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.

What's changing?

The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 is expanding the Right to Work ("RTW") Scheme beyond traditional employment. The Act introduces a new concept of "extended liability", which means that RTW checks may also need to be carried out in relation to worker contracts, individual sub-contractors and online matching services. The changes will also mean that some employers may need to conduct RTW checks for suppliers or entities further along a supply chain.

The full updated Scheme can be found here.

Who is affected?

All UK employers, recruitment agencies, staffing platforms, delivery platforms, online matching services and any organisation that sub-contracts work or services.

Effective date: 1 October 2026. There is no grace period.

New right to work obligations

All UK employers must conduct RTW checks before employing someone. If checks are conducted as prescribed by the Home Office ("HO"), the employer will have a statutory excuse against a civil penalty.

Previously, the RTW Scheme applied only to individuals under a contract of employment (i.e., an employee) and any sponsored workers. The changes now extend it to a wider range of working arrangements and introduce a new "extended liability" for employers. The key points to be aware of are as follows:

The definition of "employer" will expand to now cover any person who engages an individual:

• under a contract of employment (same as before);
• under a worker's contract;
• as an individual sub-contractor; or
• through an online matching service providing the details of an individual who is a service provider to potential clients or customers.

Here are some examples drawn from the Home Office guidance that help illustrate how each of these working arrangements will now be caught by the expanded RTW Scheme:

Contract of employment:

An individual is employed as a receptionist at a hotel company to work set shifts. They are a permanent member of staff, paid through the hotel company's payroll, and provide services directly to the hotel's guests. The hotel company is the receptionist's direct employer. As such, the hotel is responsible for the right to work check and may be liable for payment of a civil penalty if the individual is found to be working illegally.

Worker's contract:

An individual is registered with an employment business which supplies temporary workers to bars and restaurants during busy periods. The individual is engaged by the employment business on a contract for services and accepts short-term hospitality assignments when offered. The employment business is the individual's employer for the purposes of the Right to Work Scheme and is therefore responsible for the right to work check. The employment business may be liable for payment of a civil penalty if the individual is found to be working illegally while undertaking that work.

Individual sub-contractor:

An individual signs up to work through a delivery platform. The individual logs into an app when they want to work, accepts delivery requests and gets paid for each delivery they complete. The delivery platform is the individual's employer for the purposes of the Right to Work Scheme. As such, the delivery platform is responsible for the right to work check and may be liable for payment of a civil penalty if the individual is found to be working illegally.

Online matching service

A homeowner would like someone to clean their house and uses an online matching service to find a cleaner. The online matching service matches a cleaner to the customer, and the cleaner personally carries out the cleaning services at the customer's home. The online matching service is the cleaner's employer for the purposes of the Right to Work Scheme. As such, the online matching service is responsible for the right to work check and may be liable for payment of a civil penalty if the individual is found to be working illegally.

Whether 'extended liability' may apply to an arrangement. It will apply where:

• a person is under a contract to provide work or services to a third party and enters into a contract with another employer providing workers to fulfil that contract (sub-contracting chains);
• an online matching service matches a service provider with a client or customer, and the service provider enters into a contract with the client or customer; or
• an employer employs an individual to provide work or services, and the contract permits that individual to substitute their work or services to another individual.

Here are some further examples drawn from the Home Office guidance that help illustrate where 'extended liability' applies:

Subcontracted services

A construction company wins a contract to build new homes. The company engages other businesses through a chain of contracts to provide workers required to complete elements of the project, including laying foundations and bricklaying. The construction company is contractually responsible for delivering work to a third party and relies upon a chain of contracts to provide workers and services required to fulfil the contract.

The contractual arrangements are within scope of the extended liability provisions. For the purposes of the Right to Work Scheme, the construction company may be treated as the employer of any individuals who personally carry out work or services through the relevant contractual chain and may be liable for payment of a civil penalty if an individual is found to be working illegally. To establish a statutory excuse, the construction company must comply with the prescribed requirements in relation to the contractual arrangements.

Substitution arrangements

An individual signs up to work through a food delivery platform. The platform describes the individual as an independent contractor (self-employed) and pays them for each delivery they complete but it does not employ them in the traditional sense. The individual can log into the app when they choose and is permitted to substitute the work or services. On occasions where the individual cannot complete deliveries, they routinely ask a friend to carry it out instead, intending to pass on part of the payment. The agreement between the food delivery platform and the individual allows them to substitute their work or services to other individuals.

The contractual arrangements are within scope of the extended liability provisions. For the purposes of the Right to Work Scheme, the food delivery platform may be treated as the employer of the individual personally carrying out the work or services, including any substitute who undertakes deliveries on behalf of the individual registered to use the platform. The platform may therefore be liable for payment of a civil penalty if that individual is found to be working illegally. To establish a statutory excuse, the platform must comply with the prescribed requirements in relation to the contractual arrangements.

Examples that are exempt from the new RTW changes

Importantly, the changes are not intended to apply retrospectively; contracts signed before the effective date are not in scope of the new rules.

However, the expanded Scheme introduces several ambiguities. For example, where a Master Service Agreement or a framework agreement with a vendor was signed before 1 October 2026, it would not ordinarily be affected by the new rules. But if that agreement allows for extensions or the addition of new individuals after that date, it is unclear whether those later arrangements would be treated as new contracts. If they are, the employer may need to carry out right to work checks for those individuals. We recommend reviewing any such agreements now.

Other arrangements that are exempt will include self-employed contractors and services provided through a personal service company. Here are a couple more examples to help illustrate this:

Self-employed contractor

A member of the public has organised for a plumber to repair a leaking tap in their home. The plumber is self-employed, advertises their services directly to the public through a range of channels and obtains work from multiple customers. A right to work check is not required. The plumber is operating an independent business and is not working within the scope of the Right to Work Scheme.

Provision of services through a personal service company

A graphic designer has been engaged by a client company to work on a specific project through the designer's own personal service company. The personal service company contracts with the client company and invoices them under the personal service company name. A right to work check is not required by the client company. The client company is contracting directly with the personal service company for the provision of services rather than engaging the individual directly within the scope of the Right to Work Scheme.

What you should do now

• Review your onboarding workflows and contractual terms to ensure RTW checks cover all newly in-scope categories (worker's contracts, individual sub-contractors and online matching services).
• Review your existing workforce and contractor base to identify any gaps in RTW compliance.
• Review any master or framework agreements signed before the effective date that allow new engagements after that date, and take advice on whether those may fall within scope.
• If you have any questions about how these changes may affect your organisation, or if you would like help reviewing your current arrangements, please do not hesitate to get in touch with our Immigration team. We would be happy to discuss your specific circumstances and help you prepare for the new requirements.

This is intended as a general overview and does not constitute legal advice. Please contact us for advice tailored to your particular circumstances.

Real estate businesses are increasingly reliant on digital infrastructure, smart building technologies and extensive networks of third-party suppliers. At the same time, landlords, asset managers and property professionals are responsible for large volumes of personal and commercially sensitive data. This combination creates both opportunity and risk.

Join us for this online session as our specialists explore the evolving cyber and data protection challenges facing the real estate industry. Through a practical discussion, we will examine the current threat landscape, the risks associated with smart buildings and proptech, and the key steps organisations should take to prepare for and respond to cyber incidents.

Topics will include:

• The most significant cyber threats currently impacting the real estate sector.
• Payment diversion fraud, business email compromise and ransomware attacks.
• Data protection risks relating to tenants, occupiers and visitors.
• Smart buildings, proptech and emerging technology risks.
• Practical steps to strengthen cyber resilience and minimise disruption.

Who should attend?

This session will be of particular interest to real estate investors, developers, landlords, asset and property managers, in-house legal teams, risk professionals and those responsible for cyber security, compliance and data protection.

Our commentary explores the wealth planning challenges and opportunities facing high net worth individuals and families with connections to Mainland China and Hong Kong, particularly those with international ties, including to the United States. It highlights the importance of coordinated, cross-jurisdictional strategies for succession planning, trust governance, international mobility and tax compliance.

• The Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has addressed the court's powers to prevent divisional patent strategies from frustrating pending revocation proceedings.
• The court rejected Sandoz's request for a free-standing declaration of obviousness, but dismissed Novo Nordisk's jurisdictional objections to family-specific 'Arrow'-type relief and to an order restraining withdrawal of approval of the patent’s text at the European Patent Office (EPO). The admissibility, merits and scope of these two applications will be assessed at a later date.
• The decision confirms that the UPC possesses an inherent jurisdiction, implicit within its conferred competences under the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA), to prevent procedural strategies - such as abusive use of divisional applications - from depriving its revocation jurisdiction of practical effect, with potentially significant, albeit not automatic, consequences for equivalent divisional claims.

Background

In Sandoz AG v Novo Nordisk A/S (UPC_CFI_2221/2026, procedural order of 22 October 2026), Sandoz sought revocation of Novo Nordisk's European patent with unitary effect, EP 3 689 365 (the “Patent"), principally for lack of inventive step and added matter. The Patent concerns a composition comprising semaglutide for preventing or treating type 2 diabetes, administered parenterally once weekly at a dose of 1.0 mg.

Alongside revocation of the Patent, Sandoz sought three additional forms of relief. Sandoz said these requests targeted the so-called "divisional game”: withdrawing or de-designating patent rights before an adverse ruling, while preserving materially equivalent protection through divisional applications. Sandoz sought:

• a standalone declaration that a specified semaglutide composition, use and administration mode were obvious at the priority date of the Patent, having regard to common general knowledge and/or the prior art relied on (Request 5);
• a declaration that any claim of a unitary or European patent within the court’s competence, entitled to claim the priority date of an application in the Patent’s family and broad enough to cover the subject matter of claims 1 to 5 of the Patent, would lack inventive step (Request 6); and
• an order restraining Novo Nordisk from withdrawing approval of the Patent’s text at the EPO under Article 113(2) of the European Patent Convention (EPC) until a final validity decision by the EPO Opposition Division, a Board of Appeal or the UPC (Request 7).

Sandoz characterised Requests 5 and 6 as seeking Arrow-type relief, intended to establish a defined proposition of obviousness and provide commercial certainty against later enforcement of equivalent claims in a divisional patent. Request 7 was directed at Novo Nordisk, not the EPO.

Novo Nordisk objected to these requests under Rule 19 of the UPC Rules of Procedure (RoP). It argued that the court’s jurisdiction was confined to the heads of competence listed in Article 32(1) UPCA, and that none of these covered Sandoz's additional requests.

The decision

The court upheld Novo Nordisk's objection to Request 5, declaring it manifestly inadmissible in its present form. The request sought an abstract declaration about a composition, rather than a sufficiently identified right or commercial activity. It was not in form an Arrow declaration because it did not identify a specific Sandoz product, process, intended act or market activity. Its breadth also risked affecting unheard third parties.

Requests 6 and 7 however survived Novo Nordisk's preliminary objection, albeit the court reserved determination of their ultimate merits, scope and the conditions for relief:

• For Request 6, the court identified a concrete purpose: preventing the same protective scope as in the Patent from re-emerging through divisionals after withdrawal of the Patent. It treated the request as Arrow-type relief concerning equivalent subject matter within the Patent’s family, provided the relevant patents remained owned by Novo Nordisk and within UPC competence. Crucially, it reserved the admissibility of the request as worded for the main proceedings.
• For Request 7, the court affirmed its power to preserve the effectiveness of pending revocation proceedings by restraining a party from withdrawing approval of the patent's text at the EPO. It did not however issue that restraint as Sandoz' request required more specificity as to the urgency, necessity, proportionality and appropriate scope of any order.

The court reasoned that its inherent authority is implicit in, not additional to, the jurisdiction conferred by the UPCA. It drew on the interpretative approach in XSYS v Esko, the anti-anti-suit injunction in Huawei v Netgear, and Article 42(2) UPCA's requirement that the court ensures its rules, procedures and remedies are used fairly and do not distort competition. The court concluded that it must retain the power necessary to protect proceedings properly before the court and prevent abuse of the divisional applications filing mechanism.

Importantly, the court stated that it is sufficient to observe that the UPC has not treated Art. 32 as preventing measures not literally named in the provision where such measures are necessary to preserve the effectiveness of a head of jurisdiction that is expressly conferred by Art 1, 3 and 32 UPCA.

The court also addressed the interaction between Rule 360 RoP permitting disposal of an action that has become devoid of purpose and that no longer requires adjudication, and a patentee's withdrawal of a patent application's approved text under Art 113(2) EPC. It held that such withdrawal does not automatically extinguish the need to adjudicate, and that where a claimant retains a concrete and continuing interest because the same subject matter is being pursued through a divisional the court may decline to dispose of the action under Rule 360 RoP. Drawing on its earlier decisions in Pari Pharma v Koninklijke Philips and LS9 v bellissa HAAS, the court considered that it could then refuse disposal and determine the merits.

Key takeaways

The order offers useful tools for patent challengers looking to clear the way through a patent family, but its procedural limits are as important as its recognition of jurisdiction.

First, the court has decided it lacked jurisdiction to entertain a claim seeking a declaration that a composition, independent of a patent right, was obvious at a given priority date. Instead, a conventional Arrow declaration should identify the claimant’s product, process or proposed activity. A family-specific request must define the relevant claims and subject matter and address ownership and third-party rights.

Secondly, the UPC has jurisdiction to ensure the effectiveness of the judicial protection entrusted to it. The court has confirmed it has an inherent jurisdiction implicit in its conferred competences, to address abusive use of applications designed to frustrate pending revocation proceedings, including by declining to treat a withdrawn patent as devoid of purpose and proceeding to rule on its validity regardless.

A ruling on the withdrawn patent would not automatically invalidate a later divisional. However, its significance would arise in subsequent enforcement or revocation proceedings, where the court would assess the granted claims, their correspondence with the adjudicated subject matter and any circumvention of the earlier ruling. Different claim scope is not prejudged.

Thirdly, the court has also confirmed its autonomous jurisdiction to grant provisional and protective measures ancillary to a pending revocation action, including restraining a patentee from withdrawing approval of a patent's text at the EPO, although the conditions for granting such relief (urgency proportionality and supporting facts) remain to be assessed case by case.

The court's approach was said to be consistent with the recent order in Omnia v Sidel (UPC_CFI_799/2026; UPC_CoA_90/26) and reinforces that procedural focus. In that case, the court held that the court may entertain an action seeking a declaration of non-infringement even though, at the date on which the action was lodged, the formal grant of the patent had not yet been completed, provided that grant occurs during proceedings and before the defence. That reasoning, based on procedural efficiency, legal certainty and the avoidance of an artificial duplication of proceedings, supports the broader principle that patent-related judicial protection may attach to sufficiently identified subject-matter independently of the formal completion of the grant process.

Finally, divisional filing is not itself misconduct. The court found that the pending family application and Novo Nordisk’s reservation of prosecution rights did not establish abuse at this stage. It also granted leave to appeal the order in its entirety. Pending the Court of Appeal's determination, however, the decision opens a potential route to effective protection against proven procedural frustration.

• The UKIPO has published the Government's response to its consultation on changes to the UK design framework.
• Rights owners should be aware of the key proposals in the response and factor in likely changes when looking at their design development, protection and enforcement strategies.
• The consultation identified a number of issues of concern including abuses of the design registration system, the need to modernise and simplify the framework, and cost effective and efficient enforcement of designs.
• The response presents some firm proposals on some issues, with further work to be done in order to inform other policy development.

Introduction

The Government has set out its aim to modernise design protection in the UK and make it easier for rights owners to understand and enforce their design rights.

Key proposals include targeted search and examination of registered design applications, a statutory 30-month deferment period, clearer protection for animated and digital designs, and changes to the disclosure rules for supplementary unregistered designs. In other areas, further policy work is planned including on how best to simplify unregistered design protection and the treatment of computer-generated designs. The Government has also decided to leave the overlap between design rights and copyright to be developed through case law.

With several changes dependent on sufficient parliamentary time to introduce relevant legislation, the response largely signals the direction of reform rather than effecting an immediate overhaul. In this article, we examine the key proposals and the issues that remain outstanding.

Dealing with anti-competitive design filings: targeted search and examination process

A core concern raised in the consultation focused on anti-competitive registrations, with increasing reports of applicants registering designs for well-known products, or products that don't belong to them, and looking to rely upon these registrations to obtain takedowns of legitimate products on online platforms. This issue can (in part) be attributed to the fact that it is very easy to register a design, with the UKIPO currently lacking the powers to object to a design that is not new.

Having considered a number of different options (while trying to maintain the current registration system's low cost and speed), the Government intends, when parliamentary time allows, to give the registrar a power to conduct a search and examination of designs during the application process on grounds of novelty and individual character. This will be a targeted power, to be used only in defined circumstances (with the criteria to be determined). In practice, the expectation is that search and examination will only be necessary for a proportion of design applications.

This will be a welcome development to rights owners faced with tackling 'bad faith' type design filings, to which point, the Government will also consider whether to introduce a specific bad faith provision for design applications. However, it recognises the potential uncertainty this may bring and so plans to undertake further work to define what types of behaviour would constitute bad faith and how the evidential hurdle will be met, before reaching a final decision.

Given the decision to proceed with targeted search and examination, proposals for an observation and opposition process will not proceed. However, in light of comments made by many respondents, the Government will consider further proposals for a fast-track invalidation process (which many consider to be a more cost-effective way of dealing with the issue).

Deferment: new statutory deferment period of 30 months

Deferment allows a designer to keep their design from being published on the register whilst preparing to commercialise it. The current rules on deferment are a matter of practice, rather than being set out in legislation and the deferment period of 12 months is not in line with the longer period provided in the EU and Hague design systems.

The Government plans to legislate to introduce a statutory 30-month deferment period. This will bring the UK in line with the EU and Hague, making it easier for UK businesses to protect their designs outside of the UK. The deferment process will also be harmonised with the EU/Hague. The deferment period will start from the earlier of the priority date or the filing date of the application, and the current practice of deferring both registration and publication of the design will be maintained. The Government will also extend prior use defence provisions to include deferred design applications.

GUIs and animated designs: modernisation

A key aim of the consultation was to ensure that the UK design framework reflects modern design and advances in technologies. The Government plans to legislate to amend the definition of both a design and a product to clarify that designs containing an animation or a transition can be protected as registered designs. It will also consider technical solutions to allow video and 3D file formats, as part of the UKIPO's digital transformation programme.

The UKIPO has already published guidance for applicants seeking to register icons, GUIs, web pages and other digital designs (discussed in our article: Protecting digital designs in the UK: a practical guide to the UKIPO's clarified registration practice).

These changes will align with those in place at the EU level, with the EUIPO recently reporting that over 100 EU designs had been filed using new digital formats in the first three months of its reform package being implemented.

Computer-generated designs: further policy work needed

Both registered and unregistered design law provide for protection for computer-generated designs, i.e., designs that are generated by a computer with no human author or designer (though this is not available in relation to supplementary unregistered design). UK copyright law also provides protection for computer-generated works.

The Government has deferred a decision on whether to remove provisions relating to computer-generated designs pending further policy work. Respondents provided wide-ranging views on the topic and the Government plans to monitor AI use in the design industry, consider approaches across other IP rights (for example, the Government is minded to remove protection for computer-generated works) and engage with stakeholders and international partners. For now, there will be no change to the current framework of protection for such designs.

Unregistered designs: harmonisation (but not at expense of protection)

This was clearly one of the most difficult issues the consultation was called to resolve, and discussions and policy work will continue. Many respondents wanted to maintain the current approach to unregistered designs, but the Government is keen to simplify the complex patchwork of protection. The Government has decided not to abandon the UK unregistered design right, which is welcome news, given the flexibility that this form of protection provides. Instead, the plan is to consider options for harmonising the UK unregistered design and supplementary unregistered design (SUD) regimes to remove some areas of complexity.

At a minimum, this harmonisation project would cover qualification requirements and the term of protection. The term of protection for a UK unregistered design is up to 15 years, and three years for a SUD. Whilst the Government favoured a harmonised term of five years, most respondents were in favour of a longer term of 10 years. The Government has noted the support for a 10-year term but will first assess the economic impact of extending the current three-year term for SUD.

In addition to this minimum level of harmonisation, the Government will consider the impacts of harmonising other aspects such as provisions relating to repair/spare parts, infringement and defences, and visibility in use.

However, on the equally complex subject of the overlap between designs and copyright, the Government is taking no action presently, instead allowing clarity to develop through case law. There remains some significant doubt as to the basis upon which applied design products can be protected under copyright law in the UK, benefitting from the (significantly) longer term of protection afforded by copyright. Deferring this assessment in favour of case law developments runs the risk of this controversial area of law remaining at a standstill or perhaps becoming all the more complex, unless and until an appropriate case is heard at the relevant level.

Disclosure of unregistered designs: global disclosure sufficient

Another complex issue dealt with in the consultation concerns the post-Brexit framework for a SUD to be created, and the requirements for disclosure of the design. There is no mutual recognition of the rules around disclosure of unregistered designs in the UK/EU Trade Co-operation Agreement (TCA) and one interpretation of the current framework is that a design which is first disclosed in the UK can be protected in the UK through a SUD, but not in the EU; and one that is first disclosed in the EU cannot be protected in the UK. There is some doubt as to whether this is a correct interpretation of the law, but design-led businesses operating in both territories have undoubtedly found themselves in a difficult position. One solution has been to seek to rely upon simultaneous disclosure in both the UK and the EU using online means such as streaming, though this remains untested legally.

Whilst the Government acknowledges there is a view (shared by many commentators) that a single disclosure is capable of unregistered protection in both territories, it has decided (given the current uncertainty) to take action and intends to provide for a SUD to be created following first disclosure of a design anywhere in the world where it has come to the attention of the relevant trade circles in the UK. It will also consider whether to incorporate a grace period, which would require the relevant design to be subsequently disclosed or put on the market in the UK within a certain period of time.

Adopting a global disclosure test will give UK designers freedom of choice as to where they operate or first show their designs without worrying about losing design protection in the UK.

However, the proposal does not of course address the converse scenario (i.e. designs disclosed in the UK will not automatically benefit from EU design protection). This could encourage rights owners to first disclose their design in the EU to ensure that they benefit from protection in both territories.

Enforcement of designs

Given the recognised challenges for cost-effective enforcement of designs, the Government will explore measures for an expansion of the Small Claims Track jurisdiction in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) to cover straightforward, lower value registered design cases.

However, the Government has decided against introducing criminal sanctions for unregistered design infringement. Criminal sanctions for registered design infringement were introduced in 2014. Since then, there have been persistent calls for the criminal regime to be extended to cover unregistered designs. However, there has also been forceful opposition to this suggestion, and the Government has decided against introducing this in the wake of insufficiently robust evidence. In particular, it does not consider that the intervention is necessary or proportionate.

Miscellaneous changes

Finally, the consultation response contained a series of changes to improve and modernise the design registration process, all of which are progressing (and which will align practice with trade marks and patents and with international regimes).

What next?

The next stage will involve legislation on relevant issues, when parliamentary time allows, alongside further policy work on the issues left open by the response (including bad faith filings and harmonisation of unregistered design rights). Designers and design-led businesses should monitor the detail and timing of the reforms, particularly the proposed rules around disclosure, and consider how these may affect their filing, launch and enforcement strategies. We will provide further updates on developments in the design framework as they happen.

How can Mishcon de Reya help?

The Mishcon de Reya IP team can help you develop design protection and enforcement strategies tailored to your business, and assess how the proposed reforms may affect your design portfolio and product launches. If you would like to identify opportunities to engage with further proposed changes to the design framework, please also get in touch to discuss.

• The Government will legislate to require employers to publish salaries in job adverts. The detailed scope is still to be set out.
• Legislation is promised 'as soon as possible', but no implementation date has been announced. Employers are encouraged to publish pay information voluntarily now.
• Publishing salaries will make differences between recruitment pay and existing staff pay more visible, potentially prompting equal pay concerns.
• Employers should consider reviewing pay ranges and differences between recruitment salaries and existing staff pay before publishing them.

What has the Government announced on salaries in job adverts?

The Prime Minister has announced plans for a 'say what you pay' law requiring employers to publish salaries in job adverts. It follows the Government's recent consultation on equal pay and pay discrimination. The Government says its early analysis shows that 94% of consultation respondents support the requirement, including 93% of business respondents.

Employers that do not currently disclose salaries will need to change their recruitment practices.

Details on scope, required information, implementation and enforcement will be set out in due course. Open questions include:

• how the stated intention to cover all employers will be reflected in the legislation, and whether there will be any exceptions;
• which roles will be affected, and whether that includes roles filled without an advert (the consultation proposed that candidates for unadvertised roles should get pay information in writing before interview);
• whether employers must publish a specific salary or can use a range and, if so, how wide that range may be; and
• whether employers will need to disclose only basic salary or also other remuneration such as bonuses.

Employers with EU operations face similar requirements under the EU Pay Transparency Directive, which also bans employers asking questions about pay history.

What could greater transparency mean for equal pay risk?

Once salaries are public, existing staff can compare them with their own pay. The Government says publishing salaries upfront can help expose unjustified differences in pay and give workers more confidence to challenge discrimination. Where recruitment salaries exceed the pay of existing staff doing equal work, employers should examine the reasons for the difference and whether it raises equal pay concerns.

The consultation also proposed reintroducing statutory questionnaires for pay discrimination claims. Under the previous regime, abolished in 2014, a tribunal could draw an adverse inference if an employer failed to respond to the questionnaire within the required period or gave an evasive or equivocal answer.

What should employers do now?

Employers need not overhaul their recruitment processes yet, although those with overseas operations may already be doing so to reflect significant advances in pay transparency requirements in the EU, parts of the USA and elsewhere. Sensible preparatory steps include:

• reviewing whether job adverts, including those placed by recruitment agencies, already include salary information;
• considering whether salary ranges are realistic and defensible, with a clear basis for deciding starting pay within them;
• checking how planned recruitment salaries compare with the pay of existing staff and whether differences can be objectively explained (such a review can potentially be structured under the cloak of legal privilege); and
• briefing HR, Reward and hiring managers to plan a consistent approach.

We will update clients when the detail and timetable are published. In the meantime, please get in touch with a member of the Employment team or your usual Mishcon contact if you would like to discuss how this announcement could affect your business.

• Post-termination restrictions are under the microscope in a number of jurisdictions and continue to face challenges in enforcement.
• Regional roles make conventional country-based geographical restrictions difficult to apply.
• Territorial scope should be supported by evidence of the employee’s clients, responsibilities and access to confidential information.
• Employers should review restrictions when roles change, rather than waiting for a dispute.

Why does territorial scope matter now?

Many restrictive covenants were drafted for a simpler model of employment: one employing entity, one place of work, one defined market and one set of clients. That model no longer reflects the reality of how many senior employees in the UAE, and the wider region, actually work.

A regional sales lead based in Dubai may manage relationships in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt. A senior executive employed by a UAE regional headquarters may sit on regional committees, access group strategy and travel frequently across the Gulf Cooperation Council (the "GCC"). An employee may be based in the DIFC but spend most of their time supporting clients outside the UAE. In each case, the question is no longer simply whether a non-compete or non-solicit is enforceable (in theory) in the place where the employee is based. The more difficult question is: where should the restriction apply?

Territorial scope is one of the most common pressure points in a restrictive covenant dispute. A territory that is too narrow may fail to protect the business in the markets where the employee could cause harm. One that is too wide risks looking like an attempt to prevent competition generally, rather than a measured protection of a legitimate business interest.

How wide is too wide?

Unfortunately, there is no universal answer. For UAE mainland employers, restrictions must be approached through the lens of the UAE Labour Law framework, particularly Article 10, which recognises post-termination restrictions in defined circumstances, where an employee has access to clients or confidential information. Any restriction should be limited by time, place and type of work. A broadly drafted GCC-wide non-compete may be difficult to justify if the employee’s role was, in reality, confined to Abu Dhabi or Dubai.

The DIFC and ADGM have a different legal architecture and a more common law-influenced approach. Analysis is likely to focus on whether the covenant protects a legitimate interest and goes no further than is reasonably necessary. The vocabulary may be different, but the practical question is similar: can the employer explain why this territory, for this employee, is necessary?

That is often where generic drafting comes unstuck. A restriction preventing an employee from competing “in the UAE, GCC, MENA or any other territory in which the group operates” or "wherever the company operates worldwide" may feel commercially attractive. However, unless the employer can link that wording to the employee’s actual responsibilities, the clause is vulnerable. It is rarely enough to say that the business operates across the region. The real question is whether the employee had influence, client connection or access to confidential information in the territory in question.

What should employers map before drafting?

The starting point should be a factual analysis of the employee’s role, including:

• where the employee is physically based;
• which clients they manage or materially influence;
• which jurisdiction(s) they support;
• which business lines they work across;
• what confidential information they use or access;
• whether their role is local, UAE-wide, GCC-wide or genuinely regional; and
• whether their responsibilities have changed, or are likely to change, over time.

This exercise is particularly important for employees who move between group entities, take on secondments or are promoted into regional roles. A covenant drafted at the start of employment may no longer reflect the role the employee holds at the point of departure. Employers should therefore treat covenant review as part of promotion, mobility and exit processes, not merely as a point-of-hire issue.

Should territory be defined by geography, clients or activity?

Geography is not always the most effective basis for defining territorial scope. A client non-solicit limited to clients with whom the employee had material dealings may be more defensible than a broad territorial non-compete. A restriction tied to a specific business line may be more precise than one covering all group activities in the region. Confidentiality obligations may carry much of the protective weight where the real risk is the misuse of sensitive information rather than direct client poaching. In the UAE, confidentiality obligations carry additional weight given the broad protections afforded by the UAE Penal Code.

Territorial restrictions nonetheless have an important role to play, particularly for senior employees with genuine regional responsibility. However, the territory should be capable of explanation. Why the UAE? Why the GCC? Why MENA? Why certain countries and not others? If those questions cannot be answered at the drafting stage, they will be harder to answer under the pressure of a dispute.

What about mainland, DIFC and ADGM differences?

The local regime matters. UAE mainland employers must be particularly attentive to statutory requirements and the way in which local courts may assess the reasonableness and specificity of a restriction. DIFC and ADGM employers may have more familiar common law concepts available to them, but broad clauses will not be automatically enforced. In all three regimes, the practical enforceability of a covenant will depend heavily on whether the drafting is sufficiently tailored.

Employers operating through multiple entities should avoid assuming that a single template will work equally well across the mainland, DIFC and ADGM. The commercial objective may be consistent, but the drafting may need to be adapted accordingly.

What should employers do now?

The best territorial restriction is not necessarily the widest one. It is the one the employer can justify throughout the employment lifecycle, especially when pressure-tested.

Employers should regularly review existing covenants for regional and senior employees to ensure the wording remains consistent with the employee's current role and the broader legal and market landscape. Where it does not, a promotion, contract variation, bonus award or secondment (for example) can provide an opportunity to update the covenant accordingly.

A well-drafted restriction should leave a clear paper trail showing what the employer was trying to protect, why the relevant territory was chosen, and why the clause was proportionate for that employee. This can help establish reasonableness, and may prove invaluable if the restriction is ever challenged.

In a cross-border workforce, the discipline of maintaining a record and conducting regular reviews is no longer optional.

How Mishcon de Reya can help

Our Employment team advises employers across the UAE and the wider region on the drafting, review and enforcement of restrictive covenants, including for senior executives, regional roles and cross-border workforces. We work with employers to identify the interests that need protection and to develop practical, enforceable covenant strategies across UAE mainland, DIFC, ADGM and wider regional structures.

Sam brings over 25 years' experience as a disputes and investigations lawyer in private practice and in-house to Mishcon de Reya. He has advised some of the largest companies in financial services, retail, sport, commercial property & construction and industrials on their most complex regulatory investigations and commercial disputes.

Sam joins several recent dispute resolution additions to Mishcon de Reya, including Robert Rhoda in London, Charlotte Bijlani and Bushra Ahmed in UAE, Private Wealth Disputes litigator Elliott Phillips, as well as Of Counsel Mandy Xu in Hong Kong. Sam is the firm's 13th lateral partner hire this calendar year.

Hugo Plowman, Chair of the Dispute Resolution department at Mishcon de Reya, said: “We are delighted to welcome Sam to the team. He brings extensive expertise in commercial disputes, arbitration and investigations. His appointment builds on a series of recent partner appointments to our Disputes team across London, Hong Kong and the UAE. Sam will be a valuable addition to the firm.”

Sam commented: “I am very pleased to be joining Mishcon de Reya, a firm renowned as a disputes powerhouse and for its market-leading expertise. I look forward to working with my new colleagues to help clients navigate complex disputes and achieve their commercial objectives, while contributing to the continued growth of the firm’s disputes practice.”

• The High Court in Thirsk v Thirsk considered the Supreme Court's Standish framework on matrimonial and non-matrimonial property in the context of a 1975 Act claim, applying it within the divorce cross-check for Inheritance Act claims brought by surviving spouses under section 3(2) of the 1975 Act.
• A nineteen-year relationship, of which the formal marriage lasted just over a year, still failed to matrimonialise assets the deceased held before the relationship began, which remained entirely outside any sharing entitlement.
• Assets built up during the relationship were only between one half and two thirds matrimonialised. The deceased had made repeated statements that the claimant had not contributed to his wealth, showing that a testator's own intentions are relevant, but not decisive against contrary conduct.
• Although the will was found not to make reasonable financial provision, the court ultimately awarded a sum close to what the estate (through the deceased's son) had already offered, well short of the claimant's capitalised claim of around £16,000,000.
• The judgment signals a widening gap between needs assessments on divorce and on death.

The High Court recently handed down judgment in Thirsk v Thirsk & Ors, a claim brought by a surviving spouse under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 ("the 1975 Act") against her late husband's substantial farming and hospitality estate. The judgment is the first significant illustration of the Court considering the Supreme Court's decision in Standish v Standish on matrimonial and non-matrimonial property in the context of a 1975 Act claim, applying it within the statutory cross-check to a notional divorce outcome under section 3(2), namely having regard to what an applicant might have been expected to receive if the marriage had been terminated by divorce, instead of terminated by death. For those advising executors, trustees, and beneficiaries in contested estates, Cusworth J's judgment shows how family-derived and pre-relationship wealth is treated when a surviving spouse brings a 1975 Act claim.

Background of the case

The deceased was a Yorkshire farmer who had inherited substantial landholdings in 1984, before he met the claimant. Their relationship began in 2002 and they began cohabiting in around 2003; although they did not marry until 30 March 2021. The deceased died the following year on 20 April 2022. His will, executed in February 2022, gave the claimant a right to occupy the matrimonial home for life, conditional on her not remarrying or cohabiting, together with a tax-free legacy of £5 million and a choice of two cars, with the residue of an estate valued at over £26 million passing to his son (and co-executor) from a previous relationship.

The claimant brought a claim under the 1975 Act, arguing this failed to reflect what she would have received on divorce, and sought a capitalised award of around £16 million. Both parties accepted that the pre-marital cohabitation formed part of the marital relationship, producing an effective relationship length of around nineteen years, against a formal marriage of little more than one.

The Court's decision

A claim by a spouse under the 1975 Act is not limited to maintenance and is determined as such financial provision as it would be reasonable to receive, whether or not required for maintenance (as detailed in section 1(2) of the 1975 Act). A claimant, spouse or otherwise, must however provide details of their purported financial needs and resources (section 3(1)(a) of the 1975 Act).

Cusworth J held that the will did not make reasonable financial provision: a life interest in the home, forfeited if the claimant cohabited with anyone else, could not be reasonable after a relationship treated as lasting nineteen years. However, having constructed the notional divorce outcome required by section 3(2), the judge found that the son's own open offer, an outright transfer of the farmhouse plus a £5 million lump sum and accrued interest, already exceeded the threshold for reasonable provision, and declined to award anything close to the sum sought by the claimant.

Applying Standish within the 1975 Act cross-check

For contentious probate practitioners, the Court's treatment of the section 3(2) cross-check is key. Cusworth J applied the Standish framework on matrimonial and non-matrimonial property, including "matrimonialisation", a doctrine developed within family law, making the assets open to sharing. Assets the deceased held before the relationship began, valued at around £9.1 million, remained entirely non-matrimonial: they stayed in his sole name throughout, with no evidence he ever intended to share them. Assets acquired during the relationship, valued at around £20.4 million and funded substantially from that pre-relationship land, were treated differently: the judge found between one half and two thirds of their value had become matrimonialised through the parties' dealings with those assets over time. This more measured, partial approach to matrimonialisation can be contrasted with the recent decision in TP v TF [2026] EWFC 210, where, on a long marriage, the Family Court found that a pre-marital shareholding had become matrimonialised in its entirety, both because the matrimonial property subsequently accumulated around it diluted the significance of the original non-matrimonial contribution, and because the two had become so mingled over time that the non-matrimonial element could no longer be reliably separated out. Read together, the two decisions illustrate that matrimonialisation remains a question of degree, and that the same doctrine can produce a wide range of outcomes.

What the Thirsk judgment leaves open, and what matters most for succession planning around wealth built up over a long relationship, is how far an asset-holder's own contemporaneous intentions can override decades of shared enjoyment of an asset's proceeds. The deceased had told his solicitors that the claimant had not contributed to his wealth, and that he wished his farming business to pass to his son. The court accepted that evidence, yet still found significant matrimonialisation, illustrating that a testator's stated intention, however clearly recorded, is relevant but not determinative where the parties' conduct points the other way.

Needs, duration, and death rather than divorce

Turning to needs, Cusworth J accepted that a Financial Remedy Court would likely now capitalise needs over twenty years on divorce, reflecting the move away from whole-of-life Duxbury calculations recommended by the Duxbury Working Party's 2025 report. He held, given the length of the relationship, the claimant's age and the age difference between the claimant and deceased, however, that a longer, thirty-year period was appropriate in the 1975 Act context specifically because the relationship ended through death rather than separation, reviving reasoning that has historically supported more generous lifetime provision for a surviving spouse than a divorcing one might expect. This is not least as there is only one party to the marriage whose needs need to be met.

Implications for estate planning and will disputes

Thirsk is significant for anyone advising on succession planning where wealth pre-dates a relationship, whether agricultural land, a family business, or other inherited assets. Testators, and those advising them, should not assume that keeping an asset in a sole name, or recording a clear intention as to its destination, will necessarily prevent a court finding that some or all of its value has become matrimonialised by the time of a 1975 Act claim, particularly where its proceeds have funded the couple's shared life. At the same time, a testator's contemporaneously recorded intentions remain a powerful anchor for what a court will regard as reasonable provision, underlining the evidential value, in any will dispute, of solicitor correspondence recording a client's wishes, including where those wishes evolve close to death.

Conclusion

Thirsk v Thirsk provides helpful clarity on how the section 3(2) cross-check should now be constructed following Standish, and on the continuing, if not determinative, relevance of a deceased's own intentions. It confirms that a lengthy relationship does not automatically matrimonialise pre-relationship or inherited wealth, and that clear evidence of a testator's contrary intention will not necessarily prevent a finding of matrimonialisation where conduct suggests otherwise. Most significantly for those advising in the contentious trusts and estates space, the decision opens a widening gap between the treatment of needs on divorce and on death. This is an area to watch closely as the courts continue to apply Standish outside a family law context.

Pip originally built The Dots for her own community, growing it to more than a million members before licensing the technology for Soho House’s Works community. Today, the platform powers more than 65 private social networks for organisations including Apple, The Conduit and UN Women UK. Its aim is to help communities retain ownership of their data, engagement and revenue, rather than handing them over to major social media platforms. 

Alongside building The Dots, Pip champions community-led growth and the role of strong communities in creating a lasting competitive advantage in the age of AI. She is proudly dyslexic and lives on a houseboat called Horace. 

• The Royal Court of Jersey has handed down its reasons for blessing a trustee decision to adopt a major family restructuring and, critically for present purposes, for blessing in parallel a decision by the Protector to exercise his own powers of consent to implement that restructuring.
• The Court applied the established Public Trustee v Cooper test: the trustees’ decision was reached in good faith, fell within the range of decisions that reasonable trustees could reach, and was not vitiated by any actual or potential conflict of interest.
• The Protector’s own decision paper was treated on the same footing. The Court held that his decision was “entirely within the band of reasonable decisions which a protector might make” and blessed both decisions together.
• The case directly applies the Privy Council’s recent guidance in A v C [2026] AC 846 on the “Narrow” and “Wide” protector roles. The Court confirmed that a deliberate switch to a Narrow consent role was itself a reasonable trustee decision.
• This is a rare and useful illustration of a protector seeking the comfort of a court blessing for the exercise of his own discretion. Implementing the trustees’ restructuring required the Protector to make what was “at least arguably a momentous decision” in his own right.

Background

The case concerned a long-running and increasingly expensive dispute between the adult beneficiaries of a substantial family trust structure established by the late settlor, J, for the benefit of his children from two marriages and their respective families.

After years of unsuccessful restructuring negotiations between the adult beneficiaries, litigation costs had exceeded US$100 million, representing a ninth of the trust fund. The parties subsequently agreed a negotiated Adult Beneficiaries’ Restructuring Proposal, the “ABRP”, which would establish separate trusts for the respective family branches.

On 31 July 2026, following extensive consultation and advice, the trustees resolved to adopt the ABRP and sought the Court’s blessing of that decision.

The blessing application was brought under Article 51 of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 or, alternatively, the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

A piggyback blessing

Separately, and of particular interest to contentious trusts practitioners, the Protector sought the Court’s blessing of his own decision.

Implementing the trustees’ decision required the Protector to exercise discretions under the various trust deeds and provide the necessary consents. The Court recorded that this was “at least arguably a momentous decision” in its own right. It was therefore appropriate for the Court to consider whether it should bless the Protector’s decision to support the trustees’ proposal and exercise his powers of consent on the merits, conditional on the Court first blessing the trustees’ decision.

Having reviewed the Protector’s decision paper, which it described as “admirable”, the Court held that his approach fell “entirely within the band of reasonable decisions which a protector might make”. It treated the trustees’ and the Protector’s applications in the same way and blessed both decisions.

This sequencing matters. Rather than bringing a standalone application, or simply granting or withholding consent unilaterally, the Protector joined his blessing application to the trustees’ application through his skeleton argument and with the agreement of all parties.

This approach may become the practical norm where protectors are required to exercise consent powers in relation to momentous trustee decisions.

Protector’s role: from Wide to Narrow

Under the original structure, the Protector held what the Court described as “the wider role”, meaning that he was required to consider the trustees’ proposals on their merits.

Under the new arrangements created by the ABRP, the protector’s role in relation to the restructured family trusts was deliberately narrowed. He would be required only to satisfy himself that a proposed exercise of trustee power was lawful.

Directly engaging with the Privy Council’s recent decision in A v C [2026] AC 846, the Court held that “both roles are perfectly lawful”. It concluded that the trustees’ choice of the Narrow role, justified by the stated objective of saving administrative time and expense, could not “possibly be said to fall outside the band of reasonable trustee decisions”.

This provides a clear and practical illustration of the point made in the earlier commentary on A v C. The Narrow or Wide nature of the protector’s role is not determined by any general presumption. It depends on the provisions of the relevant instrument, which in this case comprised the newly drafted trust deeds. The Court will readily bless an informed trustee decision to adopt either role.

Why this matters for protectors

This judgment provides a useful practical illustration of the principles considered in A v C.

First, it confirms that trustees, and settlors through the drafting of new trust instruments, remain free to choose a Narrow consent role for a protector. The Court will readily uphold that choice as reasonable where there is a rational justification, such as reducing administrative time and expense.

Second, and perhaps more significantly for contentious trusts practitioners, the judgment demonstrates how a protector may proactively seek and obtain the Court’s blessing of his own momentous decision alongside the trustees’ blessing application.

This offers a practical model for protectors seeking to limit their risk exposure while avoiding the additional cost to the trust fund of bringing a standalone application.

We consider that this approach is now likely to become standard practice where a protector exercising a Wide consent role is required to make a momentous decision.

For someone discovering Long Lunch for the first time, what do you create, and who do you create it for? 

We create sculptural paper flowers for design-led interiors, hospitality spaces and events. Each flower is entirely handmade. They’re craft objects and pieces of art in themselves, but they also offer a lasting alternative to fresh flowers. 

We work with interior designers, hoteliers, restaurateurs, event stylists – really, anyone who has a hand in making a space memorable and beautiful. 

You moved from criminal defence into creating paper florals. How did that transition happen? 

It’s funny being asked this by Mishcon, because it really all starts there. I had an amazing team and really exciting work, but something felt a little off. I’ve always loved making things with my hands and having a finished, physical thing to feel proud of. 

One clue was how excited I got about the flowers arriving every Monday. They were beautifully curated by Kristina and one of the most impressive features of an already beautiful office. Everyone talked about them. I was always taking photographs. 

On Fridays, we could take them home before they were cleared away. So I’d be on the Tube to East London carrying flowers in those little plastic bags for wet umbrellas, bringing them back to my housemates. They were beautiful over the weekend, but by Monday they were usually past their best. I kept thinking: why does something so beautiful have to be so fleeting? 

Then I spotted some crepe paper flowers on someone’s desk. I went home, looked them up and ordered the paper that evening. I’m completely self-taught; I just started practising in my spare time. 

When I decided to leave, I began making more and sharing photographs on social media during my notice period. People immediately started asking, “What are these? Where can I get them?” The more I made, the more I saw a business case: flowers people could enjoy without constantly replacing them. Some of my earliest ones from years ago have moved house with me several times and still look exactly the same. 

What draws you to paper as a material, and what can you achieve with it that you couldn’t with fresh flowers? 

People often remember crepe paper from childhood arts and crafts, so they’re quite surprised when they see what it can become. I’m completely in love with it. It’s so malleable, surprisingly durable, and responds beautifully to all the things I throw at it. 

I use watercolour inks alongside natural dyes like beetroot juice, turmeric and coffee. How the paper stains changes depending on how wet it is or how hot the water is, which makes for fun and unexpected results. 

Natural flowers are extraordinary in their own way. With paper, I can take inspiration from them and put my own spin on them, making something entirely bespoke to a place. I dye the paper, shape each petal and use wire stems that can bend into quite sculptural forms. 

I also heat coloured scraps from old projects in water to extract their pigment and dye new paper. I love that a little of one project can find its way into another. 

Your work sits somewhere between floristry, sculpture and interior design. How do you approach creating a piece for a particular space? 

Because the flowers are going to stay, I give them the same consideration you might give a piece of art or a light fitting. Spending time in the space and understanding its story is really important. Why has it been created? How should people feel there? What are the flowers there to do? 

At Corinthian House, the interiors took inspiration from the site’s tailoring and brewing history, with grain and deep wine tones. That became my inspiration too. I wanted defined lines and structured flowers that picked up on the precision of tailoring. 

Then I’m thinking about the whole room: how the arrangement sits alongside the furniture, the light and the rest of the palette. It all has to work together. 

Where do you find inspiration for your colours, forms and compositions? 

Everywhere, honestly. My walk to the studio takes me past garden after garden, and in summer they just come alive. I’ve got a whole folder of flower photographs on my phone. I’m looking at how petals interact, the negative space between them and how their stems are entangled with their peers. 

In Oaxaca, Mexico, I saw rugs being woven that told family stories through embroidered branches, birds and animals. That later inspired a private home installation: 22 flowers representing 22 family members, including two babies on the way. A suspended family portrait. 

Composition is quite intuitive for me. As I’m making, I’m already thinking about how everything will sit together: the petal sizes, the length and strength of the wire. The making and the final composition develop together. 

Could you talk us through a recent commission, from the initial idea to the finished installation? 

Long Lunch’s first wedding was at West London Synagogue, which was an extraordinary setting. The bride wanted something vintage-inspired, timeless but unexpected. She also hated the idea of excessive floral waste for a ceremony lasting just over an hour. Music to my ears. 

We developed the concept over summer. After a site visit, I began dyeing paper in burgundy, deep pink and wine tones. On the morning, we installed over 150 handmade flowers on the chuppah, with suspended blooms and petals bringing movement to it. 

I stayed for the ceremony, and seeing the couple underneath something I’d made was really special. The bride said it surpassed her wildest dreams. I don’t think a client at Mishcon ever gave me quite that sort of feedback, so that felt like validation of the career move. 

She’s keeping a small bouquet as an everlasting memento, and the remaining flowers are back in my studio, ready for their next event. 

What makes your work particularly suited to hotels, restaurants and other hospitality spaces? 

They bring atmosphere, they’re bespoke to the space, and they stay. They can be a small cluster on a table or something grand that spirals through an entrance. They stay put but are also modular: places can invest in a collection to display for a breakfast bar and restyle for a dinner table. 

Also, they look delicate, but they’re surprisingly durable. I cycle around London with a large bunch in my hand blowing in the wind and arrive to meetings with them looking exactly the same. Fresh flowers could never! 

There’s no watering or weekly replacement, just an occasional light dusting. 

How do you design arrangements that can be enjoyed for longer and refreshed over time? 

Our Hire & Refresh service is like having a florist on retainer, at a slower, seasonal pace. 

It’s a continuous conversation with the client about what they like, what they’d change and whether there are upcoming events, palettes or moods we should respond to. 

Then I look to my existing collection to rework arrangements and make new flowers where needed. Clients get an evolving floral presence, while the flowers can come back to the studio and be used again. 

Has your legal background influenced how you run a creative business? 

Definitely. It gave me confidence to approach prospective clients and take business development seriously. You can’t just assume that if people like what you make, they’ll come and buy it. 

It also taught me to think commercially, particularly about pricing my time, and to consider the client’s experience throughout the process. Building trust and doing what you’ve promised matter just as much here. 

I also became interested in AI as I saw it beginning to change legal practice. I use it a lot for strategy, planning and admin (never for the creative bits!). At this early stage, it lets me do things I couldn’t otherwise do or afford, and frees up more time for making. 

What would you love to create next, and what would your dream commission look like? 

I’m always looking to go larger and more sculptural. I’d love the work to become increasingly abstract, focused on the paper and the form. 

I’m also experimenting with bringing light into crepe paper, whether as a lighting object itself or alongside an installation. A dream commission would give me the space and freedom to explore that. Lots of experimenting and lots of fun things ahead. Watch this space. 

How Mishcon de Reya can help 

We provide next-gen creators with essential support to help them succeed. Our services include corporate governance and regulatory advice, contractual advice, negotiation and preparation, intellectual property protection and enforcement, dispute resolution, and reputation protection to manage any challenges. Additionally, we support the development of brands to enhance and grow their creative identity. 

The article looks at the potential stamp duty savings, and the risks buyers should consider when taking over a company and its existing liabilities.

Dean commented: “When you’re buying a company, you’re buying the assets and all the liabilities, whether known or unknown, and that’s the issue.”

“Not only do you have the separate obligations of running a company, Companies House administration and filing accounts at the end of each year, there’s also all the contracts that the company has entered into and any litigation that may be ongoing when you take over the company, which remains liable as the corporate vehicle for that claim.”

He also discusses how warranties can help protect buyers, whilst stressing the importance of considering who is providing the warranty and their ability to meet a future claim.

“Like anything, a warranty is only as good as the person or company giving it. If the seller is a company and you need to make a claim, there’s a risk it may be insolvent. If it’s a person, there’s a risk they can’t be found or they are bankrupt. Your solicitor will look closely at the strength of the person or corporation giving that warranty.”

Read the article in full

The firm received commendations for commercial dispute resolution, commercial property, company & commercial, crime, employment, family, financial crime & fraud & regulatory, insolvency & restructuring, intellectual property, and landlord & tenant.

The Times’ profile highlights our pro bono work for Ruth Ellis’s family, our representation of Thom Browne in a trademark dispute with Adidas, and our work for Computacenter in its commercial dispute with Tesco.

View the full listing in The Times Best Law Firms 2027

Our Public Law and Politics team joined colleagues and contacts in Liverpool for the Labour Party Conference. From the cost of living to defence, tech security and the use of AI to leasehold reform, five themes stood out.

Defence businesses are navigating opportunity and uncertainty

Defence was an important focus of the team's visit. Toby McCrindle, a Partner in our Innovation team specialising in the sector, chaired a roundtable on the commercial opportunities and challenges facing the industry, attended by our Senior Partner, James Libson. The event was held under the Chatham House Rule.

For businesses in the sector, the relationship between government priorities and commercial planning is particularly significant. Understanding the policy environment is an essential part of assessing opportunities, managing risk and making investment decisions.

The cost of living remains a business issue, not just a household one

At a roundtable hosted by DRD Partnerships, representatives of high street brands discussed the challenges their businesses face and how they are adapting to changing consumer needs.

The discussion was a reminder that household finances and business performance cannot be considered in isolation. Pressure on essential spending shapes consumer choices, with consequences for the high street and the businesses that depend on it. For those engaging with policymakers, explaining how these pressures affect customers and commercial decisions can help make the case for practical policy responses.

Leasehold reform remains a critical issue for property investors

Leasehold reform received limited space in the official conference programme, with the sole scheduled session on the issue cancelled. That should not be mistaken for an absence of policy momentum: the team's assessment was that reform remained a priority, with significant implications for residential freeholders and investors.

We act for a group of clients challenging the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 (LAFRA). Their case argues that the legislation unlawfully interferes with their property rights under Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights by depriving them of existing contractual rights.

The compound impact of LAFRA and the proposed Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill raises further concerns for the industry. For affected businesses, monitoring the detail of proposed reforms, assessing their commercial impact and identifying opportunities to engage will remain essential.

Effective engagement happens beyond the main stage

Across the week, the team met clients, intermediaries and policy contacts through a mix of planned meetings and chance encounters. Those conversations were a reminder that the value of party conferences lies as much in listening and exchanging perspectives as in following formal announcements.

For businesses, effective engagement starts with a clear account of the issue, evidence of its practical impact and an understanding of who can influence the outcome. Conference can provide a useful opportunity to build those relationships, but the work of maintaining them and contributing to the policy debate continues throughout the year.

Politics and policy shape commercial decisions across every sector. The common thread from Liverpool was the importance of understanding that environment early, rather than waiting until a proposal becomes an immediate business problem.

More than just vibes?

Conference venues were bedecked in banners heralding a new era, encouraging attendees to believe there is "Hope Again" for the Labour Party under Andy Burnham's leadership.  A healthy dose of British realism led to widespread reporting – which was evident in conversations throughout Conference – questioning the Burnham Government's ability to give substance to the "vibes", with critics pointing to the catalogue of announcements in the run-up to Conference which can reasonably be regarded as tinkering, rather than substantive change. 

Please get in touch with our Public Law and Politics team to discuss a policy issue affecting you or your business.

He is also Chairman of Innovo Real Estate Development, the development arm of international construction company Innovo. 

John is a renowned senior global executive and accomplished CEO, most recently Group CEO and President at Cushman and Wakefield, where he led the business for more than a decade.  

Prior to that, he was Group CEO at DTZ before it merged with Cushman & Wakefield in 2015. 

John brings a wealth of experience that spans all aspects of property investment, development and management.  

Over a 35-year career he has worked on some of the most high-profile projects both in the UK and globally. He has also worked closely with Related Argent colleagues during Cushman & Wakefield’s 15-year tenure as office leasing agent for the King’s Cross estate. 

John is a Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and past President of the British Council for Offices (2016-17).  

In this episode

• Real estate leadership: John Forrester’s career at DTZ and Cushman & Wakefield
• London real estate: London’s competitiveness as a global property investment market
• UK real estate investment: what international investors are looking for and the challenges of attracting capital
• Property development: the impact of cost, complexity and timescales on development viability
• Planning and economic growth: what needs to change to make UK development easier and faster
• Placemaking and regeneration: lessons from King’s Cross and Brent Cross Town
• Changing real estate markets: how property businesses are adapting and exploring new sectors
• Real estate development: John Forrester’s perspective on moving from property adviser to developer

The planned opening marks a further step in Group François' international expansion, building on its established presence in London. Beyond the Dubai launch, the joint venture also provides a framework for the partners’ wider ambitions across the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region.

Building upon its existing relationship with Group François in the UK, Mishcon de Reya is advising on all aspects of structuring, negotiation, brand protection and implementation of the joint venture arrangements. The firm will continue to provide corporate, intellectual property and commercial legal support as the partnership develops and the partners pursue their plans for the region.

The Mishcon de Reya team was led by Sandeep Dhama, Partner in Corporate, Rob Flaws, Partner in Technology and Innovation, and Callum Blundell, Corporate Associate, working with Relationship Partner for Group François, Hayley Cross, Partner in Emerging Companies.

Sandeep Dhama commented: "It is a pleasure to work with Group François and support them on the establishment of its joint venture as they bring an established restaurant brand into a new market. This is the first in a series of transactions that the UAE team has been working on in the leisure and hospitality sector and highlights our ability to help leading brands grow their businesses internationally."

François O’Neill, Founder, Group François commented: "This marks the third major restaurant deal I have secured with Mishcon de Reya, and it has been great to work with Callum Blundell again, having previously worked together in the UK before his move to the UAE. Sandeep Dhama, Rob Flaws and Callum have guided us through our first joint venture and our first venture outside of the UK. They steered the whole process and have been brilliant to work with. I have also worked with Hayley Cross for over eight years, making this another successful chapter in a longstanding relationship with the firm."

Pro Bono Week is a chance to celebrate the lawyers who use their skills to help people access justice. But justice depends on more than advice and representation once a problem has arisen. People also need to understand their rights, recognise when an issue is a legal one and know where to turn before it escalates.

That is the purpose of public legal education (PLE). It helps people understand how the law shapes everyday life, from housing and work to education and family, and gives them the confidence to act. PLE doesn't replace legal advice. Instead, it plays a preventative role that advice and representation can't fully fill.

That matters for the pro bono community. Lawyers will always be essential in resolving legal problems. But we can also reduce barriers to justice by helping people find their way through the law in the first place.

Our work in public legal education

Over recent years, Mishcon de Reya has invested in PLE through delivery, research, partnership and sector leadership.

We were a long-standing supporter of The Big Legal Lesson, Young Citizens' national campaign, which provides schools with free, curriculum-aligned resources and has so far reached more than 300,000 young people.

Building on that partnership, we are now supporting Young Citizens' new pilot, The Big Challenge, backed by the Attorney General's Office. The new regional immersive learning programme, running in Glasgow, Manchester and London this year, will test a more inclusive way of engaging young people with the law, their rights and the legal profession. At each day-long, hackathon-style event, hundreds of students aged 13 to 16 will work alongside volunteer lawyers to explore real-world rule of law issues, from regulating AI to human rights, and develop an action plan to take back to their schools. With a particular focus on students often missed by legal education, the pilot is testing a model that could become an annual national programme.

Our commitment goes beyond the classroom. In spring 2026, nine of our lawyers contributed to JUSTICE's comparative research on citizenship, legal and human rights education in other countries, which will inform its forthcoming work in this area.

The importance of this work is increasingly being recognised at a national level. In October 2026, JUSTICE submitted evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee's inquiry into the UK's constitutional safeguards. Its response identifies equal and early access to legal education as one of two areas representing risks and opportunities for the health of the UK's constitution. JUSTICE argues that children and young people are the future custodians of our constitutional democracy and that every child should have access to high-quality, engaging and relevant education about the law, their rights and the justice system. You can read the full submission here.

We have also worked to bring the sector together. In 2024, we hosted a roundtable for educators, charities, policymakers and the legal profession. Today, we co-chair the national PLE Committee's sub-group on children and young people.

A pivotal moment

PLE is now receiving serious national attention. In April 2026, the Attorney General's Office relaunched the Public Legal Education Committee and published national principles for the sector.

JUSTICE's recent submission reinforces why this matters. Its argument places legal education not simply within the access-to-justice agenda, but within the wider question of how we sustain the rule of law and constitutional democracy.

Significant challenges remain. Access to legal education is inconsistent and funding is often short term. The young people most likely to face serious legal problems are often the least likely to receive any legal education. Closing these gaps will take sustained collaboration between schools, charities, policymakers, funders and the legal profession.

This Pro Bono Week, it is worth remembering that the most effective help sometimes comes before a problem arises. By helping people recognise their rights and navigate the law confidently, PLE can prevent problems, empower communities and widen access to justice.

Public legal education isn't an add-on to pro bono. It is a vital part of it.

Victoria acts for high net worth individuals, family offices, family businesses and corporations, with a particular focus on complex commercial disputes, shareholder conflicts, partnership issues, fraud and asset protection. Much of her work involves guiding clients through situations where significant wealth is one aspect of a broader challenge involving family dynamics, reputation, succession and legacy.

Speaking to Law UK, Victoria said, “In December 2025, I was elected chair of the Private department at Mishcon de Reya. I was part of the small number of lawyers who started Private – over 12 years ago – and it felt like a really significant moment. I am incredibly proud to chair such an exceptional group of lawyers with incredibly diverse skill sets.”

Read the article in full

Speaking about how vulnerable wealthy people are to online scams and frauds, Victoria said, “Wealth doesn’t buy immunity – quite the opposite. Wealth can make you a target... It’s now much easier for fraudsters to purport to be experts in specific matters – whether that’s investment strategies, tax structures or luxury goods. The more someone appears to know about something, the more likely you are to believe they are an expert and, therefore, mistakenly trust them with your money.”

Victoria advises people to “trust your instincts” but “be alive to red flags" and lean on the knowledge of experts who are adept at dealing with financial fraud and have built a reputation for doing so. “If something seems too good to be true, it usually is. If people are behaving unpredictably, be particularly wary,” she said. “Don’t be time pressured into anything – and if you are told to keep something secret or asked not to tell your trusted advisors, walk away.”

Read the article in full

In our latest ‘In conversation with’ session, the Mishcon Academy was joined by Rupert Soames OBE for a discussion on leadership, navigating change and making decisions under pressure.

Drawing on decades of experience leading major public companies, Rupert reflected on the changing relationship between employers and employees, the growth of Britain’s service economy and the opportunities AI presents for government. He also challenged the idea that the country should be run like a business and shared practical insights into preparing boards to address difficult issues.

The session offered a candid perspective on the relationship between business and government, the importance of building momentum around challenging decisions and how our outlook on the future changes with experience.

• The UK Patents Court has upheld the validity of Takeda's supplementary protection certificate (SPC) for lisdexamfetamine (Elvanse), dismissing both invalidity claims brought by Aristo Pharma and Stada.
• The case turned on whether the prodrug LDX, or its active metabolite DEX (which had an earlier marketing authorisation), is the "active ingredient" ("the product") within the meaning of Art. 1(b) of the SPC Regulation.
• The court confirmed that a prodrug can be its own active ingredient and endorsed a simplified approach to identifying it from the marketing authorisation, aligning with the Advocate-General's recent Opinion in the pending Halozyme referral before the European Court of Justice (CJEU).

Background

In Aristo Pharma GmbH v Takeda Pharmaceuticals and the parallel action by Stada Arzneimittal AG, the Patents Court (HHJ Hacon) has upheld the validity of Takeda's supplementary protection certificate (SPC) for lisdexamfetamine ("LDX"), marketed as Elvanse for the treatment of ADHD.

LDX is a prodrug: lysine covalently bound to dexamfetamine ("DEX"), which is pharmacologically inactive until metabolised in the body to release DEX, the active moiety (the specific molecule directly responsible for physiological or pharmacological action of the drug). Because DEX already had an earlier marketing authorisation, the claimants argued that DEX, not LDX, was the true "active ingredient" of Elvanse for SPC purposes under Article 1(b) of the SPC Regulation - meaning the SPC would therefore be invalid under Article 3(d) of the Regulation for relying on an authorisation that was not the first for that product.

Patents Court decision

The court dismissed both claims and held the SPC was validly granted. It found that LDX itself has a metabolic action of its own, distinct from DEX, by reference to its materially different pharmacokinetic profile: LDX permits once-daily dosing, compared with two or three daily doses for DEX, and unchallenged regulatory evidence showed this was a clinically significant advantage sufficient to meet established criteria for a new active substance. The court also considered the marketing authorisation and Public Assessment Report (PAR) as a whole, concluding that a reasonable reader would understand LDX, not DEX, to be the active ingredient, notwithstanding references in the authorisation to LDX being "pharmacologically inactive" in-vitro, a description the court treated as referring only to in-vitro inactivity, not to LDX's status as an active ingredient under the SPC Regulation.

Significantly, the court confirmed that the test for an "active substance" under the Medicinal Products Directive and for an "active ingredient" under the SPC Regulation are one and the same, applying the test adopted in the CJEU's decision in Forsgren (a substance qualifies if it produces a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action of its own) in the same way to both.

The judge found support for this simplified approach to identifying the active ingredient, looking primarily to the marketing authorisation itself, rather than requiring a fresh substantive scientific reassessment. The judge relied on Advocate-General Emiliou's recent Opinion in the pending Halozyme reference before the CJEU (from the Supreme Administrative Court of Czechia), which proposes that the active ingredient should be determined by its classification in the marketing authorisation.

Key takeaways

Several practical points emerge for prospective SPC strategy. A prodrug can qualify as its own "active ingredient" distinct from its active metabolite, provided a materially different pharmacokinetic profile confers a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action of its own; in-vitro inactivity is not fatal where conversion produces a clinically significant benefit, such as once-daily versus multiple-daily dosing.

Legal teams should work closely with their regulatory counterparts to ensure the "product" is holistically and clearly identified, since the choice of product must be supported by the wording of the Summary of Product Characteristics itself. Reliance on the PAR, the basic patent, or external scientific papers to establish the active ingredient could be rejected, an issue currently before the CJEU in the pending Halozyme referral.

It is also worth noting that the case was tried under the Shorter Trial Scheme without cross-examination, and the judge found the expert evidence largely unhelpful to the ultimate legal question.

Finally, businesses should plan for continued jurisdictional divergence on this issue: while the UK court has upheld Takeda's SPC (subject to any appeal), Germany's Federal Patent Court invalidated the equivalent German SPC in 2024 (currently under appeal), whereas courts in Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland have all found in Takeda's favour.

• Torsion Construction Limited's collapse is a case study in the solvency issues facing even ostensibly successful businesses in the UK construction market.
• Growing revenue and strong pipelines can conceal cash flow issues and narrow profit margins
• This can leave businesses exposed to insolvency due to cost overruns, payment delays or a handful of underperforming contracts

Torsion Construction Limited's collapse in the summer of 2026 was not an isolated shock, but a case study in a larger problem: a UK construction sector where insolvency has settled well above pre-pandemic norms, and where turnover growth is no longer a reliable signal of financial health.

The Torsion story

Torsion Construction was a Leeds-headquartered contractor, part of the wider Torsion Group, with an 11-year track record delivering large-scale residential, purpose-built student accommodation, build-to-rent and retirement-related developments across the North and Midlands.

On paper, the business looked to be thriving: turnover nearly tripled in two years to over £165 million, management pointed to a secured pipeline of around £660 million, and external clients accounted for roughly 60 per cent of revenue. Yet pre-tax margins never exceeded 0.5 per cent: this wafer-thin margin left almost no buffer to absorb cost overruns, payment delays or a handful of underperforming contracts.

In July 2026, Torsion entered administration, citing an extended run of difficult trading conditions compounded by project-specific commercial setbacks that made its liquidity position unsustainable. Trading ceased immediately and redundancies followed.

Why revenue did not buy resilience

The most striking feature of Torsion's accounts is not the losses but the margin. Pre-tax margin sat at roughly 0.5 per cent, leaving almost no buffer for cost overruns, payment delays or programme slippage — a familiar pattern in the construction industry. Cash reserves fell even as turnover and reported profit both rose, underlining that accounting profit and available working capital are not the same thing.

Part of the explanation lies in direct-payment arrangements on a number of Torsion's projects, under which developers or funders paid key subcontractors and suppliers directly rather than routing the full certified sum through the main contractor. These arrangements protected supply-chain partners and site continuity, but reduced the working capital available to Torsion itself, even as it continued to carry site management, insurance, plant and head-office costs. Regulatory changes and delayed capital events added further liquidity pressure in an environment where cash flow is essential to a main contractor's survival.

Impact of Torsion's insolvencey 

The practical consequences of Torsion's collapse varied by site.

On the Manchester site, for example, the developer reported that fit-out was substantially complete and a replacement contractor was being sought, with practical completion still expected later in 2026. This shows that contractor insolvency can disrupt a project without automatically killing it, particularly where substantial value has already been created on site and the parties share an interest in reaching completion. In some cases, then, the "domino effect" of multiple linked insolvencies does not occur. Whether that outcome follows typically turns on how much value is already embedded on site, how close the project is to completion, and whether a replacement contractor can be found on commercially acceptable terms.

Torsion in context: A sector-wide pattern

Torsion was far from the only sizeable contractor to fail in 2026.

• Ardmore Construction Group entered administration in June 2026, with historic building-safety liabilities forming an important part of its story.
• FK Group and related entities entered administration in February, citing pressures facing building-envelope and façade specialists.
• Jerram Falkus Construction, operating extensively across London and the South East, entered administration the same month, leaving council homes and a school project incomplete.
• Merit Construction entered administration in late 2025, part-way through the Berwick Hospital redevelopment, which was approved in December 2020 with a predicted cost of £25 million and an expected opening in 2022, but is now expected to open six years late and cost £10 million more.
• Helix Construct filed a notice of intention to appoint administrators in September 2026, having swung from a healthy pre-tax profit reported for its 2023 financial year to a pre-tax loss in its most recent accounts, with directors citing delayed client funding approvals, slower contract mobilisation and rising working capital demands as expected spending failed to materialise on schedule.

These cases share a clear lesson: turnover measures the volume of work passing through a business, not the cash available to fund it. A contractor can win larger contracts and grow revenue year on year while its liquidity steadily deteriorates, because thin fixed-price margins, retentions, disputed variations and payment timing can each strip out more cash than the headline profit figure suggests.

What the statistics show

Construction remains the UK's most insolvency-prone sector by absolute volume, accounting for around 16 per cent of all insolvencies. Rolling annual totals have eased slightly from recent peaks but remain roughly a fifth above pre-pandemic levels. Specialist trades — demolition, electrical, plumbing, roofing, scaffolding and finishing — account for well over half of construction failures, reflecting their exposed cash-flow position: they typically fund labour, materials, plant and design costs well ahead of payment while sitting several contractual layers below the ultimate client. They are often the smaller contractor on a project, reliant on being paid in full and on time each month to survive to the next.

What this means for the market

Construction remains, by a clear margin, the UK industry with the highest absolute number of company insolvencies. That volume sits meaningfully above pre-pandemic levels, even as it has eased slightly from recent peaks.

Specialist trades continue to carry a disproportionate share of that burden. Several of 2026's most significant failures, Torsion prominent among them, occurred at businesses that were growing revenue and improving reported profitability right up to the point of collapse. This is a reminder that a strong order book or rising turnover is not itself evidence of financial health.

For contractors, the practical implication is that conventional credit checks and historic accounts are backward-looking and cannot substitute for closer monitoring of live payment behaviour, package concentration and programme movement. For specialist contractors further down the supply chain, the recurring lesson of 2026 is that cash conversion, not top-line growth, is the more reliable measure of resilience. It is equally important for directors of these companies to be alive to the risk of insolvency and to have considered whether it is likely, to ensure they are not at risk of liability for claims such as wrongful trading, transactions at an undervalue or unlawful preferences.

Whether the gradual easing in the rolling insolvency figures continues will depend on whether the underlying pressures ease in turn over the remainder of 2026.

Organisations must identify, review, redact and disclose relevant personal data within strict statutory time limits, often across multiple systems and with input from legal, compliance, IT, HR and management teams. 

Our guide to DSARs

Our practical guide to Data Subject Access Requests takes you through each stage of the DSAR process, from assessing and acknowledging a request to scoping searches, applying exemptions, preparing the disclosure and managing any follow-on risks. It also explains how to deal with complex requests involving employment disputes, litigation, commercially sensitive information or regulatory scrutiny. 

Whether you are responding to a live DSAR or reviewing your organisation’s procedures, this guide will help you handle requests efficiently and confidently while reducing disruption to your business.

How Mishcon de Reya can help

DSARs must be handled accurately and responsibly – but they shouldn't disrupt your business. Our Data team works with organisations to handle DSARs compliantly, rapidly and cost-effectively. You can find out more by downloading the guide and further information on DSAR support can be found here. 

• The qualifying period for settlement will double from five to ten years, with faster and slower pathways depending on character, contribution, integration and residence.
• Earnings largely determine the timeline: £125,141 or more may qualify after three years, £50,271 or more after five, and the standard route requires at least £12,571 a year. Some groups are exempt.
• Immigration breaches or claiming public funds can extend the timeline regardless of earnings, and the ten-year long residence route will be abolished.
• These are announced changes, not rules already in force: Immigration Rules changes are expected from December 2026, with implementation over 2027. Those already settled are unaffected.
• Technical guidance and a full impact assessment are still to come, so the position should be kept under review.

What are the proposed changes?

On 2 November 2026, the UK Government published its response to the earned settlement consultation, which closed in February 2026.

The response confirms the Government’s intention to make major changes to the ways in which applicants qualify for settlement.

Below is a high-level summary of the announced policy changes. Note that these are not requirements which are already in force and detailed Immigration Rules and technical guidance are still to follow.

• The starting point for settlement will move from five years to ten years, with faster and slower pathways depending on how applicants meet the key principles of character, contribution, integration and residence.
• Applicants will generally need to meet set minimum mandatory requirements including much-strengthened criminality requirements, no outstanding Government debt, strong English language and knowledge of life in the UK and the applicable contribution requirement.
• There is to be a new accelerated three-year pathway to settlement for eligible applicants earning £125,141 or more in three of the four years before applying.
• Those earning at least £50,271 in three of the five years before applying for settlement may qualify for a five-year pathway. As above, this is subject to holding permission on an eligible immigration route and meeting the other settlement requirements. Note that eligible workers in specified public service occupations, including certain doctors, nurses and teachers, may be able to qualify after five years without meeting this earnings threshold.
• Applicants on the standard ten-year pathway will generally need to have earned at least £12,571 a year in five of the seven years before applying for settlement, with exemptions available for certain applicants, including children and those aged 65 and over.
• Note that certain factors, such as specified immigration breaches or claiming public funds, can increase the timeline to settlement regardless of financial earnings and other positive contributions.
• Global Talent and Innovator Founder visa holders should retain a possible three-year pathway to settlement, subject to the outcome of a current review which is being carried out by the Migration Advisory Committee.
• The ten-year long residence route will be abolished.
• Certain eligible dependants of British citizens should retain a five-year pathway, subject to the relevant requirements. Those on the UK Ancestry route and Hong Kong BN(O) applicants should also retain five-year settlement arrangements.
• Refugees on designated safe and legal routes may be able to settle after five years. Others granted protection outside of those routes may settle at 20 years, with those moving into sustained work, education or training potentially qualifying in 10 years. Those who arrived illegally, including on small boats, may potentially face an additional 10-year waiting period - meaning they could wait up to 30 years for settlement.

It is not yet known when these changes will take effect. However, the Home Secretary indicated in Parliament that changes to the Immigration Rules would begin to be laid in December 2026, with implementation over the course of 2027.

The new framework is intended to apply to people already in the UK who have not yet settled. It appears that transitional arrangements will only apply in certain limited circumstances, such as in relation to specific care workers. Note that those who already hold settled status will not be affected.

The Government has said the following in terms of next steps:

''The next step will be to translate the framework into detailed rules and operational arrangements. Before implementation, the government will publish further technical guidance and a full impact assessment, informed by continued engagement with affected groups and stakeholders. This will provide greater clarity on how the reforms will operate in practice and how people will move into the new system.''

Please note that the above is a generic summary only pending further detail and does not represent legal advice.

How Mishcon de Reya can help

Our specialist immigration team,  advises individuals, families, family offices and businesses on the full spectrum of UK immigration and nationality law, including settlement and British citizenship applications. We work closely with our Private Wealth and Tax teams to provide integrated advice. If you would like to discuss how the earned settlement reforms may affect you, please get in touch.

• A recent Google Cloud outage in London disrupted services for major banks, the courts and millions of end users.
• Businesses affected by cloud outages should review their contracts carefully, including availability obligations, service credits, liability caps and notification duties.
• Those that plan for incidents before they happen will be best placed to manage the impact.

On 20 October 2026, a "power event" at Google Cloud's London data centre knocked out services for around six hours. Millions of end users were said to be affected, with service providers, including major banks and the courts of England and Wales, among those reported to have experienced disruption. The event has attracted significant media attention. On the same day as the outage, Dame Meg Hillier MP, Chair of the Treasury Committee, wrote to the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chief Executive of the FCA seeking details of the incident's impact on UK financial services, the authorities' response and lessons learned for the resilience of the UK's financial system.

In this article, aimed at businesses that operate cloud-based technology products or rely on cloud-based software in their business operations, we unpick the role of cloud providers in the wider tech stack and set out some key contractual considerations for when things go wrong further down the stack.

The (cloud) tech stack

To understand the impact of cloud outages and the associated contractual rights, it helps to understand the tech stack. The stack is a rapidly evolving concept, the shape of which changes depending on the technology it supports. In broad terms, a simple cloud tech stack includes:

• Software as a Service (SaaS) - providers deliver fully built applications to end users over the internet, such as email, collaboration tools or banking platforms.
• Platform as a Service (PaaS) - offers a development environment on top of that infrastructure, allowing customers to build, test and deploy applications without managing the underlying hardware.
• Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) - offers virtualised computing resources such as servers, storage and networking, giving customers the building blocks to run their own systems in the cloud.
• Cloud providers - principally the “hyperscalers” (Google Cloud, Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure). The hyperscalers operate vast data centre networks providing on-demand processing power, storage capacity and networking resources to technology providers further up the stack.

End users typically interact only with the top of the stack and may have little or no visibility of the layers beneath. Many will not know which cloud provider underpins the service they are using. Some technology providers offer solutions designed to operate across more than one cloud provider. In some cases, a single service may draw on infrastructure from multiple cloud providers simultaneously. A cloud outage may therefore affect some users but not others, or may affect only certain features.

What to do if your business is affected

Cloud outages are likely to occur in the future and, as reliance on cloud infrastructure grows, their impact will only become more significant. The following framework sets out the key issues to consider.

Contractual landscape

Businesses hosting their SaaS applications on cloud infrastructure may not always have a direct contractual relationship with the underlying cloud provider. They will, however, have agreements with technology providers at various levels of the stack. Those agreements will typically address a number of key terms:

• Availability obligations: Most service-level obligations do not promise 100% uptime, just a target percentage over a period. There are likely to be carve-outs for maintenance, third-party failures or force majeure. A cloud outage could fall within those carve-outs, but that requires a proper review of the agreement.
• Enhanced terms: Regulated customers, such as banks or operators of critical infrastructure, sometimes have tighter service-level obligations or bespoke remedies. It is important to understand the service provider's obligations.
• Incorporation of cloud providers' terms: Many contracts incorporate the provider's terms by hyperlink to a frequently updated external page rather than appending a static copy. Identify the version incorporated into your agreement and check whether subsequent changes were validly introduced under its variation provisions. Consider whether the contract includes notice requirements for variations to those terms and, if so, whether they have been complied with.

Loss, remedies and response obligations

Businesses should start by working out what loss has been suffered. That could include lost sales, wasted staff time, reputational harm or regulatory exposure. It is important to keep a contemporaneous record while events are fresh (including timestamps, customer complaints, lost transactions and internal communications) in case a claim is pursued at a later stage.

• Service credits: These are often the sole contractual remedy for downtime. Confirm your entitlement, the claims process, time limits and whether credits exclude a separate damages claim.
• Liability caps and exclusions: Review whether the contract excludes liability for certain types of loss, such as indirect or consequential loss, lost profits or loss of data. Even where loss is not excluded, agreements are likely to contain liability caps (often tied to recent fees paid) which can be low relative to losses. A cap may be vulnerable to challenge, particularly where it is contained in standard terms rather than freely negotiated.
• Notification duties: Consider whether the outage triggers your own obligations to tell your customers, regulators or insurers.
• Mitigation: Alternative providers, back-up systems and contingency plans may matter as much as the cause of the failure itself. Parties are expected to take reasonable steps to mitigate their loss, so it is worth reviewing what was done during the outage and whether more could have been done. It is also worth putting a mitigation plan in place now, before the next incident occurs.

How Mishcon de Reya can help

The businesses best placed to respond to cloud outages are those that have already taken the time to understand their contractual landscape, map their position in the tech stack and think through their options before an incident occurs.

If you have questions about your agreements or would like help putting a response plan in place, our Technology Disputes team would be happy to assist. Please do get in touch.

Alexander Korenberg joins as an IP Strategist and Counsel, having previously been a Partner at Kilburn & Strode, where he led the firm's AI practice. Bringing over two decades of experience at the forefront of patents and AI, Alexander is widely recognised as a leading authority in the sector, well placed to advise clients navigating complex emerging technologies and bolster the firm’s expansion in this space.

Mario Subramaniam joins as Partner in the Life Sciences team, having previously been Partner in Bird & Bird's IP and Life Sciences team. Mario is a notable practitioner with 15 years' experience, and will continue to focus on Life Science transactions across the whole value chain, from drug discovery to strategic manufacturing and distribution.

Jeremy Hertzog, Partner and Chair of Innovation said "Innovation continues to expand its offering through these two key hires. Both Alex and Mario bring with them a wealth of experience, alongside reputations as experts in their field. We look forward to working with both of them."

Alex commented "Mishcon de Reya’s focus on the Innovation economy as a key market and their top-tier full-service platform make this a natural fit for the next phase of my practice. Partnering with my new colleagues, we will provide the innovative businesses driving the AI revolution with a comprehensive, multidisciplinary service that is second to none. AI ventures move fast and face unprecedented IP challenges; our combined team offers clients the deep technical fluency and top-tier legal advice required to navigate them and build lasting commercial advantage."

Mario commented "Mishcon de Reya has a reputation for advising Life Science clients on the sector-wide full spectrum of transactions. I look forward to working with the team across the range of transactions, including complex and strategic matters with specialised "innovator" focus, bridging the IP, regulatory and corporate practices."

Susannah spoke about the impact of AI on employment claims and tribunals; the article also cites Mishcon de Reya's research on interim relief in employment tribunals.

Read the article in full (subscription required)

Founded in 2016 and headquartered in London, Signify specialises in technology recruitment across the US and Europe, with expertise spanning software engineering, data, cloud and cybersecurity. The acquisition brings together Signify's specialist technology talent expertise and client relationships with eTeam's global reach and broader workforce and technology solutions. Signify will continue to operate under its existing brand and leadership team.

The Mishcon de Reya team was led by Nick Davis, Head of the Recruitment Services Group, alongside Associates in the Corporate team Linda Ali and George Sussock. John Skoulding, Partner in the Tax team, advised on the tax aspects of the deal, with Managing Associate Jade Pilling and Associates Eve Drysdale and Matthew Gold, and Managing Associate Sean Jamieson advising on the employment aspects.

Nick Davis commented:  "We have been on the journey with Ryan and the team at Signify Technology and we are so delighted to have helped them successfully conclude this transaction. This further underlines our experience and leading expertise in the Recruitment Services Sector."

Ryan Adams, Founder of Signify Technology, commented: “The team at Mishcon de Reya were excellent, played a critical role in helping us to get this over the line and it was a pleasure to work with them. Mishcon’s Recruitment Sector expertise and commitment throughout the deal were second to none and I have no hesitation in recommending them to other business owners considering a sale.”

As we celebrate Pro Bono Week, we are proud to share how the Agatha Hunt Fund, established by Mishcon de Reya in partnership with the University of Sheffield School of Law, is already supporting students committed to access to justice.

Launched in memory of Agatha Hunt, who studied Law at the University of Sheffield between 2016 and 2020 and was a dedicated volunteer in the University's pro bono programmes, the fund honours her commitment to widening opportunity and supporting others through the law.

This academic year, the fund will provide £6,500 in bursaries, prizes and support, helping students overcome financial barriers, access educational opportunities and participate in pro bono work.

Supporting students

The majority of the fund is directed towards students from lower-income backgrounds who are already in receipt of a University of Sheffield bursary.

Students undertaking a year abroad will receive an Agatha Hunt Bursary, while further bursaries will be awarded to students participating in the School of Law's pro bono schemes, including Freelaw, CommLaw, the Digital Justice Project and Support Through Court.

The fund also includes a student support scheme to help cover the costs of activities that can enhance students' studies and career development, including mooting competitions, internship travel and professional clothing.

Recognising achievement

The Agatha Hunt Memorial Prize for Outstanding Contribution to Pro Bono will be awarded annually to a student who has made an exceptional contribution to one of the School's pro bono programmes. Alongside a cash prize, the recipient will be offered a place on one of Mishcon de Reya's work experience schemes.

The fund also supports the Agatha Hunt Module Prize, awarded annually to the highest-performing student in a designated School of Law module. The winning student will receive a cash prize and a place on a Mishcon de Reya work experience scheme.

A lasting legacy

As the first awards are made, it is encouraging to see the fund already helping students access opportunities that might otherwise be out of reach, while recognising outstanding academic achievement and commitment to pro bono service.

For Mishcon de Reya, supporting the next generation of lawyers is an important part of our commitment to pro bono, social mobility and widening access to the profession. Through bursaries, prizes and work experience opportunities, the Agatha Hunt Fund will help ensure that Agatha's commitment to public service continues to inspire and support future generations of students.

The accolade recognises rising stars in the private client sector who are making significant contributions to their firms.

Elnara advises high-net-worth individuals and families on a broad range of UK immigration matters, including Innovator Founder and Global Talent visa applications, settlement, citizenship, and complex cross-border immigration issues.

James specialises in private wealth disputes, advising individuals, trustees, executors, donors/donees of LPAs, and charities on inheritance, trust, estate, mental capacity and property-related disputes.

Their inclusion this year reflects their technical expertise, dedication to their clients and contributions to the profession.

Learn more about the listings (subscription required)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the article in full

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

Background

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

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

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

Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

What should developers do now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related coverage

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

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

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

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

Related coverage

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

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

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

Learn more about the rankings

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

The discussion covers:

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

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

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

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