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.

Charlie is a Partner and Head of Private Wealth and Tax with expertise in international tax, including UK-US tax planning; trusts; asset protection structuring; and lifetime planning for high-net individuals, families and their trustees. 

Kevin has been with Mishcon de Reya since 1995, was Managing Partner from 1997-2020 and Executive Chair until 2025. Under his leadership the firm saw more than a ten-fold growth in revenue and launched MDR Lab - the first legal tech accelerator in the UK. He also oversaw the launch of several successful ancillary businesses – including MDR Mayfair and MDR Discover. More recently he has had responsibility for guiding the strategic growth of the firm, particularly in international markets, as well as launching and leading the firm’s ancillary businesses including the acquisition of flexible legal resourcing business Flex Legal. 

On taking up his new role Kevin will be stepping back from the partnership to become a Consultant. 

Daniel Naftalin, Mishcon de Reya's Managing Partner, said: "Kevin’s international experience, networks and proven business-building ability are enormously valuable to us. He will be supporting Charlie Sosna, who I am delighted has been appointed as Head of International. Charlie has a great deal of expertise in serving clients with international interests and he has huge talent, enthusiasm and drive. Together I am confident they will drive momentum and help us achieve our international Vision 2030 goals. 

“It is difficult to overstate Kevin's contribution to the firm. He has been one of the leading visionaries behind the modern Mishcon and played a defining role in shaping our distinctive reputation: bold, entrepreneurial and unafraid to do things differently. 

“Under his leadership, we entered new areas of law and built an increasingly international business. And I am grateful that he will continue to bring his vision and energy to our ambitions in the UAE and MDR Mayfair, and the wider firm as International Strategy Adviser." 

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

The Commission’s findings and Manchester City’s response

An independent Premier League Commission has published its long-awaited decision in the disciplinary proceedings against Manchester City FC, finding the club in breach of the Premier League’s financial rules over a nine-season period between 2009/10 and 2017/18.

The Commission found all of the substantive financial charges against Manchester City proven. It also upheld three of the four categories of allegations concerning the club’s failure to cooperate with the Premier League’s investigation. The Commission said the allegations of serious wrongdoing required “strong, cogent evidence” and concluded that, save for one of the cooperation charges, that standard had been met.

Among its findings, the Commission concluded that Manchester City had used arrangements with commercial partners which misrepresented the true agreements between the parties, resulting in the club’s revenues being overstated and its costs understated. According to the Premier League, the Commission found that the arrangements artificially inflated revenues and reduced costs by more than £900 million over the relevant period

The Commission also found that the club filed misstated accounts and would have exceeded both Premier League and UEFA spending limits by a substantial amount had the relevant arrangements been accounted for differently.

The Commission made significant findings concerning Manchester City’s conduct during the Premier League’s investigation. It concluded that the club had made concerted efforts to frustrate that investigation and had breached its obligations of cooperation and utmost good faith in a number of respects.

The Premier League has described the case and the decision as the most significant in its history. Chief Executive Richard Masters said the ruling established what had happened during the relevant period and that the League intended to move swiftly through the remaining stages of the process.

Manchester City strongly disputes the decision. In its response, the club said it was “disappointed and surprised”, maintained that it is innocent of the allegations and said the decision contains material errors of law, principle and fact. The club has confirmed that it intends to pursue the available appeal routes.

What happens next?

The decision does not determine Manchester City’s punishment.

Sanction will be considered separately at a further private hearing before the Commission. Under the Premier League Rules, the Commission has broad discretion, with potential sanctions including financial penalties, points deductions and other sporting sanctions.

Any appeal will add a further stage to a process which began with the Premier League’s investigation in 2018 and culminated in a 42-day substantive hearing in 2024.

The ultimate sporting, commercial and contractual consequences for Manchester City and the wider Premier League will therefore depend both on the sanction imposed and the outcome of the appeal process.

Comment

Kavan Bakhda, Head of Sports at Mishcon de Reya, commented:

“The publication of the Commission’s decision marks a significant moment, but it is not the end of the process. Attention will now turn to sanction and to Manchester City’s appeal.

“The Commission has a broad discretion as to sanction and, given the seriousness of its findings, the consequences could be substantial. However, it would be premature to assume what punishment will ultimately be imposed, particularly while the appeal process remains to be played out.

“The eventual outcome could also have significant consequences beyond the club itself, including for players, other Premier League clubs and the wider regulatory landscape in English football.”

In this episode of Oxford+, host Susannah de Jager speaks with Eva Barboni, Executive Director of Enterprise Britain, about the ambition, capital and talent needed to turn promising British start-ups into global companies that stay and grow here. Eva explains why public attitudes towards success matter, how decades of policy have steered households and pension funds towards safer assets, and why British capital backing British businesses can help keep jobs, investment and decision-making in the country.

Drawing on 20 years across political campaigning, strategic communications and building a business, Eva explores the practical changes that could help close the UK’s scale-up gap. From retail investing and pension fiduciary duty to Series B funding and non-compete clauses, the conversation examines how policy can support companies as they grow. It also considers what AI means for entry-level work, and how universities and regional clusters can spread the gains from innovation beyond established hubs. Against a backdrop of pension providers exploring a fund of more than £1 billion for British scale-ups, Eva makes the case that unlocking capital is only part of the challenge: Britain also needs a compelling public story connecting business growth with shared prosperity.

In a thought-provoking discussion, Louisa explored the emotional impact of divorce, drawing on the story of Ruth Ellis, the lives of other women she has written about and her own experiences. She reflected on the challenges of starting again and how it is possible not only to rebuild a life, but ultimately to thrive.

The session offered a moving perspective on resilience and the enduring relevance of women’s stories from history. It had particular resonance for Mishcon, as we acted for Ruth Ellis’s family in securing her a conditional posthumous pardon in July, ahead of the book’s publication in August.
 

Join us at Mishcon de Reya for a practical social mobility event designed to help aspiring lawyers understand what makes an application stand out. 

During the session, we will go through: 

• How to research a law firm effectively 
• Understand what recruiters are looking for 
• Explore how to turn your experience into strong application answers 
• Hear practical advice from Mishcon de Reya lawyers 
• Meeting and networking with other aspiring lawyers 

You will leave with practical tips and a clearer idea of how to approach your next application. 

This session is intended for aspiring lawyers from socially mobile and under-represented backgrounds. Places are limited, so early registration is encouraged.

• The Fédération Equestre Internationale ("FEI") is midway through the most significant revision of its Dressage Rules since 2022.
• One issue now sits at the centre of the consultation: whether “harmony” between horse and rider can, and should, be reflected in a judge’s score.
• The answer may shape not only how dressage tests are marked, but also how welfare standards, judging practice and future disputes are assessed across the sport.

The Fédération Equestre Internationale ("FEI") is midway through the most significant revision of its Dressage Rules since 2022, and one theme now sits at the centre of the debate: how, if at all, "harmony" between horse and rider should be captured in a judge's score. 

The proposed changes  

A first draft of the 2027 rule changes has been circulated for consultation.  Proposed changes include the positioning of judges around the arena, the introduction of stretching exercises in the latter part of the test to demonstrate relaxation and self-carriage, making the use of a double-bridle optional at four and five star Grand Prix level and the introduction of an express recognition of "harmony" between horse and rider in the scoring system.  The changes appear to be driven – in large part – by the ongoing need to address concerns regarding public perception of the sport.  

The FEI's Dressage Technical Committee has indicated that it is considering wholesale change to the current system: embedding an assessment of harmony and the training scale into the score for each individual movement, rather than simply to the collective scores awarded that the end of the test which account for the judge's overall impression.  It has confirmed that, as part of the rule change process, the judging guidelines and handbook are also under review and it is working on a definition of "harmony", and how it feeds into scoring, as part of that process. 

Why now?

The proposals are framed expressly around the FEI's definition of dressage as the harmonious development of the horse in a positive mental and physical state.  The framing of the proposals has taken on added weight amid sustained public and media scrutiny of welfare standards in the sport.  The FEI's Sports Forum in Lausanne heard evidence that judging is one of the principal levers available to influence how horses are trained, since, as one delegate put it, riders will only train their horses to achieve the scores that judges award.

Commentary: why the changes matter

From a disputes perspective, the harmony debate illustrates the increased focus on welfare reforms across equestrian sports more generally.  This is notably seen in horse racing, but also in the eventing, showjumping and showing industries.  

Clients should be aware of the increased scrutiny of equestrian sports facilitated by improved judging and reporting mechanisms, the introduction of observation protocols - including the mooted introduction of compulsory video monitoring of Dressage warm-ups – as well as the fact that members of the public can (and do) routinely take photos and videos at competitions.  This scrutiny is, for the most part, unproblematic.  However, it is important for clients to ensure that they respond to complaints, and engage with their governing bodies, in a timely and considered manner – possibly with the benefit of legal advice – should a complaint be filed so as to mitigate the risk of an issues escalating unnecessarily.  

Governing bodies should be aware that rule changes of this kind should be drafted with an eye to how they will be tested in practice, not only how they will be applied in the arena.  For individuals (whether athletes, owners, or trainers) detailed engagement with consultations on these issues is essential as the final wording of any definition of harmony, and of the criteria that judges will be trained and monitored against, will shape the future of the sport as well as the scope of any future regulatory dispute. 

How we can help

Our team regularly advises both high-profile athletes and high net worth individuals in relation to disputes with regulatory bodies and disciplinary issues, including disputes involving British Dressage, the British Horseracing Authority and the Gambling Commission.  We also have significant experience drafting consultation responses across a range of sectors and public interest matters.  Please do get in touch if you have an issue you would like to discuss.   

The session examined key issues such as internal investigations, disclosure obligations, engagement with coroners and families, and the management of parallel risks including civil claims, employment matters, regulatory scrutiny and health and safety considerations. Speakers also discussed the longer-term implications of an inquest, from media and reputational challenges to responding effectively to Prevention of Future Deaths (PFD) reports and implementing measures to reduce future risk.

Watch the recording to hear practical insights on navigating one of the most challenging situations an organisation can face, while maintaining a defensible and proactive approach throughout the coronial process.

His comments have appeared in PA Media, The Sunday Times, The Guardian, the Daily Mirror, the Daily Star and the Manchester Evening News.

In comments carried by PA Media and The Guardian, Kavan said: “If the charges against Manchester City are proven, this would be the most significant disciplinary decision in the history of English football.

“However, it is important not to get ahead of the formal process. We have yet to see the independent commission’s written decision, the reasoning behind its conclusions and, crucially, what sanctions might follow. The detail of the written decision will matter enormously.

“If Manchester City has been found guilty of the alleged breaches, attention will now turn to the nature and severity of any sanction. The Premier League’s rules provide for a wide range of potential sanctions, from financial penalties and points deductions through to, in the most extreme circumstances, expulsion from the competition.

“Any appeal could add a further significant stage to the process. Until the commission’s decision is published and any appeal has been determined, it will be difficult to assess the full consequences for Manchester City, the Premier League and its clubs.”

In The Sunday Times, Kavan addressed the potential impact of relegation on players’ contracts: “Relegation would not give Manchester City’s players an automatic legal right to tear up their contracts and walk away. However, relegation could lead to thorny legal disputes between players and the club.

“Under English employment law, there could potentially be arguments around repudiatory breach and constructive dismissal. If Manchester City were relegated because of serious wrongdoing by the club, players could in theory argue that the club’s conduct amounted to a fundamental breach entitling them to terminate their contracts. However, these would be relatively high legal thresholds for players to reach. Relegation alone would not necessarily be enough.

“A player could have a stronger argument if they could establish that serious wrongdoing by the club had fundamentally altered the basis on which they had agreed to join or remain at Manchester City, particularly if relegation had significant consequences for their remuneration or other contractual rights.”

Read full coverage:

• The Sunday Times
• The Times
• The Guardian
• The Daily Mirror
• The Daily Star
• Upday
• Yahoo Sports
• British Brief
• AOL

• On 1 October 2026, the Employment Rights Act 2025 ("ERA 2025") will double the three-month time limit for bringing most employment tribunal claims to six months.
• The new limitation period will only apply to claims where, in broad terms, the date of the alleged mistreatment falls on or after 1 October 2026.
• Existing rules on extensions of time - whether through Acas early conciliation or the employment tribunal's discretion - are unaffected by this change.
• Employers should consider the practical consequences of the longer limitation period, including on document retention, witness evidence and settlement negotiations.

What is changing?

On 1 October 2026, the ERA 2025 will increase the current three-month time limit for bringing most tribunal claims to six months. This applies to claims where the 'relevant date' - in broad terms the date of the alleged mistreatment - falls on or after 1 October 2026. For example, for unfair dismissal, the relevant date is the effective date of termination, and for discrimination, it is the date of the act/omission complained of or, where conduct extends over a period, the end of that period.

The existing three-month time limit has been criticised as a barrier to justice: employees facing dismissal or discrimination, for example, are expected to act quickly during a stressful period of their working lives, often before they are even aware a deadline exists. The Government's intention is to reduce procedural obstacles, widen access to the employment tribunal, and give both employer and employee more time to resolve disputes before a claim is issued.

Why does this matter to employers?

The extension, viewed alongside the impending reduction in qualifying service for unfair dismissal claims from two years to six months and the removal of the compensatory cap on unfair dismissal awards from 1 January 2027, creates a markedly more challenging environment for employers defending claims.

The six-month limitation period does not operate in isolation. Before issuing a claim, claimants must usually first notify Acas and complete the early conciliation process, which itself can last up to 12 weeks. Layered on top of a six-month limitation period and set against the backdrop of significant and well-documented delays in employment tribunals, the practical reality is that it could be years between the act complained of and the matter reaching a final hearing. In those circumstances, witnesses may be harder to trace, documents may be more difficult to retrieve, and the reputational and commercial uncertainty of live litigation hangs over the business for longer.

There is also a broader question: with claimants having a time limit that is twice as long, will employment tribunals be less willing to allow claims that are presented late, after the six-month period? How tribunals will approach this remains to be seen.

One positive for employers is that a longer time limit window reduces the pressure on employees to issue proceedings to protect their legal position during an internal grievance or disciplinary process that is still ongoing at the three-month point, or while settlement discussions are under way.

What should employers be doing now?

With the change taking effect on 1 October 2026, employers should act on the following as a matter of priority:

• Review document retention policies. Most HR records are already kept for much longer than six months, but some short-life data may not be. CCTV footage, call recordings, enterprise instant messages and records of unsuccessful job applicants are often deleted automatically after a short period. Check that retention periods for this data are increased to take account of the new six-month time limits.
• Build witness evidence capture into exit processes. Key witnesses may have left the business before a claim is issued. Where individuals leave following a dispute or performance process, consider capturing written accounts and supporting documents before they exit.
• Revisit settlement agreement drafting. Review standard litigation assistance clauses and other provisions to take account of the fact that claims may arrive much later than previously anticipated.
• Consider the implications for historic evidence. Employment tribunal proceedings will increasingly involve events that took place well before the hearing itself. Employers should think carefully now about how they document decisions and processes, knowing that the reliability and weight of that evidence may be tested much later.

How can Mishcon de Reya help?

Our Employment team advises on tribunal strategy, HR governance and workforce risk. Whether you need to audit your document retention policies, stress-test your exit processes or update your template settlement agreements, we can help.

To discuss how these changes may affect your business, please contact a member of the Employment team.

Join the Mishcon Academy for this conversation with Tina Fordham, one of the world's leading geopolitical strategists and the former Chief Global Political Analyst on Wall Street, as she discusses her new book, Mad World: A Geostrategy Survival Guide for Leaders. The book explores how geopolitical forces are reshaping business, investment and leadership, and why understanding these shifts has become an essential leadership skill. 

Drawing on more than 25 years advising governments, investors and global business leaders, Tina offers a practical framework for navigating today's complex landscape, from geopolitical risk and economic uncertainty to technological disruption and societal change. Rather than focusing on crisis, she makes the case for what she calls "pragmatic optimism" and explores how organisations can build resilience and identify opportunity in a rapidly changing world.

Before founding Yoto, Ben established music website dotmusic.com, which he later sold to Yahoo!, and co-founded media marketplace 7digital in 2004. He led 7digital until it went public in 2014, building experience across digital music, technology and entrepreneurship. Alongside his role at Yoto, he is a non-executive director at Pimoroni and an angel investor in businesses including Permutive and Causaly. 

A father of two, Ben is passionate about encouraging children’s independence and draws inspiration from Montessori principles of child development. He leads Yoto’s growth with the ambition of bringing screen-free learning and play to more children around the world. He enjoys creating stories with his family using Yoto’s Make Your Own cards and hearing how its products support children’s confidence, imagination and learning.

Charlie commented on HMRC’s move to assign dedicated tax compliance managers to billionaires with a UK tax footprint, as the tax authority seeks to build a clearer picture of individuals’ assets, investments, connected businesses, trusts and other entities.

Speaking about the increased scrutiny, Charlie noted that clients are already being contacted directly, as well as through their registered agents, with significant requests for information, which is causing concern. He said: “We are already seeing clients being contacted directly, as well as through their registered agents, with significant requests for information. Unsurprisingly, that is causing some concern. This looks to be part of a broader move towards greater scrutiny of the affairs of the very wealthy.”

In The Telegraph, Charlie highlighted the breadth of information being sought by HMRC, and he added that “clients are wary that once HMRC starts pulling at a thread, they don’t stop.”

In further commentary for Bloomberg, Charlie discussed concerns around the scope of HMRC’s requests and the importance of taking advice before responding. He said: “Some clients are seeking advice on whether they are legally required to provide everything HMRC has requested. It's really important to take advice early: sometimes the sensible approach is not simply to hand everything over automatically, but to understand what HMRC is entitled to ask for.”

Read the coverage:

HMRC Assigns Tax Compliance Manager to Every UK Billionaire – Bloomberg (subscription required)

HMRC assigns tax compliance managers to keep tabs on billionaires – The Telegraph  (subscription required)

UK Billionaires Push Back After HMRC Seeks More Tax Information – Bloomberg (subscription required)

HMRC clampdown on Britain's billionaires as tax compliance managers to keep tabs on wealthiest – GB News

Introduction

As outlined in Part 1, AI-driven reputational threats take many forms – from deepfakes and voice cloning to coordinated fake review campaigns and bot-driven harassment. Each can cause serious and rapid harm, and each raises distinct legal questions. There are not (yet) specific rights or remedies under English law targeted at AI-generated content. However, the existing legal framework is more versatile than is often assumed, and offers a range of tools – both established and emerging – to those who act decisively.

This section provides a guide to the key legal levers available, covering traditional causes of action, practical enforcement mechanisms, and the developing question of liability for harms caused by AI systems themselves:

Harassment

Where AI-powered bots are deployed to harass an individual or business – through coordinated pile-ons, doxxing or mass false claims – the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 may provide injunctive relief and damages. Courts have shown a willingness to extend harassment principles to coordinated online campaigns, and the fact that the campaign is AI-assisted does not diminish the legal exposure of those who deploy or direct the bots.

AI forensic tools can be used to assess the likelihood that material is authentic or AI-generated, strengthening the evidential foundation for any claim.

Defamation and consumer protection

A claim in defamation may lie against the publisher of a fake recording, a fabricated quote or AI-generated fake reviews. AI-assisted review bombing – where fake reviews are generated at scale – may also give rise to claims under consumer protection legislation, which prohibits fake reviews. Platforms' own terms of service may require removal, and injunctive relief may be available to prevent ongoing harm.

Data protection and misuse of private information

Where AI tools are used to process or leak private information, data protection law – in particular the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 – may be engaged, giving rise to claims against the data controller responsible for the breach.

The tort of misuse of private information remains a powerful tool where private information is published or disseminated without consent, regardless of whether AI was the vehicle for obtaining or generating it – for example, against someone who reposts doctored intimate images or fabricated medical records.

Disclosure orders

Where the identity of the person responsible for harmful AI-generated content is unknown, it may be appropriate to seek a Norwich Pharmacal order requiring a platform or third party "mixed up in the wrongdoing" to disclose identifying information. This can be a technically and jurisdictionally complex exercise, particularly where the relevant platform is based outside the United Kingdom.

We work with our Cyber & Complex Investigations team and specialist contacts to trace and identify sources of AI-generated harmful content, navigate cross-border challenges and, where there is technical evidence that content is AI-generated, deploy that analysis proactively in correspondence with platforms to accelerate takedown.

Online Safety Act 2023

The Online Safety Act 2023 introduces new duties on platforms to act against illegal content – including content that is false and likely to cause psychological harm, and non-consensual intimate image deepfakes. Platforms' obligations under the Act can be invoked as part of a targeted takedown strategy. Ofcom's forthcoming regulatory regime will, over time, increase accountability for platforms that fail to act on harmful AI-generated content.

AI liability – an emerging question

A currently untested question in this jurisdiction is whether a claim arises where an AI chatbot generates a defamatory response or repeats private information scraped from the public domain. In a recent legal statement, the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT) concluded that, since AI cannot be treated as a legal person, harms caused by false AI-generated statements would in most cases give rise to negligence claims against the developers of the relevant AI model or tool – focusing on the human decisions behind its design, testing and deployment – rather than claims in misstatement, defamation or deceit.

It remains to be seen how and where liability falls for harms caused by AI. In the meantime, there are numerous ways to target the publication – including repetition – of AI-generated content that is unlawful. The mainstays of reactive as well as proactive reputation protection still apply, even if monitoring reputational risks and preparing for the truth to be challenged need to be more sophisticated than ever.

How Mishcon can help

Mishcon's Reputation Protection & Crisis Management team brings together expertise across defamation, privacy, harassment and data protection. We use AI-powered monitoring to identify threats in real time, as well as sophisticated technology to assess whether content has been AI-generated. 

Our proactive offering includes advising on vulnerabilities in protocols and policies, developing bespoke crisis plans and running simulation exercises. Our reactive offering includes engaging with publishers and platforms to seek corrections and takedowns and, where necessary, formal legal action. We work in close collaboration with colleagues across the firm – including in Cyber & Complex Investigations, Intellectual Property and Fraud – to provide a bespoke and comprehensive response.

In brief:  

• Companies House and the Insolvency Service issued a warning in September 2026 to directors to verify their identities following the Insolvency Service's first prosecutions for failure to comply with the new provisions of the Companies Act.
• Since 18 November 2025, new directors have been required to verify their identity to incorporate a company or to be appointed as a director of an existing company. 
• Since 18 November 2025, new PSCs have had a 14-day window to submit a statement confirming they have verified their identity. 
• Existing directors and PSCs are subject to transitional deadlines, which differ depending on the role the individual holds.  
• The requirements also apply to directors of overseas companies with a registered UK establishment. 

How can an individual's identity be verified? 

• Individuals can verify their identity with Companies House through GOV.UK One Login, or through an Authorised Corporate Service Provider (ACSP).
• For anyone who has a biometric passport from any country, verifying their identity directly via Companies House is likely to be the easiest route.
• For more information on the routes to verification, please see our April 2025 briefing: Companies House reform next steps.

Once an individual's identity is verified, they will receive a personal code from Companies House. The code will need to be provided with a verification statement confirming they have successfully verified their identity for each company role they hold. The timing for providing the code differs for directors and PSCs and (for PSCs) will also depend on whether the individual holds both director and PSC roles.  

Timing for directors 

Since 18 November 2025, new directors have been required to verify their identity to incorporate a company or be appointed to an existing company. Existing directors must confirm they have verified their identity at the same time as they file their next annual confirmation statement, during the 12-month transition period ending 17 November 2026. 

An individual who acts as a director without having had their identity verified commits an offence, although technically this does not affect the validity of their appointment as a director or their actions while unverified. There is also an obligation on the company to ensure that an individual does not act as a director unless their identity is verified; contravention is an offence subject to a fine. The Insolvency Service's recent prosecutions show that the requirement for the company to ensure unverified individuals do not act as directors is being enforced against the company's other directors.

Timing for PSCs 

The timing of the requirements for PSCs depends on whether the individual is already either a PSC or a director. For each company in relation to which a person has a role: 

• For an individual becoming a PSC for the first time after 18 November 2025, the person must provide their personal code within 14 days of being added to the Companies House register. 
• If the person is already both a director and PSC, the person must provide their personal code in the company's next confirmation statement (as director) and provide it separately within 14 days of the company's confirmation statement (as PSC). 
• If the person is an existing PSC but not a director of the same company, they must provide their personal code within 14 days of the first day of their birth month. For example, if the date of birth is shown on the register as August 1990, the 14-day period would have started on 1 August 2026. 

Since only a natural person's identity can be verified, where a "Relevant Legal Entity" (RLE) qualifies as a PSC of a company, the identity of a relevant officer of the RLE will need to be verified. However, this requirement has not yet come into force. 

Overseas companies with UK establishments

The ID verification requirements have also been extended to directors of overseas companies that have a registered UK establishment at Companies House. These requirements came into force on 18 November 2025.

This means that:

• An overseas company is required to confirm that its directors have had their identity verified on opening of a UK establishment and on the appointment of any new directors after that.
• All directors of overseas companies are required to confirm during the transition period that they have had their identity verified. The transition period begins when the changes came into force and ends on the first anniversary of the date that the UK establishment was opened.
• As is the case for UK companies, individuals, whilst in the UK, are not able to act as a director of the overseas company in respect of the affairs of the UK establishment unless that individual has had their ID verified.

Insolvency Service prosecutions

A key insight from the Insolvency Service's first prosecutions for ID verification failures is that directors can be liable for the actions of their co-directors. Jill White and Marc Dillon were both directors of White (Reading Properties) Limited. White was prosecuted for acting as a director despite not verifying her identity, completing verification nine months after the deadline. Dillon verified his own identity in time but was prosecuted for failing to take reasonable steps to prevent White from continuing to act as a director.

The fines were relatively modest, but for directors the stigma of a criminal conviction is likely the greater deterrent.

These prosecutions are a timely reminder that verification is not a box-ticking exercise for each individual alone; boards should also check that every director and PSC has completed the process.

Next steps 

With the one-year anniversary of ID verification requirements approaching in November 2026, it is essential that any directors or PSCs who have not yet verified their identities do so within the transition timeframes applicable to their company. The first prosecutions by the Insolvency Service make clear that non-compliance carries real consequences. 

How Mishcon de Reya can help

Our Corporate Department advises companies, directors and people with significant control (PSCs) on their obligations under the Companies Act, including the recent and upcoming Companies House reforms. We can assist with understanding the applicable deadlines, navigating the verification process and assessing any risks arising from non-compliance. We also advise boards and overseas companies with UK establishments to support ongoing compliance with the new regime.

In our response, we have drawn on our experience litigating claims including Sainsbury's interchange fee claims against Mastercard through to the Supreme Court, the lead claimants in the Second Wave Trucks Proceedings, the first collective proceedings action to reach trial in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (on behalf of Justin Le Patourel), and the pending collective proceedings against Booking.com brought by Chris Warner, to the effect that:

• The prohibition on damages-based agreements (DBAs) in opt-out collective proceedings should be lifted, aligning the interests of law firms and the class, unlocking meritorious claims that currently fall below the threshold at which third-party funders are willing to invest, and increasing competition in the funding market – while third-party litigation funding should remain available alongside DBAs.
• An absolute suitability test, or a standalone statutory cost-benefit or aggregate-damages requirement, should not be introduced at certification, since the Supreme Court in Mastercard v Merricks correctly held that certification is not the stage for a merits mini-trial, and existing tools – including the availability of strike-out applications – already provide an effective and proportionate filter.
• The current asymmetry between class representatives' constrained litigation budgets and defendants' largely unconstrained spending should be addressed through updated Guide provisions on costs budgeting and disclosure of material cost overruns, together with more robust case management, rather than by amending the Tribunal's Rules.
• A simplified, presumption-based approach to CMA-directed or voluntary redress schemes should not be pursued without safeguards to ensure fair and adequate compensation, given that such schemes have to date delivered materially lower outcomes than litigation can achieve.
• The Tribunal's new webpage listing damages awards and settlements is a welcome step, and defendants should play a more active role in distribution, including by sharing customer data and making direct payments, with undistributed sums directed to charity.

Overall, we consider the regime remains in its infancy and have urged the Government to prioritise a targeted approach focused on clarifying and codifying settled practice, rather than pursuing wholesale reform – save for the introduction of DBAs, which would represent a fundamental and welcome change.

A copy of our submission to the Government can be accessed here.

AI has transformed how content is produced, consumed and verified. Reputation is no longer shaped primarily by news articles or social media posts. AI-powered search increasingly shapes reputation through AI-generated summaries – not a list of links, but responses that distil vast amounts of information into what appears to be an authoritative answer. 

A user might ask a chatbot: should I invest in X? Is Y reliable? What does Z not want me to know? The answer may seem definitive, but it will not necessarily be nuanced, accurate or balanced – and the underlying sources, such as reviews, may themselves be AI-generated. 

The threats AI poses to reputation are varied and rapidly evolving: 

• Deepfakes and voice cloning – used to falsely portray endorsements or controversial views 
• AI-assisted review bombing – coordinated fake reviews that distort a business's online profile 
• Deepfake intimate imagery – created and circulated without consent 
• AI-powered bot campaigns – deployed to harass, dox or overwhelm targets with false claims at speed and scale 

Each requires a tailored response, combining legal remedies, platform engagement and strategic communications. 

Yet the picture is not entirely bleak. AI also offers powerful tools for those seeking to protect their reputation: real-time media monitoring to detect emerging threats early; sentiment analysis to anticipate shifts in public perception; content verification technology to assess authenticity and support takedown requests; and analytics to distinguish genuine feedback from coordinated inauthentic activity. 

Those who invest in understanding and deploying these tools proactively will be best placed not only to defend their reputation, but to shape them. 

Leveraging these opportunities requires a clear strategy – and the starting point is getting the fundamentals right: 

Step 1: Get your own house in order 

• In many ways, the old methods still stand firm. Minimise obvious risks such as gaps in compliance or internal policies; ensure you have a robust crisis protocol; and actively seek out – and address – latent vulnerabilities. You cannot eliminate the risk that people – or chatbots – will tell outright lies, but you can be as vigilant and proactive as possible about homegrown crises. 

Step 2: Protect your records 

• AI software is getting ever better at forging information, which makes verification harder. When the truth is distorted or an unhelpful narrative takes hold, it is crucial to be able to point to trusted sources. Keep original documents and contemporaneous records, and make them searchable so they are readily available to counter false statements. 
  
  We deploy AI-powered content verification tools on behalf of clients to assess the likelihood that material is authentic or AI-generated, strengthening the evidential basis for any challenge. 

Step 3: Monitor continuously 

• Always-on monitoring is a sensible investment – it allows you to respond swiftly to a serious threat and to prioritise efforts on the greatest risks. AI-powered media monitoring tools are designed to sift through large amounts of data, and we deploy these on behalf of clients to identify emerging threats in real time. Alongside the technology, you need a clear protocol: what are the red lines, which concerns to escalate and how. 
  
  For businesses, monitoring must also extend to review platforms and social media, where fake review campaigns and bot-driven pile-ons can cause severe damage in a very short time. The monitoring framework should be configured to capture unusual spikes in review activity or coordinated online behaviour, as well as traditional media coverage. 

Step 4: Take targeted action 

• Escalating a concern might involve engaging with publishers – whether established media or individual posters – to challenge false allegations or deepfake images. In parallel, content can be flagged to social media platforms and search engines as unlawful or in breach of their terms and conditions. The major platforms all have policies and removal tools covering deepfakes, AI-generated content and misinformation. 
  
  Where there is technical evidence that content is AI-generated, we deploy AI detection technology to assess this and present that analysis to platforms – which can materially accelerate the takedown process. Depending on the content and context, it may also be appropriate to notify the police.

These practical steps – preparation, monitoring and targeted action – form the first line of defence. Part 2 sets out the key legal levers for responding to AI-driven reputational harm, covering traditional causes of action, practical enforcement mechanisms, and the developing question of liability for harms caused by AI systems themselves. 

How Mishcon can help 

Mishcon's Reputation Protection & Crisis Management team brings together expertise across defamation, privacy, harassment and data protection. We use AI-powered monitoring to identify threats in real time, as well as sophisticated technology to assess whether content has been AI-generated.  

Our proactive offering includes advising on vulnerabilities in protocols and policies, developing bespoke crisis plans and running simulation exercises. Our reactive offering includes engaging with publishers and platforms to seek corrections and takedowns and, where necessary, formal legal action. We work in close collaboration with colleagues across the firm – including in Cyber Risk & Complex Investigations, Intellectual Property and Fraud – to provide a bespoke and comprehensive response. 

Simon also warned that the biggest risk of not getting luxury assets revalued is the financial shortfall in the event of a loss, theft or damage claim. Valuations that are not up to date can also lead to disputes when claiming. “Insurers may challenge a claimed value if it isn’t supported by a recent appraisal, and the burden may fall on the collector to provide evidence of value at the time of loss. This is obviously difficult to do if documentation isn’t current, and this can slow down or reduce a payout considerably at the exact moment a collector may need financial certainty.”

Simon's best piece of advice he’d give to collectors? “Authentication should be seen as the start of a discipline, not the end of one. Valuations for insurance purposes should be revisited every two to three years – or sooner if there are any significant market movements.”

Read the article in full

But, many of the same competing priorities apply, such as the retention of control, asset protection, tax, wealth preservation, family governance and nuptial risk. How do you manage these complex issues in the context of a family investment company or family limited partnership?  

In the first session of our new Private Perspectives On Call digital series, Lydia Kellett and David Whittaker will be joined by Daniel Channing from Whitmill Trust to explore what happens when a UK-resident, UK-domiciled individual wishes to transfer a portfolio of income-producing assets while retaining control and ensuring financial security for their spouse.

Using this real-world scenario, we will discuss why a family investment company or family limited partnership may be the preferred solution, how the structure can be tailored to meet a family's objectives, and the key legal, tax and practical considerations that can inform its design.

Elliott is a property entrepreneur and hospitality specialist whose career has spanned investment, real estate, flexible workspace and events. 

Elliott began his career in property and investment, including a period at Blackstone, before moving into the rapidly evolving world of hospitality led work and event space. 

He played a key role in bringing New York based Convene to London and went on to become CEO of Cavendish Venues. 

Elliott has now embarked on his latest venture, TOGETHER — a new hospitality-led meetings and events business that aims to rethink how people come together in the workplace and how landlords can create more valuable, experience-led buildings. 

• In a significant decision for holders of D&O insurance, in Liberty Managing Agency Ltd & Ors v Chedid & Anr [2026] EWHC 2354 (Comm) the English Commercial Court rejected arguments that an insurer could avoid providing cover for defence costs under a D&O policy before fraud was established.
• A non-avoidance clause in the policy meant that insurers remained obliged to advance defence costs until the fraud was either admitted, or established by a final decision of a court, tribunal or regulator.
• Such a clause was not contrary to public policy – the principle that "fraud unravels all" applies to proven fraud but does not prevent parties from agreeing how unproven allegations of fraud should affect their contractual relationship in the interim.
• However, given the importance of the issue, permission to appeal has been granted.

Background

In 2024 two former officers of the energy services company Petrofac were charged by the Serious Fraud Office with various bribery offences. Their defence costs were initially paid by insurers of Petrofac's primary D&O policy and a first excess policy, each of which had a £15 million limit of indemnity. However, shortly before trial it became clear that the indemnity available under those policies would be exhausted, and that further funding of defence costs would need to be provided by the insurers of a second excess layer in Petrofac's programme.

Unfortunately, insurers of the second excess layer purported to avoid the policy on the basis of allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent non-disclosure relating to the alleged bribery. The defendants, who disputed the as yet unproven allegations, contended that this imperilled their ability to defend themselves and so the court was asked to determine the issue on an expedited basis.

The issues

Construction of the policy

Avoidance of an insurance policy by an insurer for fraudulent misrepresentation or fraudulent non-disclosure is, at common law, a "self-help" remedy – the insurer is not required to obtain a court decision before declining to perform its obligations under the policy, but it runs the risk that it will ultimately be held liable to perform.

However, the defendants contended that the position was altered by the presence of a non-avoidance clause incorporated into the second excess policy which provided that:

The Insurer shall not avoid this policy … on the grounds of misrepresentation or non-disclosure, except with respect to:

1. an Insured, who has fraudulently misrepresented or fraudulently non-disclosed material information prior to the conclusion of this contract …

where such fraudulent conduct is established by a final decision of a court, tribunal or regulator or by a formal written admission of the Insured.

As a matter of construction, Mr Justice Jacobs accepted that this meant that, where there was no admission, the insurer could only avoid for fraudulent misrepresentation or non-disclosure once there was a final decision by a court, tribunal or regulator. That was the clear and only realistic meaning of the words used in the clause, and was consistent with other provisions of the policy, particularly an exclusion for loss arising out of a deliberately dishonest or deliberately fraudulent act by the insured.

Noting that such clauses are a common feature of D&O policies, the judge further observed that this construction made good commercial sense, ensuring that directors and officers would not be deprived of defence costs until an objective determination as to their conduct has been reached.

Public policy

Insurers went on to contend that, in any event, since, as a matter of public policy, parties cannot agree provisions which exclude the consequences of their own fraudulent wrongdoing, the non-avoidance clause could not have the effect for which the defendants contended.

While Mr Justice Jacobs accepted the established principle that "fraud unravels all", in his view the relevant authorities only addressed the consequences of contractual clauses in the context of proven fraud. He did not consider that there was an English case which decided that public policy prevents the parties from reaching agreement as to how their contract is to operate at a time when there is an unproven allegation of fraud, which is to be determined in the future.

Here the parties had not sought to alter any of the consequences of fraud, if ultimately proved, but rather substituted the self-help aspect of avoidance with a requirement that an objective decision must be reached first. If fraudulent misrepresentation or non-disclosure was proved, insurers would still be able to avoid the policy and recover any defence costs already advanced. In the judge's view there was not a public policy which should prevent them from reaching such a commercially sensible, "pay now, sue later" agreement.

In reaching this decision, the judge noted that there is no public policy reason which precludes an agreement to indemnify against the costs of meeting allegations of criminal wrongdoing, including alleged bribery.

Mr Justice Jacobs therefore concluded that the insurers remained obliged to advance the defendants' defence costs.

Conclusion

A successful outcome for insurers in this case would have sent shockwaves through the D&O market. As the judge noted, individual directors frequently lack the means to properly defend themselves against serious criminal charges. The availability of cover for defence costs thus lies at the heart of D&O cover, and is one of the reasons why it is so valued by policyholders. Indeed, the recent introduction of the "failure to prevent fraud" offence under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 has only bolstered interest in D&O cover.

Mr Justice Jacobs' decision, confirming that pursuant to a non-avoidance clause of the type seen here, insurers will be obliged to advance cover for defence costs prior to any admission or final decision establishing the fraudulent conduct, is therefore welcome news for the time being. However, recognising the importance of the issues, permission to appeal was granted - this may not be the end of the story quite yet.

In the meantime, the decision is an important reminder to policyholders to review cover at both the primary and excess layers, to ensure that it provides adequate protection.

• On 16 September, Mishcon de Reya’s Sports Group brought together leading lawyers, executives and industry practitioners for its Annual Sports Conference, Game changers: Law, power and the business of modern sport.
• Across three panels, speakers examined the legal, regulatory and commercial forces reshaping modern sport, with discussions ranging from the role of legal challenges in determining sporting outcomes, changes to football’s financial rules and how changing fan behaviour is evolving the media landscape.
• Below is a summary of each panel and our top three takeaways.

After the final whistle or lap, can the law change a sporting result?

This panel considered a deceptively simple question: once the final whistle has blown or the chequered flag has fallen, can lawyers, regulators or the courts change the result? The panel, comprised of Otmar Szafnauer (a former Formula 1 Team Principal), Caroline McGrory (Chief Legal Officer of Cadillac F1), Nick de Marco KC (Blackstone Chambers) and Kavan Bakhda (Partner and Head of the Sports Group at Mishcon de Reya), considered the various different stakeholders and views that are considered before a legal challenge to a sporting result is advanced.

Key takeaways

• Sporting finality is important, but not always absolute. Challenges may arise where there are questions about the interpretation of regulations, procedural fairness, governance or the integrity of a competition.
• Legal and commercial strategies are closely connected. Decisions about whether to challenge a ruling are influenced not only by the legal merits but also by points, prize money, sponsorship and the wider future of a team or athlete.
• Challenges can have consequences beyond a single result. A dispute may test the scope of a governing body’s powers, expose weaknesses in regulations and influence how future rules are drafted and enforced.

Financial (un)fair play in football

This panel, comprised of Robert Griffiths, Partner (Mishcon de Reya) Jane Mulcahy KC (Blackstone Chambers) and John Pelling Senior Director Football Finance (West Bromwich Albion Football Club), examined football’s changing financial regulatory landscape, including profit and sustainability requirements, squad cost controls and the practical impact of regulatory proceedings on clubs.

Key takeaways

• Small financial margins can have significant sporting consequences. The extent of a financial breach may determine the severity of a points deduction, with potentially serious implications for a club’s league position.
• Compressed regulatory timetables create practical challenges. Clubs may have limited time to respond to a charge, gather evidence and prepare complex legal and accounting submissions.
• Financial cases are rarely straightforward. Issues such as amortisation and the treatment of particular costs can require extensive expert evidence and detailed consideration by the relevant panel.

Following the fans: how shifting fan behaviour is challenging sport’s commercial models

This panel, comprised of Richard McMorris, Partner (Mishcon de Reya), Sameer Pabari Media Rights Executive and Tom Burrows, Director of Media Rights (Relevent Football Partners), explored how changes in the way supporters explored how changes in the ways supporters discover, consume and engage with sport are affecting the industry’s established commercial models.

Key takeaways

• Fan behaviour is changing the economics of sport. Media rights remain central to the funding of sport, but changing fan behaviour is increasing the importance of alternative revenue streams and direct relationships with supporters.
• Media has a broader commercial role. Alongside generating rights revenue, media can help sports organisations build their brands, collect first-party data and support sponsorship and merchandise income.
• Reach and revenue must be balanced. The challenge is not simply to maximise short-term rights income. Competitions must also remain visible and accessible enough to attract and retain future generations of supporters.

Looking across the three sessions

Although each panel approached the industry from a different perspective, a common theme emerged: legal, regulatory and commercial strategy in modern sport can no longer be considered separately.

Changing fan behaviour affects the value and distribution of media rights. Financial regulations shape clubs’ sporting and investment decisions. Disputes about rules and results can determine points, championships, prize money and, in some cases, the future of a team or athlete.

Together, the sessions demonstrated how power in modern sport increasingly operates across the pitch, the boardroom and the courtroom.

How Mishcon de Reya can help

Mishcon de Reya's Sports Group advises rights holders, clubs, governing bodies, investors and sports businesses on disputes, regulation, governance, financial fair play, commercial agreements, sponsorship, intellectual property, data and strategic transactions.

To help you benefit from our specialist expertise, we are offering you a free 15 minute online session, where you can discuss with one of our team any follow-up questions you may have about the content.

• The FCA's non-financial misconduct rules came into force on 1 September 2026 and now apply to all regulated firms.
• Non-financial misconduct is no longer just an HR matter. Serious cases of bullying, harassment, sexual misconduct and violence are now regulatory compliance issues, carrying direct personal consequences for staff.
• Firms that have not already updated their disciplinary policies, investigation frameworks, fitness and propriety assessments and regulatory reference processes should treat this as an immediate priority.

What has changed?

The FCA's new rules and guidance on non-financial misconduct (that is, behaviour that is not of a clearly financial nature, such as bullying, harassment and violence) came into force on 1 September 2026. The new rules extends the FCA's conduct rules to non-bank firms, such as asset management firms, brokers and insurers, requiring them to address serious non-financial misconduct with the same rigour as financial wrongdoing. Serious cases of bullying, harassment, sexual misconduct and violence in the workplace now explicitly constitute breaches of the FCA's code of conduct across all regulated firms.

What the FCA non-financial conduct rules now require

Firms are now expected to treat non-financial misconduct as a regulatory compliance issue, not solely an internal HR matter. The rules capture conduct that is 'serious'; an as yet untested scale but we expect that seriousness will be influenced by the behaviours impact on the subject, the seniority of the person whose conduct is in question, and whether it forms part of a repeated pattern of poor behaviour.

The rules catch misconduct with a sufficient work-related link, which could include misconduct towards a colleague on the firm's premises, while working remotely on the firm's business, or at a work event organised by the firm or another organisation.

All staff subject to the FCA code of conduct, including senior managers, certified persons and conduct rules staff, should now treat a finding of serious non-financial misconduct as a breach of the code of conduct. For senior managers and certified persons, such a finding may also affect the assessment of their fitness and propriety, potentially jeopardising their ability to hold a regulated role, and will now be disclosed on regulatory references in the same way as financial misconduct.

Managers now carry direct accountability

With the rules now live, managers must take reasonable steps to protect staff from non-financial misconduct and to respond appropriately when it occurs. A manager who knew, or should have known, about misconduct within their area of responsibility and failed to act may themselves now be in breach of FCA rules and held personally accountable.

What firms should be doing now

Firms should expect an increase in formal investigations and should be prepared for those investigations to be more sophisticated, particularly where alleged misconduct occurred outside the workplace.

Firms that have not already done so should, as a priority, be acting on the following:

• Reviewing disciplinary, grievance and whistleblowing policies to expressly address non-financial misconduct and reflect the FCA's requirements.
• Checking that investigation frameworks can properly handle allegations of serious non-financial misconduct, including conduct occurring outside the workplace.
• Ensuring fitness and propriety assessments for senior managers and certified persons now incorporate non-financial misconduct considerations.
• Encouraging and enhancing a culture of accountability – proactively promoting an environment where concerns can be raised and inappropriate behaviour addressed.
• Adjusting regulatory reference processes to capture non-financial misconduct findings.

Our cross-firm expertise combining employment, regulatory and investigative expertise puts us in an ideal position to advise on the new regime. Please contact your normal Mishcon contact should you wish to discuss further.

• The High Court quashed the Office for Students' (OfS) £585,000 fine against the University of Sussex, finding the OfS had misdirected itself on the law of freedom of speech and academic freedom, failed to properly consider the University's Freedom of Speech Code of Practice and remedial policy changes, and acted with apparent bias and predetermination.
• In response, the OfS amended its guidance, Regulatory Advice 24, on 5 August 2026 to embed the Court's guidance: institutions' policies must now be read holistically, a policy's mere capacity to catch lawful speech is not enough on its own to found a breach, and evidence of remediation must be weighed before a finding is made.
• The OfS's new free-speech complaints scheme opened on 1 September 2026, allowing staff, academic post applicants, visiting speakers and non-student members (but not students) to bring complaints directly to the OfS, making it essential for providers to audit their policies against the revised framework.

On 5 August 2026, the OfS published amendments to its guidance on the regulation of freedom of speech and academic freedom (Regulatory Advice 24). 

The revisions were a direct response to the High Court's judgment in R (University of Sussex) v Office for Students, handed down on 29 April 2026, which quashed the OfS's decision to fine the University £585,000 for breaching its freedom of speech and governance conditions of registration. 

This article sets out:

1. What has changed in Regulatory Advice 24
2. The contextual background to those changes
3. The introduction of the OfS's new free-speech complaints scheme, which opened on 1 September 2026 and allows free-speech complaints to be taken directly to the OfS by staff, applicants for academic posts, visiting speakers and non-student members. 

The University of Sussex judgment

The case was the first judicial test of the OfS's approach to free-speech regulation. The OfS's investigation into the University began on 22 October 2021 following widely reported protests concerning Professor Kathleen Stock, a philosophy professor who ultimately resigned from the University amidst allegations of transphobia. The Court was careful not to adjudicate on the circumstances of Professor Stock's departure; however, the circumstances of her resignation were the catalyst for a three-and-a-half-year investigation into the University's Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement; its Freedom of Speech Code of Practice; and its scheme of delegation.

In March 2025, the OfS found the University had breached two of its registration conditions: (i) condition E1, the requirement to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom principles, and (ii) condition E2, the requirement to operate in accordance with governing documents. It imposed its largest ever fine. However, the University brought a successful judicial review challenge in relation to the OfS's findings and the fine was quashed. 

Most fundamentally, the Court held that the University's Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement was not a "governing document" within the meaning of the relevant legislation, meaning the OfS had no jurisdiction to make the condition E1 finding at all. The Court also found that the OfS had misdirected itself on the meaning of both freedom of speech and academic freedom within the law: it had treated any restriction capable of catching lawful speech as sufficient to found a breach, when the OfS itself accepted that lawful speech could, in appropriate circumstances, be restricted. In relation to academic freedom, the OfS had wrongly treated the risk of disciplinary proceedings as equivalent to placing academics "in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges" – the actual statutory test. The Court further held that the OfS had failed to have proper regard to the University's Freedom of Speech Code of Practice, despite the OfS's own guidance in Regulatory Advice 24 acknowledging that the code of practice is an institution's "definitive and up-to-date statement" on free speech. It also held that findings of breach must consider whether alleged breaches have already been remedied before a decision is finalised, and the OfS's failure to consider the University's 2024 policy revisions – submitted some 10 months before the final decision – was unlawful. Damagingly, the Court found the OfS's decision was vitiated by apparent bias and predetermination: the evidence showed that the OfS had pursued the University as a deliberate test case, intended, in the words of its then chief executive Susan Lapworth, to "create clear compliance incentives and expectations" for the rest of the sector – an approach the Court held was "plainly the wrong starting point" for a fair investigative process. The judgment does not disturb the OfS's underlying jurisdiction to regulate free speech or its power to issue fines; rather, it directs how that power must be exercised.

The amended Regulatory Advice 24 and the new OfS complaints scheme

Regulatory Advice 24 was already in force when the judgment was handed down, and both parties agreed at trial that its three-step framework was the correct methodology, namely:

1. Is the speech lawful;
2. Are there reasonably practicable steps to secure it; and,
3. If the provider is interfering with the speech in any way, is that interference prescribed by law and proportionate. 

The Court's criticism was not of the framework itself, but of the OfS's failure to faithfully apply its own methodology.

The amendments published on 5 August 2026 revise the three-step framework to embed the Court's guidance directly into the OfS's practice. The updated guidance adds new paragraphs 16A and 16B clarifying the role of Article 17 of the Convention (the anti-abuse provision), adds a new illustrative example 24A, concerning restrictions on a medical student's political speech during a placement, and makes explicit clarifications on the scope of the duty and its interaction with the Convention. 

In substance, the revised framework now requires OfS decision-makers to: read an institution's governing documents holistically, rather than provision by provision, when assessing whether a policy suite protects lawful speech; treat a policy's mere capacity to catch lawful speech as insufficient, on its own, to found a breach; weigh evidence that a policy or code has already been remedied before finalising any finding; and apply the proportionality and "reasonably practicable steps" test rigorously at each stage of the analysis.  

The vehicle through which the amended Regulatory Advice 24 will now be tested against individual cases is the new OfS free-speech complaints scheme, which opened on 1 September 2026. Through the scheme, the OfS can now investigate complaints and make recommendations to institutions, including recommendations to pay compensation or alter processes. 

Practical implications for regulated institutions

For registered providers, the judgment and the updated guidance give rise to the following practical considerations:

• Free speech and equality-related policies should be read, and drafted, as a suite: an express safeguarding or proportionality statement in a code of practice may cure an otherwise vague restriction elsewhere in the institution's policy framework, provided the suite as a whole would be understood by an objective, reasonably informed reader to protect lawful speech. Institutions should ensure that their freedom of speech code of practice is prominently cross-referenced in any policy that may affect free speech.
• Disciplinary and equality policies should avoid vague or undefined restrictions on speech and should build in objective, legally grounded definitions.
• Institutions should also expect that a demonstrated willingness to revise policies in response to concerns, and evidence that a policy or code has already been remedied, are now factors the OfS must consider before making a finding of breach. Providers should therefore have robust processes in place for the ongoing review of policies, as appropriate, and should consider policies as living documents to ensure continued compliance.
• With the free-speech complaints scheme now live, providers should audit their current freedom of speech and equality policies against the amended Regulatory Advice 24 three-step framework in anticipation of individual complaints being tested against it. Providers should note that the scheme is not retrospective and that students are not eligible complainants, as they have their own separate complaints scheme – the new scheme is limited to staff, applicants for academic posts, visiting speakers and non-student members.
• Providers can reasonably expect that the new streamlined process of complaint will empower complainants to raise concerns confidently and therefore should ensure appropriate training and upskilling in the context of free speech complaints and the OfS Regulatory Advice 24.

Realising that many other healthcare professionals faced the same problem, Antonia and Jonny set out to create an effective hand cream without the harsh synthetic ingredients commonly found in skincare products. 

They launched Nursem in 2012 with a mission to support those who care for others. Through the Nursem Promise, for every product sold, the company provides a month’s worth of free hand care to a nurse, midwife or other NHS healthcare professional. Nursem has so far delivered around 750,000 months of free hand care and is on track to fulfil its one-millionth Promise.  

Alongside building the business, Antonia and Jonny are also parents to four children. 

What we will cover: 

• The remedy "toolkit": what remedies are available under English law 
• Liquidated damages, penalties and interest: what parties can and can't include in a contract
• Damages as the core remedy: the aim of damages, what claimants need to show and how damages are measured
• Termination: when does a right to terminate a contract arise and what steps does the terminating party need to take
• Equitable remedies (such as specific performance and injunctions) and the circumstances in which a court may grant these  
• Practical implications: what boards should be thinking about before and after things go wrong 

This series will bring together thought leaders and experts in the defence sector to explore the challenges and opportunities shaping the future of defence.

In this episode, we speak with Dave Ewing, Head of Technology Commercialisation at BAE Systems and lead of BAE Systems Launchpad, BAE Systems’ incubator for defence and dual-use technology companies. Having started his career as an engineer before qualifying as a patent attorney and moving into technology commercialisation, Dave brings a unique perspective on the intersection of innovation, intellectual property, venture capital and defence.

Drawing on his experience overseeing BAE Systems’ engagement with startups, SMEs and investors, Dave shares his views on how emerging technologies can successfully navigate the defence market and the role that major defence organisations can play in accelerating their adoption. 

Join us for a compelling discussion exploring what leadership really looks like when the pressure is on. Rupert will share stories, insights and lessons from a career spent navigating complex environments where judgement, courage and adaptability mattered most.

For anyone interested in leadership, influence, organisational culture, decision-making or personal resilience, this promises to be an inspiring and practical conversation with one of Britain's most respected business leaders.

Amanda said: "A potential shift in the standard could have significant implications for stakeholders who find themselves involved in a coronial process where these circumstances arise - often authorities or state-run entities are involved. The consultation is, however, an early step in the process - to assess opinion and gather information. There is no guarantee that changes will be made, nor is there an indication at this stage of a wider application to other forms of inquest conclusion."

Read the article in full

• On 9 September 2026, the Government announced details of the second phase of implementation of the Renters' Rights Act 2025, the Private Rented Sector database, rebranded by the Government as the 'Register your rental property' service.
• The new service will be introduced region by region from 15 December 2026. Registration will be a legal requirement, there will be an annual fee for each property, and failure to register may lead to enforcement action and a fine.
• This article examines what landlords need to know.

Who will need to register?

Landlords of assured and regulated (Rent Act 1977) tenancies will need to register both themselves and each property they let. Assured tenancies include all new assured periodic tenancies (APTs) and assured shorthold tenancies that automatically converted to APTs on 1 May 2026. Where there is more than one landlord, each landlord will be required to register themselves individually but can share the single entry for their jointly owned property.

Landlords of supported exempt accommodation, as defined in the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, will not be required to register.

During the initial rollout, registration is required only for properties that are currently let or become let during the rollout period. Unoccupied properties do not need to be registered yet. A further requirement is planned under future legislation which will require unoccupied properties to be registered before they can be marketed for letting.

When does registration start?

The service opens on 15 December 2026, but the legal requirement is being introduced regionally. Once the regulations take effect in a particular region, landlords will have three months to register properties there.

The timetable is:

How do I know which region my property is in?

The registration timetable is based on the region in which the property is located, rather than where the landlord lives or has its registered office.

The regions listed in the timetable correspond to the nine established English regions, and to assist landlords, Schedule 1 to the draft PRS Database Regulations lists the local authorities falling within each region.

Landlords with properties in several regions do not have to wait for each regional start date. From 15 December 2026, they can choose to register their portfolio at the same time, provided each property is registered by the applicable deadline. 

How much will it cost?

There is no separate fee for landlords to register themselves. Instead, landlords will pay an annual fee of £65 for each property registered, with registration renewed each year. A landlord with ten registered properties would therefore pay £650 annually.

During the initial rollout, the fee will be pro-rated so that landlords required to register earlier do not pay more simply because their region comes first in the timetable.

What information will landlords need?

As well as information identifying the landlord, the government will require details about each property, including its address, ownership and dwelling type, number of bedrooms and whether it is currently let.

For occupied properties, landlords will also need information about the number of occupants and households, any HMO, additional or selective licensing requirements, whether the property is furnished, the rent charged and payment frequency, and whether rent includes utilities. 

Landlords will also be asked to provide health and safety information, including relevant gas safety, electrical safety and EPC documentation. Where an EPC records an energy efficiency rating below the minimum required level, information about any registered MEES exemption will be required. 

The Government has said that, in future, tenants "will be able to use the service to see if a landlord is compliant with key legal requirements, helping them make better informed decisions about where they rent". The Government will publish a list of the precise information that the public (and tenants) will be able to access at a later stage.

Can a managing agent deal with registration?

Even where a property is fully managed, the landlord must start and complete the registration process. An agent or property manager can be authorised to provide certain information on the landlord’s behalf (details to be published before launch), but responsibility for ensuring that all required information is provided remains with the landlord.

What happens if a landlord does not register?

Once the three-month registration window for a region has expired, local authorities will be able to take civil enforcement action (impose a fine) against landlords who have failed to register. Landlords should also be aware that it is a criminal offence to provide false or misleading information to the database, for which a local authority can impose a fine of up to £40,000.

The new service is intended to be an enforcement tool as well as a register. Councils will be able to use it to identify non-compliance, and part of the registration fee will fund local authority enforcement of the Renters’ Rights Act reforms. Once the wider scheme is complete, landlords and agents will need to quote valid registration details in any property advert or listing, and marketing a property without them will itself become unlawful. The Government has not yet confirmed the date this restriction takes effect.

What should landlords do now?

It is not yet possible for landlords to register (the database is not yet live), but landlords should use the period before December to get their records in order.

In particular, portfolio landlords may want to identify the applicable registration deadline for each property now and check that property, tenancy, licensing, rent and safety information is complete and readily accessible. It would also be sensible to review gas safety records, EICRs or EICs and EPC documentation before registration opens rather than discovering gaps during the registration process.

Landlords who rely on managing agents should also discuss who will collate the necessary information, while recognising that the landlord retains ultimate responsibility for registration.

The Government’s latest announcement is available here: Get ready: ‘Register your rental property’ service. Landlords wishing to receive further government guidance and announcements as soon as they are published can register on GOV.UK.

We are delighted to share a short highlights video from the evening, a quick reminder of the brands, conversations and atmosphere that make Style Gallery so special. 

We want to thank all our showcasing brands, including Otiumberg, Elsewhere Coffee, Kingdom Scotland, HERD, Equi London, Edeline Lee and Curated Beauty London. Guests were also treated to a complimentary nail bar by Ruuby.  

Following analysis which found that helpline enquiries relating to bullying and harassment between January and June 2026 were down by 3.7 per cent compared with the same period in 2025, Mark said the figures did not “necessarily mean that there has been a fall in bullying and harassment” as workers could be seeking advice directly from solicitors or trade unions. Employers shouldn’t read this as a sign that the problem is going away. The figures show there are still a significant number of employees who felt they needed external advice and support.

Read the full article (subscription required)

• The Employment Appeal Tribunal's (EAT) recent decision in Clifton Diocese v Parker is a cautionary tale of what can go wrong in a workplace investigation, recording a series of serious procedural failings by the appointed investigator.  
• Notably, the employer didn't try to appeal the employment tribunal's decision that these failings made the dismissal unfair.  
• The EAT allowed the employer's appeal on the discrimination and harassment findings, which have been remitted to the same employment tribunal for redetermination. As the EAT emphasised, unfair treatment is not, by itself, evidence of discrimination — but the procedural failings in this case speak for themselves.

What happened in this case?

The claimant was Head of Finance at Clifton Diocese and was preparing to return to work following her adoption leave. She requested a flexible working arrangement, seeking to return three days a week to fit around her child's nursery place. The claimant's manager, who had raised concerns about her performance internally to others some months earlier, put them to the claimant for the first time during that conversation. They were then recategorised as allegations of gross misconduct – a step that the employment tribunal found had been contrived by the manager and the employer's HR adviser to procure her dismissal. An external investigator was appointed to carry out the investigation; the investigator went on, in substance, to conduct the disciplinary hearing as well, and the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct.

The claimant succeeded in the employment tribunal in her claims for unfair and wrongful dismissal, and in part in her claims for discrimination and harassment.  The employer appealed the discrimination findings only; those have been remitted for redetermination.

What is notable is the extent to which the approach taken by the investigator came under fire from the employment tribunal – these were findings that were not appealed, and which the EAT set out in full in its appeal judgment.

What were the flaws in the disciplinary process?

It is not unusual for an employer to be criticised by an employment tribunal when assessing how a disciplinary process has been conducted. However, in this case, the way in which the investigation and disciplinary process was conducted was very specifically called out. The criticisms of the investigation and disciplinary process, much of which was directed against the investigator herself, included the following:

• The claimant was not provided with detailed allegations to which she could properly respond;
• The investigation interview was conducted in the claimant's absence;
• The investigator was not informed of the claimant's mental health condition and, being unaware of it, refused her request for the meeting to be held remotely;
• The investigator failed to look for exculpatory evidence, and approached the process as though it was for the claimant to disprove the allegations;
• The investigation was rushed, and rested largely on what the investigator had been told by one person, with only limited supporting documentation considered;
• At the disciplinary hearing, the investigator spoke to the claimant "as if she was a naughty school child", humiliating her.

Key takeaways

1. Outsourcing an investigation does not outsource the liability. Anything done by an employee in the course of their employment, or by an agent acting with the employer's authority, is treated as done by the employer. Appointing an external investigator therefore does not insulate an employer from the way that the investigator behaves, and the manner in which an investigation is conducted can itself amount to discrimination. An individual investigator may also face personal discrimination liability (though that was not in issue in this case).
2. Disclose the allegations in advance. The subject of an investigation must know the substance of the allegations against them before the investigation meeting, not on arrival at it. Calling someone to a meeting without telling them what it concerns is procedurally unfair and, as this case illustrates, can have significant consequences for the process as a whole.
3. Allow sufficient time to respond. The subject of an investigation must have adequate time to consider and respond to the allegations. Requests for additional time - whether to gather documents, obtain advice, or prepare a response - should be given proper consideration and any refusal justified. Timescales should be built in from the outset, with any deviation from them properly documented. 
4. Consider and accommodate reasonable adjustments. Before any investigation meeting, the investigator should establish whether the subject has any health issues or other circumstances that may affect their ability to participate and make appropriate adjustments.
5. Seek out exculpatory evidence. An investigator must approach their task with an open mind. A thorough investigation requires the investigator to seek out evidence that supports the subject's account with the same rigour as evidence that undermines it.
6. Conduct is as important as conclusions. The employment tribunal was highly critical of the way the investigator spoke to, and engaged with, the claimant. It is a stark reminder that an investigation that reaches the right conclusion but does so in a manner that is dismissive, disrespectful, or inappropriate still carries significant legal and reputational risk.
7. Keep investigation and decision-making separate, where practicable. Here, the investigator not only carried out the investigation but, in substance, conducted the disciplinary hearing and afterwards drafted the reasons for dismissal. Separating the two roles is a strong indicator of impartiality and makes the process far easier to defend.

With the compensatory cap coming off all ordinary unfair dismissal claims from 1 January 2027, the cost of getting a dismissal wrong will increase significantly for employers. Carrying out a fair and balanced investigation is a key component of a lawful conduct dismissal. This case is a timely reminder that an investigation is judged not only on its outcome, but on the integrity of the process by which it is reached.

Miriam has advised leaders across the education sector in complex matters such as investigations into alleged antisemitism; culture reviews showing discriminatory practices; illegal schools; and international safeguarding due diligence in school transactions, inter alia.  

Recently, the Bar Council appointed Miriam as the Council’s representative on the Advisory Group to the Judicial Appointments Commission.  Miriam is a trustee of the Hackney Foodbank Trussell Trust. As part of her new role, she will advise the team on growing the education offering and exploring international opportunities in the sector. Miriam is the eleventh partner hire at Mishcon this calendar year.  

"I am thrilled Miriam is joining the team," said Head of Employment, Susannah Kintish. "This move will further deepen our existing expertise in the education sector and provide both individuals and businesses with the best legal support. Miriam is a strategic and solution-focused barrister with a proven track record in supporting the education sector, and we welcome her to Mishcon."  

"I am delighted to be joining a terrific team at Mishcon de Reya,” says Miriam. "The education sector is in a state of transition, and I look forward to supporting our clients as they prepare for the future working across multiple teams. The Education group at Mishcon de Reya has established a strong practice, and the opportunity to help deepen our offering in the UK and internationally is exciting. I look forward to supporting our clients in this role.”