• Amid ongoing regional uncertainty, UAE employers face more than a compliance challenge, they must make workforce decisions that are legally sound, commercially viable and grounded in good judgement.
• This article explores how organisations can assess risk, manage attendance and travel, use flexibility such as remote working responsibly, and introduce change without creating unnecessary exposure across the UAE, DIFC and ADGM regimes.
• Ultimately, employers who balance legal compliance with practical leadership and people-focused decision-making will be best placed to navigate the current environment.

A different kind of pressure on employers

In periods of uncertainty, employers are rarely short of information. What is often missing is clarity on what to do.

Over the past few weeks, many organisations in the UAE have found themselves asking similar questions, not about the law in isolation, but about how to respond in a way that is sensible, proportionate and sustainable.

In the UAE, those questions are rarely straightforward. Businesses are balancing obligations under the UAE Labour Law and, in many cases, the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) regimes, alongside the realities of a highly international workforce and evolving expectations around employee support.

In that context, the challenge is not simply one of compliance. It is about making decisions that hold up legally, commercially and from a people perspective.

Starting point: what does “reasonable” look like?

Employers are often guided by the concept of acting reasonably. The difficulty, particularly in uncertain environments, is that “reasonable” means different things to each of us and in each situation and is rarely defined in detail. That's true here – none of the UAE Labour Law, the DIFC Employment Law and the ADGM Employment Regulations provide real clarity in that regard and there is no single prescribed response to the current situation. Instead, employers are expected to take a view and, ultimately, to be able to objectively justify it.

For most organisations, that starts with stepping back and asking:

• What risks are we actually trying to manage? In the case of conflict, the risks are relatively obvious but what additional risks sit beneath those? Are they legal, commercial, reputational or something else entirely?
• Which parts of our workforce are most exposed?
• What would a proportionate response look like in our business?

This is not a purely legal exercise. It requires input from across the organisation, including HR, operations and leadership and, on occasion, external advisors.

What matters is not that every employer takes the same approach, but that the approach taken is considered, consistent and capable of explanation.

Workplace presence, travel and employee wellbeing

One of the more immediate questions for employers is how to approach workplace attendance and travel.

For some organisations, the answer will be to maintain existing arrangements, with additional monitoring and support. For others, particularly where there is perceived or actual risk, adjustments may be appropriate. The level of those adjustments will vary but might include:

• reconsidering expectations around physical attendance;
• limiting or postponing certain types of travel; or
• putting in place additional support for employees who may be directly affected by events in the region, having regard, where appropriate to protected characteristics.

In the DIFC and ADGM in particular, expectations around employee welfare and risk management might be broader than those 'onshore' and there will inevitably be additional considerations for employers with employees falling under different employment law regimes.

In practice, the focus should be less on identifying a single “correct” approach, and more on ensuring that decisions are:

• aligned with the organisation’s risk profile;
• applied consistently; and
• communicated in a way that employees can understand.

Flexibility versus control: making remote working work

Remote working is often one of the first options employers turn to, particularly where it is identified that work can be undertaken outside of the premises and the risks associated with having employees on the premises is objectively too significant. It can provide immediate flexibility, but it also raises a different set of questions.

The key issue is not whether remote working is possible. For many roles, it clearly is and that has been demonstrated for a number of years now. The question is therefore whether it is being used in a way that is controlled and sustainable.

Employers should be cautious about arrangements that evolve informally, particularly where employees are working outside the UAE. Even short-term changes can have knock-on effects, including:

• misalignment between immigration status and actual working arrangements;
• exposure to tax, legal and/or regulatory requirements in other jurisdictions; and
• uncertainty around what obligations continue to apply to the employment relationship.

In the DIFC and ADGM, the contractual framework may provide more flexibility in how these arrangements are structured. However, that flexibility does not remove the need for clarity in each individual case.

As a general principle, the more open-ended the arrangement, the greater the risk. Employers should therefore be clear from the outset on:

• where the employee is working from;
• for how long; and
• what assumptions are being made about costs, benefits and responsibilities.

Managing change without creating unnecessary exposure

At some point, even where remote working is possible and, potentially, has been successfully used, employers will need to consider whether changes to working arrangements, hours or remuneration are required.

This is an area where the legal position is relatively clear, but the practical application is often more difficult. In short, across the UAE, DIFC and ADGM, changes that are detrimental to the employee will generally require express agreement (in writing). Attempting to move too quickly, or without proper engagement, can create avoidable risk.

In practice, employers should therefore think carefully about:

• the objective of a proposed change;
• whether it is the least disruptive way of achieving that objective;
• if it is the only option, how and when will it take effect; and
• how it will be perceived by those affected, as well as the wider market, having regard to the potential future need to increase headcount.

In many cases, the process followed will be as important as the outcome. A measured and transparent approach is far more likely to achieve buy-in, and far less likely to lead to disputes. This is important as the cost of legal spend in unnecessary disputes can significantly outweigh potential cost savings which may have been gained by implementing changes in the organisation.

Cost management: thinking beyond immediate fixes

Periods of uncertainty often bring financial pressure. For some businesses, that may mean looking at ways to reduce cost in the short term.

While reductions to pay or benefits may be considered, they are rarely straightforward to implement and can have longer-term consequences. It is often worth stepping back and considering whether there are alternative approaches that achieve a similar result with less disruption. For example:

• adjusting working patterns;
• removing overtime requirements;
• making use of accrued leave or unpaid leave arrangements; or
• revisiting discretionary elements of remuneration.

No single solution will be right for every organisation. What is important is that decisions are taken with a clear understanding of both the immediate and downstream impact.

Planning for scenarios that may not arise

Contingency planning can feel uncomfortable, particularly where it involves considering scenarios that may never materialise. However, for employers with a significant expatriate workforce (like most employers in the UAE), it is an important part of responsible planning.

This does not necessarily mean putting in place fully developed policies for every scenario. It may instead involve:

• identifying what support could realistically be provided to employees and their families, if needed;
• understanding the logistical challenges that might arise; and
• ensuring that key decision-makers are aligned on how those situations would be handled.

In practice, organisations that have considered these issues in advance are better placed to respond calmly and effectively if circumstances change.

Workforce mobility and practical realities

In a jurisdiction such as the UAE, workforce management cannot be separated from immigration and mobility considerations.

Even where the legal position appears manageable, practical challenges can arise. For example, where employees are temporarily outside the UAE, or where working arrangements do not align neatly with visa status. These situations require a coordinated approach. Legal, HR and operational teams should be aligned not only on what is permissible, but on what is workable in practice and not only in the short term.

Consistency is particularly important. Divergent approaches across teams or locations can create unnecessary complexity and risk as well as employee dissatisfaction.

The role of communication and leadership

Across all of these areas, one factor consistently shapes outcomes: how decisions are determined and communicated.

In uncertain environments, employees are often looking for reassurance as much as direction. Silence or inconsistency can quickly undermine confidence.

Employers who navigate these periods well tend to:

• communicate early, even where all the answers are not yet known;
• explain the reasoning behind decisions;
• ensure that messaging is consistent across the organisation; and
• provide calm support and updates as relevant.

Leadership visibility also matters. Employees are more likely to engage constructively (irrespective of the direction taken by an employer) where they feel that decisions are being taken thoughtfully and with an understanding of their impact.

What should employers do now?

While every organisation will need to take its own view, there are a number of practical steps employers can take to bring structure to their response:

1. Step back and define your objectives: Be clear on what you are trying to achieve. Is that protecting employee wellbeing, maintaining business continuity, managing cost, or a combination of all three? Decisions taken without a clear objective are more likely to create unintended consequences.
2. Identify where the real risk sits: Not all parts of the workforce will be affected in the same way. Focus on roles, locations or individuals where there is genuine exposure, rather than applying broad measures across the organisation. Of course, be prepared to explain or defend any difference in approach and to do so objectively.
3. Sense-check your contractual position before acting: Before implementing any changes to working arrangements, pay or benefits, ensure you understand what is legally permissible and where employee agreement will be required. Early alignment on this can avoid the need to revisit decisions later.
4. Use flexibility carefully and deliberately: Measures such as remote working or adjusted hours can be effective, but should be implemented with clear parameters around duration, expectations and review points. Informal arrangements can quickly become difficult to unwind.
5. Consider the sequencing of cost measures: Where cost management is required, think about the order in which measures are introduced. Some steps are easier to implement, and reverse, than others. Taking a staged approach can preserve optionality.
6. Test your contingency planning: Even where there is no immediate need to act, it is sensible to understand what would happen if circumstances changed. This includes considering how employees would be supported and who would be responsible for key decisions.
7. Align internally before communicating externally: Ensure that HR, legal and business leaders are aligned on approach before communicating with employees. Mixed messages can create confusion and undermine confidence.
8. Prioritise clarity in communication: Employees do not expect certainty in uncertain times, but they do expect clarity. Explaining what is known, what is still being assessed, and what will happen next can make a material difference to engagement and trust.

Looking beyond the immediate situation

It is tempting to treat periods of instability as short-term disruptions. In practice, the approach and decisions taken during these periods can have lasting effects on workforce stability, culture and trust.

The legal frameworks in the UAE, DIFC and ADGM as well as the relevant contracts provide an important foundation. But they are only one part of a much bigger picture.

Employers who take a balanced approach combining legal compliance with practical judgment and a clear understanding of their people, are more likely to navigate the current environment successfully.

How can Mishcon de Reya help?

Our UAE employment team advises employers and senior executives on the full spectrum of employment law matters, from day-to-day advisory, workforce planning and strategy, to termination of employment and the enforcement of post-termination restrictions and everything between.

To find out more, please contact Natalie Jones.

• The recent US decision holding social media companies liable for designing platforms that are harmful to young people has drawn comparisons with the "Big Tobacco" litigation of the 1990s.
• The substantive foundation for claims in England and Wales is strengthening. The Online Safety Act 2023 imposes design-based duties on platforms, and the scientific evidence base continues to grow. However, significant procedural and funding barriers remain. As the failed UK tobacco litigation demonstrated, substantive merit alone is not enough.
• The Law Commission has now been asked by the Government to consider whether a consumer class actions regime should be introduced in England and Wales, representing the first tentative step towards addressing those barriers.

On 25 March 2026, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and YouTube negligent for designing social media platforms that are harmful to young people, delivering a $6 million verdict in what will serve as an important test case for thousands of similar claims.

The claimant, known by her initials KGM, testified that she became addicted to social media as a child and that this exacerbated her mental health struggles. Rather than relying on the platforms' content, her claim targeted specific design features she alleged were engineered to maximise user engagement, including infinite scrolling, autoplay and push notifications. The jury agreed that the defendants were negligent in that design. Further, although the defendants contended that KGM's mental health struggles should in fact be attributed to her homelife, the jury were satisfied that the defendants' negligence met the applicable "substantial factor" test under Californian law.

The jury apportioned 70 per cent of liability to Meta and 30 per cent to YouTube. Snap and TikTok, also named as defendants, settled before trial on undisclosed terms; itself a significant indicator of how those defendants assessed their litigation risk. The dollar amounts may be modest for companies of this scale, but with thousands of pending claims and total damages potentially reaching tens of billions of dollars, the liability exposure is industry wide.

While the verdict arises from US litigation, its implications extend well beyond that jurisdiction. The comparison with the "Big Tobacco" litigation of the 1990s is instructive, but as the UK experience with tobacco claims demonstrated, the question is not simply whether the substantive case can be made, but whether the procedural and funding framework exists to sustain it, and whether potential reform can bridge that gap in time.

The "Big Tobacco" parallel

For many years attempts to hold tobacco companies liable for the addictive and carcinogenic properties of their products were largely unsuccessful, with courts rejecting individual claims on causation grounds. That landscape shifted decisively in the mid-1990s, when leaked internal documents revealed that manufacturers had long known of the issues while publicly denying them. The resulting wave of US litigation, led by individual state attorneys general, culminated in the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement, under which the four largest manufacturers committed to payments estimated at over $200 billion.

Like tobacco companies, social media firms are alleged to have built business models around dependency, denied mounting evidence of harm, and resisted safeguards. In both instances, and notwithstanding arguments on causation, claimants successfully relied on internal documents to show that the defendants knew more about the harmful potential of their products than they publicly acknowledged.

However, it is also worth remembering that UK litigants were less successful in replicating the US tobacco litigation in this jurisdiction. In the late 1990s, 53 claimants with lung cancer brought proceedings against two major British tobacco companies but the litigation collapsed after a number of claims were barred on limitation grounds and judicial comments that the prospects of success for even the timely claims were "by no means self evident."

Arguably a significant reason for the failure of the UK litigation was structural. While the US claims were brought by states seeking recovery of the costs of treating smoking-related illness from public health budgets, in the UK the Department of Health took the view that recovering NHS costs from tobacco manufacturers was outside health authorities' statutory powers. Without institutional claimants, litigation had to be brought by individuals against defendants with vastly superior resources to mount a prolonged defence. In addition, the UK lacked the contingency fee arrangements and third-party litigation funding infrastructure that sustained the US claims. It was regulatory change rather than litigation that became the primary mechanism of accountability here.

The substantive position in England and Wales

Recent regulatory developments, including the implementation of the Online Safety Act 2023 and evolving political will, have strengthened the substantive foundation for claims against social media platforms in England and Wales. While the Act does not itself create a private right of action, the statutory duties it imposes on platforms reflect a similar focus on design-based harm. A platform's compliance or non-compliance with those duties could constitute relevant evidence in establishing the standard of care in future negligence claims, and a failure to discharge statutory obligations may support an argument that the defendant fell below the standard reasonably to be expected. The growing body of scientific evidence further strengthens the causation case with each passing year.

However, significant uncertainty remains as to how causation would be assessed in this jurisdiction, where the stricter "but for" test applies, subject to the material contribution exception in cases involving multiple cumulative causes. Even on the substantive merits, therefore, the position is far from straightforward.

Procedural barriers

In practice, however, just as in the Big Tobacco litigation, it is the procedural framework that poses the greatest challenge for claimants in England and Wales:

• The opt-out class action model familiar from US litigation has no general equivalent in this jurisdiction; it is available only in respect of competition law claims pursuant to the Competition Act 1998 (as amended by the Consumer Rights Act 2015). However, on 20 April 2026, the Law Commission announced that it has been asked by the Government to assess whether a consumer class actions regime should be introduced in England and Wales. The terms of reference expressly identify the objective of improving consumers' access to redress. Work on the project is not expected to begin until autumn 2026, and a consultation paper will follow the initial scoping exercise. In the meantime, the Law Commission has published an Initial Scoping Questionnaire, with responses invited by 30 October 2026, to inform the direction of the project from the outset.
• The representative action procedure under CPR 19.8 offers a potential alternative, but its utility is severely limited by the requirement that all represented parties share the "same interest." The Supreme Court's decision in Lloyd v Google LLC (2021) confirmed that representative claims for damages will not be permitted where loss must be individually assessed, though it left open the possibility of representative proceedings for declaratory relief where a common methodology for quantifying damages can subsequently be applied.
• Group litigation orders, governed by CPR 19.21, remain available in theory, but their viability depends on securing external funding, and litigation funders have shown reluctance to back claims in which individual recoveries are difficult to predict. Claimants would also face the burden of demonstrating that their claims raise sufficiently "common or related issues of fact or law" to justify collective treatment, rather than simply arising from analogous circumstances.
• It remains to be seen whether the Law Commission's review will address the funding infrastructure that would be necessary to sustain any new class action regime, or whether that question will require separate consideration. As the failed tobacco litigation demonstrated, procedural reform without adequate funding mechanisms may prove insufficient.
• A further obstacle lies in establishing jurisdiction: the principal technology companies are not domiciled in the United Kingdom, and claimants would therefore need to satisfy the requirements for service out of the jurisdiction under CPR Practice Direction 6B, introducing additional expense and procedural complexity at the earliest stage of proceedings.

The result is a striking asymmetry between the potential strength of the substantive case and the procedural means by which it can be advanced in England and Wales. Legislative intervention, whether through expanding the opt-out collective action regime or reforming the representative action procedure to permit bifurcation of liability and quantum, has long appeared necessary. The Law Commission's project represents the first formal step in that direction, though the timeline from scoping exercise to any legislative implementation will inevitably be measured in years.

Conclusion: a turning point, or the beginning of one?

The California verdict may only be the first of three test cases in the US, with further trials and years of appeals ahead, but its significance should not be understated. For the first time, a jury has held major technology companies liable for the deliberate design of addictive platforms. That finding will not be easily undone, even if subsequent trials or appellate courts reach different conclusions on the facts.

Regardless of the appellate outcome, the pre-trial settlements by Snap and TikTok, combined with mounting regulatory pressure across multiple jurisdictions, suggest that the industry's litigation risk calculus has already materially changed. The scale of legal exposure, with thousands of pending claims and potential liability reaching tens of billions of dollars, creates significant commercial pressure to revisit the design features at issue: infinite scrolling, autoplay, push notifications, and the algorithmic amplification of harmful content to young users. If the verdict is upheld and replicated in subsequent trials, that pressure will only intensify.

For claimants in England and Wales, the substantive case is getting stronger, but as the failed UK tobacco litigation of the 1990s demonstrated, substantive merit alone is not enough. The procedural framework has long been the missing piece and the Law Commission's recent announcement is therefore a genuinely encouraging development.

It would, of course, be premature to overstate the significance of what remains an initial scoping exercise, with legislative implementation (if reform is ultimately recommended) likely years away. Nevertheless, the fact that Government has formally acknowledged the potential inadequacy of existing consumer enforcement mechanisms and commissioned an independent review of whether a class action regime is warranted represents a meaningful shift in political will.

The pace of reform is also key. The Online Safety Act 2023 is already imposing design-based duties on platforms, the scientific evidence base is growing, and the US litigation is generating disclosure that may be deployed in other jurisdictions. However, if a viable collective action regime is not in place by the time those elements converge, the window for effective litigation may narrow, and regulation will once again become the primary, and perhaps the only, mechanism of accountability.

The guidance includes six key substantive updates on fundamental British values, sex education, mobile phones in schools, attendance, restrictive interventions, and data protection complaints.

Fundamental British Values

The idea of 'fundamental British values' (including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance) is incorporated across three areas of the ISS: curriculum, teaching and the SMSC ('spiritual, moral, social and cultural') standards.

In terms of the curriculum, the ISS' stated aim is to ensure that pupils' education does not come into conflict with any of the fundamental British values. Examples of content which would contravene this guidance include a history lesson promoting non-democratic political systems, or a religious studies lesson instructing that the requirements of religious law supersede those of English civil or criminal law.

However, even where curriculum content complies with the ISS, teachers may convey their views in a way which undermines fundamental British values, perhaps by suggesting that these fundamental values are incorrect or do not apply to certain communities. In this respect, the guidance reminds schools that school inspectors will check pupils' understanding of fundamental British values as a measure of their teaching.

Regarding SMSC standards, schools can demonstrate their compliance with the ISS by having a clearly set out strategy for embedding the fundamental British values and actively promoting them, including through challenging opinions or behaviours which are inconsistent with these values.

Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE)

The RSHE section reflects Standard 2A and requires schools to ensure pupils receive relationships and sex education, except where a parent requests that their child be excused from sex education [AT1] (a parent cannot withdraw their child from relationships education or to sex education taught as part of the science curriculum).

The guidance reinforces the statutory guidance, which outlines age-appropriate content including families, friendships, online safety, consent, puberty, sexual health and emotional resilience with the aim of preparing young people for life in modern Britain.

Schools must have a separate, written policy for RSHE, explaining what is taught, when and how, and must consult parents before creating or updating this policy.

Mobile Phones in Schools

This section has been updated to reflect the DfE's updated mobile phone policy guidance.

Schools' behaviour policies should specifically address the use of mobile phones by pupils throughout the school day, with all schools being mobile-free environments by default. Where there are exceptions to this, the impact of mobile phones on pupils' behaviour, safety and wellbeing should be monitored, with evidence that mobile phone use is contributing to behavioural issues, bullying and/or mental health being taken as evidence by inspectors that leadership is not taking effective action.

Attendance

Schools should have regard to the relevant sections of the Working Together to Improve School Attendance statutory guidance, consistently promoting the benefits of good attendance and systematically analysing data to identify problems early.

The statutory guidance includes seven key expectations on schools, covering building strong relationships with families, promoting high attendance, having a clear attendance policy, maintaining registers, data monitoring, collaboration with other schools, local authorities and other partners, and being especially considerate of pupils with SEND or other mental/physical needs.

Restrictive Interventions

This section has been updated to reflect changes introduced by the Schools (Recording and Reporting of Seclusion and Restraint) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2025 and acknowledges that, although the use of restrictive interventions (including reasonable force and seclusion) should be exceptional, there will be times when such interventions are necessary to ensure the safety of pupils and the wider school community.

Any staff involved in an incident of restrictive intervention must record that incident in writing as soon as practicable, including details of type and degree of force used and the reason such force was judged necessary. Further, each incident must be reported to parents, unless a pupil is over 20 years old or reporting would be likely to result in significant harm to the pupil. Where there is no parent to whom information could be provided without that being likely to result in significant harm to the pupil, the information must instead be provided to the local authority within whose area the pupil is ordinarily resident.

Data Protection Complaints

Section 164A of the Data Protection Act 2018 is due to come into force in June 2026, requiring data controllers (including schools) to facilitate the making of complaints, acknowledge complaints within 30 days, investigate without undue delay and communicate the outcome promptly.

The updated guidance considers the existing guidance in relation to parental complaints to be compatible with these changes. However, where a complaint is governed by the new data subject complaint provisions, schools will need to ensure they meet the new requirements and that their existing procedures do not pose a conflict.

The overall guidance maintains an emphasis on the continuing obligation to meet all ISS at all times and reminds schools that inspectors, as well as the DfE, will consider the guidance when reporting on whether a school meets the ISS.

Our view

As a minimum, in response to the updated guidance, schools should review their policies and practices across each of the above areas and seek legal advice where required. Further, school proprietors and staff should remember that compliance with the ISS should be treated as an ongoing, embedded commitment, rather than a periodic exercise. Some of the elements of the guidance on Fundamental British Values and RSHE may pose particular challenges for certain faith schools who may need careful advice on ensuring compliance in a manner consistent with the school's stated faith.

In Talking Classics, Mary explores the often surprising ways the ancient world continues to shape our modern lives. From revolutionaries and dictators to Bob Dylan and Beyoncé, she uncovers the unlikely cast of contemporary figures who have found inspiration in antiquity. As Mary puts it, you don’t have to love the classical world, but it’s a real shame not to.
Drawing on fifty years of teaching and research, she fills the book with vivid stories, curious facts and more than a little juicy gossip. Talking Classics is her spirited argument for why the distant past still resonates with all of us today.

Founded in 1998, Golfbreaks is the market leader in golf travel, sending more than 230,000 golfers each year to a partner network of over 1,000 resorts across the UK, Europe and the US.  

Sports Tours International, founded in 1973 and owned by Betfred Chairman Fred Done, is the global market leader in mass-participation sports travel and its acquisition of Golfbreaks will significantly strengthen its golf travel offering and marks an important strategic milestone in its continued international expansion. 

The Mishcon de Reya team was led by Partner James Paterson with support from Managing Associate Karine Bashardust, Managing Associate Roya Zohrabi, Associate Beth Hitchcock, and Trainees Api Jeya and Charlotte Lowe. Consultant Margarita Elia advised on employment aspects and Associate Eve Drysdale advised on tax aspects on the transaction. 

Andrew Stanley, Founder, and Steve Hemsworth, CFO of Golfbreaks, said: “The sale of Golfbreaks after 28 years marks a significant milestone for us as founders. We are incredibly proud of the business we have built and the reputation we have earned. Over the past decade, we have worked closely with James Paterson and the Mishcon de Reya team across three key transactions—from the sale of Teeofftimes to Comcast/NBC Sports in 2015, through the PGA TOUR minority investment in 2019, to our final exit and share sale to Sports Tours International owned by Betfred Chairman, Fred Done. Mishcon have been a trusted adviser throughout that journey, combining sharp legal insight with a strong understanding of our commercial priorities. Their ability to anticipate challenges, navigate complexity and protect the interests of all shareholders was critical in delivering a successful outcome. We greatly valued their commitment, judgement, and consistency over many years at the most important moments for the business.” 

James Paterson, Partner in the Private Equity group at Mishcon de Reya, commented: “It's been a privilege to support Andrew, Steve, Guy and Dan and the wider Golfbreaks team for many years, including on their most significant transactions – the sale of Teeofftimes, the partnership with PGA TOUR and most recently this sale to Sports Tour International. Golfbreaks is an exceptional business built by exceptional people, and I am proud that the Mishcon team has had the opportunity to be part of the Golfbreaks journey and to support Andrew, Steve, Guy and Dan in delivering such a successful outcome for each of them and Golfbreaks. We wish Andrew, Steve, Guy and Dan and everyone at Golfbreaks and Sports Tours International every success going forward." 

Victoria has expertise in commercial litigation, specialising in complex commercial matters, family business disputes, director and shareholder disputes, as well as partnership issues, general contractual matters and fraud. She is experienced in issuing and defending freezing injunctions and asset protection.

Victoria acts for a wide variety of clients, including high net worth individuals, corporations, globally significant families and family offices. As a key part of her private client work, she serves as a trusted advisor, assisting clients to resolve issues that might arise for them.

Prior to taking up the position as Department Chair, Victoria sat on the Board of Mishcon Private and was Division Head for three practice areas: Private Commercial Litigation, Reputation Protection and Art Law.

James Libson, Managing Partner of Mishcon de Reya, said:

“I am so pleased that Victoria has been elected as Chair of our Private department. Victoria has a unique blend of legal excellence combined with empathy and sensitivity and her leadership of the Private Commercial Litigation team has helped the department to flourish. It remains the leading choice, both for talented private client lawyers who wish to work on the most interesting matters and clients, and for our clients with whom Victoria works on their most complex, multi-jurisdictional and sensitive legal issues. The Private department could not be in better hands and I look forward to seeing it go from strength to strength under Victoria’s leadership.”

Victoria added:

“I am looking forward to leading the department and am very grateful to my predecessor Nick Davis for his exceptional leadership over the past six years  and his key role in making the department the success it is today. One of my priorities will be to ensure the department maintains the values and passion which are so key to who we are at Mishcon de Reya: speaking up with honesty, intelligence and integrity on behalf of our clients and to fiercely guard their interests.

Our clients’ lives are complex. We help them deal with the dynamics and politics of family life, family businesses, personal relationships, reputations, property and homes, personal assets and legacy. If it keeps our clients awake at night, it matters to us. I will continue to ensure the department’s commitment to excellence in everything we do for our clients.

And in an increasingly fractured and polarised world, we will continue to work alongside our international offices to support our global clients and their families from our bases in the UK, Hong Kong, Singapore and the UAE.

I look forward to leading the department into its next chapter with a clear commitment to our values, excellence and dedication to our clients’ needs.”

Established three years ago under the sponsorship of the Attorney General’s Pro Bono Committee, and endorsed by the Lady Chief Justice, the Pro Bono Recognition List celebrates solicitors, barristers, chartered legal executives, trade mark attorneys, patent attorneys and registered foreign/European lawyers across England and Wales who dedicated 25 or more hours to pro bono work in the previous year. The initiative is supported by the Law Society, the Bar Council and all major pro bono legal organisations. 

Pro bono work is a proud and longstanding tradition of the legal profession. At Mishcon de Reya, we are deeply committed to using our skills and expertise to support those who are unable to access legal assistance, and we are thrilled to see so many of our colleagues recognised for their dedication and generosity. 

This recognition is a wonderful opportunity to celebrate the individuals across our firm who go above and beyond to make a meaningful difference through pro bono work.  

Our lawyers recognised on the 2026 Pro Bono Recognition List are: 
Safwan Afridi, Alexandra Agnew, Leah Alpren‑Waterman, Jonathan Barnett, Dan Beattie, Frances Beddow, Harrison Berg, Annie Bouch, James Boyle, Sally Britton, Chanelle Cattin, Shreya Chakraborty, Michelle Chiu, Sam Clare, Rhiannon Coleman, Oliver Cotton, Jessica Davis, Nick Dent, Bal Dhaliwal, Laurence Doering, Audrey Dwyer‑Kavanagh, Holly Edmond, Lucy Ellis, Elizabeth Fitton, Michael Frost, Olivia Fulton, Sabrina Furneaux‑Gotch, Josh Goodman, Daniel Gray, Isabelle Harris, Katie Henderson, Becca Hird, Sophie Hollander, Luke Horton‑Grimes, Grace Houghton, Agatha Hunt, Katie Iveson, Kieran John, Millie Jones, David Kanter, Mark Kaye, Ben Lasserson, Catherine Maguire, Pawel Malys, Arna Mathiesen, Oliver Millichap, Caitlin Moreland, Marcelo Moura, Daniel Naftalin, Hannah Naji, Peter Nunn, Gavin O'Donovan, Destiny Okongwu, Charlotte Overington, Adam Rose, Helen Scambler, Guy Serkis, Feriha Tayfur, Anisha Vyas, Tania Whiteford, Shazia Yamin, Rebecca Lachno, Tabassum Khan Zahedi, Harry Clark, Matthew Diss

Tom Rielly is a long‑standing member of the TED community and the creator of the TED Fellows programme, which now supports hundreds of innovators from more than 100 countries. He co-founded the Moving Windmills Project, an NGO focused on community‑driven innovation and economic development in Malawi. His career has centred on technology and digital communities, including founding PlanetOut and co‑founding Digital Queers, both influential in improving access to technology for LGBTQ+ communities. He has also contributed to film projects and held roles in LGBTQ+ advocacy and organisational leadership. 

• The Government of Iran is reported to have imposed, or at least threatened, a toll system for vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz.
• However, several Iranian government bodies including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), remain designated under UK sanctions.  Payment of tolls to these entities therefore carries a risk of breaching UK sanctions.
• Reports indicate that payments under the toll system may be accepted in cryptocurrency. However, such payments would still be prohibited by the UK sanctions regime as crypto payments are treated no differently to payments in conventional currency.

A new poll system

During last week's peace negotiations with the US, it was reported that Iran proposed that vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz would be required to obtain permission from Iranian authorities and pay a toll, failing which they would risk coming under attack.

The precise mechanics of a toll system remain unclear, particularly given the fact the US has since imposed a naval blockade on Iranian ports and a partial blockade on the Strait. That said, the logistics surrounding the escorted passage of "friendly" vessels through the Strait prior to the peace negotiations may offer some indication of how such a regime could function in practice.

Since shipping in the Strait has been restricted due to the war, it has been reported that some vessels have been escorted through by Iranian forces. Ships from Malaysia, China, Egypt, South Korea and India have been among those allowed to pass since the conflict began. It has been reported that these ships had to submit information about their vessel and cargo to the Iranian authorities before receiving approval to proceed through the Strait. It has also been reported that at least two of these ships paid a fee in Chinese Yuan for safe passage. Media reports remain unclear on exactly who received these payments, although it is likely the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) were heavily involved.

Shipping tolls and UK sanctions law?

A number of sanctions relating to Iran's nuclear proliferation activities were reintroduced in late 2025 pursuant to the "snapback" provisions in the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (read more on the snapback mechanism ). Since then, a raft of new designations have been made, and there are now over 500 under the UK's Iranian sanctions regulations.  Designated people and entities are subject to asset freezes (among other restrictions).

Designated entities of particular note include the IRGC (and many of its branches); various Iranian government bodies and ministers; oil and gas companies (including the Ministry of Petroleum); and several Iranian financial institutions (including Bank Melli PLC, Saderat, Tejarat, Persia International Bank and the Export Development Bank of Iran).

UK sanctions apply to any individual, business, or organisation undertaking activities anywhere in the UK; any entity incorporated under UK law undertaking activities anywhere in the world; and any UK national wherever they are in the world.

There is a real risk that Iranian toll payments would result in funds or economic resources being made available to, or for the benefit of, designated Iranian entities, and therefore amount to a breach of UK financial sanctions. As noted above, it remains unclear which specific Iranian entity would receive toll payments. However, it seems likely that such payments would be made available to the IRGC or another designated Iranian government body.

Further, payment using conventional currency would likely need to pass through the Iranian financial system, flowing through one or more designated financial institutions. Routing payments through a non-designated intermediary could itself breach the circumvention prohibitions in UK sanctions law.

Cryptocurrency

There have been media reports that the Government of Iran would demand payment for tolls in cryptocurrency. However, the definition of "funds" in UK sanctions legislation is intentionally broad, covering financial assets and benefits of every kind. Moreover, "economic resources" serves as a complementary catch-all to "funds", including assets of every kind, whether tangible or intangible, movable or immovable, that are not funds but can be used to obtain funds, goods or services. This means that payments in cryptocurrency would still fall within the scope of UK sanctions.

Indeed, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) has recently worked with UK law enforcement agencies to clamp down on the use of cryptocurrencies to evade sanctions, and has stated that "the use of cryptoassets to evade sanctions is treated no differently to the exploitation of traditional currencies."

The prohibitions also apply to transactions in any conventional currency - including, for example, where toll payments are made in Chinese Yuan or US Dollars.

Consequences of UK sanctions violations

A breach of the UK financial sanctions regime carries both criminal and civil consequences. A breach can result in a prison sentence of up to seven years, or a fine of up to £1 million or 50 per cent of the estimated value of the breach, whichever is greater. OFSI intends to double its statutory maximum penalty amount for financial sanctions to the higher of £2 million or 100 per cent of the breach value.

Civil monetary penalties are now imposed on a strict liability basis, whereas criminal liability arises where, at the time of the relevant alleged violation, the person knew, or had reasonable cause to suspect, that they were violating the relevant financial sanction.

Beyond fines and imprisonment, OFSI has the ability to use its "name and shame" power, which allows it to publish a report that a person or company has breached sanctions even where no monetary penalty has been imposed. A person or entity can also be designated themselves for breach of sanctions, which could result in an asset freeze, travel ban, or director disqualification (among other restrictions) being imposed.

Non-sanctions considerations

Proscription of the IRGC

Separately from any potential breach of sanctions laws, the UK Government announced in early February 2026 that it would introduce new legislation to add the IRGC to the list of terrorist entities proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. This would create further complications for toll payment to the IRGC as it is a criminal offence to provide money where a person knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect, that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism, including where money is sent to a proscribed organisation.

International law

The general consensus in the international legal community is that freedom of passage through the Strait of Hormuz for innocent vessels is protected by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and that the proposed toll would be in breach of international law. This position has been reiterated by Arsenio Dominguez, the secretary-general of the International Maritime Organization. However, neither the US nor Iran is a party to UNCLOS, so a practical remedy for a breach of the treaty would be difficult to obtain.

Commercial disputes

Sanctions breaches may also provide the trigger for a number of other issues – vitiation of insurance claims, defaults under loan agreements, debanking risk, termination of contractual arrangements, supply chain claims, rerouting and disruption, in addition to jurisdictional complexities in such disputes.

US sanctions

Given the focus of the US administration on Iran, businesses should also consider if they have US sanctions exposure. The US imposes similar asset freeze restrictions on Iranian designated persons under its own sanctions regime. However, the US also has a 'secondary sanctions' policy, with measures targeting non-US persons engaging in specific, significant transactions with entities already under primary US sanctions, where there is no US nexus.

There was some relief in global energy markets in March/April 2026 as the US issued a series of time-limited general licences allowing for certain oil transactions that would otherwise have been prohibited by US sanctions. This included Iran General Licence U allowing the sale, delivery, or offloading of Iranian-origin crude oil and petroleum products loaded onto any vessel on or before 20 March 2026. The licence explicitly authorised the import of Iranian-origin crude into the US. Relief under this general licence however is due to cease on 19 April 2026. The US administration allowed for this temporary lifting of sanctions as a means to increase supplies of oil on the global market and help relieve pressure on energy prices.

Whilst the US indicated that lifting sanctions would be part of peace negotiations with Iran, it is unclear whether this remains the case now peace talks appear to have stalled. President Trump has also floated the idea of a 'joint venture' with Iran to charge tolls for passage through the Strait – a position that is not easily reconciled with current US and UK sanctions law and designations.

Conclusion

The threat of Iranian-imposed tolls on vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz presents significant and multifaceted legal risks for businesses and individuals operating in the sector and region. Given the breadth of UK sanctions designations and terminology, there is a serious risk that any toll payment, whether made in conventional currency or cryptocurrency, would constitute a breach of UK sanctions law. Businesses should seek specialist legal advice before considering any such payment.

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

This session offers the opportunity to hear from one of today’s most thoughtful and relatable voices, and to explore the themes he brings to life in his new book.

Alexander comments: "Courts are increasingly being seen as a legitimate extension of the stewardship tools available to shareholders, and not a last resort. The threat of legal action from shareholders represents a more confrontational approach arising from dissatisfaction with the AGM process, where boards assert that their discretion enables them to refuse to table resolutions, or to decline to act on advisory resolutions if they are passed. This leaves shareholders with nowhere else to go, and the courts are increasingly willing to consider climate risks as material financial risks, and not mere activism.”

Read the full article

In order to qualify for tax relief under section 24 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984, donations must be made to political parties that meet the following criteria:

At the last general election preceding the transfers of value:

• Two members of that party were elected to the House of Commons, or
• One member of that party was elected to the House of Commons and not less than 150,000 votes were given to candidates who were members of that party.

Donors should be aware of these criteria given the growing number of fledgling political parties which, although ostensibly popular and likely to gain support, may not have the established voting history to qualify (for example, Reform UK only began to meet the criteria as recently as 2025).

Jeremy Hosking's donations and HMRC's determination

The recent decision by the First-Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) in Hosking v HMRC illustrates the dangers of proceeding without proper tax advice, and serves as a timely warning to those who may be contemplating significant political donations in an era of heightened political activity and the rise of new political movements.

The case concerns donations made by businessman and political donor, Jeremy Hosking, to various causes including the Vote Leave campaign in the Brexit referendum. The donations had a total value of £1,737,236 and the determination issued by HMRC charged £349,309 in inheritance tax on the amount.

The tax exemptions cited in Hosking's appeal

Hosking appealed the determination on two distinct grounds.

First, he claimed that the donations were exempt from inheritance tax because they were made as part of his normal expenditure out of income. In the circumstances, this exemption could only apply if there was a 'settled pattern of expenditure' by Hosking over a period of time.

In the alternative, Hosking sought to rely on the inheritance tax exemption for donations to political parties. His donations did not strictly qualify for this exemption, since his donations were made to campaigning organisations (and not political parties). Nevertheless, he argued that if the exemption did not apply to his donations, it contravened his right to freedom of expression and the prohibition of discrimination contained within the European Convention on Human Rights. His argument was that the exemption should be read so that it would also apply to his donations.

The Tribunal's decision

It was decided that the exemption relating to normal expenditure out of income did not apply to Hosking's donations. The Tribunal could not identify a 'settled pattern of expenditure', since the recipients had differing objectives and, even where a series of donations was made to the Leave campaign, these were not sufficiently regular. The Tribunal considered several factors to determine this, such as the amounts of the donations and their frequency.

The Tribunal also dismissed Hosking's argument that the 'political donations' exemption should apply to his donations. Hosking’s right to freedom of expression was not infringed because the tax charge had not deterred him from expressing his opinion. There was also no discrimination against Hosking for his political beliefs, because the exemption put him in the same position as other donors with other political opinions. The Tribunal confirmed that the exemption is intended to apply only to donations to political parties with a minimum level of representation in the UK Parliament, and so it could not apply to Hosking's donations.

Significance of the judgment for political donors

In short, donors to political causes (whether political parties, campaigns or otherwise) should seek legal and tax advice before making significant donations. Not only may there be potential tax implications, but donors may also want to consider any reporting requirements and whether they wish to appear on a public register of donors.

Donors should be particularly careful to ensure that, if their donation is in furtherance of a specific political cause or campaign, they check whether the entity to which the donation is being made is a political party. Two of the donations made by Mr Hosking (which did not qualify for tax relief) were to Labour Leave Limited. This was a campaign group for Labour Party supporters who supported Brexit, and not a legal entity equivalent to the Labour Party for tax relief purposes.

For queries about the tax exemptions discussed in this article, contact Charlie Sosna, John Skoulding or David Whittaker. The Politics and Law team can be contacted in relation to the wider issues affecting political donors.

This session will offer a relatable perspective on how people navigate stress, change and identity, issues that shape both our personal lives and the way we work. Through this conversation, John will share insights into resilience, wellbeing and the pressures many carry beneath the surface.

In this Disputes Essentials session, our panel of legal experts will explore privilege issues that matter most to in-house counsel, including:

• Identifying the client for the purposes of legal advice privilege
• Distinguishing between legal adviser and "man of business", and why it matters
• When internal investigations attract litigation privilege, and when they don't
• What the end of the shareholder principle means for privilege in the corporate context
• The risks posed to privilege by use of AI
• Precisely when to use without prejudice labelling

These events are for in-house lawyers, barristers, accountants, insolvency practitioners, project managers/directors and investigators.

• Much has been made of the insurance issues arising from the Ukraine war and how lessons from that conflict might be applied to the current situation in Iran.
• Whilst the maritime and, to a lesser extent, aviation markets are braced for significant losses, the conflict in Iran has already given rise to a broader range of insurance issues.
• In this article, we examine the impact of the conflict on businesses and identify the key insurance flashpoints.

Supply chain, delay and trade credit

One of the most significant challenges facing businesses is the supply chain shock to the global economy caused by the Iran conflict and the US's decision to introduce its own blockade of the Strait of Hormuz . The resulting losses faced by businesses may not fall naturally within standard insurance policies. Whether cover is available will, as ever, depend on the specific terms and extensions of the policies purchased, and those should be carefully reviewed.

What is beyond doubt is that the ripple effect of the Iran conflict will continue to impact industries and businesses far removed from the region in ways that are still developing. The most visible consequence has been the rise in fuel prices, with diesel in the UK increasing by a third since the start of the conflict. Countries more dependent on the Gulf states have fared worse. Nigeria, for example, has seen surges of 50 per cent and 70 per cent in the price of petrol and diesel respectively.

Governments around the world are introducing measures to mitigate rising energy costs, but shortages of less obvious raw materials are also beginning to hit manufacturing across key industries. Iran's attacks on Qatar's LNG facilities have, for example, led to a shortage in helium production, a by-product of natural gas processing. Helium is crucial to the manufacture of semiconductors, which are widely used in all electronic goods and equipment. The longer the conflict continues, the greater the impact on countries such as South Korea, which relies heavily on Qatar for helium supplies for its semiconductor industry. This will have obvious knock-on consequences for businesses that source those components from South Korea.

The increase in the price of energy, fuel and raw materials, combined with disruption to shipping, will directly impact manufacturing as well as construction and development projects around the world as costs and inflation squeeze margins and profitability. Even well-priced projects will come under significant strain from supply chain disruption and delay.

Companies seeking to reduce their supply chain exposure through insurance will therefore need to scrutinise all policies carefully to determine whether they respond in the current circumstances. Delay in Start Up insurance covers the financial loss resulting from delays to the completion of construction projects. DSU cover typically excludes non-physical causes but specialist extensions may have been purchased. By comparison trade credit insurance, (a relatively underused line of cover), protects companies against the risk of buyer defaults on payments, whether due to the buyer's own commercial inability to pay or political events outside the buyer's control. Given the disruption caused by the Iran conflict, such policies could prove invaluable in the current climate.

Aviation

As with Ukraine, the disruption to the aviation industry across the Middle East has been significant. A number of high-profile carriers operate out of the region, which also serves as a stopping point for major international routes. Airspace was promptly closed on the outbreak of the conflict, resulting in severe travel disruption. However, unlike the position in Ukraine, where airspace remains closed, flights have since resumed from most airports.

Aircraft have not been detained or restrained in the region, and policyholders and insurers will not need to grapple with questions of whether aircraft have been "lost", as arose in the AerCap case (see our article for Practical Law on that case: Planes becoming diamonds: issues in aircraft lessors' proceedings against aviation insurers arising out of the Ukraine conflict). War risk claims should therefore be limited to aircraft actually damaged in the region.

Airlines face their own supply chain pressures, with rising fuel costs and longer routes resulting from an expanded network of no-fly zones, compounding those already in place as a result of the Ukraine conflict. Consumer claims for travel cancellation will be significant, prompting major carriers to call on their relevant cover.

Marine

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has had a significant impact on marine and marine cargo insurance. Depending on how long vessels remain unable to leave the Strait, blocking and trapping and detainment clauses may become operative under marine policies. The US decision to commence its own blockade of the Strait may also give rise to causation arguments including as to the true reason for any detainment.

The impact of the closure on marine transit has already resulted in a substantial increase in war risk premiums.

Property

A number of property claims have already been made for physical damage to buildings and infrastructure in the region caused by drone and missile strikes. The source of those strikes will be highly relevant to the interaction between terrorism cover and war exclusions in the relevant policies.

As the full impact of the conflict becomes clearer, claims for business interruption losses may also follow. Disputes are likely to arise over gaps in cover for business interruption losses in circumstances where there has been no corresponding physical property damage, but where there is an inability to use facilities as a direct result of the conflict.

Cyber

Cyber-attacks have long been associated with Iran, and the conflict has led to a dramatic increase in such activity. In an embarrassing illustration of the threat, the FBI was forced to confirm that its own director's personal emails had been hacked and leaked by an Iranian-linked group.

Whilst the adoption of cyber insurance has increased in recent years, in 2022, Lloyd's of London required that all standalone cyber policies must exclude war and non-war state-backed cyber-attacks (see our article on that issue: State backed Cyber Attacks – too big for insurers to cover?). The application of those exclusions and the interpretation of what constitutes a "state" attack remains untested in the courts.

Contingency

A number of events in the Middle East will have been cancelled as a result of the conflict. Contingency policies often contain war exclusions, though some companies may have purchased extensions to include cover for war and terrorism risks.

Conclusion

The conflict in Iran will have a significant and wide-ranging impact on policyholders and the insurance industry. Many companies drew lessons from the war in Ukraine and adjusted their ongoing exposures accordingly. It remains to be seen where the most significant coverage disputes will emerge and which lines of business will be most affected. Businesses may be left exposed as cover for supply chain risk is limited. That brings wider questions of how, in an era where geopolitical uncertainty is fast becoming the new normal, businesses can manage supply chain risk going forwards and whether insurers will adapt their standard products to cover that risk.  

Businesses impacted by the conflict in Iran should carefully review any relevant insurance cover to ensure that all available claims are pursued. Our insurance disputes team, which regularly advises businesses on complex coverage questions arising from geopolitical conflict, including war exclusions, policy interpretation and claims strategy, can assist. If you wish to discuss any of the issues arising in this article, please contact Chris Neilson, partner in the Insurance Disputes group, Mishcon de Reya London or Bushra Ahmed, Head of Disputes, Mishcon de Reya Dubai.

Drawing on a recent BCG report highlighting a £20 billion annual opportunity if the UK strengthens its ability to translate research into real-world solutions, the conversation underscores why system fluency is not optional but essential. From the cultural transformation Benny led at DaVita across a dozen countries to the structural realities of NHS adoption and the perverse incentives within US oncology, this episode offers a candid and practical guide for founders, investors and anyone working at the intersection of innovation and healthcare delivery.

In a recent piece for Green Street News, Property Litigation Partner Mark Reading explores how the real impact on rents may come, not from headline policy changes, but from the process behind them, particularly the new framework for rent increases and the role of the First-tier Tribunal.

If challenges become more frequent or the system slows, this could reshape landlord behaviour, influence investment decisions and, ultimately, curb rent growth in practice.

It’s a significant moment for the sector, and much will depend on how these reforms operate on the ground.

Read the full article (subscription required).

Shona comments on the practical impact for directors: “Since complaining shareholders no longer have a right to see that advice, the director must decide strategically whether to disclose it – and, if so, whether doing so risks collateral waiver over the entirety of the advice obtained.”

Click here to access the article on CRD News, or here to read the full article and here for our previous article written by our Private Commercial Litigation and Dispute Resolution departments.

In 2017 Marc was awarded an OBE for services to housing delivery.

Pocket was London’s first private developer of affordable starter homes. The company has delivered some 2000 homes with another 1000+ in the pipeline. Pocket’s innovation lies in combining purposeful and affordable high-quality design for single and couple households with a policy and brand approach that allows it to tap into both public and private finance.

In 2016 the US real estate major Related Companies became its major shareholder.

Prior to Pocket, Marc worked in the media and entertainment sectors as CEO of Crescent Entertainment, owners of theatres and cinemas. He also produced and wrote a number of award-winning feature films.

He started his career at County NatWest, where he became an assistant director in corporate finance with responsibility for corporate work in the Benelux and in the media sectors.

Marc also chairs ProVen Growth & Income VCT, one of the UK’s largest VCTs and is Senior Partner at Namier Capital, a London-based advisory firm that leverages its investment and corporate finance expertise across businesses in Energy Transition, Healthcare, Real Estate, Fintech and the Creative Industries. 

Marc maintains his sanity by playing the saxophone (jazz).

Radford has a wealth of experience acting for insolvency practitioners, financial institutions, private funds, directors and financially distressed businesses on insolvency and restructuring, finance disputes, fraud, enforcement and asset recovery. His practice covers both court proceedings and international arbitration and he has extensive experience managing cross-border teams on international mandates.

On his appointment, Radford said "Taking on the role of Head of Insolvency and Restructuring is something I am immensely proud of. It is a high profile and extremely well respected practice, having 17 lawyers and being ranked Band 1 in Chambers & Partners. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Danny Davis for his exceptional leadership and I look forward to building on the work that he has done to continue to deliver market leading work."

Danny Davis, Partner and former Head of the Insolvency and Restructuring Group at Mishcon, commented:“Radford’s appointment as Head of the Insolvency and Restructuring Group represents an exciting next step for the team. He combines first‑class technical expertise with a thoughtful, inclusive approach to leadership, and I am confident he will be an outstanding steward of the group. I am very pleased to be handing over to someone so well placed to continue building the team’s success.”

Read more about Raford’s expertise

After the company was severely affected by the pandemic, she led its buyback, secured £7.8 million in investment, and rebuilt Flash Pack into a market leading operator that has facilitated more than 200,000 friendships worldwide. 

Flash Pack now runs trips in over 50 destinations and has a strong international customer base, with around 70% of travellers coming from the United States. Under Radha’s leadership, the company continues to expand rapidly and set new standards for modern group travel. 

If directors fail to recognise and address these differences, organisations risk workplace disputes, disengagement and loss of talent. They also face legal and reputational risks, particularly around discrimination, mental health and leadership effectiveness.

This makes multigenerational management a strategic issue for Boards and those advising them.

With contributions from Mishcon de Reya experts, and Eliza Filby, a leading expert on generational change and Jennifer Thomas, Global Head of EDI at the London Stock Exchange, this short practical briefing provides the top tips on managing these challenges. Our top takeaways from the report:

• Align policies to your actual workforce demographics 
• Address generational friction early by empowering managers
• Embed generational diversity into people strategy and governance 
• Prioritise technology adoption and AI integration across all age groups

How Mishcon de Reya can help

• Expert guidance for multi-generational workforce challenges: Our Employment team combines deep industry knowledge with strategic expertise to advise on risk mitigation, policy design, manager training, governance frameworks and dispute resolution, supporting organisations to manage their talent effectively, whilst protecting the values and needs of the business. Where workplace disputes arise, we work swiftly to protect your organisation, minimise risk and deliver strong, commercially focused outcomes.
• Strategic workforce planning and governance: For organisations navigating complex people risks, we provide Board-level advisory, workforce analytics support, manager capability programmes and tailored governance frameworks. So, whether you are facing retention challenges, generational conflict, age discrimination exposure or transformation adoption risk, our award-winning team can deliver tailored strategies that address both the legal and commercial aspects of your people strategy.
• Crisis management simulation: We offer crisis planning and management services. Our Spotlight service is a simulation that allows businesses to practise handling a sudden reputational attack and test their response and strategic communication under pressure.

Watch promo

26 March 2026

We are pleased to report that the High Court has dismissed all three grounds of judicial review brought against the grant of planning permission for the London Wall West development - a landmark mixed-use regeneration project in the heart of the City of London.

Our client, the City of London Corporation in its capacity as landowner and developer, successfully defended the challenge alongside the City of London Corporation in its role as local planning authority. The judgment, handed down by Mr Justice Fordham on 26 March 2026, is a significant decision for local authority developers, EIA practitioners, and planning lawyers alike.

Background

The Interested Party applied for planning permission on 20 November 2023 for a phased mixed-use development at London Wall West, comprising the demolition of 140 and 150 London Wall and the construction of new buildings for office, cultural, and food and beverage use, together with public realm works, reconfiguration of the Rotunda roundabout, demolition of Ferroners House and the removal of two City Walkways. Because the City of London Corporation was both the applicant and decision-maker, questions of functional separation under the EIA Regulations and what is known as a "self-grant" of planning permission arose. The Claimant - Barbican Quarter Organisation Ltd - challenged the grant of permission on three grounds.

Ground 1: Functional Separation Under Regulation 64

Regulation 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 requires an authority bringing forward its own development proposal to make appropriate administrative arrangements ensuring functional separation between those promoting the proposal and those determining it. The Defendant published a five-page "Handling Note" to implement this duty. The parties agreed it addressed the four basic requirements of independence identified in London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust v Secretary of State [2020] EWHC 2580 (Admin).

The Court found a technical breach of the Handling Note: certain shared files were accessible to the Interested Party's officers, when they should not have been. However, the Court found as a matter of fact that no relevant officer had accessed any document that ought to have been restricted. The claim failed on this ground for three separate and independent reasons:

• No vitiating breach: A breach of Regulation 64(2) does not automatically vitiate a planning permission where it demonstrably can have had no bearing on the decision. The 'unlocked door' was never opened.
• Discretionary refusal of remedy: A quashing order would have been unjustifiable and disproportionate on the facts established by the evidence.
• Statutory materiality duty: Applying section 31(2A)(a) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and the Court of Appeal's analysis in R (Bradbury) v Brecon Beacons National Park Authority [2025] EWCA Civ 489, it was highly likely the outcome would not have been substantially different had the breach not occurred.

Grounds 2 and 3: Demolition Avoidance and Policy CS15

Part of Local Plan Policy CS15 includes a requirement of "avoiding demolition through the reuse of existing buildings or their main structures." The Claimant argued this operated as a presumption against demolition and that officers had misinterpreted it and misled the planning committee.

The Court firmly rejected the Claimant's argument. Policy CS15 sets out five integrated ways of creating a more sustainable City and must be read as a whole. Demolition does not, in and of itself, necessarily constitute a conflict with the policy. The Court endorsed the Carbon Optioneering methodology applied by the Interested Party, which assessed six development scenarios - including four retention options. This was a lawful approach and not a departure from policy. There was nothing materially misleading in the officers' advice to the committee.

On the third ground, the Claimant argued that officers had failed to make adequate enquiries into the results of a Soft Market Exercise conducted in April 2023, which it contended showed credible retrofit proposals had been advanced. The Court disagreed, finding that the Carbon Optioneering Study had expressly incorporated the learning from that exercise and that no reasonable planning authority, on the available material, would have concluded that further enquiry was required.

Key Implications

1. EIA Functional Separation - Substance Over Form. A technical failure in implementing file accessibility arrangements will not automatically vitiate a planning permission where functional separation has been ensured in practice and where the evidence clearly establishes that the breach had no bearing on the decision. However, local authorities should treat this as a warning: the outcome here turned entirely on the evidence adduced and the facts in this case.
2. Scope of Regulation 64(2). The Court confirmed that the duty to "design and deliver" appropriate administrative arrangements is ongoing, requiring both the design and practical implementation of effective separation throughout the decision-making process.
3. Demolition Avoidance Policies - No Automatic Presumption. Whether demolition conflicts with a sustainability policy must be determined through an integrated, evaluative assessment of the policy as a whole. This provides important support for redevelopment proposals across London and beyond, where similar policy language is engaged.
4. Carbon Optioneering as a Lawful Methodology. Where a planning authority has published detailed guidance on policy application and an applicant has followed that methodology transparently and subjected it to independent review, the Court will regard it as a legitimate approach within the policy framework.
5. The Statutory Materiality Duty. Applying Bradbury, the Court confirmed that "the outcome" under section 31(2A) means the planning decision, not the decision together with the procedural guarantees surrounding it. Courts will not readily adopt an expanded conception of outcome to preserve a remedy where the substantive decision would inevitably have been the same.

Conclusion

The dismissal of all three grounds of judicial review is a comprehensive vindication of the planning process for the London Wall West development, with the Claimant ordered to pay the Defendant's costs. The decision provides important guidance for local authority developers navigating the self-grant regime, for planning officers applying sustainability policies addressing demolition avoidance, and for practitioners advising on the consequences of procedural breaches in EIA cases.

This article has been prepared by Mishcon de Reya in our capacity as solicitors for the Interested Party. For further information, please contact a member of our planning team.

• The High Court previously held that winding up petitions can be served on companies whose registered office is the Companies House default address by leaving it with a Companies House employee who says they are authorised to accept service.
• This decision was overturned on appeal.
• The appeal judge confirmed that paragraph 2 of schedule 4 of the Insolvency Rules 2016 sets out a complete and exclusive regime for serving winding up petitions on companies. Individuals working at the Default Address cannot meet the requirements for service on a person at the registered address under paragraph 2.1 of schedule 4 of the Insolvency Rules 2016.
• Service in accordance with the lesser requirements of section 1139 of the Companies Act 2006 will not be sufficient for these purposes.
• The only way to validly serve a winding up petition at the Default Address is by depositing it in the specific drop box allocated to the company in question.

What was the case about?

We wrote previously about the High Court's decision regarding service of winding up petitions in DG Resources Ltd v The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2025] EWHC 2208 (Ch).

In that decision the court considered what constitutes proper service on companies which have the Companies House default address (the Default Address) as their registered address. It concluded that delivery to a receptionist at the Default Address who claimed to be "authorised to accept service" on behalf of the company was valid service. In particular, it found that it was not necessary to provide them to a director, officer, or employee of the company for the service requirements of paragraph 2.1(c) of schedule 4 to the Insolvency Rules 2016 to be satisfied.

That decision has now been reconsidered on appeal, with the appeal judge reaching the opposite conclusion. In doing so, they laid down clear guidance on what will be considered valid service on a company at the Default Address.

Serving a winding up petition at the Companies House default address: the legal requirements under schedule 4 of the Insolvency Rules 2016

The appeal judge held that paragraph 2 of schedule 4 of the Insolvency Rules 2016 (the Rules) provides a "complete code" and "exclusive regime" for service of winding up petitions on a company.

Paragraph 2(1) makes clear that winding up petitions "must be served" in accordance with its provisions (emphasis added). This means that the general methods for serving documents on companies under section 1139 of the Companies Act 2006 - such as leaving documents at or posting them to a registered address - are not sufficient when it comes to winding up petitions. Petitioners must follow the specific steps set out the Rules, or risk the petition being struck out.

Paragraph 2.1 allows for service by handing a winding up petition to a person at the company's registered office who: either is, or who the serving party believes to be, "a director, other officer or employee of the company"; or "acknowledges being authorised to accept service on the company's behalf". If service cannot be effected by providing the documents to such a person then under paragraph 2(2) service may be effected by "depositing it at or about the registered office in such a way that it is likely to come to the notice of a person attending the office".

The appeal judge concluded that the only valid way to serve a winding up petition on a company at the Default Address is by leaving it in "the designated drop-box" allocated to that company at the Default Address. It cannot be validly served on a person at the Default Address.

Why can't winding up petitions be served on a person at the default address?

The appeal judge held that, by definition, there will not be a director, officer or employee of the company at the Default Address. Nor could a serving party reasonably believe anyone at the Default Address to be such a person.

The Court of Appeal then considered whether a winding up petition could be validly served on a person at the Default Address who "acknowledges being authorised to accept service on the company's behalf". It concluded that this would not be valid service: The allocation of the Default Address as the registered address of a company is governed by The Registered Office Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024 (the 2024 Regulations). The 2024 Regulations "make clear" that "the registrar of Companies House assumes no responsibilities in regard to the company" and that "the company is not permitted a presence at the default address".

Accordingly, the Court held, a party seeking to serve a winding up petition on a company at the Default Address could not reasonably believe that any person at the default address was actually authorised to accept service on the company's behalf. This is the case even if that person claims to be so authorised.

What do petitioners need to do?

The key lesson from this case is that parties seeking to serve winding up petitions at the Default Address must follow a very specific method for doing so. They must be sure that the petition is left specifically in the relevant drop-box for the company in question. Handing the petition to a person at the Default Address will not be satisfactory, even if they say they can accept service. It will therefore be very important to get precise and detailed evidence of the exact way in which service was effected to ensure that there is no uncertainty.

In that regard, it is worth noting that in this case it became apparent between the first instance decision and the appeal that the process server had not actually attended the Default Address at all. Rather, it transpired, they had taken the documents to a post office. The person who received the documents was presumably a postal worker rather than a receptionist, and likely had not in fact said they were authorised to accept service. This case is therefore also a clear reminder of the importance of ensuring anyone tasked with effecting service does so precisely and accurately.

In the article, Charlie challenges the familiar narrative of wealth and talent drifting abroad. He highlights the strengths of the corridor, pointing to the “extraordinary research depth” coming out of Oxford, Cambridge and London’s leading universities, and the way this combines with the capital’s density of investors, commercial partners and specialist advisers.

Read Charlie’s full article, “Ignore the knockers, London is still a fabulous hub for founders”, on The Standard's website.

The award recognises the team’s role in reshaping the way businesses approach cyber incidents, risk management and crisis strategy.

By combining technical capability with legal, regulatory and investigative expertise, the team supports clients through crises by treating cyber incidents as holistic business crises rather than purely technical failures.

As the first and only law firm to achieve industry-leading accreditations from the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) – including Cyber Incident Response (CIR) and Cyber Incident Exercising (CIE) – as well as CREST, the team has been recognised the highest standards of cyber expertise and assurance. 

Over the past ten years, the team has:

• Responded to hundreds of cyber incidents worldwide, including ransomware attacks, insider threats, financial crime, cross-border data compromises and nation state intrusions.
• Supported global corporates, high net worth individuals, family offices, critical national infrastructure providers, and government bodies.
• Delivered integrated legal and technical solutions, from urgent injunctions and forensic investigations to complex regulatory engagements.
• Worked closely with law enforcement agencies, international regulators, and central government departments.
• Navigated high-stakes negotiations with organised criminal groups and state-linked threat actors.

Joe Hancock, Partner and Head of Cyber Risk and Complex Investigations, said: “This award is a testament to ten years of dedication, innovation and collaboration. We built this team because we believed there was a better way to help clients navigate cyber crises – one that blended legal, technical and strategic expertise. We’re incredibly proud to have set a new standard in the industry and to continue supporting clients at their most challenging moments.”

Mishcon de Reya has successfully appealed to the Valuation Office Agency to secure complete removal of an unexpected, and incorrect, Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charge on a variation of a permission. The case illustrates that local authorities can and do still make significant mistakes with the complexities of CIL, and that there are circumstances for legitimate challenge.

What happened?

Mishcon de Reya's client owned a large property in Westminster that had been used as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO), a building rented out to multiple tenants sharing facilities. After obtaining a planning permission in 2021 to regularise the use of the property as a HMO, a further planning permission was granted in 2025 to vary some of the conditions attached to the original permission (known as a "section 73" permission).

Westminster City Council then sent our client a bill for Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) of almost £255,000, which we appealed.

What is CIL and why did the Council say it was owed?

CIL is a charge that local councils can impose on new developments to help fund local infrastructure such as schools, roads and parks. When a planning permission changes a previous permission without adding any new floorspace, special rules apply to work out whether any CIL is owed.

The Council argued that, even though it had never formally issued a CIL notice when the original 2021 permission was granted, it could effectively work backwards, calculate what it would have charged at the time, and use that figure as the starting point for its calculation on the 2025 permission.

Why we said the bill was wrong

Our argument was straightforward: the rules only allow this type of calculation to be used where a formal CIL notice was actually issued for the original permission. No such notice was ever issued here — a fact the Council itself admitted. You cannot plug a made-up figure into the formula and arrive at a lawful charge.

We also pointed out that the 2025 permission did not involve any increase in the size of the building whatsoever, which is a basic requirement before CIL can be charged on this type of permission.

The result

The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) agreed with us entirely. The CIL payable was determined to be £0; a complete victory for our client.

The VOA found that where no liability notice had been issued for the original permission, the amended planning permission calculation method simply cannot be used, as there is no original notice to feed into the formula. She further noted that, had the Council tried to issue a notice for the 2021 permission now, doing so four years later would not meet the legal requirement to serve notice "as soon as practicable."

Why does this matter?

This decision is a practical and important reminder of two things:

• Councils must follow the rules and follow them promptly. The adjudicator concluded that the Council had not issued a CIL liability notice within a reasonable time following the original permission, and as a result the charge could not stand. Collecting authorities cannot simply fill in the gaps years later when it suits them.
• A section 73 permission with no extra floorspace should not attract CIL. Both parties confirmed that the 2025 permission did not lead to any increase or change in floorspace compared to the original permission. No additional floorspace means no new CIL liability.

Property owners and developers increasingly receive unexpected CIL demands, especially following variations to an existing planning permission. This decision demonstrates that such demands are not always correct, and that they can be successfully challenged.

• Ofcom faces a threatened judicial review over an alleged failure to take enforcement action against forums facilitating intimate image abuse.
• A survivor, supported by EVAW, argues the regulator has unlawfully failed to exercise its powers under the Online Safety Act 2023.
• The case raises significant questions about Ofcom’s regulatory priorities and its approach to protecting women and girls online.
• The outcome may shape how robustly the Online Safety Act is enforced against harmful but entrenched online platforms.
• Mishcon de Reya is advising on related efforts to challenge the ongoing accessibility of such material online.

Decisive legal steps are being taken against the UK's online safety regulator, Ofcom, which faces a threat of judicial review over its alleged systemic failure to intervene and protect against the proliferation of intimate image abuse on online 'image-sharing' forums.

A survivor of such intimate image abuse, referred to as Jane (not her real name), and The End Violence Against Women Coalition ("EVAW") have instructed solicitors Leigh Day and sent a Pre-Action Protocol letter to Ofcom threatening to bring a judicial review, accusing it of turning a blind eye to the abuse that Jane and countless other women and girls have suffered at the hands of such "collector culture" image-sharing forums. Intimate images of women and girls are posted to these forums and categorised by area as specific as their town, village or university halls of residence, putting victims at serious risk of physical harm offline in the real world, such as stalking, as well as online. 

The letter is a serious test of the regulator's willingness to exercise its powers under the Online Safety Act 2023 against platforms that facilitate intimate image abuse.

The Legal Case Against Ofcom

Jane first raised the issue with Ofcom in February 2025. She urged the regulator to launch a formal investigation and exercise its enforcement powers against these 'image-sharing' forums that enable and perpetuate intimate image abuse of women and girls, including herself.

Ofcom reportedly acknowledged Jane's case, informed her that it was "considering any appropriate steps" and affirmed that it "won't hesitate to use" “a broad range of enforcement powers” "where necessary".

Jane and EVAW's case sets out four principal grounds for Ofcom's alleged failure:

1. By not acting, Ofcom is failing to comply with one of the stated aims of the Online Safety Act 2023, to protect women and girls;
2. Ofcom's approach fails to follow its own policies, which prioritise taking action against infringing sites under its established regulatory framework;
3. Ofcom's failure to act breaches Jane's human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, including Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment), Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 14 (freedom from discrimination); and
4. Ofcom has acted irrationally in deciding which sites to investigate, for example investigating X and Grok but not image-sharing forums, without a coherent justification.

The Pre-Action Protocol letter calls on Ofcom to confirm whether an investigation has been opened and to disclose its decision-making documents, or explain why no action has been taken.

Jane has launched a crowdfunder on the CrowdJustice website to fund the legal action.

Google's failings

Jane's campaign does not stop with Ofcom. She has also instructed Mishcon de Reya to engage with Google, demanding that it delist these sites from Google search results. Despite clearly violating Google's own policies and terms of service, many iterations of the sites are yet to be delisted and remain easily accessible online.

Search services such as Google are also obliged under the Online Safety Act 2023 to protect users from illegal content, by proactively removing it and preventing it from appearing on its services in the first place.

Conclusion

Ofcom's failure to take swift and decisive action in response to these issues has placed an unfair burden on victims, who are forced to advocate for themselves. It also places increasing pressure on support services, such as the Revenge Porn Helpline, which assists with the removal of non-consensual intimate material online.

We hope that Jane and EVAW's legal case will prompt Ofcom to use its considerable regulatory powers to help stop this vile and misogynistic abuse of women and girls without further delay.

How Mishcon de Reya can help

Mishcon de Reya has extensive experience advising clients on matters at the intersection of online safety, technology, and the protection of fundamental rights. If you or your organisation have been affected by intimate image abuse or other forms of online harm, or if you require advice on compliance with online safety obligations, please do not hesitate to contact a member of our Online Safety and Reputation Protection and Crisis Management teams.

Jane is represented in this case by Leigh Day Partner Tessa Gregory and Solicitor Claire Powell. Jane is also represented on a pro bono basis by Partner Harry Eccles-Williams and Associates Katie Iveson and Agatha Hunt at Mishcon de Reya. 

• The English courts have shown considerable adaptability in responding to the procedural challenges of cryptocurrency fraud. Norwich Pharmacal relief has proved critical in enabling victims to obtain KYC data from exchanges, bridging the gap between traceable on-chain activity and the pseudonymous individuals behind it.
• This adaptability was demonstrated through the introduction of the specific gateway for serving information orders out of the jurisdiction in October 2022. More recently, the Commercial Court's decision in Williams v Nest Services Limited went further still, permitting service on future persons unknown, reducing procedural duplication and cost.
• Building on these developments, the Law Commission's 2025 consultation paper on digital assets proposes free-standing information orders, which would allow victims to obtain disclosure from intermediaries without being required to commence (or intend to commence) proceedings in England and Wales.
• Key questions remain as to the form of implementation and whether the approach taken in Williams would be applied in the context of free-standing information orders, but the direction of travel is clear: English law will continue to adapt to meet the challenges of cross-border cryptoasset fraud.

Introduction

The challenges facing victims of cryptocurrency fraud are well-documented. Blockchain analysis can trace the movement of cryptoassets with precision, but the individuals controlling those assets almost invariably remain hidden behind pseudonymous wallets and offshore exchanges. To bridge this gap, victims need access to the KYC data held by exchanges, linking wallet addresses to real-world identities and enabling claims to be pleaded with sufficient particularity.

Norwich Pharmacal relief - which enables victims to obtain information from third parties 'innocently mixed up in the wrongdoing' - has therefore proved pivotal. In the context of cryptocurrency fraud, the relevant third parties are typically the exchanges through which misappropriated assets have passed. The English legal system has recognised the centrality of this form of relief to victims' access to justice and has been quick to adapt the procedural framework accordingly.

Jurisdictional gateways for information orders

A clear example of this adaptability was the introduction in October 2022 of the specific gateway for service of information orders out of the jurisdiction. This provided, for the first time, a clear jurisdictional basis for serving Norwich Pharmacal Orders out of the jurisdiction, resolving the previous anomaly (and surrounding uncertainty) under which Bankers Trust Orders could be served out of the jurisdiction whereas Norwich Pharmacal Orders could not.

Given that cryptocurrency markets are inherently cross-border, and that the exchanges central to fraud investigations are frequently located offshore, the new jurisdictional gateway was a necessary development. It ensured that English procedural remedies could reach the infrastructure through which digital assets flow, keeping the remedy fit for purpose in an increasingly global market.

Williams v Nest Services Limited: orders against future persons unknown

The Commercial Court's decision in Williams v Nest Services Limited [2025] EWHC 1409 (Comm) marked a further significant step, again demonstrating the English courts' willingness to adapt established procedural tools to the realities of cryptoasset fraud.

In Williams, the Commercial Court confirmed that Norwich Pharmacal Orders may extend to future persons unknown, being recipients of cryptocurrency who are not yet identifiable but who will emerge through ongoing disclosure. HHJ Keyser concluded that the order could be served on third parties falling into the future persons unknown category once they had been identified, removing the requirement to return to court for variations as additional parties are uncovered.

This decision reflects the reality of how cryptoasset fraud cases unfold in practice: disclosure from one exchange frequently reveals new wallet addresses linked to further intermediaries, each of which may hold relevant KYC data. By permitting service on newly identified recipients without repeated applications, the court reduced procedural duplication and cost - a particularly important consideration in cases where losses may be more modest in value. The decision also demonstrates judicial sensitivity to the "hot pursuit" nature of cryptocurrency tracing, where speed materially affects recovery prospects.

The Law Commission proposals: free-standing information orders

These developments are welcome, but a significant limitation remains. The gateway for service out of information orders requires the claimant to have commenced, or to intend to commence, proceedings in England and Wales. Since the identity of the ultimate defendant is typically unknown at the point of applying for a Norwich Pharmacal Order, claimants face obvious difficulties in identifying where they will bring substantive proceedings. This has, in turn, given rise to arguably strained and inconsistent judicial decisions on questions of jurisdiction in the context of service out applications for the underlying claims.

The Law Commission has acknowledged this "significant limitation" in its consultation paper on Digital Assets and (Electronic) Trade Documents in Private International Law, published last year. The paper sets out provisional proposals for free-standing information orders, recognising the reality that claimants are seeking assistance in the investigative stage of proceedings, requesting the court's assistance in discovering the identity of the defendant and the appropriate claim to plead against them.

If implemented, this proposal would enable courts to make standalone orders compelling intermediaries - such as crypto exchanges - to disclose identifying information, allowing victims to make an informed decision about the most appropriate way to proceed before committing to substantive proceedings.

The proposed threshold test would require the court to be satisfied that: (i) there is a "case of a certain strength" – this would be similar to the Niedersachsen "more than barely capable of serious argument" test but is intentionally formulated in a distinct way; (ii) the relief sought is necessary in order to bring a claim or seek redress; (iii) there is no other court in which the claimant could reasonably bring the application; and (iv) there is a connection to England and Wales, such as the claimant's habitual residence, domicile or nationality.

The Commission recognises that the proposed new form of order is exceptional but considers that it responds to a clear need in the context of crypto litigation and is therefore necessary in the interest of justice.

In our view, the proposal is to be welcomed. It would offer a clear and principled route to assistance for victims at the early investigative stages of a matter, without requiring them to identify a jurisdiction for substantive proceedings before they know the identity of the defendant. That said, the proposal is not without its limitations. Enforcement against non-compliant respondents located abroad will remain difficult, and there will inevitably be cases in which exchanges are unable to comply due to conflicting obligations under local data protection or confidentiality regimes. However, both risks already exist under the current framework.

Looking ahead

A number of questions remain open. If the Law Commission's proposals are adopted, it will be important to see whether the courts are willing to extend the Williams approach - permitting orders against future persons unknown - to free-standing information orders. Given the same practical rationale applies, there is a strong argument that they should. The form of implementation also remains to be determined: the Law Commission's consultation paper leaves open whether free-standing information orders would be introduced by statute, through amendments to the CPR, or developed incrementally at common law, each of which carries different implications for the scope and flexibility of the remedy.

The consultation period closed in September 2025 and the final report is awaited. Whatever form the proposals ultimately take, the direction of travel is clear: the English courts and the Law Commission alike recognise that effective procedural tools for investigating cryptoasset fraud are essential to ensuring that victims have meaningful access to justice. The pace of development in this area suggests that English law will continue to adapt, maintaining its position at the forefront of cross-border crypto fraud litigation.

• The long-awaited denouement of Limbu v Dyson
• A landmark ruling against Meta and YouTube for causing mental health-related harms, and
• The potentially chilling effect that Energy Transfer v Greenpeace could have on environmental advocacy and protest.

Beyond these and other individual developments covered in this edition of ESG Watch, broader patterns are becoming more pronounced:

• Polarisation continues to grow as increasing shareholder and civil society pressure on corporations meets counterefforts to silence activist voices.
• Divergence in regulation and enforcement across different jurisdictions is also increasing, creating compliance asymmetries that pose significant challenges for multinational businesses.

UK regulation

EU regulation

ESG litigation

Mishcon de Reya has today announced that 14 individuals have been promoted to Equity Partner in the firm's latest round of promotions. 

A further 16 people have been promoted to Legal Director while three have been made Of Counsel. The firm also announced that 28 people have been promoted to Managing Associate. 

Commenting on the news, Managing Partner James Libson said:   

"As the outgoing Managing Partner, it is my privilege one last time to congratulate all of our newly promoted fee earners. Every year I am delighted to see the strength and breadth of talent we have in our firm and it’s such a pleasure to see Junior Equity Partners promoted to Equity Partner, welcome new partners to the partnership, and support our new Of Counsel, Directors and Managing Associates to take the next steps in their careers. I am delighted to see their talent and hard work rewarded and look forward to watching their continued progress.” 

All promotions took effect from 1 April 2026. 

The Equity Partner promotions are: 

Andrew Short

Andrew is a Partner in the Commercial Litigation team, advising clients across a number of sectors such as financial services, healthcare, construction, technology and insurance. He also acts for governments and state organisations, including most recently for the Federal Republic of Nigeria in its landmark victory against P&ID. He has significant experience of public inquiries, investigations (both regulatory and internal), mediations and crisis management. Andrew has a growing practice in group litigation, currently acting on behalf of thousands of individual claimants in relation to a significant data breach. He also has an interest in environmental and climate change strategic litigation and has recently advised a number of environmental organisations in bringing a landmark complaint with the OECD against a large UK power plant operator.

David Kanter

David is a Partner in the Real Estate department, specialising in commercial real estate. He advises clients on high-value and high-profile acquisitions, disposals, development, landlord and tenant and investment management work. David has acted on transactions for a range of clients from institutional companies and funds to private investors and entrepreneurs, across a range of sectors to include office, retail, leisure and build to rent. David often advises overseas clients on all aspects of commercial property investment matters and is fluent in Hebrew. David was seconded to Blackstone Property Management & The Office Group as Legal Counsel.

David Parsons

David is a Partner in the firm's Employment department, acting for both employers and employees on all aspects of employment law. He has acted for clients in disputes in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court, Employment Appeal Tribunal and Employment Tribunal on claims including in relation to the misuse of confidential information, team moves and restrictive covenants, employment status disputes, discrimination, whistleblowing, harassment, holiday pay and unfair and constructive dismissal. David has also acted in several disputes in the London Court of International Arbitration.

Hannah Barnett

Hannah is a Partner in Mishcon Private with expertise across all areas of UK immigration. She specialises in European free movement rights, long residence applications, family-based applications, litigation in the Tribunals and claims for Judicial Review, often with a human rights element. Hannah acts for both high net worth individuals and businesses on exceptional, complex and multi-jurisdictional matters.

James Paterson

James is a Partner in the Corporate Department. James focuses on private equity-related transactions and has extensive experience acting as lead counsel for management teams and owner/founder-managers, as well as private equity institutions and investee companies. James also provides general advisory and transactional services to corporate businesses and entrepreneurs with his practice covering a variety of sectors including financial services, consumer, leisure and technology.

Mark Kaye

Mark Kaye is a Partner in the Employment department. He specialises in all areas of transactional work (with an emphasis on US-related matters) as well as non-contentious advisory work. Mark possesses a wealth of expertise in a diverse array of transactions, including sales, acquisitions, outsourcings, mergers, and takeovers. He is also well-versed in restructuring and change management projects, often spanning multiple jurisdictions.

Matthew Bowles

Matt is a Partner in the Commercial Real Estate department with extensive experience in all aspects of commercial property investment, financing, development and management work. Matt is a corporate occupier specialist and advises some of the UK's largest corporate occupiers on their property requirements in the UK and throughout Europe and has led on the acquisition, development and occupation of several large campus schemes.

Matthew Ewens

Matthew is a Partner in the White Collar Crime and Investigations Group within the Dispute Resolution department. Matthew represents individuals and corporates in cross-jurisdictional bribery, corruption and complex fraud matters. He is currently instructed in relation to a number of SFO and tax investigations as well as advising corporate clients in respect of internal investigations.

Matthew Wood

Matthew is a Partner in the Employment department. He advises employers and employees on all aspects of employment law and related commercial matters across a wide range of sectors. Matthew has extensive experience of litigating disputes in the High Court and regularly advises on claims relating to breaches of restrictive covenants, team moves, misuse of confidential information and related matters. Matthew has also  successfully brought and defended multi-million pound discrimination and whistleblowing claims.

Neil Shanghavi

Neil is a Partner in Mishcon Private with expertise in business and corporate immigration law, specialising in advising organisations and individuals on complex and strategically significant UK immigration matters. Neil advises multinational corporations, financial institutions, professional services firms, and high-growth businesses on the full spectrum of business immigration issues. Alongside his corporate practice, Neil has extensive experience advising individuals on complex and sensitive personal immigration matters.

Robert Lewis

Robert Lewis is a Partner in the Employment department and Head of the firm's Education Group. A leading UK education and employment lawyer, he advises institutions and individuals on complex legal issues across the education and employment sectors. He has deep expertise in discrimination law, whistleblowing, executive misconduct, trade union relations, restrictive covenants, and day-to-day HR advisory work. As an education law specialist, Robert advises schools, Oxbridge colleges, universities, multi-academy trusts, and families on crisis management, safeguarding, student and parent complaints, exclusions, academic freedom, and equality law. 

Sarah Heritage

Sarah is a Partner in the Real Estate Dispute Resolution group, specialising in property disputes specifically for private clients. Sarah advises high-net-worth individuals and their trusts, companies and family offices together with significant property-owning companies and large corporates. She acts on all property-related disputes relating to super-prime residential and mixed-use property and landed estates. Sarah advises frequently on a wide variety of disputes, including neighbour disputes, nuisance claims, freehold management company disputes, disrepair claims, possession claims, rights of way disputes and service charge disputes. She has extensive experience of negotiating resolutions between parties and litigating matters at court or tribunal, whilst providing strategic advice at any stage of a dispute.

Tom Middleton

Tom is a Partner in the Real Estate department, specialising in commercial real estate. He has extensive expertise in advising on high-value acquisitions and disposals, as well as significant development projects. He has particular expertise advising lenders and institutional funds on investment and development matters across different sectors of the real estate market, including office, retail, logistics, energy, build-to-rent, and purpose-built student accommodation.

Tom Roberts

Tom is a Partner in the Dispute Resolution department with a practice spanning Group Actions, Commercial Litigation and Fraud. He has significant experience of high value, multi-jurisdictional, complex commercial disputes across a broad range of sectors, including telecoms, betting & gaming, oil & gas, sport, media and technology. His practice encompasses both claimant and defendant work, and primarily involves breach of contract, negligence, fraud and/or breach of fiduciary duty claims. Tom has acted for large groups of individuals, high-net-worth individuals, sovereign wealth funds and investment banks, in addition to a variety of FTSE 100 and 250 companies and financial institutions.

 Alongside running Huckletree, Gabriela has become known for her candid, experience-led perspective on entrepreneurship. She speaks openly about the realities of building and leading a business, from navigating uncertainty and high-stakes decision-making to balancing ambition with raising a young family. 

 Her work increasingly sits at the intersection of business, leadership and real life, offering a more grounded and honest view of what it takes to build something meaningful over time. 

In the feature, Adam Turner provides insight into one of the most notable changes: the explicit inclusion of sexual harassment within whistleblowing law. Adam explains that this shift “hardwires” sexual harassment into whistleblowing protections. He emphasises the need for managers to be trained on the whistleblowing dimension: "Most line managers know what sexual harassment looks like. Fewer understand that how they respond to a report might also expose the organisation to a whistleblowing claim.”

More broadly, the Personnel Today article notes that employers face a heightened compliance environment this year, with wider reforms affecting parental leave, statutory sick pay and future enforcement through the Fair Work Agency. HR teams are encouraged to take a proactive, joined‑up approach to policy updates, manager capability and workforce planning.

Read the full article.

To understand more about what employers should be doing to prepare for the coming changes, visit our hub or download our guide. 

The piece highlights how complex regulatory processes, limited testing ranges and slow approvals from UK authorities are pushing high growth companies to relocate trials to countries such as Ukraine, Spain, Estonia and the United States.

He commented: “Some incredible British businesses have come out of the traps in the last few years. And they’ve hired some of the top engineering minds from our best universities, raised money and built world-leading capabilities. But we’ve ended up in a perverse situation where they are having to send their equipment out of the UK to test it.”

The article also notes that this lack of domestic testing capacity risks slowing innovation and undermining the UK’s competitive position in fast‑moving defence technologies.

Read the full article