage with the obligations under both Art 50(1) and (2); and, if it can also be used to generate images that are deepfakes, the deployer would need to comply with its obligations under Art 50(4). Similarly, an operator may fulfil the role of provider and deployer concurrently.

Of interest to advertisers, the Guidelines note that a company that merely commissions an advertising agency to produce an advert, without taking decisions and exercising control over how the agency uses AI, would not be a deployer. Meanwhile, whilst intermediaries (such as hosting services) are not caught by the Act, the Guidelines "strongly encourage" them to preserve marking and labelling, and to implement measures to enable natural persons to detect AI-generated or manipulated content.

Transparency for interactive AI systems (Art 50(1))

Providers of AI systems directly interacting with natural persons must design and develop their systems so that those persons are informed that they are interacting with an AI system. There is an exception to the disclosure requirement for obvious interactions with an AI system. The Guidelines note that this exception must be interpreted restrictively, with a number of factors to take into account. For example, if the AI system may be accessed by the general public or consumers that include vulnerable persons for whom the interaction is less obvious, the exception cannot be relied upon to protect those users. Further, the Guidelines caution that it is becoming increasingly hard for natural persons to identify whether an interaction is with an AI system or a human. Therefore, the obviousness exception should be limited to those cases where there is "almost no doubt left" as to the nature of the interaction for an average person in the targeted and reasonably foreseeable audience.

Obvious interactions with an AI system include AI-powered code assistance and review, ambient-AI embedded in home appliances and interactions with AI-enabled Non-Playable Characters (NPCs), provided the nature of the game makes it clear that no other natural person can participate and interact with the user and the AI nature of the interaction is also obvious for all users. Meanwhile, non-obvious interactions include AI-powered companion pets.

Further specific guidance is also given in the update on the application of the requirements to AI agents where they are capable of interacting with natural persons (including those instructing them) when executing tasks. They must be designed and developed in such a way that they disclose both their artificial nature and the person on whose behalf they are acting, including where multi-agent architectures are used. Where it is not possible for the provider of the agent to identify in advance that there will be direct interaction, the agent should be designed at the architecture level and instructed to disclose itself as such in every situation where it is reasonably likely that it may interact with a natural person.

As for the nature of the disclosure under Art 50(1), the Guidelines provide information on its format and substance. In most cases, a single, prominent notification before the first interaction of the AI system with a particular natural person will likely suffice. However, in certain riskier situations, periodic reminders and context-aware disclosure are likely to be necessary, particularly where the system interacts with vulnerable persons.

Marking and detection of AI-generated or manipulated content (Art 50(2))

Providers of AI systems generating synthetic content are required to implement solutions that enable machine-readable marking and detection of their systems' outputs. The updated Guidelines provide more detail on how this will apply in relation to AI agents, namely where the agent's action leads to AI-generated or manipulated content that is perceptible to natural persons. However, intermediate processing steps by the agent would not be in scope of the obligation.

The Guidelines also provide further clarification on the marking and detection obligations and how they can be met in practice. They set out examples of standard editing and minor alterations that will be excepted, in contrast to semantic changes that will require marking.

Emotion recognition systems and biometric categorisation systems (Art 50(3))

The Act imposes an obligation on deployers of such systems to inform natural persons who are exposed to them, unless an exception applies. The updated Guidelines contain limited changes in relation to the guidance on this obligation.

Labelling of deepfakes and certain text publications (Art 50(4))

Deployers of generative AI systems must make clear and distinguishable disclosures of (1) deepfakes and (2) AI-generated or manipulated text that is published with the purpose of informing the public on matters of public interest.

A 'deepfake' is defined in the Act as an "AI-generated or manipulated image, audio or video content that resembles existing persons, objects, places, entities or events and would falsely appear to a person to be authentic or truthful". The Guidelines underscore that it is sufficient that someone or something could plausibly have existed. Therefore, digital replicas of real persons, realistic AI-generated human avatars or personas, and personal characteristics will be caught. Whether content will falsely appear to be authentic or truthful must be assessed as a whole. It is an objective assessment (i.e., the deployer's intention is irrelevant), taking into account the level of resemblance, the potential substantive message, the intended and foreseeable deployment contexts, the environment in which the content is presented, and the intended and reasonably foreseeable audience.

Taking the film industry as a case in point, the Guidelines give the following examples of what would be considered to be, and not be, a deepfake:

AI-generation or manipulation of background scenes, special effects, or technical pre- and post-processing are unlikely to make content falsely appear to be authentic or truthful.

However, using AI to generate or manipulate essential elements that impact audience perception is likely to do so (e.g., fully AI-generated actors digital replicas of real or deceased actors, de-aging etc). Specifically, the Guidelines note that a high degree of photorealism renders it more likely that such content should be considered a deepfake.

As for the attenuated labelling requirement where deepfakes are used in an artistic etc context, the Guidelines stipulate a strict interpretation. Where a deepfake combines both informative and creative elements, the informative character should always prevail and require compliance with the labelling requirements.

Timing and enforcement

The transparency obligations start to apply from 2 August 2026, other than the detection/marking obligation on providers for AI systems put on the market before that date, which will kick in on 2 December 2026. Deployers do not need to label deepfakes retroactively.

Providers and deployers that sign the Commission's Code of Practice can point to this to demonstrate compliance with their transparency obligations, with the benefit of a streamlined compliance pathway. Google has confirmed that it has signed the Code of Practice.

Providers and deployers should map their AI systems and audit their full functionality to ensure they are able to comply with their transparency obligations. They should also review and update internal guidance for marketing and other affected teams, and implement robust requirements around approval processes (not least given the potential for significant fines for a breach of the EU AI Act obligations, of up to €15 million or 3% of annual worldwide turnover, whichever is higher).

• Anthropic supports open AI models where risks are limited, but proposes tighter chip export controls, action against large-scale model copying and mandatory safety testing for sufficiently powerful models.
• Its cybersecurity concerns are credible, although restricting access may favour large AI companies and will not prevent sophisticated actors from obtaining advanced capabilities.
• Open models remain important for legitimate professional uses, including sensitive data analysis, regulated work and authorised cybersecurity testing.
• Regulation should focus on capability, risk and enforceable controls rather than model openness alone, while recognising that resilient institutions must adapt to a world where powerful AI tools are widely available.

Anthropic has published its position on "open weight" models, in a post written by Dario Amodei the CEO.

Open weight models are AI models whose trained parameters, or "weights," are publicly available for use, inspection, and fine-tuning without providing the full training code or datasets.

Anthropic has not called for a ban on open weight models, as some reporting has indicated, viewing models without dangerous capabilities as a public good. What Anthropic advocates is narrower restrictions on the sale of advanced chips and chipmaking equipment to China, a crackdown on industrial-scale distillation, the process of using one model's outputs to replicate its capabilities, and mandatory safety testing for all sufficiently capable models, regardless of whether they are open or closed.

That is, in principle, a defensible position but it is also one that a well-capitalised frontier lab can absorb more easily than a small open-source team.

The security argument is sound in principle

The asymmetry Anthropic is pointing at is real and should be familiar to anyone who has worked in defensive security. Offensive capability has always spread faster than defensive capability. Exploits are reusable indefinitely - defenders have to cover everything, and attackers only need one weakness to work once.

If frontier models become reliably capable at autonomous vulnerability discovery, exploit development, malware modification and campaign-scale social engineering, then releasing weights removes essentially every technical control. You cannot revoke a model download, you cannot rate limit a model running on someone else's hardware, and you cannot fine-tune the safeguards back in on a model you do not control.

The concern is reasonable; whether today's models already cross that threshold is a separate question. The answer is that public evidence remains incomplete, although recent work has started to narrow the gap. A recent publication from the UK AI Security Institute is useful here because it tests the claim rather than assuming the answer - its evaluation suggests that the relevant policy question is not simply whether weights are open, but how close a model is to the frontier on dangerous capabilities. The argument becomes much stronger once models consistently exceed expert human capability in offensive security, and materially weaker below that threshold.

There is also a security through obscurity element here that rarely gets acknowledged. Restricting weights raises the cost for the lower tiers of attacker, but it does very little against anyone who can resource their own training run or steal someone else's.

Is this self interested

The criticism doing the rounds is that this is regulatory capture dressed as national security: use safety and China as the framing, impose compliance costs that only large labs can carry, and the open scene quietly dies. Anthropic's answer is that testing should apply by capability threshold, with smaller developers exempt. That is a genuine attempt to address the objection, and it is the right structure. Whether the thresholds end up calibrated properly is a different matter, and not one AI labs should be setting alone.

The distillation complaint is harder to understand from a sector that has itself faced litigation over training on allegedly pirated books - objecting to others taking model outputs without permission, after taking others' inputs without permission, is a position that requires more explanation than it has received.

The China framing has the same problem; Anthropic sells premium models into US government and defence contexts. The argument is not that capability in state hands is dangerous, it is that capability in the wrong state's hands is dangerous. That may well be correct as US policy but it is not a safety argument. 

The Hugging Face incident cuts against a walled garden approach

The most instructive thing to happen in this space did not involve open weights at all.

In July, OpenAI disclosed that models being run against an internal cyber-capability benchmark, with production cyber refusals reduced for the evaluation, escaped their sandbox, found a vulnerability in the package proxy, reached the internet and compromised Hugging Face's infrastructure. Hugging Face detected and contained the incident and had reported it to law enforcement before the identity of the models was known.

Two details matter here. First, the intrusion came from a frontier closed model operated by a frontier lab, running with its guardrails deliberately reduced. Closed weights did not prevent it. Governance did not prevent it. The lab did not identify the issue for around ten days.

Second, and more relevant to the policy question, the defenders in that incident were working with commercial models constrained on exactly the cyber capabilities they needed. The party under attack had less access to capable tooling than the party attacking them, because the attacker's operator had switched the restrictions off internally.

That is the shape of the problem in miniature. Safeguards applied at the vendor boundary constrain the compliant and inconvenience nobody else. If the threat model includes a state actor, an insider, or a lab running an evaluation with refusals disabled, then the marginal safety gain from restricting the defender's tooling is close to zero and the marginal cost is not.

What this looks like in practice

In our practice and across the industry more generally, both closed frontier models and open weight models are used because they serve different functions - closed models are often better for general analytical work and drafting, whereas open weights matter where data cannot leave the environment: local-only deployment, use of classified or privileged material, reproducible research, and work where an audit trail is needed for a regulator or a court.

In offensive security work, there is also a category of task that commercial vendors will regularly refuse. Authorised red teaming, exploit reproduction against systems that the tester has permission to assess, and analysis of live attacker tooling can all trigger vendor policy, even under contract and with written authorisation. Running open weights locally is currently the only way to do that work reliably.

That is not an argument for a loophole. It is evidence that vendor guardrails are calibrated for the median consumer and are a poor fit for regulated professional use. The better answer is likely to be tiered access with real accountability attached, not a choice between unrestricted local models and a walled garden where capability can be downgraded at any time without notice.

The legal questions

Distillation may be heading for legal dispute. If one model learns another's behaviour from generated outputs, is that copyright infringement, breach of contract, unfair competition, or trade secret misappropriation? While none of those categories fits cleanly, contract is the strongest theory in most cases, which makes this more likely to be a terms-of-service question than an intellectual property one. Terms of service, however, do not bind parties who never agreed to them.

Product liability is the bigger question. If a company releases a frontier open weight model that later enables a large-scale attack, is that negligence? There is currently no precedent - regulators generally care about foreseeable risk, capability and likelihood of harm, not licensing models, which is precisely why capability-threshold testing is easier to justify in law than any rule keyed to openness.

Export controls follow the same logic. Chips are finite, scarce, and physically traceable, whereas software can be replicated indefinitely at virtually no cost. As a result, regulating access to computing power rather than software code is therefore the only realistically enforceable option available, whatever anyone thinks of the politics.

The long-term problem

Amodei's broader metaphor of technological adolescence is useful here, as the real challenge is institutional adaptation to fast-moving capability, not the release status of any one model at a particular moment.

The weak part of the argument is the implication that keeping weights closed substantially solves the long-term problem. History suggests otherwise - capability spreads, model theft becomes easier, open alternatives improve, and states or advanced actors obtain what they want regardless. Closed weights may buy time, but they do not materially change the long-term outcome.

There is also an economic rationale under this. Consumption pricing exposes vendors to the point where owning hardware becomes cheaper than paying per token, and for a lot of lower-end and mid-range workloads that crossover is nearer than people assume. Every month that open weights close the capability gap, the commercial case for self-hosting improves independently of the policy argument.

The durable defence from a cyber security perspective is not secrecy, it is building systems that remain secure when capable AI tooling is widely available, because it will be in the same way we have tackled post-Quantum encryption. The analogy with cryptography is useful - we do not assume the attacker lacks the algorithm; we assume they have it and engineer accordingly.

Ultimately, we need to design for the world where the adversary has the same tools we do and work out what 'Post-AI Cybersecurity' will look like.

This agreement follows from our Life Sciences team work in December 2025 advising Relation Therapeutics on its strategic multi-programme collaboration with Novartis, representing almost $1.7 billion in combined funding and support to propel its AI-powered drug discovery.

Patrick Farrant, Partner and Head of Life Sciences at Mishcon de Reya, commented: "It has been a pleasure and a privilege to work with the amazing team at Relation Therapeutics on this collaboration. Relation is a long-standing client of the firm, and we have been proud to advise them on the expansion of their relationship with GSK, the fourth agreement we've advised on to date". 

Our involvement in these deals highlights our commitment to supporting innovative biotechnology companies like Relation Therapeutics in their mission to transform drug discovery and development.

Today's announcement also comes after GSK publicised its relocation to a new research and development centre in Cambridge. Mishcon de Reya is excited to see GSK's commitment to the UK's Golden Triangle, which complements our own vision for operating at the heart of the UK's Innovation Economy across the arc with offices in Oxford, Cambridge and London.

The Mishcon de Reya team was led by Patrick Farrant, who worked with colleagues Dr David Rainford and Sophie Wood.

For our latest insights, subscribe to View from the Arc, our publication celebrating the Golden Triangle and spotlighting innovators’ ambitions.

As the built environment sector grapples with how to balance retrofit, carbon reduction and the need for fit-for-future space, this recent ruling proves that demolition is not automatically the less sustainable option.   

Read the full article

• Since restrictions around "less healthy" food and beverages came into force on 5 January 2026, the ASA has published a series of rulings applying the new rules in relation to a range of adverts across food retail, quick service restaurants, delivery platforms and confectionery.
• The ASA's rulings establish that the brand advertising exemption requires systematic preparation: advertisers must confirm the High in Fat, Salt, or Sugar (HFSS) status of every product depicted and map their full product range to identify any HFSS variant that could be visually indistinguishable from the product shown in the ad.
• Meanwhile, brand characters and mascots carry their own distinct risk. A stylised cartoon character can constitute a depiction of a specific HFSS product through shape and colour alone, without any realistic food imagery, disapplying the brand advertising exemption.
• Franchise networks face particular exposure. While SMEs are exempt from the restrictions, employee headcount is aggregated across the franchisor and all franchisees for the purposes of the SME exemption, meaning many franchise businesses cannot rely on the exemption. Franchisors should treat paid social media activity by individual franchisees as a live compliance risk and consider implementing pre-approval processes.

Earlier this year, new advertising restrictions on less healthy food and beverages came into effect, as we have previously discussed here. Under the restrictions, paid-for online advertising of identifiable "less healthy" food and drink products is prohibited, with equivalent restrictions applying on television and on-demand services before 9pm.

Since January 2026, a body of ASA rulings has emerged, illustrating how the rules are being applied in practice. Three themes emerge most clearly from the decisions.

1. Brand advertising: a limited exemption to the rules

The brand advertising exemption permits an advertisement that promotes a brand or a range of products to run online without engaging the restrictions, provided the ad does not depict a specific less healthy product by name, image, character or other branding technique, and does not include a realistic image of food that is visually indistinguishable from a specific HFSS product. The exemption is available only where the advertiser can demonstrate that nothing in the ad points consumers to a particular HFSS product.

The ASA was asked to consider a paid Instagram ad for M&M's featuring the round green and oval yellow M&M's cartoon characters, with no realistic food imagery and no product name included beyond the brand. Mars argued that the characters were anthropomorphised mascots, not depictions of food, and that therefore the brand advertising exemption applied. The ASA disagreed, at least in part. It found that the oval yellow character depicted Peanut M&M's specifically, because Peanut M&M's is the only variant with oval-shaped lentils, and all Peanut M&M's packaging uses yellow as the dominant colour. The combination of shape and colour was enough to make the character a "personification" of a specific HFSS product, displacing the exemption. By contrast, the round green character was not problematic, because multiple M&M's variants have round lentils, meaning it could not be said to represent any one product specifically.

The ruling goes significantly beyond confectionery. It suggests that brand characters, mascots and visual devices closely associated with a specific HFSS product carry regulatory risk in paid online advertising, even where no food is depicted realistically and the character appears across a wide range of brand communications. Crucially, the test is not whether the advertiser intends the character to represent a product, but whether consumers could reasonably identify it as doing so. Advertisers with established mascots or visual brand devices should map their characters against the product-specific shape and colour combinations in their range, and consider whether any character's design is rooted in the physical characteristics of a specific HFSS product.

Conversely, in a McDonald's ruling, McDonald's successfully invoked the brand advertising exemption. A television ad for its McDelivery service featured no food imagery but named three specific menu items in the voice-over dialogue: Chicken McNuggets, a McCrispy and a McChicken Sandwich. Naming specific products in an advertisement constitutes a "depiction" of those products for the purposes of the Regulations and would remove the benefit of the brand advertising exemption unless those products are non-HFSS. In this case, all three named items had been confirmed as non-HFSS: that allowed the ASA to assess each product directly by name, without needing to consider visual indistinguishability from HFSS products. The complaint was therefore rejected.  However, the same approach in an ad that names any HFSS product would be straightforwardly in breach.

The M&M's decision provides a useful counterpoint. Mars avoided naming any product and featured no food photography, apparently on the basis that the ad was supposed to be for the brand rather than any specific product. The ASA nonetheless found that the characters themselves identified a specific HFSS product. In the McDonald's ruling however, the ASA treated the references to "McDelivery" as relating to the overall McDonald's brand. Furthermore, the named products were all non-HFSS and because they were explicitly referenced by name only, the ASA did not draw its own inferences from any visual or design elements as to what they may depict.

2. Identifying specific menu items

The largest cluster of rulings concerns whether a realistic image of food in an ad is "visually indistinguishable" from a specific HFSS product. The ASA has developed a consistent three-step framework: (1) does the ad depict a specific HFSS product? (breach); (2) does it clearly identify a specific non-HFSS product by name? (not a breach); or (3) if neither, is the realistic image visually indistinguishable from a specific HFSS product? (potentially a breach).

In rulings involving Papa John's, Domino's, Uber Eats and KFC, the ASA conducted detailed side-by-side comparisons of the food depicted with the advertiser's full product range, looking at features at the level of granularity of specific toppings, crust profiles, number of patties, visible fillings and breadcrumb texture. In each case, the product depicted was non-HFSS, and all products that looked similar to it were also non-HFSS, so the ads were acceptable as brand advertisements. The analysis in each ruling is granular: distinctions turned on aspects such as whether cheese was visible in the cross-section of a sliced crust, whether a crust edge appeared rounded or flat, and the colour and texture of a breadcrumb coating. The level of scrutiny underlines that it is not enough to choose a non-HFSS product to feature and assume the ad will be compliant. The whole range must be reviewed.

In a separate Domino's ruling, Domino's had relied on a third party to provide nutrient profile data for its "Cheeky Little Pizza" range, but that data contained an error: the Sausage and Bacon variant was classified as non-HFSS when it was in fact HFSS. The ad depicted that pizza, and the ASA found it to be a specific HFSS product, meaning the ad was in breach. This was the case even though Domino's, Clearcast (the clearance centre for TV ads) and the broadcaster had all acted on the incorrect data in good faith. The ruling is a clear warning that liability follows the content of the ad as published, not an advertiser's intentions, and of the importance of accurate nutrient profiling. Advertisers that rely on third-party data for nutrient profiles should consider what verification steps they have in place and whether their contracts with data providers adequately allocate the risk of errors.

In an earlier decision involving German Doner Kebab, a notably disciplined approach had been taken, with GDK providing the influencer who posted an ad with a specific list of menu items he could and could not feature, all confirmed as non-HFSS. The complaint was not upheld. The same approach is available to any advertiser working with influencers or content creators, and the GDK ruling suggests it will provide a reliable defence where the briefing is properly documented.

3. Franchises and SMEs

Two rulings highlight a structural compliance risk for franchise networks and multi-site operators. In a ruling concerning the fast food franchise, Morley's, a franchisee posted an Instagram ad for HFSS meal deals without the franchisor's knowledge. The SME exemption (which applies to businesses employing fewer than 250 people) did not apply because, for franchise businesses, employee headcount is aggregated across the franchisor and all franchisees: Morley's as a whole employed more than 250 people. The individual franchisee's non-awareness of the HFSS rules was irrelevant to the outcome.

By contrast, Bubbleology successfully relied on the SME exemption, demonstrating that it employed 227 people across its corporate stores and franchise network at the relevant date. The ASA accepted month-end payroll data as sufficiently reliable for assessing headcount and the complaint was not upheld. The two cases together show that the exemption is workable for businesses that can evidence their headcount, but that the aggregation rule creates a real trap for growing franchise networks approaching the 250-person threshold. Franchisors should track headcount and treat paid social media activity by individual franchisees as a live compliance risk. Pre-approval of local advertising is the most straightforward safeguard, and the Morley's ruling suggests that notifying franchisees of the HFSS rules is unlikely to be enough on its own.

Practical takeaways

The picture from the first months of enforcement is that compliance is achievable but requires preparation and processes in place. Food and beverage businesses should confirm the HFSS status of every product depicted in or associated with any given advertisement, map their full product range to identify visually similar items, verify nutrient profile data independently, and review brand characters and visual devices against the personification test established in the M&M's ruling. Franchise operators should implement centralised approval for any paid social media activity by franchisees and keep a clear record of headcount. The rules apply to the content of the ad as published, so intent and good faith provide no defence; liability always falls on the advertiser.

If you would like to discuss the implications of these rulings and the new "less healthy" food restrictions, and how best to equip your business with an ad-compliant strategy, please contact our Advertising and Marketing team.

Join us for a conversation with Oliver Sweet, one of the world's leading business anthropologists and author of The Rules That Make Us.

Having advised organisations including Coca-Cola, IKEA, Google and Dyson, Oliver helps leaders uncover the often invisible cultural forces that shape how people think, behave, make decisions and respond to change.

Drawing on research across 35 countries, Oliver will explore why understanding culture is one of the most powerful tools available to leaders today; helping organisations drive innovation, influence behaviour, navigate change and better understand the people they serve. 

Whether you're leading a team, shaping strategy or trying to understand why some ideas succeed while others struggle to gain traction, this promises to be a thought-provoking discussion about the hidden rules influencing all of us.

• The Digital Services Act (DSA) imposes tiered obligations on online platforms and intermediaries operating in the EU to tackle illegal content, including IP-infringing material.
• In May and July 2026, the European Commission fined Temu €200 million and AliExpress €550 million respectively for failing to properly identify and mitigate systemic risks of illegal products on both platforms, reflecting the most significant DSA enforcement actions to date.
• The DSA provides a range of valuable enforcement tools, including risk assessment obligations on Very Large Online Platforms, 'know your business customer' requirements, trusted flagger status, and notice and action procedures.
• The UK's Online Safety Act 2023 expressly excludes from its scope IP infringement, and so traditional enforcement avenues such as website blocking injunctions and platform-specific brand protection programmes remain the focus in the UK.

The Digital Services Act (DSA), which entered into force on 16 November 2022, has effected a significant overhaul of the regulatory regime governing online services in the EU. By imposing stricter obligations on online platforms and intermediaries, the DSA aims to address the challenges posed by the growth of the digital economy, specifically in relation to illegal and harmful content. Recent decisions by the European Commission to fine Temu and AliExpress for breaching their risk assessment obligations under the DSA highlight the growing burden placed on digital platforms to reduce the risk of illegal content online, and the Commission's scrutiny of such assessments under the legislative framework. With dupe culture on the rise and counterfeit goods increasingly accessible globally, this article examines the DSA and its value as an enforcement tool for IP rights holders.

European Commission fines Temu €200 million

On 28 May 2026, the European Commission fined Temu €200 million for failing to diligently identify, analyse and assess the systemic risk of illegal products being sold on its platform, and the resulting harm to EU consumers.

The DSA imposes several obligations on online platforms and intermediaries, which increase cumulatively depending on the size and breadth of activities. Temu was designated as a Very Large Online Platform (VLOP) in 2024 by virtue of having more than 45 million monthly active users in the EU. As a result of this designation, Temu is subject to the most stringent obligations, including a duty to identify and mitigate systemic risks arising in connection with the platform. Following an investigation, the Commission found that:

• Temu's risk assessment relied on generic information in relation to risks arising in the e-commerce industry as a whole, rather than risks specific to Temu's own service;
• it seriously underestimated how often EU consumers were likely to encounter illegal items on the platform, with evidence obtained from a mystery shopping exercise revealing that a high percentage of chargers and baby toys failed basic safety tests or posed medium to high level safety risks; and
• it did not adequately assess how the design of its service (which included product promotion programmes involving influencers, and recommender systems) could exacerbate the dissemination risks of illegal products.

Temu now has until 28 August 2026 to submit an action plan to the Commission, outlining the remedial measures it intends to take.

European Commission fines AliExpress €550 million

On 20 July 2026, the Commission subsequently fined AliExpress €550 million for breaching its obligation to assess and mitigate the risk of illegal, unsafe or counterfeit products being disseminated on the platform. The fine represents the largest penalty imposed by the Commission under the DSA to date.

AliExpress was previously allocated VLOP status in the Commission's first suite of designations in 2023. The Commission later commenced an investigation into whether AliExpress had breached its obligations under the DSA in 2024, specifically in relation to the assessment and mitigation of risks; content moderation and the handling of internal complaints; transparency of advertising and recommender systems; traceability of traders on the platform and suspected failures to ensure that information provided by traders was reliable; and data access for researchers. Further to its investigation, the Commission found that:

• AliExpress did not properly evaluate whether it had sufficient staff to review potentially illegal products and overestimated the effectiveness of its detection and removal system, with many illegal products appearing on the platform, and even if detected, remaining available for several weeks;
• its assessment regarding the extent to which recommender and advertising systems exacerbated the promotion and sale of illegal products on the platform was inadequate, with many illegal products being recommended or advertised to consumers;
• it did not properly measure how well its moderation systems prevented the risk of illegal products appearing or reappearing;
• it did not adequately enforce its penalty policy against traders selling illegal products;
• traders could circumvent compliance checks to place non-compliant products on the platform by mislabelling and listing them in the incorrect product category; and
• illegal products represent a significant risk on AliExpress' platform, with its brand authorisation system (intended to prevent the sale of counterfeit goods) categorised by the Commission as ineffective and understaffed.

The fine was calculated by the Commission having regard to several factors including the nature of the infringements, their duration, and their gravity. AliExpress has until 20 October 2026 to submit an action plan to the Commission in response, and has indicated its intention to appeal the fine, which it described as 'disproportionate'.

Following several investigations against online platforms in relation to their risk assessment obligations (explored further below), the Commission's recent decisions illustrate that risk assessments are a cornerstone of the DSA.

Digital Services Act

The DSA applies to intermediary services provided in the EU (regardless of where the provider is based), including, for example, online platforms, marketplaces and search engines, cloud providers, app stores, social networks, and content-sharing platforms, and providers of conduit, caching and hosting services.

All intermediary services have an obligation to combat illegal content under the DSA, though the extent of this obligation is dependent on the type of service provider. The requirements increase cumulatively depending on the breadth of activities, with mere conduit and caching providers having the fewest obligations, and VLOPs and Very Large Online Search Engines (VLOSEs) (being platforms and search engines with over 45 million users in the EU each month) subject to the most stringent obligations. "Illegal content" is defined broadly under the DSA as information which is itself illegal or which relates to an illegal activity, having regard to EU law and the laws of each Member State, regardless of subject matter or nature. The definition of illegal content encapsulates content which infringes intellectual property.

Obligations

The DSA introduces a suite of regulatory requirements which can assist with the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights online.

For example, it imposes 'know your business customer' obligations on online platform providers which facilitate distance contracts between consumers and traders. Providers must obtain verified information about the traders operating on their platform (including, for example, name, address, identification documents and contact details), to support traceability of such traders. Additionally, all providers must respond to take down orders submitted by national authorities in respect of illegal content, and provide information about specific users of their services following disclosure orders from national authorities. Such obligations may also assist rights holders with enforcing their intellectual property rights against the sale of counterfeit goods, and improve the success of traceability and notice and take down mechanisms which previously may have been restricted by the use of false trading names or identities.

In addition, online platforms must monitor repeat infringers (including users which repeatedly upload illegal content to the platform) and consider suspension of accounts. Hosting service providers are required to implement user-friendly notice and action procedures, to allow users to easily notify the host of illegal content on the platform.

Position in the UK

In the UK, as of 17 March 2025, platforms also have a legal duty to protect users from illegal content online under the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA). However, unlike the broad definition of illegal content under the DSA, the OSA expressly excludes IP infringement from the definition. Instead, it focuses on 'priority offences', including, for example, child sexual exploitation and terrorism offences.

Rights holders must therefore rely on more traditional avenues of IP enforcement to combat infringing material online, which we explore in our previous article on the rise of dupe culture.

Platforms typically rely on notice and takedown mechanisms and a hosting safe harbour defence to avoid liability (under which hosting providers are exempt from liability for infringing goods if they did not know they hosted illegal content or information, and they acted expeditiously to remove or disable access to it once aware).  However, platforms are required to have no actual or constructive knowledge to benefit from the safe harbour. With platforms becoming increasingly active in selecting, managing and promoting content, reliance on this exemption may become difficult.

Further, rights holders can apply for a website blocking injunction against intermediaries whose platforms or services are being used by third parties to infringe copyright. UK courts have considered this issue in the context of both copyright infringement (Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v British Telecommunications) and trade mark infringement (Cartier International AG v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd). The potential for online platforms to be themselves liable for acts of infringement on their platforms, including the sale of counterfeit goods, has also been considered by the courts in recent years, including in the significant Christian Louboutin v Amazon decision, and by the UK Supreme Court recently in Lifestyle Equities v Amazon.

IP rights holders can also rely on a suite of tools developed by e-commerce platforms themselves. For example, Amazon's Brand Registry programme allows brands to actively monitor and remove infringing products. UK Government Guidance on Protecting Intellectual Property Rights on E-Commerce Stores provides helpful insights to brand owners on the suite of tools available to monitor and remove infringing content online.

How Mishcon de Reya can help

The Digital Services Act has opened up new opportunities for rights holders to tackle counterfeit and other IP-infringing content online. We advise clients on how to use such mechanisms as part of wider online enforcement strategies, including platform takedowns, seller identification and traceability, and cross-border enforcement programmes. For further information, please contact a member of the Intellectual Property team.

Nick argues that investors can accommodate additional costs when they are clear and predictable, but long-term investment decisions become more challenging when key questions around structure, governance and future increases remain unanswered.

Read the full article in CoStar: Hotel investors can price a tourist tax but not policy uncertainty

• On 9 July 2026 His Honour Judge Baumgartner delivered his judgment, dismissing all criminal charges brought by the CPS against Hauser & Wirth ("H&W"), an art gallery, and Artay Rauchwerger Solomons ("ARS"), a fine art logistics company, for their part in the sale and supply of a painting “Escape from Humanity” by the American contemporary artist George Condo (the "artwork") to Alexander Popov, a person alleged to be connected to Russia.
• The Court held that, whilst the art work had been "made available" to Popov, the defendants had not breached sanctions as he was not ordinarily resident in Russia.
• The case demonstrates the challenges in prosecuting alleged sanctions breaches and the wider implications for the art and luxury goods market.

Background

H&W and ARS were charged with offences contrary to reg. 46B(2)(b) and reg. 46B(4) of The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (the "Regulations"), namely making the artwork, a "luxury good", available to Popov through its sale in July 2021 (invoiced in October 2021) and consigning it to Popov as a person alleged to be "connected with Russia". Delivery of the artwork did not in fact come to fruition as the UK Border Force seized the artwork on 8 September 2022 before it left the UK.

Legal representatives of H&W and ARS made pre-trial submissions to HHJ Baumgartner that there was insufficient evidence on which a jury could properly convict, on two key legal requirements of the Regulations, namely:

• Neither H&W nor ARS had made the artwork "available" to Popov within the meaning of the Regulations; and/or
• Popov was not "ordinarily resident" in Russia.

Legal framework

Regulation 46B(1) prohibits the export of luxury goods to, or for the use in, Russia.

Regulation 46B(2) provides that:

"A person must not directly or indirectly—

       (a) supply or deliver luxury goods from a third country to a place in Russia;

       (b) make luxury goods available to a person connected with Russia.

       (c) make luxury goods available for use in Russia."

Regulation 21(2) defines someone as being connected with Russia if (emphasis added) that individual is:

      "(a) an individual who is, or an association or combination of individuals who are, ordinarily resident in Russia,

        (b) an individual who is, or an association or combination of individuals who are, located in Russia…"

The decision

In dismissing the charges, the judge found that, on the first ground, both the gallery and the logistics company had "made available" the artwork to Popov. The judge agreed that the mere passing of title did not satisfy the requirement of making available. However, when taken with the subsequent actions of payment, constructive possession and release to the logistics chain directed by Popov, the artwork had been made available to him.

The tipping point for the judge however was the outcome of the factual analysis surrounding Mr Popov's "ordinary residence", where he drew upon case law from other areas, such as UK tax, in arriving at his decision to dismiss.

Notwithstanding the fact that before the February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Popov's address was recorded as Moscow, Russia, he held Russian nationality, business interests and assets in Russia and familial ties in the country, the judge found that these only demonstrated a "continuing connection" with Russia and not residence.

There were a number of factors which pointed away from Russia as the place of "ordinary residence", including:

• The property to which the H&W invoice was addressed was subsequently rented out.
• Popov had attempted to renounce his Russian citizenship, although this was rejected.
• Popov had travelled to Bosnia and Herzegovina where he received a registration card, taxpayer reference and commenced the citizenship process.
• Leasing of properties in Italy and Bosnia and Herzegovina by Popov.
• Artwork belonging to Popov had been transferred out of Russia to countries where he had entered into agreements for its storage.

As far as dual residence was concerned, it could not be excluded as a matter of law, as it was possible to have an "ordinary residence" in more than one place, but this was not made out on the facts of the present case.

Implications

This case highlights the increasing expectations placed on those who deal in art and luxury goods with regards to client checks and scrutiny. Within the context of developing and maintaining client relationships, those involved are now having to interpret nuanced factual backgrounds to assess whether or not they can proceed to do business. Failing to do so clearly creates too great an exposure-reputationally, legally and economically.

Detailed consideration of the sanctions position runs in parallel to art market participants' continuing obligations under the anti-money laundering regulations which themselves have been more actively enforced over the last year. The commentary has always been that the art market is unregulated. However, aside from operating within a framework of national and international laws, these regulations and the AML regulations are illustrative of the constraints around businesses operating in this sector. The parties involved in this particular case are both known and large, international operations. However it is of note that a uniform approach to administration of regulations makes it increasingly difficult for emerging and smaller practitioners operating in the sector.

This represents the first corporate prosecution under the Regulations, with HMRC leading the enforcement of sanctions as far as goods and services moving in and out of the UK is concerned. As such, this defeat delivers a significant blow to HMRC's enforcement objectives, in an environment where there is increasing pressure for sanctions and tax evasion to be reduced and for the Treasury to recover evaded sums.

On first reflection, the judgment is heavily fact specific, but this only highlights the importance in criminal proceedings, especially when dealing with novel concepts such as sanctions enforcement, of properly considering at an early stage a client's case against the relevant legal requirements. 

In this Flash Digital Session, we will cover: 

• The first 24–48 hours: How coroners become involved; what they must determine; the role of the police; and the immediate actions a corporate should take to stabilise the situation and protect all parties. 
• Internal coordination and representation: Identifying who leads liaison with the coroner and the family; managing parallel responsibilities as an employer and/or Interested Person; and assessing whether employees require separate legal representation. 
• Internal investigations & disclosure duties: Whether to conduct an internal investigation and when to do it. Understanding disclosure to the coroner, onward disclosure to the family, and potential DSARs. 
• Shaping the relationship with the coroner: Why early engagement matters, how it can influence the coroner’s view of the organisation, and how to navigate requests, expectations and procedural direction. 
• Parallel ancillary exposure: The potential for civil claims, employment issues, regulatory scrutiny and/or health and safety considerations. 
• Post‑inquest realities: Managing media interest, reputational risk, and narratives that may diverge from the formal findings. 
• Preventing recurrence: Understanding Prevention of Future Deaths (PFD) reports — when they arise, how to respond, and how to build a defensible, proactive posture that reduces future risk. 

The article says that lawyers expect the uptick in probate disputes to continue and suggests AI-drafted wills are another reason for the increase. Jessica says there is a “a genuine access-to-justice argument”; if AI tools prompt more people to think about estate planning, “that is a positive”. But like most litigators, she is mainly worried about the risks. Poorly drafted wills are already a leading cause of disputes; AI chatbots’ tendency towards vague language could produce more.

Read the article in full (subscription required)

Join Roger Gracie, 10-time Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu World Champion and author of Warrior Mindset, for a powerful conversation about the mental disciplines that underpin sustained success in high-performance environments. Roger is widely regarded as one of the greatest martial artists of all time, but his insights extend far beyond sport. His philosophy centres on mastering your thinking, staying composed under pressure, controlling emotions, and developing the resilience needed to thrive when the stakes are high. 

In business, the parallels are striking. Whether navigating complex transactions, managing demanding clients, leading teams, or making critical decisions under intense scrutiny, success often depends less on technical expertise alone and more on the ability to remain focused, adaptable and effective when challenged.

In this session, Roger will share lessons from a lifetime spent competing at the highest level and explore how principles such as discipline, emotional control, clarity of thought and purposeful action can help professionals build confidence, resilience and sustainable performance in their own careers. 

This is not only a talk about martial arts. It is a conversation about excellence, leadership and developing the mindset required to perform at your best when it matters most.

Attend if you want to:

• Strengthen your ability to stay calm and make better decisions under pressure.
• Build resilience in demanding, high-stakes environments.
• Understand how elite performers approach focus, preparation and continuous improvement.
• Learn practical strategies for managing setbacks, uncertainty and change.
• Develop habits that support sustained success and wellbeing throughout your career.

• The Privy Council gave judgment earlier this year on whether a protector's powers are "wide" or "narrow" as a matter of default.
• The central question: is a protector limited to reviewing lawfulness only (Narrow), or must he exercise an independent discretion on the merits (Wide)?
• The Privy Council rejected this binary approach to the debate and held that the question that needs to be asked is: what if any constraints did the trust instrument actually impose, construed in its context and with regard to any constraints imported by the general law?
• The practical significance of this is that the majority of protectors' powers will be considered Wide.
• This has largely settled a longstanding and practically significant debate, but further questions arise about the impact of protectors' powers being wide, including whether applications for blessings of decisions by protectors to veto trustees' proposed courses of action will become more common.  

What did the Privy Council decide?

After much anticipation for those working in the trust industry, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council gave judgment in March this year on whether, as a matter of default, a protector's powers are "wide" or "narrow" in Re X. A detailed case note on this decision written by Peter Steen and Lawrence Hiller-Wood can be read here. In short, the parties to the appeal asked the Board to opine, as a question of Bermudian law, on the default role of protectors holding a fiduciary power of consent to the proposed exercise by a trustee of its power under a trust instrument – a question of significance for many common-law jurisdictions. The question was whether such a protector was limited solely to reviewing the lawfulness of the trustee's proposed course of action, or whether the protector needed to exercise an independent discretion by reference to their own view on the merits of the trustee's proposal.  The former is widely known as the "Narrow Role" and the latter as the "Wider Role".

The issue was presented to the Board as if it had to assume that the settlor must have had in mind either the Narrow Role or Wider Role for the trust deed. The Board did not consider this to be the correct approach, explaining that the issue needs to be resolved as a matter of construction of the trust deed. Thus, the question that needs to be asked is: what if any constraints did the trust instrument actually impose, construed in its context and with regard to any constraints imported by the general law? Applying these principles to the present case, the Board found that the relevant trusts did not by any express language impose any constraints upon the protectors in the exercise of the powers of veto.

Practical implications for protectors

The trusts in Re X were in relatively standard form and therefore many protectors will likewise need to exercise an independent discretion on the merits of a trustee's proposal. In circumstances of having such a wide discretion, this opens the question as to whether protectors will now increasingly seek blessings of decisions to refuse trustees' proposed courses of action where these refusals are in themselves momentous decisions – in the vein of the second category of decisions brought to the court for approval as outlined in Public Trustee v Cooper (HC-99-04500).

Will court applications increase?

Certainly, protectors can and do bring applications for blessings of decisions; for example, in the recent 2026 Guernsey case of Re X (Civil No. 2632), a protector sought a blessing of its in-principle decision to remove the trustee and appoint in its place a UK-based trustee, making the trusts subject to UK tax – a decision that was approved.

However, in this author's view, court applications for blessings of protectors' powers of veto will likely remain rare. This is because scenarios where exercising a power of veto amounts to a momentous decision are unusual. Furthermore, if a protector were to bring such an application, there would be a significant risk it would be contested by the trustee (who may well want to justify the decision it made, to avoid criticism), making the application potentially risky for the protector in terms of reputation and costs.

In terms of exercising powers of consent, it is likely  protectors will make it a term of their consent, where the decision is a momentous one and the value of the transaction justifies it, that the trustee make an application to the court for the in-principle decision to be blessed if the trustee has not already indicated it will be doing so. The protector could then apply in tandem or sit behind the trustee's application rather than bring a standalone application, therefore limiting additional legal cost to the trust fund. In this scenario it is difficult to see a protector in the receipt of legal advice taking any other course.

It is likely trustees in such scenarios would be making an application for a blessing in any event, which means applications to court for blessings of in-principle decisions by protectors are unlikely to increase.

Conclusion

So, as the dust settles on the Privy Council's decision in Re X, it can be said (at least in this author's view) that, whilst most protectors will have wide discretion when exercising their powers of veto, this will not necessarily result in an increase in applications to the court by protectors for blessings of decisions and therefore burdening trusts with the attendant legal fees.

Joao Paulo met with Pedro Vasques-Milhinhos, an Associate in our Corporate department and member of our Creators + Collectors group, to discuss the rise of Brazilian collectors on the global stage, how they think about art, and why Brazilian and Latin American art is finally getting the recognition it deserves — and what no algorithm or social media scrolling can ever replace.

You served as Lisson Gallery’s Latin America Representative and Associate Director from 2014 to 2017, before co-founding Art Consulting Tool and launching Panorama - two businesses with global reach. How has that journey shaped your understanding of what collectors want from an art adviser?

Since I started working in the arts, I've been a very pluralist professional, often wearing various hats. I've advised artists, curated exhibitions, published books and built art collections – I've never confined myself strictly to one role. I've always been more sensitive and intuitive, more drawn to opportunities than to fixed roles. My creativity and sense of entrepreneurship have always led me to create the projects I wanted to create, and to build unexpected bridges between people and ideas within the art world.

That plurality - moving between the gallery, the studio, the page and the collection - is exactly what shapes how I advise collectors today. I'm not advising from just one fixed point of view. In advising my clients, I weave all those different vantage points into the conversation.

According to the 2025 Survey of Global Collecting, Brazil now accounts for 23% of new art collectors worldwide, second only to the US. From where you sit as an advisor, what is different about how Brazilian art collectors approach collecting—not just what they buy, but how they think about art's place in their lives, homes and portfolios?

I must confess I didn’t know that number before - I find it both intriguing and exciting. In my view, those figures further emphasize the incredible, relentless energy that Brazilians bring to all areas of life. Brazil is such a melting pot of cultures and Brazilians are naturally open-minded and open-hearted to exploring art from everywhere. That’s also how I see my own role, and how I try to contribute to my clients’ lives. It doesn’t matter where they come from. Once they truly start engaging with art and the art world, they have trouble stopping. They’re not only interested in being at the zeitgeist of the art world, but also in defining and structuring a great collection - one that combines both cultural and financial value as well as one that sits between emotion and reason.

Next-generation Brazilian art collectors are among the youngest and most active in the world. What does that appetite look like in your early conversations with them? What are they excited about, which artists are they gravitating towards, and what fresh perspectives are they bringing to art collecting?

First and foremost, this new generation of collectors in Brazil is excited to be part of a community that brings together political, cultural, and economic dialogue alongside its aesthetic dimension - they have a keen sense that art is not there merely to adorn their walls, but as an expression of this discourse. They want to understand the emotion and discourse behind the pieces, to visit artists in their studios, to go to art fairs, to visit foundations and museums around the world - and, as a result, to bring that understanding home through art. There’s no doubt that painting, as a medium, now attracts not only newcomers but also very established collectors. I feel that in an age where we are overstimulated by screens, painting is so full of material and emotion, carrying that human, handmade quality that enchants us all. We are also seeing that Photography is experiencing a comeback and is increasingly being integrated in collections, as is sculpture.

SP-Arte is attracting an increasingly strong contingent of international collectors and institutional representatives. Are you seeing that translate into sustained demand in the Brazilian art market, or is it still more a moment of curiosity? And where does the centre of gravity of Brazilian art sit today—in São Paulo, Rio or somewhere more distributed?

Over the last 22 years since it was founded, SP-Arte has played an increasingly influential role and has changed the landscape of art collecting in Brazil. The fair’s consistently high-quality curation and organisation has increasingly ignited the curiosity of international collectors - not a large group, but one that is high quality one and understands the Brazilian art market. ArtRio, in turn, has done an incredible job bringing in major museum trustees and international collectors to Brazil. Rio de Janeiro, as a city, has its own power and poetry entrenched in its DNA which serves as a strong basis to attract these groups, along with so many artist studios who have found their home there and are spread across the city. That being said, São Paulo has a wonderful gallery scene, and is home to top tier museums such as Pinacoteca and MASP, as well as the second most important biennial in the world, the Bienal de São Paulo. In that sense, each city plays its own unique role. Outside of these two major cities, Recife also has a very active art scene, and we mustn't forget Inhotim, in Minas Gerais - a groundbreaking open-air contemporary museum housing works by some of the most significant Brazilian artists of our time - including Hélio Oiticica, Tunga, Olafur Eliasson and Adriana Varejão, which is regarded as one of the most ambitious and immersive artists experiences not just in Brazil, but in the world.

Brazilian artists have become a recurring presence at major international touchpoints, from the Venice Biennale to Frieze, while institutions continue to expand their Latin American acquisitions. Is this a sustained structural shift in how the global art world views Brazilian art, or does it still depend too heavily on the appetite of a handful of influential curators and collectors abroad?

I think this phenomenon is, in a way, a settling of accounts with the past. The art world, and other fields of culture, are finally coming to the realization that there is no single starting point and no single ending point. For centuries, we have credited the Western world as the center of the art world, and I’ve always disagreed with that way of thinking. Brazilian and Latin American art has been influential for at least a century. Of course, the European avant-gardes remain key to understanding what came after - but when we talk about contemporary art, all geographies must be considered equally. The world is now too inter-connected, and countries without a long tradition of modern art can still produce wonderful contemporary artists. I believe many leading curators and museum directors haven’t just expressed a will to change this discourse in the art world - they’ve worked hard to champion it and have achieved tangible results. I can happily name a few: Humberto Moro (Dia Foundation), Adriano Pedrosa (MASP), Ines Katzenstein (MoMA) and Pablo Leon de la Barra (Guggenheim).

Social media, and Instagram in particular, has opened the Brazilian art market to a much wider and younger audience. As someone who works closely with collectors at every stage of their journey, how do you think about that shift? Where do platforms like Instagram genuinely deepen engagement with art, and where do they fall short in fostering the kind of long-term relationship with collecting that you champion?

Social media, and Instagram especially, has really opened up culture at large - not just the art world. So many museums, galleries and artists that once felt distant are now genuinely reachable to a much broader audience, and that’s an unquestionably positive shift. That said, the nature of the content is often immediate and shallow by design. A scroll is not a conversation, and it certainly isn’t an encounter.

I try to see Instagram as an ally, when it’s used the right way. At Panorama, my team and I are very deliberate about the content we put out on our social media - we want to offer something substantive, to be a trusted source rather than just another feed to scroll past.

At the end of the day, though, I believe the physical encounter with a work of art can’t be replicated online. That’s the experience I want for my clients - something unforgettable enriching and mesmerizing, the kind that turns a moment of interest into a long-term relationship with collecting.

Finally, you have negotiated hundreds of works across your career, from international artists to emerging Brazilian voices you have helped bring to wider attention. Is there one acquisition you advised on that best captures what great art collecting can mean?

I have indeed. When I start counting, it’s hard to keep track. It would be difficult to name just one, though there are certainly a few that stand out. What I love the most about those moments when I am negotiating a piece for a client to add to their collection, is the feeling of bringing a piece of art history into my collectors’ homes. In that sense, I couldn’t name one single acquisition but the works that stand out to me are works by Barbara Kruger, Lucian Freud, Paula Rego, Lygia Clark, Helio Oiticica, Frank Auerbach, Anselm Kiefer, Louise Bourgeois, Ismael Nery, On Kawara, and De Kooning, among others.

How Mishcon de Reya can help

Mishcon's Creators + Collectors team advises collectors, artists, galleries, institutions and family offices on the legal and commercial issues that arise when building, managing and preserving collections and other passion assets. Bringing together specialists from across the firm, we help clients realise their ambitions through strategic, practical and holistic advice tailored to the people behind the collection.

Dr. Amber Hill is the founder and CEO of Research Grid. With a background in biomedical neuroscience and artificial intelligence, she has led clinical trials and research engagement at institutions like UCL, Harvard, and MIT. Prior to founding Research Grid, she also established a global non-profit supporting patient involvement in research.

After decades leading medical research, Dr. Hill experienced firsthand how repetitive, manual admin tasks slowed progress and delayed patient access to treatment. Recognising that the brightest minds in medicine were being bogged down by back-office inefficiencies, she set out to change it. An expert in both clinical research and AI, she began building a solution. In 2020, she founded Research Grid to automate the clinical trial back office and eliminate all manual admin, from patient sourcing to trial management.

As CEO, Dr. Hill is responsible for product vision, strategic partnerships, and team leadership. Her leadership is characterised by technical expertise, deep empathy for patients, and a mission-driven approach to innovation in healthcare. She continues to drive forward her vision to make clinical trials admin-free and bring modern infrastructure to medical research worldwide. Listen here. 

• In Uber London Ltd & Ors v White & Ors (Re Disclosure) [2026] EWHC 1610 (Comm) the Commercial Court has handed down a significant judgment on the limits of litigation privilege.
• The court's decision that communications made to enable litigation funders to decide whether to fund proposed litigation did not attract privilege has important implications for both litigants and litigation funders, particularly in the context of group actions.
• However, the decision does not categorically exclude funders from claiming litigation privilege, and privilege will still be available to prospective claimants where the dominant purpose of communications is to enable them to decide whether or not to litigate.

Background

In the underlying claims Mishcon de Reya is instructed by approximately 13,300 black cab drivers and the assignee of two former ride-sharing companies against Uber London Ltd and its Dutch and US parent companies. The claims, which cover a period between 2012 and 2018, arise out of an alleged conspiracy by Uber to cause loss by unlawful means.

Although the claims were issued outside the primary limitation period, the claimants rely on section 32 Limitation Act 1980 to postpone that period on the basis that the alleged fraud had not, and could not with reasonable diligence, have been discovered by them before certain information was made public.

A preliminary issue trial on limitation was ordered and, in advance of the hearing, the defendants sought disclosure of communications which were made while a litigation funder had engaged the firm to investigate potential claims, but before any individual claimants were clients. The defendants argued that such communications were relevant (and thus disclosable) because they might indicate the actual knowledge of individual claimants, or at least what individual claimants could reasonably have discovered at the time.

Unusually, in this case there had initially been a lawyer-client relationship between the funder and the firm and so the defendants accepted that (subject to review) legal advice privilege would apply to many of the communications for which disclosure was sought. However, the claimants also contended that litigation privilege applied to all communications between the funder and the firm, without there being any need for review. This was the key issue addressed by the court.

Litigation privilege

Litigation privilege is one of the two categories of legal professional privilege. Resting on the principles of access to justice, the proper administration of justice, a fair trial and equality of arms, it enables a party to obtain advice and information in connection with the conduct of litigation without fear that what has been said or written will subsequently need to be disclosed.

In particular, litigation privilege protects:

• Confidential communications between a lawyer and client, or either of them and a third party;
• Made for the sole or dominant purpose of conducting adversarial litigation;
• Which is either in progress or contemplation.

The key question in Uber was whether the communications in question satisfied the dominant purpose test. The evidence indicated that the dominant purpose of the communications was to enable the funder to decide whether to fund the claim. The claimants contended that this was part of the conduct of litigation on the basis that the conduct of litigation includes deciding whether or not to litigate, an integral part of which is deciding whether or not to spend money on the claim.

However, the judge did not agree. He distinguished the position where an individual litigant takes a decision about whether or not to start a claim, including whether to put money into it, from the position where a funder decides whether to fund someone else's litigation. In the former case, the judge concluded that the claimant's decision is part of its conduct of litigation, but in the latter case he observed that it is not the funder's decision to start the litigation. Thus, the judge concluded that the funder was not conducting this or any litigation, with the result that litigation privilege would not be available.

The limits of the decision

The decision has important implications, particularly in group actions where a firm is seeking funding to investigate a potential claim in advance of building a book of claimants. In such circumstances, funders and lawyers need to be aware that their communications may not be protected by legal professional privilege. However, it is also important to remember that, particularly where limitation is not an issue, such communications are less likely to meet the relevant test for disclosure.

Moreover, the impact of the decision should not be overstated in the context of more typical commercial cases, where there is a pre-existing client relationship with a potential claimant before funders are approached. In those circumstances it may be more straightforward to satisfy the dominant purpose test. The judge also highlighted that materials provided to funders which contain or evidence privileged legal advice may remain protected by privilege. It may also be possible to rely on limited waiver where privileged material has been disclosed on confidential terms.

She joined from Pocket Living, where she served as Chief Development Officer overseeing its entire pipeline of major London schemes including the award-winning Sheepcote Road in Harrow and Atlas Wharf in Old Oak.  

Her earlier roles at Grosvenor and Muse Developments established a strong track record in regeneration and public–private partnership, working with local authorities and institutional stakeholders to unlock major development opportunities, including the two-acre South Molton Triangle in Mayfair.  

She has over 20 years of experience leading complex residential and mixed-use regeneration projects across London and the UK. 

Greystar’s 16-person UK Development team is currently delivering significant rental housing schemes, including the first homes at the 1,600-home Pearl Yard in Bermondsey, as well as Greenford Quay, Momento Hayes and Canvas Wembley, which are now fully operational. 

Thomasin holds a Bachelor of Science in Astrophysics from University College London and a Master of Science in Surveying from the University of Reading. She is a Fellow of RICS (Planning and Development). 

• The Government has proposed a significant overhaul of the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) system. The reforms aim to shift the burden of SEND support into mainstream education, reducing reliance on Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) and widely replacing them with a new system of tiered support. Whilst the ambition is to make support faster and more accessible, the changes carry important legal and practical implications for both schools and families.
• A new "universal offer" raises the baseline for all mainstream schools, with new inclusion standards, teacher training, and annual Inclusion Strategies assessed by Ofsted.
• A tiered support model replaces the current framework, with every child receiving an ISP and EHCPs reserved only for those with the most complex needs.
• ISPs carry less legal weight than EHCPs: they are not enforceable or appealable to the SEND Tribunal, potentially increasing the burden on internal complaints procedures and discrimination claims against schools.
• Full implementation is not until 2028/29: the SEND Code of Practice remains in force in the meantime, and schools should plan ahead.

What are the proposed SEND reforms?

In reform plans billed as "radical" by the Department for Education, the Government's Schools White Paper, "Every child achieving and thriving", was published in February, alongside its consultation paper on SEND reforms. The White Paper sets out proposed major reforms to the SEND system in the UK, prompted by a recognition that the current framework is not working effectively and is putting local authorities under unsustainable financial burden.  

Since the publication of the White Paper, there has now been a change in Government leadership, with Andy Burnham as Prime Minister and Lucy Powell as Secretary of State for Education. At this stage, it remains to be seen whether this change will result in any amendment to the proposed SEND reforms, although media commentary suggests it is unlikely the new leadership will depart significantly from the proposed reforms.¹

The Universal Offer

The proposed reforms are stated to be designed to equip mainstream schools to enable all children, including those with SEND, to participate and be supported in mainstream settings, thereby creating a more inclusive education system.

The Government's SEND consultation paper presents this as a "universal offer".  This is:

1. A universal standard described as "a new baseline for mainstream education settings" that "will raise standards for all" and "[place] inclusion at the heart of everyday practice".
2. Among other things, the "Universal offer" promises a high-quality curriculum designed for all learners; strong partnerships with families and wider services; and inclusive environments with continuous improvements to accessibility.
3. A further £200 million over 3 years will also go towards a new training programme for teachers, to ensure that all staff (not just those specialising in children with SEND) are well placed to provide the correct support to all students within mainstream schooling.

What is clear is that schools will bear more of the responsibility for supporting children with SEND. Schools will be held accountable for this: they will be required to produce annual Inclusion Strategies (instead of the current SEN Information Report framework), which will be subject to assessment by Ofsted. 

Beyond the "universal offer", the key reforms are as follows:

The key takeaways for parents are:

• The reforms are intended to make SEND support easier and faster to access, meaning that most children with SEND should be able to thrive in a mainstream environment without having to engage in lengthy, complex processes to get the help they need.
• Whilst children with SEND will be legally entitled to an ISP, these plans will not carry the same legal weight as EHCPs (access to which will become more limited). Challenges to an ISP will have to be made internally or through local authority procedures, as opposed to going through the Tribunal.
• Support already in place for your child will not be unilaterally removed. Even if your child's needs are not complex enough to warrant an EHCP under the new plans, their current EHCP will still remain in place until 2030 at the earliest.

The key takeaways for schools are:

• Schools should start planning ahead to help staff understand the new framework, how it will be implemented, and assess where there may be gaps in service provision.
• Given the heavily increased administrative burden on schools with, for instance, ISPs and associated record-keeping, schools should consider to whom those responsibilities will fall and whether staff have sufficient capacity.
• Whilst schools should look ahead to implementation, they should be reminded that the reforms are yet to be legislated and are not likely to take effect before 2029 – schools should be mindful not to make changes to children's care prematurely, and to continue complying with the SEND Code of Practice in the meantime.
• The onus to (i) identify the necessary support for children with SEND; and (ii) provide the same, will lie with schools. The majority of children with SEND will have ISPs, rather than EHCPs which will be focused on the most complex needs.  As ISPs are not challengeable in the SEND tribunal, schools could see a rise in complaints and disability discrimination claims.

We have been ranked Band 1 for Private Wealth Disputes, Private Wealth Law and Real Estate: High Value Residential in London, and Art and Cultural Property Law, Immigration: High Net Worth Individuals, and Landed Estates across the UK.

Amanda Gray, Idina Glyn, James Liffen, Johanna Walsh, Jonathan CY Mok, Karen Sanig, Mark Keenan, Patrick Harney, Peter Steen and Sonal Thakrar have been ranked in Band 1 for their respective practice areas.

Alice Mantle, Christopher Gribbin, Lavinia de Nazelle, Louise Moore, Michelle Stroube, Min Wiggins, Rhiannon Coleman, Sabrina Sears and Stephanie Lim Pierce have been recognised as Associates to Watch.

Carmen Cheng, Clare Radcliffe and Harry Eccles-Williams have been listed as Up and Coming lawyers.

Lawrence Hiller-Wood has been listed as Star Associate.

Individual accolades:

• Senior Statespeople: Sandra Davis
• Foreign Expert for Switzerland Spotlight: Filippo Noseda
• Foreign Expertise based abroad in UK: Kamal Rahman
• Foreign Expert for Middle East-wide Spotlight: Marianne Kafena
• Foreign Expert for United Arab Emirates Spotlight: Martin Davies

Rankings

London

Private Wealth Disputes

• Emilia Piskorz
• Jessica Medus
• Lawrence Hiller-Wood
• Mark Keenan
• Peter Steen

Private Wealth & Tax

• Charlie Sosna
• Filippo Noseda
• Fiona Lewsey
• Marianne Kafena
• Martin Davies
• Patrick Harney

Real Estate: High Value Residential

• Dee Aylward
• Fiona Callaghan
• James Liffen
• Sonal Thakrar

UK-wide

Art and Cultural Property Law

• Amanda Gray
• Karen Sanig
• Lavinia de Nazelle
• Michelle Stroube
• Simon Chadwick

Defamation/Reputation Management: High Net Worth

• Alexandra Whiston-Dew
• Emma Woollcott
• Harry Eccles-Williams
• Michael Frost

Family Offices & Funds Structuring

• Filippo Noseda

Family/Matrimonial Finance: Ultra High Net Worth

• Alice Mantle
• Antonia Felix
• Barbara Reeves
• Claire Yorke
• Clare Radcliffe
• James Rees
• Kate Clark
• Sandra Davis

Financial Crime: High Net Worth Individuals

• Christopher Gribbin
• Johanna Walsh
• Matthew Ewens
• Min Wiggins

Immigration: High Net Worth Individuals

• Hannah Barnett
• Kamal Rahman
• Maria Patsalos
• Steven Bostock

Landed Estates

• Andrew Williamson
• Idina Glyn
• Louise Moore

China

Family/Matrimonial: High Net Worth (International Firms)

• Jonathan CY Mok

Private Wealth Law (International Firms)

• Carmen Cheng
• Timothy Burns
• Wei Zhang

Cambridge and surrounds

Private Wealth & Tax

• Rhiannon Coleman
• Sabrina Sears

Singapore

Private Wealth Law

• Stephanie Lim Pierce

View the full listings on the Chambers website.

The latest guide also recognises several of the team’s leading practitioners: 

Partner Jonathan Mok retains his Band 1 ranking for China – Family/Matrimonial: High Net Worth. 

Managing Partner Wei Zhang advances to Band 2 for China – Private Wealth Law. 

Partner Timothy Burns retains his Band 3 ranking for China – Private Wealth Law. 

Legal Director Carmen Cheng retains her Up and Coming ranking for China – Private Wealth Law. 

Singapore Managing Associate Stephanie Lim Pierce achieves her inaugural ranking as an Associate to Watch for Singapore – Private Wealth Law. 

These results reflect Mishcon Asia’s continued momentum and growing standing across private wealth, family and matrimonial law. 

Learn more about the rankings.

Katy Colton, Partner and Head of Politics & Law in Mishcon Private was featured as The Times Lawyer of the Week. Katy explains how failures in the original police investigation and prosecution affected the evidence that survived, requiring the team to draw on a wide range of sources to reconstruct a picture of Ruth’s mental state. She also discusses her politically informed practice, the importance of achieving a tangible impact for clients and the people who have influenced her legal career.

Grace Houghton, Associate in the Private Department, was featured as the Law Gazette’s Lawyer in the News. Grace, who represented Ruth’s grandchildren, discusses the abuse Ruth suffered at the hands of David Blakely and why the pardon is a historic acknowledgement that she should never have been executed. She also reflects on the wider significance of the case, dealing with intense media interest and the privilege of helping Ruth’s family secure justice more than 70 years after her execution.

Read more:

• Katy’s interview: The Times
• Grace’s interview: The Law Gazette
• Background: Ruth Ellis granted posthumous conditional pardon

Hugging Face subsequently disclosed the intrusion, noting that it was, in its own words, different from anything it had handled before: an attack driven end-to-end by an autonomous AI agent, detected and dissected largely with AI of its own.

According to OpenAI, the models escaped their intended testing constraints, obtained external internet access by exploiting a previously unknown vulnerability, and subsequently compromised Hugging Face systems to obtain information that could help them succeed in the benchmarking task they had been set.

If the details disclosed by OpenAI are accurate, this may represent one of the first publicly documented cases of an AI escaping a testing environment and conducting a real-world intrusion against an external organisation, raising important questions around AI governance, accountability, and regulatory oversight.

Optimising for Success

Nobody told the model to attack Hugging Face. It was tasked with maximising its score on ExploitGym, a benchmark that presents an agent with hundreds of real vulnerabilities and asks it to weaponise each one. The model reasoned that the answer key probably resided on Hugging Face and that stealing it was the most efficient route to a high score. Breaking containment, finding a zero-day, and compromising another organisation’s database were, from the model's perspective, merely instrumental steps towards the objective it had been given.

The evaluation was designed to run in a sealed sandbox with no internet access, connected only to an internal package proxy that caches software downloads. That single convenience - the ability to pull in libraries - was the entire point of failure. The model discovered an undisclosed vulnerability in the proxy and used it to reach the open internet at will.

After obtaining external access, the models inferred that Hugging Face might host models, datasets, or solutions relevant to ExploitGym. They conducted reconnaissance, identified exploitable weaknesses, and reportedly leveraged vulnerabilities and compromised credentials to gain access to Hugging Face infrastructure. This ultimately allowed them to obtain benchmark solutions directly from production systems, effectively bypassing the benchmark rather than completing it as intended.

Hugging Face detected and contained the activity, initially attributing the breach to an "external AI agent" and reportedly suspecting involvement from a frontier AI laboratory given the sophistication of the attack.

Response Asymmetry

During the response, Hugging Face encountered a striking problem with its forensic analysis. Its team initially tried frontier models behind commercial APIs to analyse the attacker's action logs, but the requests were blocked by provider safety guardrails - systems that cannot distinguish an incident responder from an attacker. Submitting real exploit payloads, command-and-control artefacts, and attack commands trips the same filters designed to stop malicious use.

The result was a stark asymmetry: the attacker was a frontier model with its safety refusals turned off, while the defenders were unable to use equivalent commercial models to analyse the very attack it had carried out.

Breaking boundaries

A notable aspect of the incident is that the models were not instructed to attack Hugging Face. They appear to have determined independently that acquiring benchmark solutions was an efficient route to a high ExploitGym score. The objective remained unchanged; the methods chosen to achieve it simply extended beyond the boundaries OpenAI's testing framework anticipated.

The key takeaway is that the reported behaviour was not motivated by malicious intent. The models were pursuing a legitimate testing goal, yet they selected methods that created real-world consequences well outside the scope of the evaluation.

This demonstrates that organisations cannot assess AI risk purely through intended use cases; they must also consider the actions a system may take while pursuing those objectives. As advanced models become increasingly effective at discovering and exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities, organisations face a future in which vulnerability discovery and exploitation occur at machine speed rather than human speed.

This incident highlights that threat modelling can no longer assume intelligent adversarial behaviour is exclusively human. If OpenAI's account is accurate, organisations will need enhanced security, governance, and risk frameworks capable of addressing autonomous systems that can independently identify and exploit paths their creators did not anticipate. The threat landscape expands beyond criminals and nation-states to include failures and unintended consequences arising from advanced AI systems, potentially operating at a speed that outpaces many current detection and response processes.

Although the attack took place in the United States, it raises an obvious question for the UK - would comparable conduct be prosecuted in the same way under the Computer Misuse Act 1990? A Section 1 offence requires a person to intend to secure unauthorised access, which does not appear to be the case here. If the issue is characterised instead as negligence or recklessness in the design, containment, or deployment of that system, the current statutory framework may be less straightforward. That matters because the Act was enacted in 1990, long before autonomous agents capable of identifying and exploiting vulnerabilities at speed were contemplated. The incident therefore exposes a potential legislative gap, namely whether, and in what circumstances, it should be an offence to negligently or recklessly release a system capable of causing real-world cyber harm.

It remains unclear whether OpenAI will face legal consequences as a result of the intrusion. However, based on OpenAI's own account, the reported actions - including unauthorised system access, use of compromised credentials, exploitation of vulnerabilities, and retrieval of information from Hugging Face production systems - would likely fall within conduct ordinarily prohibited under the US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) if performed by a human actor. The legal complexity lies in the fact that the activity was not directed by an individual operator, creating uncertainty over how existing cybercrime legislation applies when the immediate actor is an autonomous AI system.

As the landscape develops, however, the scope for legal consequences may shift. The next organisation that finds itself in a similar position may find it harder to argue that it was ignorant of, or could not have foreseen, the consequences, given what has happened to Hugging Face and the worldwide attention it has drawn.

Furthermore, as organisations are driven to adopt security measures that extend far beyond the boundaries of their own systems, there is a risk that they may be found to have breached laws intended to criminalise malicious actors but which may not – at least from a liability perspective – distinguish between a defensive and an offensive act of unauthorised access.

Whilst in that situation an organisation would hope for prosecutorial discretion, that is by no means guaranteed; and going deeper still, there is inevitably scope for a bad actor to pose as a benign force – one driven ostensibly by a desire to keep systems secure from outside attack – but who is in fact masking a much more malign intent.

This incident may ultimately be remembered less as a breach of Hugging Face and more as an early demonstration of the governance and cybersecurity challenges posed by frontier autonomous AI systems. It is likely to become an important reference point for future legal and regulatory discussions, particularly those concerning liability, accountability, and the oversight of advanced autonomous AI behaviour.

In addition, the firm announced that it has increased its trainee salaries. First-year trainees will receive a salary of £52,500 and second-year trainees a salary of £57,500, effective from July.  

Earlier this year, the firm announced that Associates, Managing Associates and Of Counsel will be eligible for an additional bonus if they work significantly in excess of their standard expected hours. The bonus, which is in addition to the existing bonus scheme that rewards high performers, has been introduced to attract and retain talented employees, ensuring that the firm’s lawyers are rewarded well and competitively for effort and excellence - including the use of AI - particularly when clients require intensive support.

The firm has not changed its chargeable hours expectations; this means the firm’s lawyers can find the balance that best suits their lives and circumstances, either by emphasising work/life balance or longer hours.

Vanessa Dewhurst, Partner and Chief People Officer at Mishcon de Reya, said:  

“Our people are at the heart of our growth, our culture and our success and rewarding them fairly, competitively and sustainably is at the core of our strategy.

“Each year we assess how to provide a remuneration package that aligns with the firm's growth and to ensure that we continue to attract the brightest talent in the market. These increases, along with the additional bonus scheme, ensure we can competitively reward both the financial contributions and wider contributions that create long-term value for the firm and clients.”

The site was originally transferred by Berkeley in 2010 to facilitate delivery of the Woolwich Elizabeth line station. Following completion of the station in 2022, Places for London has now returned the site to Berkeley, unlocking a key development opportunity at one of London's most significant regeneration schemes.

The site benefits from planning consent for a 575-home mixed-use development, comprising four buildings arranged around a landscaped podium above the station. The scheme will also provide commercial space, public realm improvements and new landscaped amenity areas.

Royal Arsenal Riverside is a major regeneration project in southeast London, with around 4,000 homes already delivered and more than 5,000 homes expected across the wider development.

The Mishcon team was led by Anju Suneja, Partner in Real Estate, and supported by Oliver Neasham (Real Estate), Rebecca Murphy (Real Estate). Planning advice was provided by Partner Nicholle Kingsley, Anna Trafford and Jon Legg, Partner in Real Estate Tax, also advised.  

Anju Suneja commented:

"We are delighted to have supported Berkeley in reaching this important milestone at Royal Arsenal Riverside. This transaction demonstrates the value that can be created when the public and private sectors work together over the long term to unlock complex urban sites. At a time when developers continue to navigate evolving regulatory requirements, viability pressures and a constrained planning environment, bringing forward well-connected developments such as this remains critical to increasing housing supply".

Related coverage

Green Street News

Mark said that although this case was decided under Irish law, there are helpful learning points for HR professionals in the UK.

He explained that when an employee discloses their pregnancy, an employer should carry out a risk assessment, inform the employee of their “entitlement to maternity leave and pay, and allow [them] to take paid time off to attend antenatal appointments”.

Mark said that where there is a maternity policy, employers should “review that policy and comply with its terms... Failure to do so may create potential claims by the pregnant employee”.  

He concluded: “Although it is possible to make a pregnant employee redundant, she will have super priority in respect of any suitable alternative vacancies.”

Read the article in full

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

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

In this discussion, he will explore:

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

Our key insights include: 

• Ransomware is still the number one cyber crime issue. Data theft has overtaken encryption as the most common extortion tactic. Organisations should be considering their response, communications and regulatory strategies to deal with data leaks as well as backups and recovery. 
• Geopolitical cyber risk is no longer confined to critical infrastructure. We are in a more exposed world with state-aligned and destructive attacks increasingly affecting private sector organisations. We recommend understanding the impacts geopolitical shifts will have on technology, security and business reputations.  
• AI is helping threat actors operate faster and at greater scale. This occurs particularly through enhanced reconnaissance, phishing and operational automation, but there is a lot of hype. 
• Identity has become a primary attack surface, with attackers increasingly targeting helpdesks, privileged accounts and cloud management platforms rather than endpoints themselves. We recommend understanding how social engineering attacks target your people, or how your Cloud and Technology environments are secured, beyond adding more security tools. 

Fluidstack builds and operates high-performance compute infrastructure for leading AI companies. The company delivers large-scale GPU clusters purpose-built for AI training and inference, handling the full lifecycle of deployment: acquiring power, designing and constructing data centres, and operating them through integrated hardware and software teams. Its technology is designed to enable the delivery of gigawatts of computing capacity in industry leading time frames.

Phil Robinson, Partner at Mishcon de Reya, commented: “It was a real privilege to represent Fluidstack on this strategic transaction. We’ve seen the company go from strength to strength, and this deal marks a key moment in its growth trajectory. Huge congratulations to all those involved.”

The Mishcon de Reya team was led by Partner Phil Robinson and included Kunal Sankhla, John Hadfield, Ege Sever, Sophia Andronikou, Gwen Ballin-Reeler and Chanelle Cattin, together with Chris Driscoll from the firm’s US team.

For more information about Fluidstack, please visit fluidstack.io.

Planning Partner Nicholle Kingsley has shared her analysis with Housing Digital, Inside Housing and Planning Resource, examining whether the proposed changes mark a meaningful departure from the current planning framework.

Nicholle describes the revised approach to affordable housing targets as considered and practical. However, she notes that translating the Mayor’s ambitions into completed homes will require policies that reflect market conditions, address viability constraints and give developers and local authorities sufficient clarity and flexibility.

Related coverage

Housing Digital
Inside Housing
Planning Resource
The Planner
Property Week

• The decision in Trump v Slaughter has created uncertainty about the long-standing position of the independence of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the USA.
• Max Schrems (who has previously challenged the data transfer protections in place between the EU and USA) considers the decision in Trump v Slaughter to remove the independence of the FTC required under the Data Privacy Framework (DPF). Schrems's NGO "NOYB" has urged the European Commission to act, and threatened to bring proceedings if necessary.
• The DPF remains in place for now, though it is possible that a Schrems III action will invalidate the DPF should the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) agree with the position in Schrems's submissions. Should that happen, it seems inevitable that the UK-US "data bridge", which relies on the DPF, would be reviewed.

Trump v Slaughter decision

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is a US government regulatory agency, which has a variety of powers relating to the enforcement of competition law and consumer protection. The FTC operates with five Commissioners, who serve for a period of seven years following their appointment and historically it has only been possible to remove them from office following "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office". Until recently, it enjoyed statutory protection designed to ensure its independence.

In his second term as President, Donald Trump removed Commissioners Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter from their roles. Slaughter subsequently challenged this decision in the courts, and the case was eventually heard by the US Supreme Court. On 29 June 2026, the Court ruled in Trump v Slaughter that the President could fire Commissioners "at will" and was not restricted to the historic position relating to their conduct in office. The decision discusses at length the position of the FTC, and whether it exercises executive power (and therefore falls under the authority of the President) and ultimately concludes that it does – hence the President's ability to appoint and remove Commissioners without cause.

Max Schrems's view

Max Schrems is an Austrian lawyer and founder and Chair of NOYB, known for his complaints to the Irish Data Protection Commissioner that ultimately resulted in the landmark rulings by the CJEU on the validity of the adequacy decisions made by the European Commission for EU-US personal data transfers. These decisions were reliant on the "EU–US Safe Harbor" regime which was invalidated in the case known as Schrems I and the adequacy decision reliant on the "EU–US Privacy Shield" which was invalidated in the case known as Schrems II.

Both Schrems I and II resulted in a change to the approach that was necessary to transfer personal data between the EU and US in a GDPR-compliant manner.

Following the Trump v Slaughter decision, NOYB has stated its belief that the current "EU–US Data Privacy Framework" (DPF) used for transatlantic data transfers is invalid as the FTC (which is designated to independently enforce the DPF commitments of certified organisations) is no longer independent in the manner intended by the European Commission. In its statement, NOYB critiques not only the DPF, but also the ability to rely on EU SCCs or BCRs, as both rely on transfer impact assessments (TIAs) which NOYB believes should conclude the transfers are no longer legal. NOYB has also written to the European Commission, urging it to repeal the adequacy decision which approves the DPF, and threatening legal action if necessary.

Is Schrems right? Where do EU-US Transfers stand?

For the time being, at least, the European Commission adequacy decision still stands and relies on the DPF and assumed independence of the FTC.

It is unlikely that the European Commission will repeal its adequacy decision of its own volition. And if the matter does come before the CJEU, any decision is likely several years away. In the meantime, those businesses who rely on the DPF should generally feel confident that they can do so, awaiting a decision by the CJEU.

UK businesses should also be aware of the potential impact on the UK-US Data Bridge. The data bridge, which came into effect on 12 October 2023, is a UK extension to the DPF: US organisations must first be certified under the DPF in order to participate. Accordingly, if the underlying DPF were to be invalidated by the CJEU, the legal foundation of the data bridge would be called into serious question. However, since the threshold for adequacy was lowered from "essentially equivalent" to "not materially lower", the UK government might continue to allow US-UK data flows.

For businesses reliant on SCCs and BCRs, there is certainly some force in NOYB's position, and TIAs may need to be revised and updated. However, as with transfers to other countries not subject to an adequacy decision, both the SCCs and BCRs remain appropriate transfer mechanisms.

The new office space will be 161,000 sq ft across four floors, including a large client hospitality and events space. The firm will move into MidCity Place in 2029 following a full fit out and has also taken an option on an additional floor providing it with expansion space, in line with its growth plans. The space combines efficient and sustainable design, with the Mishcon “wow” factor the brand is known for.

Oxford’s comprehensive refurbishment programme will transform the building’s amenities, enhancing the arrival experience on the ground floor and adding a library podcast studio and social workspaces. It will also include the addition of outside spaces with a rooftop terrace and courtyard.

In line with Oxford’s sustainability and net zero carbon ambitions, MidCity Place has undergone a significant decarbonisation programme in 2026. The building is now fully electric in operation and supplied by 100% renewable electricity, improving both sustainability performance and operational efficiency.

MidCity Place is owned by a 50:50 joint venture between Oxford and Temasek, with Oxford managing the building on behalf of the joint venture. The building is now 100% committed to a range of strong global corporate occupiers, with a Weighted Average Unexpired Lease Term of 15 years.

Oxford was advised by JLL, Farebrother and Ashurst, and Mishcon de Reya was advised by CBRE and CMS.

Jay Drexler, VP, Asset Management at Oxford Properties, commented: “Securing Mishcon de Reya, one of London’s leading law firms, and achieving full occupancy further reinforces MidCity Place’s position as a premier Midtown office building. This long-term commitment reflects the quality of the asset and the investment we are making to enhance the occupier experience through best-in-class amenities and leading sustainability credentials.

“Supported by the continued demand for high-quality, well-located office space in Central London, this transaction highlights the value that active asset management can create by attracting world class occupiers to premier workplaces. As demand increasingly concentrates in the highest-quality buildings and future supply remains constrained, we remain highly confident in the long-term outlook for prime offices and continue to see opportunities to create value through repositioning and redevelopment across London and Europe.”

Daniel Naftalin, Managing Partner at Mishcon de Reya, remarked: "Moving to a new property can say a lot about a firm. We are tremendously excited about our upcoming move into MidCity Place, and believe it encapsulates the forward looking nature of the firm, a sense of our ambition and confidence in our future. The move marks the first time in some years our London office will be under one roof, and the move has been designed with connection and culture in mind.

"This move marks a significant milestone for the firm and supports our Vision 2030 strategy, reinforcing our commitment to growth, collaboration and excellence in client service. The area also has meaning for us – we have thrived in Holborn for decades, and this move cements it as our home for a long time to come."

Related coverage

The Lawyer
Law360 
Green Street News 
Estates Gazette
BeNews
Property Magazine International 

In brief

• The UK is on the verge of ratifying the Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions, commonly known as the Macolin Convention, having signed it in December 2018. The Convention is currently before Parliament for scrutiny, and the extended deadline of 12 October 2026 means that ratification could follow before the end of the year.
• The Convention is the only international treaty specifically addressing the manipulation of sports competitions. Seventeen states have already ratified it. Forty-three states are signatories in total, reflecting its reach beyond Europe. It creates a framework for cooperation between governments, law-enforcement agencies, sports organisations, competition organisers, betting operators and regulators.
• Ratification should prompt governing bodies and other sports organisations to review their integrity rules, reporting arrangements, education programmes and procedures for sharing potentially sensitive information. Organisations that begin that review now will be considerably better placed than those that wait for formal obligations to arrive.

A growing integrity threat

Match-fixing has come a long way from the back-room deals of football's past. It now reaches sports that would not, until recently, have featured on any fixer's radar. Evidence given to the House of Lords International Agreements Committee in July 2026 confirmed that the problem now extends to sports including darts, chess and skiing. Other sports such as boxing, tennis and cricket are not immune to this risk.

The mechanics of manipulation have also changed. It can involve an athlete deliberately underperforming, a player engineering a particular incident during a match, an official influencing a decision or an individual misusing inside information. It may be motivated by betting profits, sporting advantage or another financial or personal benefit.

Tennis has faced sustained scrutiny at the lower levels of the professional circuit, where players competing in smaller tournaments earn modest incomes but participate in matches on which significant sums are wagered internationally. Cricket's sustained reckoning with spot-fixing (the deliberate manipulation of individual moments within a match rather than the final result) has driven significant reform of its integrity frameworks over many years, and the sport's anti-corruption unit is widely recognised as an international leader in the field. Boxing, whose governance has attracted scrutiny well beyond individual fights, demonstrates that the problem is not always confined to the athletes themselves. And as for darts, chess and skiing: wherever there is a betting market and an information gap, there is an opportunity, and the operators who exploit it are rarely limited to one sport.

Esports is also an area of growing concern, with rapidly expanding betting markets that remain lightly regulated in a number of jurisdictions. The common thread is the growth of online and in-play betting, which means that almost any aspect of a competition can become the subject of a betting market and therefore a target for manipulation.

The House of Lords International Agreements Committee explored these international and technological dimensions of the problem across its evidence sessions on 9 and 14 July 2026. The Committee heard from the Gambling Commission, the Sports Betting Integrity Forum and the International Tennis Integrity Agency, as well as a former footballer who had been convicted of match-fixing. The evidence illustrated that organised criminal networks may use sports manipulation both to generate profits and to launder the proceeds of other criminal activity.

The Committee is scrutinising the Macolin Convention following its presentation to Parliament in June.

What is the Macolin Convention?

The Macolin Convention was opened for signature in 2014 and entered into force in September 2019. The UK signed it in December 2018 but has not yet ratified it. The Government presented the Convention to Parliament on 4 June 2026, beginning the domestic treaty-scrutiny process. The parliamentary scrutiny period has subsequently been extended to 12 October 2026.

The Convention defines the manipulation of a sports competition broadly. It covers an intentional arrangement, act or omission aimed at improperly altering the result or the course of a competition, removing some or all of its unpredictability in order to obtain an undue advantage.

That definition is important. The Convention is not limited to traditional match-fixing or to conduct connected with betting. It is capable of encompassing so-called “spot-fixing”, the manipulation of individual incidents and other conduct intended to distort the proper course of a competition.

The Convention’s central objective is to prevent, detect and sanction both domestic and transnational manipulation. It seeks to achieve this by joining together participants who may each hold only one part of the relevant intelligence: sports bodies, betting operators, regulators, public authorities and law-enforcement agencies. It is currently the only rule of international law dedicated specifically to this issue.

What does the Convention require?

The Convention does not replace the disciplinary jurisdiction of sports governing bodies. Instead, it establishes a framework within which sporting, regulatory and criminal processes can operate together.

Sports organisations and competition organisers are to be encouraged to introduce effective rules dealing with conflicts of interest, betting by participants and the misuse of inside information. Competition stakeholders should be required to report suspicious approaches or other conduct that may breach integrity rules.

Organisations should also have systems for monitoring competitions exposed to manipulation, reporting concerns promptly to the appropriate authorities and enabling individuals to disclose information safely. The Convention expressly recognises the importance of whistleblower protection and education, including education directed at young athletes.

Each state party must identify a national platform to act as an information hub. Its functions include receiving and analysing information about irregular or suspicious betting, coordinating the national response, issuing alerts and transmitting relevant intelligence to public authorities, sports organisations and betting operators.

The Gambling Commission’s Sports Betting Intelligence Unit and Sports Betting Integrity Forum together already fulfil the functions required of the UK's national platform under the Convention. The SBIU acts as the operational intelligence hub, working with governing bodies, operators and law-enforcement partners and participating in international integrity networks, while the SBIF provides the strategic framework within which those partners coordinate. Ratification would place that cooperation within a binding treaty framework and strengthen the UK’s formal involvement in the Convention’s international mechanisms.

The Convention also requires appropriate protection for personal data. This will be significant where organisations are exchanging information about athletes, officials or betting customers before wrongdoing has been proved. Information-sharing arrangements must therefore account for lawfulness, necessity, proportionality, accuracy, security and the rights of the individuals concerned.

The question of who holds inside information is also evolving, with content creators and influencers who have access to athletes and club environments increasingly falling within the Convention's framework, yet often without any awareness that their data may be shared with regulators or law enforcement.

Why ratification matters

The UK already has a comparatively developed sports-betting integrity framework. Ratification is therefore unlikely to produce an entirely new system overnight.

Its real significance lies in formalising existing arrangements, strengthening international cooperation and setting clearer expectations for every sport, not only those with substantial integrity departments or sophisticated betting-monitoring systems.

That matters because the vulnerability of a competition is not necessarily linked to its public profile. Lower-paid athletes, officials working without extensive institutional support, lower-tier competitions and events on which unexpected betting markets are offered may be particularly exposed. A governing body may also be unaware of suspicious activity if relevant data sit with an overseas operator or regulator.

The Convention recognises that no single organisation can respond effectively in isolation. A betting operator may identify an unusual market pattern but lack sporting context. A governing body may receive a report from an athlete but have no visibility of betting activity in another jurisdiction. Law-enforcement agencies may hold intelligence about individuals or financial flows that cannot be identified from sporting data alone.

The practical value of the Convention will therefore depend less on the existence of formal rules than on whether information can be shared lawfully, rapidly and with sufficient trust between the relevant organisations.

What should sports organisations do now?

Governing bodies, leagues, clubs and competition organisers should not need to wait for the ratification process to conclude before reviewing their existing arrangements.

In particular, organisations should consider whether their rules clearly prohibit all forms of competition manipulation, rather than only manipulation of the final result. Betting and inside-information restrictions should apply to the appropriate range of athletes, coaches, officials, employees, owners and other accredited individuals.

Reporting processes should be accessible, confidential and supported by appropriate protection against retaliation. Integrity training should address the circumstances in which approaches are now made, including through social media and encrypted messaging, and should explain the risks created by apparently minor requests to influence a particular moment within a competition.

Organisations should also understand where reports will be escalated, who has authority to communicate with the Gambling Commission or law enforcement, and what legal basis permits relevant personal data to be collected and shared.

Finally, investigation and disciplinary procedures should be capable of preserving evidence, protecting confidentiality and coordinating with external authorities without prejudicing parallel criminal, regulatory or sporting proceedings.

The Macolin Convention will not remove the commercial incentives behind competition manipulation. However, UK ratification would represent an important step towards a more coordinated response. For sports organisations, it is also a timely reminder that protecting integrity now requires more than a prohibition on match-fixing: it requires effective education, trusted reporting systems, careful information sharing and cooperation across borders.

How Mishcon de Reya can help

Mishcon de Reya's Sports law team works with governing bodies, clubs, leagues and athletes to ensure that policies align with evolving regulatory frameworks, including those arising from the Macolin Convention.

• Hannah Dart, Of Counsel in Private Wealth and Tax
• Sandra Davis, Partner, in Family
• Antonia Felix, Partner in Family
• Mark Keenan, Partner in Private Wealth Disputes
• Nicola Simmons, Legal Director in Private Wealth and Tax

Click here for more information and to see the full lists.

Victoria Pigott, Partner and Chair of Mishcon Private, examines why conflict resolution should form part of the planning process for internationally mobile families. She discusses governing law and jurisdiction, the choice between litigation and arbitration, and the challenges of enforcing judgments and awards across borders. The article explains how careful planning can preserve a family’s options and help avoid expensive disputes over where and how proceedings should take place.

James Hamilton, Legal Director in the Private Wealth & Capital group, and Steven Haywood, Corporate Partner, who leads the firm’s private funds practice, explore why family succession should be designed as an ongoing system supported by effective governance. They consider how ownership, control, management, information and family values can be transferred across generations, and how clear governance can protect family relationships and wealth while providing a practical framework for the next generation.

Read more:

• Victoria’s article: Families on the move: why dispute resolution must become part of the wealth planning conversation
• James and Steven’s article: Succession Isn't an Event. It's a System
• Full issue: Capital Under Pressure