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; and
• Precisely when to use without prejudice labelling.

• 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

The programme launched its first cycle last year following “more than 100 responses when we opened applications” and has already attracted participants from private practice, in-house teams and the Bar.

Stephanie also highlights the importance of mentoring in helping women address confidence barriers and stay within the profession. As she explains, “sometimes you need someone to challenge your own self doubt”, particularly given the pressures faced by women balancing careers with caring responsibilities or entering underrepresented technical fields.

The full interview is available on World IP Review (subscription required).

Following a late autism and ADHD diagnosis, Ben also reflects on his mission to champion different thinking through his charity, The Hidden 20%. The conversation offers insight into innovation, neurodivergence, and a preview of his charity’s flagship AI intelligence study exploring prevalence, barriers and opportunities in the UK.

• Decisions of a court in one jurisdiction often influence how the parties behave in another jurisdiction, and may indeed finally resolve the issues in dispute in that other jurisdiction. Principles of "issue estoppel" have been developed over many years in multiple jurisdictions for identifying when that happens.
• In this dispute, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) granted an injunction prohibiting Amazon from asking any foreign court for final (F)RAND relief that might influence how InterDigital might act in the UPC proceedings. The injunction prohibits Amazon from asking a UK court for relief that even InterDigital accepts the UK Court has jurisdiction to grant.
• According to the UPC's reasoning, a court in one jurisdiction may grant orders identifying the terms of an appropriate global (F)RAND licence and require the parties to enter into such a licence, but such orders cannot be enforceable if the threat of taking steps to enforce the orders (even in the court granting them) might impact parallel patent infringement proceedings in another jurisdiction.
• If the UPC is right that rate setting proceedings in one jurisdiction should not have any extra-territorial effect whatsoever, then this means country-by-country patent and (F)RAND litigation is required – a position that has widely been accepted as 'madness' (including by the UK Supreme Court in Unwired Planet).

Background

In early September 2025 Amazon commenced patent revocation and (F)RAND proceedings against InterDigital in the UK Patents Court. It also indicated that it intended to make an application for a global interim licence of InterDigital's standard essential patents (SEPs).

On 30 September 2025 InterDigital made an urgent without notice application to the UPC Local Division in Mannheim for an "anti-interim licence injunction", prohibiting Amazon from making an application in the UK proceedings for an interim licence. InterDigital did not want the UK court to make declarations regarding an interim licence because those declarations could interfere in claims of patent infringement that it had freshly commenced in the UPC. For example, if InterDigital refused to offer Amazon an interim licence, then Amazon could argue in the UPC proceedings that it was not acting as a willing licensor. That could reduce InterDigital's negotiation leverage.

The UPC granted that injunction (30 September Order). Since it affected what Amazon could do in the UK proceedings, its scope was queried by the UK court. For example, did the order prohibit Amazon from pursuing a final rate setting decision by the UK court?

InterDigital initially agreed that the UPC's "anti-interim licence" injunction did not have such an effect. It had not intentionally applied for an anti-suit injunction that would limit what kind of final relief Amazon could seek in the UK proceedings. However, it subsequently indicated a change of mind or a desire to obtain an injunction from the UPC prohibiting Amazon from pursuing a final rate setting decision in the UK. Amazon therefore made its own urgent without notice application in the UK court for an injunction prohibiting Amazon from asking the UPC to expand the existing injunction or grant a new one prohibiting it from pursuing final relief in the UK.

De-escalation

Meade J granted a temporary anti-anti-suit injunction (AASI) for the purpose of preserving the integrity of the UK proceedings, then convened a hearing (which took place on 25 November) to determine how to proceed. That hearing involved discussion of the effect of the AASI, the extra-territorial effect of any final rate setting decision the UK court might make, and comity.

In his subsequent judgment,  Meade J observed:

I have made clear and Amazon accepts that InterDigital can argue to the UPC or the German court that any final RAND relief in the UK is ineffective there … . InterDigital can bring and continue infringement claims. It can bring overlapping rate-setting claims if it wants.

… The effect of a UK-determined licence in other courts abroad, however, may or may not be extra-territorial, depending on the decisions of those courts where the licence is sought to be deployed. It is up to those courts as explained above.

It would be entirely up to the UPC and German courts to decide what effect the UK decision would have on the proceedings before them. And, of course, it works the other way too:

"If a foreign court finally and properly decided global (F)RAND terms between two litigants over which it had jurisdiction prior to a UK court setting out to do the same, I cannot see anything wrong with the litigant who had succeeded in the foreign court at least arguing (it might succeed or fail) that the foreign court's decision should be given effect here by res judicata or cause of action or issue estoppel."

A full hearing of InterDigital's substantive challenge to the UK's (F)RAND jurisdiction took place on 3 and 4 December 2025 and, on 19 December, Meade J rejected it in a carefully reasoned judgment.

Escalation

The UPC presiding judge (Judge Peter Tochterman) was clearly dissatisfied with this outcome.

In a judgment published on 22 December 2025, he declared that an interim licence declaration by the UK court would violate the ordre public of the EU, making it null and void and unenforceable in any UPC contracting member state. (See UPC-CFI-0000936/2025 | Unified Patent Court.)

Further, notwithstanding Meade J's heavy criticism of the submissions and evidence presented to the UPC to obtain the 30 September Order, and notwithstanding that InterDigital had not asked for an injunction touching final relief, Judge Tochterman "clarified" that the order also prohibited Amazon from seeking any final (F)RAND relief that could influence InterDigital's conduct of the UPC proceedings.

In the context of assessing an appropriate penalty if Amazon did pursue final relief in the UK that might have that effect, the UPC made various observations about interim licence declarations and the effect of a final rate setting decision by the UK court.

These observations included:

• If an SEP owner refused to respect an interim licence declaration by the UK court it would give the impression of wrongdoing, which was not fair to the SEP owner.
• This spill over effect of an interim licence was "actually a far-reaching intrusion into the legal order of a different territory, which violates comity".
• If the UK court ordered InterDigital to provide Amazon a global licence on terms that it considered to be (F)RAND, InterDigital could either provide the licence or refuse. If it did not provide the licence, it may be in contempt; if it did provide the licence, then continuation of patent infringement proceedings in the UPC might comprise a breach of the licence, giving rise to a liability to pay damages. The possibility of being found liable by a UK court for damages or being found by a UK court to be in contempt would deter InterDigital from pursuing patent infringement proceedings in the UPC. Accordingly, by continuing the UK proceedings Amazon "may be in breach of [the 30 September Order] already depending on the future effects of their application."
• Amazon was free to pursue final relief in the UK, but only if "no negative consequences whatsoever arise for [InterDigital] if they chose not to accept the outcome and enforce their European patents in relation to UPCA contracting member states and argue that the outcome is not binding on them with regard to the territories of the UPCA contracting member states."

It then set a maximum penalty for failure to comply with its 30 September Order at €50 million, with €500,000 payable for each additional day of non-compliance.

After becoming aware of a hearing on 4 February, in which Meade J considered what consequential orders should follow from his rejection of InterDigital's jurisdiction challenge, the UPC issued a further decision on 11 February emphasising that the scope of the 30 September Order had not changed over time and "clearly also affects the so-called Final relief sought before the UK court".

In response to the threat of penalties, on 25 February Amazon sent an email to the UPC stating that "while Amazon reserves all of its rights, for the avoidance of doubt, Amazon does not presently seek damages arising from any breach by InterDigital of its RAND Commitment".

However, Amazon's email caused the opposite of its intended effect, failing to assuage the UPC. Judge Tochterman issued a further order, declaring that it "may amount to a breach of the [30 September Order] if Amazon intends to reserve its rights … to sue InterDigital for damages in the proceedings before the UK courts" if Amazon thought that continuation of rate setting proceedings in the UPC involved a breach of any (F)RAND licence entered into by the parties pursuant to a UK court order. In other words, the UPC considered that Amazon may have already breached the AASI, not because of any of its acts or omissions, but because of what it was thinking. Judge Tochterman scheduled a further hearing for 27 February, and demanded that Amazon take a clear, unambiguous and unrestricted position at that hearing.

At the hearing on 27 February Judge Tochterman found that Amazon had in fact breached the 30 September Order, but did not publish reasons for this finding. On pain of contempt and fines in the tens of millions of euros, Amazon was required to make a declaration to Meade J, limiting the type of final relief it might seek in the UK proceeding.

Outcome?

Meade J received that declaration in a hearing on 5 March, and issued a carefully reasoned judgment on the same day because he considered it "important for actual and potential litigants in this complex field to understand what has happened and why".

Since then, there have been two more orders from the UPC, one on 9 March and one on 25 March. Ultimately, Amazon has done what Judge Tochterman wanted it to do (not what InterDigital wanted it to do), namely abandon any claim to final relief in the UK court that might in future give it a claim that InterDigital was liable for damage caused by continuing UPC infringement proceedings in the face of a prior determination by the UK court regarding the terms of a global (F)RAND licence.

Concluding thoughts

The position taken by the UPC is unbalanced. It also contrasts with the position taken by the CJEU regarding the ability of EU member state courts to rule on issues concerning infringement and validity of foreign patents in Electrolux v BSH (see our article here) and which the UPC has followed.

The UPC's reasons for its injunction against Amazon are agnostic regarding the jurisdiction in which existing patent revocation and rate setting proceedings may be on foot. Its approach may therefore be perceived as an open invitation to SEP owners involved in (F)RAND proceedings elsewhere (e.g. China) that are concerned about their outcome to seek an injunction from the UPC prohibiting the implementer from seeking relief that would otherwise be granted.

Indeed, the UPC's approach may encourage and justify parties commencing rate setting proceedings in another jurisdiction to contemporaneously apply for an urgent without notice anti-suit injunction prohibiting the defendant (whether SEP owner or implementer) approaching the UPC for orders that would interfere with its ability to conduct those rate setting proceedings in accordance with the law and procedure of the court seized.

Amazon has appealed from the UPC's 30 September Order. Oral proceedings have been scheduled for 28 May 2026. (See UPC-COA-0000936/2025 | Unified Patent Court.)  

Along with Tom and James Murray, higher education and professional rights partner at Doyle Clayton Solicitors, Robert explores how far the law goes to protect the expression of controversial beliefs in the workplace.

In the UK, all people have a legal right to freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act 1998. But this right is not absolute and is limited in the workplace to prevent harm and to protect others.

Employers must strike a careful balance between the need to prevent discrimination, harassment and disruption to the workplace, and an individual's right to express their view, even ones that are considered controversial.

Listen to the full episode

She commented: “One of the ways clients can run up unnecessary costs is by using their divorce lawyer as a therapist. This will reduce the risks of running up costs where you’re unlikely to achieve your objectives. While divorce is understandably an emotional process, try to be as commercially minded as you can – this will almost always be the most cost-effective way forward.”

The article explores a range of practical considerations when navigating separation, including preparation, financial planning, and alternative routes to resolving disputes outside court.

Read the full version

The facts

Mr Jalan was born in India, holds Canadian citizenship and is a qualified lawyer in India, Ontario and England & Wales. Since 2004, he resided in the UAE and worked for Clyde&Co in Dubai. He was therefore a resident and domicile of the UAE.

Mr Jalan was initially offered employment in 2004 as an Overseas Manager in Clyde&Co's Dubai office, under a contract governed by UAE law with no arbitration agreement. In 2006, he was promoted to Senior Overseas Manager - a role Clyde&Co asserted was the equivalent of a Senior Equity Partner - though Mr Jalan was never himself made a partner or member of the firm.

His employment documentation consisted of several documents: (a) a Terms letter setting out the conditions of his employment; (b) an Annex containing further provisions on confidentiality, restrictive covenants and removal; (c) a remuneration letter; (d) a Partner Equivalent letter; and, importantly, (e) standard form employment contracts registered with the UAE Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation ("MoHRE") (the "MoHRE contracts"), which were required by UAE law to be executed by the parties from time to time and filed with the MoHRE to allow Mr Jalan to work lawfully in the UAE.

The arbitration agreement relied upon by Clyde&Co in this case was contained in clause 12 of the Terms letter, which provided that in the event of any dispute, the matter would be referred to a sole arbitrator sitting in London, to be nominated by the President of the Law Society of England and Wales in default of agreement. Crucially, however, within the very same sentence, clause 12 also provided that the terms of employment would be "governed by UAE law No 8 of 1980 as amended" - a law which, effectively, renders arbitration agreements in employment contracts void.

There was no dispute that the proper law of the arbitration agreement was English law, the underlying dispute concerned Mr Jalan's bonus entitlement. He believed that Clyde&Co's CEO, Mr Kelsall, had agreed in June/July 2023 that his remuneration would be fixed at lockstep 4 (64 profit-sharing units). By May 2025, he had been notified that he had been reduced to lockstep 1, prompting him to raise the dispute in the Dubai court (the "Dubai Proceedings").

Before commencing the Dubai Proceedings, Mr Jalan was required to file a complaint with the MoHRE. He did so on 17 July 2025. Clyde&Co's response was to indicate that, if Mr Jalan did not withdraw the Dubai Proceedings, it would serve a Removal Notice terminating his employment for "good cause". The Court noted that this was "a somewhat extraordinary way to treat someone who had been the equivalent of a Senior Equity Member of Clyde&Co for 19 years."

The legal issues

Mr Justice Michael Green framed the case around three key questions:

1. Was there a sufficiently high probability of there being a valid and enforceable English arbitration agreement covering the dispute?
2. If so, was the dispute arbitrable?
3. Would it be just and convenient to grant the ASI in any event?

Issue 1: Was there a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement?

The court confirmed that the applicable test required Clyde&Co to show, "to a high degree of probability", that there was a valid and binding arbitration agreement covering the dispute in question.

Clyde&Co's position was straightforward: it said there was a clear arbitration agreement governed by English law, and that it was irrelevant that the agreement might be invalid or unenforceable under UAE labour law.

Mr Justice Michael Green rejected Clyde&Co's characterisation of the MoHRE contracts as mere administrative documents. He found that they formed part of the contractual relationship between Clyde&Co and Mr Jalan, as expressly stated in the contracts themselves, and that they made clear that both parties recognised that the UAE Labour Law governed the employment relationship, that they would abide by it, and that any provision violating it was void.

The court received uncontested expert evidence from Mr Ammar El Banna on the UAE Labour Law, who opined that an arbitration clause purporting to exclude UAE Labour Law or bypass the MoHRE's mandatory process "would, in my opinion, be considered null and void under UAE law" as "employment disputes are not arbitrable" under UAE law.

Ultimately, the court found that there was either too much inconsistency and conflict between the relevant contractual documentation - in particular the Terms letter, the Annex and the MoHRE contracts - to conclude that the arbitration agreement was intended to be binding; or those concerns were exacerbated by the subsequent entry into the MoHRE contracts, which never referred to London arbitration still applying, and meant that the parties could be taken to have agreed that the arbitration agreement had been rendered inoperative.

In short, the court could not be satisfied that Clyde&Co had shown a high probability of there being a still valid and binding arbitration agreement, and accordingly Clyde&Co could not establish that Mr Jalan had acted in breach of any arbitration agreement by pursuing the Dubai Proceedings.

Issue 2: Was the dispute arbitrable?

The court held that, had it found a valid arbitration agreement to exist, it would not have held the dispute to be non-arbitrable, on the basis that foreign public policy should not be taken into account when assessing arbitrability as a matter of English law.

Issue 3: Just and convenient?

Even if a valid arbitration agreement been found, the court indicated it would have declined to grant the ASI on discretionary grounds, concluding that employment relationships should be treated differently to ordinary commercial disputes, and that employees should be protected - particularly where, as here, UAE law was the governing law of the employment relationship and Mr Jalan was only doing what he was required to do under UAE law by pursuing the Dubai Proceedings.

What happens in practice?

It is standard practice in the UAE for employers to issue two separate contracts to employees, particularly where a standard form contract is required to be filed in order to obtain a work permit (for example, for employers falling under the jurisdiction of the MoHRE, the Jebel Ali Free Zone Authority, the Dubai Multi Commodities Free Zone Authority or the Dubai Airport Free Zone, etc.).

Template contracts are typically relatively basic and do not contain the provisions necessary to properly govern the employment relationship or indeed to clearly set out the obligations owed by either party. For that reason, it is very common for the relevant standard form contracts to be executed and then supplemented by a secondary, more detailed contract.

As can be seen from the case described, this can potentially create difficulties if the documents which form part of the employment relationship are not looked at holistically, and in the context of the applicable laws.

Key practical lessons

Key takeaways from this case

1. The conflict between arbitration clauses and mandatory employment law: The court declined to treat the English arbitration agreement as insulated from the broader employment contract in which it sat. This decision potentially creates a tension with the Arbitration Act 1996 (as amended by the Arbitration Act 2025), which provides that English law will govern the validity of an agreement providing for English seated arbitration, unless the parties expressly agree otherwise.
2. The weight of regulatory compliance documents: The court's finding that the MoHRE contracts formed part of the overall employment agreement - and were not merely administrative documents - has significant implications for employers operating across multiple jurisdictions with mandatory local registration requirements (which is also relatively common for those in the GCC with regional management roles). How should employers in similar positions structure their employment documentation to minimise the risk of conflict?
3. Arbitration in employment relationships: The court was clearly uncomfortable with the idea of an ASI being used to restrain a long-standing employee - working and domiciled abroad - from pursuing a claim in his local court. In what circumstances is arbitration ever an appropriate mechanism for resolving employment disputes involving cross-border arrangements, or should the mandatory jurisdiction of local employment courts generally prevail?
4. The conduct of the employer: Mr Justice Michael Green was critical of conduct throughout the dispute. What lessons does this offer about how employers should manage disputes with senior employees, and what risks arise when litigation strategy tips into what the court characterises as "undue pressure"?
5. Costs proportionality: The court observed that the costs of the ASI application would far outweigh the relatively modest amount claimed by Mr Jalan in the Dubai Proceedings. This raises broader questions about the proportionality of seeking an ASI in disputes of this nature, and whether the relief is being used - even if unintentionally - to dissuade employees from exercising their legal rights.

How Mishcon de Reya can help

Our Employment team advises employers and senior executives on the full spectrum of employment law matters, in the UK and UAE, from day-to-day advisory, workforce planning and strategy, to termination of employment and the enforcement of post-termination restrictions and everything in between. To find out more, get in touch.

• In a significant milestone for UK private markets, the first trades on PISCES platforms took place last week.
• The first PISCES transaction structures demonstrate the scope for a variety of PISCES use cases.
• We compare some of the notable differences between the two approved platform operators.

Background

The  Private Intermittent Securities and Capital Exchange System (PISCES) is the regulatory framework governing a type of regulated trading platform that facilitates intermittent secondary trading in the shares of private companies. For an overview of the PISCES platforms and operators and links to our previous articles in this series, please refer to our December 2025 briefing: Understanding PISCES - who can invest and how?

Where are we now?

JP Jenkins and the London Stock Exchange (LSE) both obtained their authorisation from the FCA as PISCES operators in the second half of 2025 and last week carried out their first PISCES trades. This marks a significant milestone for the UK's private markets.

The first trades

• JP Jenkins: QPlay

On 24 February 2026, QPlay Ltd became the first company to trade on a PISCES platform upon its admission to JP Jenkins Private Market. QPlay is a UK-incorporated private limited company that produces "Outsmarted", a patented AI-powered quiz board game, and is held within the Velocity Capital Fund managed by Sapphire Capital Partners.

QPlay's first PISCES liquidity event opened a five-day order window on 18 March, during which eligible investors were able to place buy and sell orders for QPlay shares through financial intermediaries, including London brokers Peel Hunt and Winterflood Securities.

JP Jenkins' platform operates through a relatively straightforward structure. This structure does not necessitate any material reorganisation of the company's existing corporate arrangements.

• LSE: Oxford Science Enterprises and the Private Securities Market

The LSE has named its PISCES platform the Private Securities Market (PSM). PSM held its inaugural trading event on 25 March 2026, with shares in a Tradable Private Equity Investment Company (TPEIC) (a bespoke Luxembourg securitisation vehicle) being made available to eligible investors. The sole underlying asset of the TPEIC is a stake in Oxford Science Enterprises (OSE), a technology, artificial intelligence and life sciences investor with a valuation of approximately £1.3 billion.

OSE's portfolio encompasses more than 100 companies across deep tech, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, life sciences and health tech, all originating from Oxford's globally recognised research ecosystem.

The TPEIC is a novel structure designed specifically for the PISCES context. It holds an interest in OSE and issues freely transferable shares which are subsequently traded on PSM. Importantly, this means that OSE itself is not required to amend its constitution or share capital structure in order to meet PISCES's free transferability requirements. This is a potentially material consideration for any private company with a complex existing share structure. The Luxembourg vehicle additionally provides the capacity to ring-fence assets within that entity.

The fact that the LSE's first PISCES participant is accessed via a Luxembourg securitisation vehicle, rather than directly through a UK private company, is itself worthy of note. This highlights that using a PISCES platform is still in its infancy and that there is no universal solution when it comes to structuring for trading on a PISCES. The most appropriate approach for any given company will depend upon its existing corporate structure, share capital arrangements, shareholder composition and commercial objectives. Companies should seek careful advice before concluding that any particular model is suitable for their circumstances.

How the two platforms differ

Beyond the distinctions evident in the first transactions themselves, each operator has implemented the FCA's requirements in different ways.

On disclosure, for example:

• The LSE's PSM has adopted a Q&A process that goes beyond the core disclosure requirements prescribed by the FCA, allowing investors to put specific questions to companies in advance of a trading event.
• JP Jenkins requires companies to disclose all information that an investor could reasonably wish to know.

On trading mechanics, PSM auctions are limited to a single day, with companies having the ability to select between open auctions (accessible to all eligible investors) and permissioned auctions (where investors must apply and receive approval from the company through its Registered Auction Agent). On the JP Jenkins Private Market, there are options for "Intermittent Trading" (trading over a period of up to five consecutive business days each month) or a single monthly auction per month. Either type of trading event can be made subject to restrictions as to which investors can participate.

Both platforms' approaches remain consistent with the FCA's framework, which was always intended to afford operators the flexibility to build upon the baseline requirements in ways that suit their platforms and investor bases. However, the differences do mean that companies considering PISCES will need to assess which platform is best suited to their profile, and should be prepared for the differing obligations that each one imposes.

A broader trend

PISCES is a UK initiative, but its potential influence may extend beyond the UK's borders. The European Commission has been consulting on proposals that share a number of conceptual similarities with PISCES. It remains too early to assess how those proposals will evolve, but the UK's experience with PISCES may prove informative for other jurisdictions.

Closer to home, we are aware that a significant number of companies are actively considering joining a PISCES platform. Whether that momentum is sustained will depend, in part, on the experience of these early movers and on how companies and their advisers approach PISCES.

How can we help?

Our Corporate team has been engaged in the development of the PISCES framework since its inception. If you are a company considering participating on a PISCES platform or would like to know more about the framework generally, please contact Arthur Horsfall or Nicholas McVeigh who would be happy to discuss further.

• Significant backlogs in the Family Court have led to cases involving children being severely delayed, something which the court recognises can itself increase harm to children caught in the midst of parental conflict.
• David Lammy, Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, has announced the roll-out of a new type of "child focused" court, designed to reduce acrimony, focus on the voice of the child and speed up cases.
• Below, we consider feedback from the pilot scheme and the implications of the reforms.

In recent years, severe delays in the family courts have left over 100,000 children trapped in a state of uncertainty and parental conflict during ongoing proceedings.

Amid widespread recognition that the backlog has to be tackled, a new type of court process has been piloted which aims to reduce delays, minimise retraumatisation for domestic abuse survivors, and to shift to a less adversarial process with the voice of the child at the centre. Following a successful pilot scheme the government has announced that Child Focused Courts – formerly known as Pathfinder Courts – will now be expanded across the entirety of England and Wales.

The pilot has operated in 10 court areas since 2022, and funding is being provided to expand it further in 2026/27, with the intention that it will be fully rolled out by 2029.

This development has been welcomed by senior figures in the judiciary, including the judicial lead for Child Focused Courts, Mrs Justice Gwynneth Knowles, and the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, who describes it as a "game changer".

Current procedure

The current procedure is known as the "Child Arrangements Programme". Once an application for a child arrangements order has been made to the appropriate court (generally whichever is closest to where the children live), a First Hearing Dispute Resolution Appointment (“FHDRA”) will be listed.

In theory, this hearing should be listed within around 5–6 weeks, though in practice there is often a lead time of several months, as the court is significantly overburdened.

A member of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (“Cafcass”) will usually be present at the FHDRA, having spoken to both parents. Cafcass will have carried out police and Local Authority checks and lodged a safeguarding letter, which can include recommendations as to the next steps the court should take.

Unless agreement can be reached, directions will be made to progress the matter, often including an expert report (e.g. by a Cafcass officer, an independent social worker and/or child psychologist). The case will then normally be listed for a Dispute Resolution Appointment (“DRA”) and, if it is not settled or determined at that hearing, it proceeds to a Final Hearing. Prior to a Final Hearing, witness statements by the parties and any relevant third parties are likely to be ordered.

Due to the significant backlog of cases and the time taken for reports to be prepared, the DRA is likely to be listed several months after the FHDRA, and the Final Hearing is likely to follow a further six to nine months later, particularly if several days are required for the Court to hear the evidence. Therefore, the full court process can take between a year and two years.

The above is also on the basis that there are no serious allegations of domestic abuse, which can require their own separate Fact-Finding Hearing ("FFH"). A FFH will often be listed for several days, and this can build several additional months into the timetable.

Child Focused Courts

The new model is designed to tackle delay, which the court recognises as prejudicial to children's welfare, and to shift to a more investigative, front-loaded, court-driven process in which the voice of the child is placed at the forefront from the outset.

Once an application is made, it is issued by the Court along with a first gatekeeping order, which will:

• Direct the Local Authority or Cafcass to complete a Child Impact Report ("CIR"), which replaces the safeguarding letter and (in most cases) the expert report from the previous procedure; and
• List a hearing to carry out the second gatekeeping stage, where the report will be reviewed by a judge and legal advisor as a paper-based exercise in the absence of the parties.

The estimated timeframe for the above steps is 8–10 weeks, and it is possible for a final order to be made at the first hearing, which is not attended by the parties. If the judge considers that further evidence is required, the Court can order an addendum CIR, further work from Cafcass or the Local Authority, or other evidence such as substance testing or statements from the parties.

If a final order is not made on paper, most cases will then proceed to a Decision Hearing before a judge or the magistrates within a few weeks. Only the more complex cases will require a prior Case Management Hearing or a subsequent Final Hearing, while the faster process should help to avoid the need for applications and hearings addressing interim arrangements. Indeed, initial Ministry of Justice data has shown that the number of hearings per case has fallen from five to between 1.3–1.4 in some areas during the pilot.

In summary, the process is much faster and significantly more streamlined, reducing delay during proceedings and legal costs for represented litigants. To achieve this, a further marked difference is that there is a dedicated Case Progression Officer in the court administrative staff, who assists with case coordination and acts as a point of contact and support for the parties during the process.

Non-Court Dispute Resolution

Another notable focus of the new system is its emphasis on Non-Court Dispute Resolution ("NCDR").

The Family Court has, in recent years, taken steps to strongly encourage parties to engage in NCDR. Amendments to the Family Procedure Rules in April 2024 and the case of X v Y [2024] EWHC 538 make clear that, save for cases involving domestic abuse, the Family Court expects parties to make a serious effort to resolve matters in other forums (such as through mediation) before making a court application, and the court may stay (i.e. pause) proceedings to enable this to be explored.

It is already apparent that the Child Focused Courts will further increase the impetus in this regard. For example, gatekeeping orders direct that the CIR must consider whether NCDR is appropriate. A judge then considers the CIR without representations by the parties, so proceedings could be stayed to allow for NCDR before the parties make any arguments to the court. The court also provides information to litigants when applications are issued to explain the merits of resolving matters consensually and how this may be achieved.

The way forward

There have been several reports published during the pilot, including a 2026 report analysing feedback received from participants and identifying areas for improvement. In particular, there is work to be done to ensure that allegations of domestic abuse are handled sensitively, fully investigated and documented in the CIR, and that DASH (Domestic Abuse, Stalking, Harassment and ‘Honour Based’ Violence Assessment) risk assessments and special measures are consistently offered. Some participants commented that the process felt too fast, and in some cases they did not feel fully heard.

It is hoped, however, that these issues may be addressed by clearer communication and collaboration between the various agencies involved in the process. Already, many participants reported positive experiences with Cafcass, and saw clear improvements in the efficiency of the process and in capturing the child's perspective under the Pathfinder model, compared to the Child Arrangements Programme.

The further expansion of the Child Focused Courts into some of the more overburdened court areas, including London, will no doubt come with challenges. However, a sea change is on the horizon for private children disputes, and the evidence suggests that the change will be a welcome one.

• Section 25(2)(g) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 ("MCA") states that the conduct will be factored into the division of assets when it would be "inequitable to disregard it" – traditionally, in practical terms, this is a very high bar.
• Conduct in the context of financial remedy proceedings is a nuanced area. For example, typically it must have an identifiable negative financial impact, yet in some circumstances spouses must also take each other "as they find them".
• Resolution's 2024 report concludes that the courts' current approach to conduct "leads to unfair outcomes for some victim-survivors of domestic abuse", and some recent cases hint at a possible sea-change on the horizon.

What does conduct mean?

In the context of financial remedy proceedings, 'conduct' refers to the behaviour of each party during the marriage, and/or after separation during the resolution of the parties' finances.

Section 25(2) MCA sets out the various factors that the court will consider when making a financial order. Section 25(2)(g) is "the conduct of each of the parties, if that conduct is such that it would in the opinion of the court be inequitable to disregard it".

Types of conduct

It is well-established that a party's behaviour in general terms is not relevant to the financial settlement on divorce. Instead, currently there are four scenarios in which the court may take conduct into account:

• Personal misconduct – this is "gross and obvious" bad behaviour by one party against the other. Traditionally, such conduct must have a direct, quantifiable financial impact.
• "Addback" – this is where one party has deliberately dissipated assets, in order to reduce the assets available for division.
• Litigation misconduct – this is about a party's litigation approach (e.g. a dishonest presentation of assets or refusing to negotiate sensibly) and is typically dealt with by way of a costs order.
• Failing to provide full and frank financial disclosure – this is where a party fails to comply with their disclosure duties, the court can make adverse inferences (i.e. assumptions) about the wealth available to them.

A very high threshold

Section 25(2)(g) asserts that conduct will only be taken into account if it would be "inequitable to disregard it". For non-financial conduct this is an exceptionally high bar, because the court's primary aim is to achieve a fair financial outcome for both parties based on their resources and needs, and it is not its role to carry out a moral audit of the marriage (which the introduction of no-fault divorce echoes).

The high threshold for conduct is also exemplified by section 4.4 of the Form E (the standard disclosure form to be completed in financial remedy proceedings) stating that "bad behaviour or conduct will only be taken into account in very exceptional circumstances when deciding how assets should be shared after divorce/dissolution".

How and when is conduct argued?

If a party wants to run a conduct argument, there is a clear two-stage test, as laid down in Tsvetkov v Khayrova [2023] EWFC 130:

• Stage One – A party asserting conduct must prove:
  • The facts relied upon;
  • That those facts meet the conduct threshold; and
  • That there is an identifiable (even if not always easily measurable) negative financial impact upon the parties which has been caused by the alleged wrongdoing.
• Stage Two – If the above is established, then the court will go on to consider how the misconduct, and its financial consequences, should impact upon the outcome of the financial remedies proceedings.

Conduct must be pleaded at the very earliest opportunity. The court will proactively case-manage conduct allegations, often determining that the conduct referred to is not of such a level or nature that it can be relied on, or, where conduct is being considered, ordering parties to prepare statements dealing with Stage One.

The usual approach

Below are two reported decisions demonstrating the high bar for conduct:

• N v J [2024] EWFC 184
  
  The case concerned a same-sex couple, 'N and 'J'. N had a long history of mental health issues, albeit his mental health deteriorated during the course of their relationship, with N arguing that it significantly worsened as a result of J's behaviour – in particular, J's denial of his infidelity. During the proceedings, J admitted that he had indeed been paying for sexual encounters over the past 10 years.
  
  N's position was that, as a result of J's actions, N had required rehab, medication and invasive electrotherapy treatments as he was perceived to be delusional and paranoid. N claimed he had "embraced madness" as a result of J's lies. He sought for J's conduct to be taken into account.
  
  However, finding that N already had a complex history of mental health and that ultimately N's conduct had not directly impacted the financial resources available, the judge dismissed N's conduct argument' and 'any further medical treatment N needed could be dealt with via his needs claim).
  
  The judgment reiterated what a high threshold personal conduct is, stating that it is not the family court's role to penalise one party for their behaviour, or moralise an individual's actions or decisions during the marriage. The judge also highlighted it is the court's role to be forward-looking (to facilitate parties' journeys towards financial independence), and that routine inquiries into behaviour during the marriage would have a direct negative impact on the court's resources (and the parties' legal costs).
   
• MAP v MFP [2015] EWHC 627 (Fam)
  
  The wife argued that £1.5 million should be "added back" in respect of the funds the husband had spent on cocaine and prostitutes (as well as credit cards and rehab) over a two-year period, asserting it was "reckless and wanton expenditure".
  
  The judge was not, however, willing to add back the husband's expenditure. He noted that the character traits that had caused the husband to spend in the manner he did were part of the same personality that had allowed him to create great wealth. Just as the wife would be able to share in the great wealth he had created, she had to accept the downsides of his character. The case has become known for its proclamation that a "spouse must take his or her partner as he or she finds him".

Resolution's 2024 report on Domestic Abuse in Financial Remedy Proceedings

Amongst other stark findings, the report revealed that (i) almost two thirds of professionals considered financial abuse to be an issue in over 20 per cent of their cases, and (ii) almost 80 per cent of professionals felt that the long-term impact of domestic abuse (generally, i.e. not just economic abuse) was not sufficiently taken into account in financial proceedings.

The report also highlighted the marked disparity between how frequently domestic abuse appeared in divorce cases (in particular economic abuse), compared with how often it was raised within proceedings – the explanation from the report was that this is down to the very high threshold for conduct to be deemed relevant to the division of assets.

Unsurprisingly, the report states that "the current approach of the courts to conduct leads to unfair outcomes for some victim-survivors of domestic abuse". The report mentions the possibility of a new section 25(2) factor being introduced which specifically refers to domestic abuse, however it does not make any firm recommendations in this respect.

The report also provides significant insight into the way in which proceedings themselves can be used as a form of ongoing economic abuse – for example poor financial disclosure, using non-court dispute resolution to deliberately drag out matters, and non-compliance with court orders. Resolution makes some recommendations in this regard, such as that the process of securing an order from the court that your ex-partner pays your legal fees should be made easier, and building "enforcement" into court orders in the first instance, so there is already a clear mechanism in place to deal with non-compliance.

A change in the tide?

Two recent decisions of Cusworth J raise the question of whether we can expect to see a shift away from the traditional, formulaic approach to conduct arguments:

• LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
  
  In the previous children proceedings, the wife was found to have subjected the husband to coercive and controlling behaviour and physical as well as economic abuse, and also to have made false sexual abuse allegations against the husband.  In the financial proceedings, Cusworth J asserted that where a spouse had been found to have engaged in coercive and controlling behaviour, even if that did not result in a measurable financial impact, it does not follow that such impact will not exist. The judge's position was that the phrase "inequitable to disregard" essentially means "unfair to ignore". He acknowledged that there was risk to victim-survivors if the lack of quantifiable financial impacts entirely prevented a perpetrator's actions possibly being taken into account. 
  
  Ultimately, the wife's sharing claim was reduced by 40% as a result of her behaviour (and the judge also refused to "top-up" on the basis her conduct meant her needs should not be assessed generously.
   
• Loh v Loh-Gronager [2025] EWFC 483
  
  Here, Cusworth J reiterated his view that inequitable means no more than unfair – i.e. conduct should be taken into account if it would be unfair/unjust not to. He drew comparisons to the general fairness considerations when determining whether the terms of a pre-nuptial agreement ('PNA') should be held (per Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42).
  
  The case centred on the husband's extremely poor behaviour during the marriage and proceedings, including taking significant sums from the wife's sole accounts (c. £4.5 million), repeatedly harassing the wife and creating false evidence. Ultimately, the husband's award, which would otherwise have been stipulated by the PNA entered into, was reduced by c. 65%. 

Perhaps unsurprising in the context of widespread recognition of the prevalence (and long-term impact) of domestic abuse, these cases indicate that a more fact-specific, discretionary approach to conduct may be more suitable and, above all, 'fairer'. They are just two judgments (and delivered by the same judge), but could they indicate that a change in the judiciary's attitude towards conduct is on the cards? Only time will tell.

• The FCA has commenced legal proceedings against HTX (formerly Huobi) for illegally promoting cryptoasset services to UK consumers.
• The proceedings highlight the FCA's willingness to bring enforcement action against cryptoasset firms providing services to UK consumers.
• We discuss the key purposes the FCA's action is intended to serve.

FCA enforcement action

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published a press release on 10 February 2026 confirming that it has begun legal proceedings against global crypto exchange HTX (formerly Huobi) for illegally promoting cryptoasset services to UK customers. 

The FCA commenced proceedings on 21 October 2025 and received permission from the High Court on 4 February 2026 to serve the proceedings out of the jurisdiction by alternative means.

Since 8 October 2023, advertising cryptoassets on social media or websites to UK consumers without complying with rules on financial promotions under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) has been a criminal offence.  Many firms that the FCA has engaged with have reacted positively and comply with the financial promotion regime.  However, HTX continued to illegally promote its services to UK consumers in breach of FSMA. 

HTX has since restricted access to existing UK users and prevents new UK consumers registering for an account following the issuance of proceedings by the FCA, although the FCA has no assurance that the changes will be permanent and remains concerned that there will be ongoing breaches.  HTX has been added to the FCA's Warning List, and the FCA has been liaising with social media companies to block HTX's social media accounts to UK-based consumers and has requested its apps be removed from the UK Google Play and Apple app stores in the UK. 

Information on the proceedings is available on the FCA website.

Our comments

Overall, the proceedings highlight the FCA's willingness to bring enforcement action against cryptoasset firms providing services to UK consumers.  However, given that HTX is an overseas firm, it is unlikely that the FCA will be able to enforce any ruling against it.  Nevertheless, the FCA will view the action as serving a useful purpose.

Firstly, the proceedings raise consumer awareness. The publicity surrounding enforcement action of this nature assists in alerting UK consumers to the risks associated with using unregistered or non-compliant cryptoasset platforms, thereby supporting the FCA's consumer protection objective and encouraging consumers to verify whether firms appear on the FCA's Warning List before engaging with their services.

Secondly, the action serves as a significant deterrent to other overseas cryptoasset firms that may be considering offering services to UK consumers without complying with the financial promotions regime under FSMA. By demonstrating its willingness to pursue enforcement proceedings even where practical enforcement of any resulting order may be challenging, the FCA sends a clear signal that non-compliance will not be overlooked simply because a firm is domiciled outside the UK.

Finally, having a court judgment against the firm enhances the FCA's ability to work with third-party intermediaries, including social media platforms, app store providers, and payment service providers, to restrict the reach of non-compliant firms. The existence of a court decision strengthens the FCA's position when requesting that such intermediaries take steps to limit access to the offending firm's services within the UK.