The new office will provide an ideal environment for collaboration and growth, further embedding the firm within Oxford’s innovation community. Mishcon de Reya has longstanding connections across Oxfordshire and works closely with businesses, universities, research institutions and investors throughout the region.

The Oxford team advises emerging companies, spinouts and investors across life sciences, deep tech, green/clean tech, AI and other technology sectors. The firm works with IP and data rich companies and supports businesses throughout their lifecycle, from early-stage investment through to scaleup and maturity. Its work spans corporate and commercial matters, technology transfer, intellectual property strategy, life sciences and defence and dual use technology.

Nicola McConville, Partner at Mishcon de Reya, said: “Our relocation to Oxford North reflects the scale and maturity of the Oxford innovation ecosystem and the evolving needs of clients who have worked with us for many years. We are seeing rapid transformation across the Innovation Economy, and clients want advisors who combine sector knowledge, practical experience and a clear understanding of the commercial pressures they face. The new space allows us to bring our teams together more effectively and continue delivering the joined‑up advice that Oxford’s founders and investors expect.”

The relocation reinforces the firm’s position across the Golden Triangle, complementing the teams in London and Cambridge and connecting clients to international markets through its offices in Hong Kong, Singapore and the UAE.

Lucida Medical’s technology uses patented artificial intelligence to assist clinicians in interpreting prostate MRI scans with greater speed and accuracy. The solution is already deployed across parts of the NHS, helping to strengthen diagnostic capacity at a time when radiology teams are experiencing sustained workforce pressures. With a national shortage of clinical radiologists, improving the efficiency of MRI interpretation has become essential in reducing delays and delivering better patient outcomes.

Proceeds from the Series A will be used to enhance Lucida Medical’s diagnostic solution and support its wider roll‑out across healthcare settings. By reducing scan analysis times from weeks to minutes, the company aims to lessen reliance on unnecessary procedures, ease pressure on clinical resources and improve patients’ experience during a particularly sensitive stage of their care.

Chris Keen, Partner at Mishcon de Reya and relationship lead on the matter, commented: “Lucida Medical is making amazing progress in bringing AI innovation into frontline clinical practice. Their work has the potential to materially improve cancer diagnosis in the UK, and ultimately to save lives. We are pleased to have supported the team since the inception of the business in 2020, through this milestone Series A fundraise."

Business rates are often treated as an occupier concern, but they can shape development decisions just as strongly. Proposed reforms could influence what gets built, particularly in mixed‑use areas.

If larger retail and leisure occupiers come under increased business rates pressure, mixed‑use schemes may become harder to deliver and more limited in scope. This risks discouraging the vibrant, varied places the UK needs in favour of simpler schemes that are quickest to make viable.

Read the full article (subscription required).

In this episode of Oxford+, host Susannah de Jager speaks with Dr Holly Reeve, co-founder and CEO of HydRegen, an Oxford spin-out replacing precious metals in chemical manufacturing with bio-based enzyme catalysts. Holly shares her journey from a farm in rural England to leading a 15-person deep tech company now preparing for manufacturing and raising a Series A. 

With the global biocatalysis market projected to more than double to USD 10.2 billion by 2033, HydRegen is positioned at the forefront of a sector gaining serious momentum. Holly discusses how she developed leadership skills during her PhD, why the shift from academic to commercial mindset is so difficult, and how she balances curiosity with execution. She also speaks candidly about the challenges of fundraising as a female founder in a sector where women-led deep tech startups still receive only 15% of seed funding. 

A disclosure by the ICO made - ironically enough, under FOIA - suggests so. It proposes a “suite of provisions” which would have the effect of “reducing the impact of requests on [public authorities] and the ICO”. Among the proposals floated (which, it should be noted, would need primary legislation to effect) are:

• restricting the right to make requests to UK residents
• making requesters have to provide a physical address
• making requesters have to provide ID to make a request
• limiting the number of requests a person can make to an individual authority 
• allowing individuals (and not just requests) to be labelled “vexatious”
• allowing public authorities to refuse requests when they are not in the public interest (alternatively, allowing the ICO to decline to investigate complaints where the initial requests were not in the public interest)
• removing the right to appeal to the First-tier tribunal (so a challenge to the ICO could only be on a point of law, rather than on merits)

There are some proposed minor crumbs of comfort for the public, such as statutory time limits for internal reviews, and giving the ICO increased powers to audit authorities’ compliance, but the thrust is unavoidably towards limiting the public’s rights.

The proposals are contained in a note of a discussion (the implication is that this was an internal ICO discussion) that took place in March. The note is from an ICO policy adviser, to Warren Seddon, the Director of FOI and Transparency. 

Remarkably, these proposals appear to have have been developed on the ICO’s initiative. In response to enquiries, an ICO spokesperson explained that the proposals were simply an internal sharing of ideas. An ICO spokesperson said:

"Over the past year, there has been a sharp rise in FOI related complaints. FOI practitioners have told us clearly that the rise in request numbers is changing the reality of their work. They are seeing higher volumes of requests, a greater complexity of request, and more cases that need careful clarification before they can be processed.

“Our aim is to support and maintain effective access to information for everyone, all the while making sure FOI services remain workable and resilient, and we are regularly in touch with government to support this aim."

Whilst it is commonly accepted that numbers of FOIA requests have steadily increased - statistics from government suggest that last year saw a 14% increase in requests to central government - and responding to them inevitably requires resource, there is a strong argument that regular use of FOIA is actually the mark of a mature democracy, an engaged public and a transparent society.

But another question arises: it’s far from clear that it is the ICO’s role to propose legal changes to FOIA. The Act itself tasks the ICO with regulating, and with promoting good practice, but nothing expressly provides that the ICO should consider measures to restrict rights under the Act. The ICO did not response to a specific question about this point.

This firm spoke to Maurice Frankel, Director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, and one the main drivers of FOIA when it was enacted. He said:

"This feels more like the result of a brainstorming session than a shortlist of considered proposals. But some of its suggestions would undoubtedly weaken the FOI system. The ICO wants the power to refuse to investigate complaints where there is little public interest in the information. This would allow it to refuse to act on a complaint involving a private interest even if it addresses a serious threat, such as unfair dismissal or nuisance from a nearby property. Such requests could eventually be squeezed out of the FOI system altogether. Several of the proposals would probably have only have a minor impact on request numbers but add to officials’ workload."

Perhaps the most concerning aspect of this is the lack of transparency: if there are to be proposals to restrict the public’s right to know, they should be developed and debated openly. And consider this - without FOIA, would the public even know that the ICO had been engaged in this exercise?

Seeking a more creative path, the sisters began baking together at night, experimenting for months until they created their signature Biskie – a biscuit‑cookie‑cake hybrid that quickly gained a following and led to listings with Selfridges and Harrods. They opened their Soho flagship in 2015, and the business has since evolved into a digital‑first, food‑tech brand delivering the “Soho experience” nationwide while staying true to its all‑natural ethos. 

Cutter & Squidge is now a recognised self‑funded success story, featuring in The Times 100 Fastest Growing Companies (2023) and winning British Baker’s Online Bakery Brand of the Year (2024). With notable collaborations and regular “Best of” features in Good Housekeeping, Annabel and Emily continue to lead the business, championing creativity, sustainability and joyful, natural baking. 

• One year on from the introduction of the revised model form Freezing Order, ambiguities remain that merit further consideration
• In particular, the Babanaft proviso continues to employ language that does not bear its ostensible meaning, and the legal expenses exception creates uncertainty in multi-jurisdictional fraud cases
• Further revision of the model form would ensure that respondents and third parties can readily understand their obligations and potential liabilities, and avoid satellite litigation
• Until then, practitioners should ensure that recipients of freezing orders are clearly apprised of potential liabilities that may not be apparent from the wording of the order itself

The Babanaft problem

The Babanaft proviso, a longstanding feature of freezing orders, provides that a freezing order "does not affect or concern anyone outside the jurisdiction" of the English court.  On its face, this language appears to offer blanket protection to foreign third parties. However, the true position is more nuanced and could leave such parties exposed.

The Court of Appeal in Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su [2025] EWCA Civ 1389 confirmed that the Babanaft proviso limits only the court's contempt jurisdiction, and not the broader reach of civil liability, and held that the Supreme Court's decision in JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov (No 14) [2018] UKSC 19 constituted binding authority for the proposition that the Babanaft proviso affords no defence to civil claims in conspiracy, where third parties have facilitated breaches of freezing orders. Therefore, whilst foreign non-parties are shielded from penal sanctions, they remain exposed to civil claims.

It is notable that the first instance judge in Lakatamia reached the opposite view. If even experienced members of the judiciary can construe the proviso as conferring blanket protection, it is difficult to see how foreign third parties, particularly those with no familiarity with English law, could reasonably be expected to appreciate the distinction.

There is a strong case for amending the model form to make the limitations of the Babanaft protection clear on its face, so that foreign third parties can properly understand the scope of their potential exposure. The alternatives are for practitioners to seek an amendment to the proviso on a case-by-case basis, or to ensure that when serving the order on foreign third parties, the accompanying correspondence expressly addresses the scope of potential liability. However, neither alternative is wholly satisfactory, primarily because both depend on individual approaches and leave scope for inconsistency. The better course is to amend the model form itself, so that the position is clear on the face of every freezing order, without the need for supplementary explanation. After all, there is a clear imperative to limit ambiguity in these types of orders.

Asset Disclosure: a qualified success

The revised model form has been more successful in providing clarity in the area of asset disclosure. It now clarifies that the 'value' of an asset means the "market value (ignoring charges or other security)", with details of charges to be disclosed separately. This follows the Court of Appeal decision in ADM International SARL v Grain House International SA & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 33 in which Lord Justice Popplewell had highlighted that "as a matter of ordinary language, reference simply to the value of real property would normally be understood to mean market value". This is a sensible amendment that strikes an appropriate balance: it reflects how ordinary respondents naturally think of value, whilst the separate disclosure of charges ensures that claimants retain the information necessary to assess the true enforcement value of the asset. In that respect, it represents a genuine improvement in both clarity and practical utility.

Notwithstanding that improvement, there remain practical questions on which the model form could usefully provide greater clarity. In particular, it should clarify the timeframe within which disclosed values should be assessed (a point which is currently ambiguous in volatile asset markets like cryptocurrency) and specify whether respondents must update their asset disclosure if values materially change during the life of the order. Addressing these points would reduce the scope for misunderstanding and satellite litigation, and ensure that freezing orders remain an effective tool in increasingly complex and fast-moving asset markets.

Legal expenses: an unresolved ambiguity

A further area in which the revised model form could provide greater clarity concerns legal expenses. The new model order provides that the exception for legal expenses can be limited to those "relating to the proceedings". But in large civil fraud cases, it is not unusual to see proceedings commenced in multiple jurisdictions, often by the claimant with the benefit of a freezing order. The question of whether expenses incurred in connected foreign proceedings fall within the exception is one that respondents need to be able to answer with confidence.

As matters stand, the optional language (limiting the exception to legal expenses "related to the proceedings") when read with the accompanying footnote, leaves it highly questionable as to whether connected proceedings would fall within the exception. This ambiguity creates a trap for defendants and uncertainty for practitioners, with some forced to choose between defending themselves properly across connected proceedings or risking contempt. Clarification of this point – whether in the model form itself or in accompanying guidance – is needed to ensure that respondents can ascertain the scope of the exception without recourse to satellite litigation.

Conclusion

The revised model form freezing order was introduced as part of the project to simplify CPR 25, which in turn formed part of the CPR Committee's wider simplification programme. That project is committed to making the CPR as clear, simple and concise as possible. Nowhere is the need for clarity more critical than in the body of the model form for what is widely described as one of the most draconian orders available. Whether it falls within the remit of the existing programme, or as a separate project, there is a clear case for review. The ambiguities around the Babanaft proviso appear to be particularly problematic; respondents and foreign third parties cannot reasonably be expected to understand their position when the model form states words that do not bear their ostensible meaning. The proviso should be amended to clarify that it applies only to contempt proceedings, not tortious liability. Coupled with clarification on multi-jurisdictional legal expenses and asset disclosure, these changes would prevent costly satellite litigation and restore proper balance between enforcement and procedural fairness.

The facts

This claim arose out of the breakdown of the relationship between the three directors and shareholders of Lux Films Ltd ("Lux"), a small UK media production company specialising in video content. Lux was incorporated in February 2016, and its three issued shares were always held in equal proportions by three individuals: Gareth Lowndes, Mark Woodhead and Andrew Fowler ("AF"). All three had worked together on a freelance basis for a large client, Herbalife, between 2008 and 2016.

The parties' respective roles within Lux were broadly delineated: Mr Lowndes focused on filming, Mr Woodhead on directing and production, and AF on video editing. Over time, AF became increasingly office-based and assumed primary responsibility for Lux's day-to-day administration, including liaising with clients, managing schedules, coordinating freelancers, overseeing post-production workflows, maintaining access to Lux's digital systems, and dealing with accountants and other external advisers.

As Lux's business developed, it moved beyond an informal, freelance-based operation and invested in physical premises, personnel, equipment and training. From February 2022, Mr Lowndes, Mr Woodhead and AF became full-time employees of Lux, each receiving a salary and pension contributions, consistent with Lux's evolution into a more structured and established business.

Relations between the directors deteriorated in early 2023. In March 2023 AF indicated that he wished to exit the business. Discussions between the parties continued over the ensuing months, including a threat from AF to launch an unfair prejudice petition, but did not result in any agreed exit or restructuring. AF then began to undertake work independently of Lux through Andrew Fowler Media Ltd ("AFML", the Second Defendant) whilst still remaining as a director, shareholder and employee of Lux.

AF is the sole director and shareholder of AFML, a company which trades as "Rotate Films". AFML operated in the same market as Lux and provided video production services to commercial clients.

Lux's case was that, while still occupying those positions, AF acted in breach of his duties to Lux. In particular, Lux alleged that AF diverted business opportunities away from Lux to AFML, using confidential information obtained by virtue of his position as director and employee. It was alleged that AFML serviced Lux's clients, advertised for work which Lux could have undertaken, and presented itself to the market in a way which drew on Lux's goodwill, including by using Lux's testimonials with Lux's name replaced.

The evidence of AF's conduct was damning. There was direct documentary evidence in which AF acknowledged, in terms, that diverting business away from Lux while he remained a director was improper. In a contemporaneous message, AF described his conduct in "taking business away from Lux" as "a bit naughty" in light of his status as a director, albeit adding that it might be "hard to prove". There were also texts from March 2023 in which AF referred to advice from his accountant to liquidate Lux and spoke of trying to "bag the lot" of Lux's clients as a result.

Interim injunctive relief was sought and granted, including an order to provide certain evidence. Evidence provided by AF showed that AFML had generated in excess of £450,000 plus VAT in gross revenue between February 2023 and September 2024 from work undertaken for a number of businesses. Shortly thereafter, AF gave seven days' notice of resignation as a director and employee of Lux, effective from 26 September 2024.

A fly in the ointment occurred mere days before trial commenced. On 18 March 2026 AFML entered voluntary liquidation, and on 20 March 2026 a bankruptcy order was made against AF. No advance notice of the impending insolvencies was given to Lux, and Lux first learned of them on or about 16 March 2026, at a time when trial preparation was substantially complete and significant costs had been incurred. The Court nonetheless proceeded to trial, concluding that there was a clear advantage to the insolvency proceedings if the court resolved the issue of the Defendants' liabilities, and that it was in the interests of justice and in accordance with the overriding objective for the trial to proceed. AF appeared to have proceeded on the mistaken assumption that insolvency would result in an automatic stay of proceedings.

The law of unlawful means conspiracy:

The cause of action and the key legal issue

The tort of unlawful means conspiracy requires: (i) a combination or agreement between two or more persons; (ii) concerted action pursuant to that combination; (iii) the use of unlawful means; and (iv) loss caused to the claimant, with the requisite intention to injure.

AFML argued that it could not conspire with AF because a sole director and his company cannot form a conspiracy. The central legal issue was, therefore, whether, as a matter of law, a sole director and shareholder can conspire with his own company, or whether such a claim is barred on the basis that there cannot be a combination or agreement between legally distinct actors who are effectively the same mind.

The criminal law analogy (and why it fails in civil proceedings)

AFML's argument drew support by analogy from criminal conspiracy, where it has been held that a sole controller and his company cannot conspire because conspiracy requires an agreement between two independent minds. The rationale is that there can be no agreement to conspire where the conspirators are essentially the same person and the same mind.

The Criminal Law Act 1977 re-codified and rationalised the law of criminal conspiracy. Section 1 creates a statutory offence and provides that a person is guilty of conspiracy if he agrees with one or more other persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which, if carried out in accordance with their intentions, will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of a criminal offence. As Sweeting J observed, "the essence of the offence under the [Criminal Law Act 1977] is therefore the agreement itself, not the causing of harm or loss. Criminal liability attaches even if the agreed offence is never committed." The Act is "not concerned with compensation for loss". The criminal statute did not codify the civil law, and was applied against very different procedural and evidential rules.

The controversy in the authorities

There has been considerable controversy in cases considering the civil tort of unlawful means conspiracy. Several first instance authorities have established that a director can conspire with a company that is his alter ego; however, those cases have concerned companies with two or more directors. The position has been unclear where the director is the sole controller, with recent decisions going both ways and the leading textbooks expressing different views.

In AAH Pharmaceuticals v Birdi [2011] EWHC 1625 (QB), Coulson J emphasised the policy goal of consistency, stating by reference to the clear position under criminal law: "a result that distinguishes between the criminal and civil jurisdictions in such a radical way is, in principle, unattractive". Less than a year later, in Barclay Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Waypharm LP [2012] EWHC 306 (Comm), Gloster J took the opposite view (albeit without having heard argument on the point).

The issue reached the Court of Appeal in Raja v McMillan [2021] EWCA Civ 1103, where Nugee LJ cited McDonnell and said at [56]: "Although a criminal case, it is not obvious why the same should not be true in a civil conspiracy". Nugee LJ went on to note that "there are arguments the other way" and declined to express a concluded view, leaving the point for determination at trial. A different policy approach had been taken in the Irish decision of Taylor v Smyth [1991] IR 142, where the Irish Supreme Court had no hesitation in holding that a director and sole controller could conspire with his company. The court found no reason in principle why a sole controller should obtain immunity from suit, and distinguished McDonnell on the simple basis that it was a criminal case.

It was against that backdrop that Sweeting J was required, for the first time following argument at trial, to determine the point.

The Judge's decision in this case

Sweeting J held clearly that the criminal law principle does not govern the position in civil conspiracy. The tort is concerned with the practical reality of concerted action by separate legal persons causing harm. Turning to the position in tort, the focus is on the damage caused by concerted action using unlawful means, not on the policy reasons which underlie the criminalisation of an agreement.

The authorities support the proposition that, in civil law, a company and its controlling individual may be capable of conspiring where the company is used as the instrument through which unlawful conduct is carried out. The corporate form cannot be deployed as a shield to defeat liability where it is itself part of the wrongful combination.

At [173], Sweeting J held: "The decisive question is whether there is evidence of concerted action between two legal persons, even if they are closely connected, rather than whether there are two independent psychological actors. Where a director acts in one capacity to procure unlawful conduct, and in another capacity causes the company to receive and exploit the fruits of that conduct, the requirement of combination is satisfied".

On the facts, the court had no difficulty. AF, acting in his personal capacity as director and employee of Lux, misused Lux's confidential information, breached his fiduciary and statutory duties, and diverted business opportunities away from Lux. AFML, acting through AF in his capacity as its director, entered into contracts with diverted clients, invoiced for and received payment, and exploited Lux's confidential information, goodwill and work product in the course of its business.

These were not merely unilateral acts. They were sequential and interlocking steps in a single scheme, whereby AF's breaches of duty supplied the unlawful means and AFML's conduct realised the gain. The loss to Lux was the inevitable counterpart of that gain. The fact that AF controlled AFML did not negate the existence of a combination; on the contrary, it explained how the combination operated effectively.

The "intention to injure" requirement

AFML contended that there was no intention to injure Lux. That submission was unsustainable. In an unlawful means conspiracy, an intention to injure is established where the defendants knew that injury to the claimant was the inevitable consequence of the course of conduct pursued for their own benefit. It is not necessary that harm to the claimant be the predominant purpose.

AFML's gain from the diverted business was inseparable from Lux's loss of that same business and opportunity. AFML could not obtain the benefit without Lux being deprived of it. The requisite intention was therefore made out.

The corporate veil point

AFML had also relied on the principle of individual corporate identity, pleading that AF's knowledge and conduct could not automatically be attributed to AFML. However, while the principle of separate corporate personality is well established, it did not assist AFML on the facts. AF was the sole director and shareholder of AFML and its directing mind. Where a company acts through a sole controlling individual who knowingly causes it to receive and exploit benefits derived from breaches of duty, that knowledge is properly attributable to the company. AFML could not shelter behind corporate form to avoid liability.

Conclusion

The court upheld the conspiracy claim, along with claims of breach of fiduciary duty and knowing receipt. The legal issue raised by AFML (that a sole director and his company cannot conspire together) does not defeat the conspiracy claim as a matter of civil law. Where a company is used as the vehicle through which unlawful acts are implemented and profits realised, and where those acts cause injury to a third party, the elements of unlawful means conspiracy are capable of being satisfied notwithstanding the unity of control.

Lux Films Ltd v Fowler & Another [2026] EWHC 963 (KB) is a significant decision for practitioners advising clients in director misconduct and breach of fiduciary duty disputes. It brings clarity on a point which has long been unsettled. As well as confirming that a sole controller will not be exempt from claims in tort, Sweeting J has also given important redefinition to the principles underpinning the tort: his judgment demonstrates that the civil and criminal branches of the law address different policy objectives and different mischiefs, and that the civil tort of unlawful means conspiracy is conceptually distinct from conspiracy under the Criminal Law Act 1977. It confirms that the use of a corporate vehicle to profit from misconduct is no safe harbour, and that the civil law of conspiracy will reach those who collude with their own companies to injure others, even where both the individual and the company are, in substance, one and the same mind.

Jessica was a pioneer and trusted portfolio manager for the wave of inward capital flows from Asian institutional clients from 2011. She built a multi-billion assets under management (AuM) business for Deutsche Bank, utilising her skills in business building, leadership and investment solutions. In 2023, she became the CEO of DWS UK, overseeing 500 staff and over €200bn AuM across Global Alternatives and Passive public market strategies.

As CEO and Co-Founder of Aboria Capital, her ambition is to create an innovative, leading vertically integrated partner for investors in the European Living sector market. In July 2024, Jessica became the President of the British Property Federation (BPF) and joined the board of INREV.

At a moment of significant global change, the UK’s role on the international stage is under renewed scrutiny. Jeremy Hunt will share his perspective on the strategic opportunities and challenges facing Britain, from European security and global trade to technological competition, migration and climate policy.

Drawing on his experience in government and themes from his newly published book, Can We Be Great Again?: Why a Dangerous World Needs Britain, he will explore where the UK can continue to exert influence, where its position is evolving, and what this means for businesses operating internationally.

We hope you can join us for what promises to be a thoughtful and practical discussion relevant to leaders navigating an increasingly complex geopolitical environment.

Partner Jonathan Mok has once again been recognised as a Litigation Star for Family and Matrimonial. The practice has also secured its first ranking in this category since the team joined the firm in October 2025, debuting in Tier 3, a notable milestone for the team.

Our Singapore International Arbitration practice has also maintained its Tier 2 ranking.

Learn more about the rankings

The most recent of these is the global public-private partnership on fraud, which emerged from the Global Fraud Summit held in Vienna in March 2026 with UNODC and INTERPOL, and has been entered into by ten UN Member States - including the UK, US, Australia, France, Japan and Singapore - alongside major private sector organisations including Meta, Google, Virgin Media O2, Amazon and the International Banking Federation. Structured around six core principles - shared responsibility, coordinated prevention, information sharing, victim support, innovation and education - it is a landmark initiative and a direct expression of the government's commitment. The parallel INTERPOL Global Taskforce (Operation Shadow Storm) combining the intelligence capabilities of 196 member countries to dismantle scam networks and freeze accounts, reinforces the ambition of this collective effort.

Yet for all this ambition, a critical gap persists.

The missing pillar: letting the private sector fund the fight and win back victims' losses

The six core principles of the public-private partnership reveal a clear pattern: the framework is almost entirely focused on prevention, detection and information sharing. Criminal disruption features through Operation Shadow Storm, and the government's domestic fraud strategy does acknowledge a role for enforcement via civil law claims - noting that "the Home Office is supporting law enforcement pilots focused on pursuing legal action against criminals and recovering money for victims through civil law by 2028" - but the detail is scant and the plans appear nascent. This is despite the fact that the private sector has been banging this drum for years. Ten years ago, in 2016, this firm partnered with the forward-thinking City of London Police and a global investigation and risk consulting firm to form a working group on this and to run a pilot case but the political will and appetite to do this at scale need to be reintroduced.

What is largely absent in this latest partnership framework is any structured mechanism for recovering assets on behalf of victims who have already suffered loss through the civil courts. Without recovery, justice is incomplete - and a larger cost of fighting fraud continues to fall on the public purse.

Asset recovery can be self-funding

This is where the calculus changes. Asset recovery is not only the right thing to do for victims, it is the strategically smart thing to do. Recoveries from one case can finance the next, with effective investigations generating stronger legal cases and higher prospects of further recoveries. Done well, the war on fraud pays for itself: a virtuous cycle of recovery, reinvestment and deterrence, driven by the private sector specialists with access to law enforcement's roster of cases and intelligence, at no cost to the taxpayer.

The goal must be to hit fraudsters where it truly hurts - in the pocket - depriving them of the proceeds of their crime and channelling those recoveries both to compensate victims and to fund further prevention and enforcement work.

Asset recovery and enforcement work through the civil courts is a direct route to achieving this. The toolkit available to experienced civil fraud practitioners is already there: worldwide freezing orders, disclosure orders against third parties, proprietary injunctions and cross-border enforcement mechanisms can, in the right cases, achieve outcomes that criminal enforcement cannot match in terms of speed and the effective return of funds to victims. A key benefit is the lower standard of proof: civil cases are determined on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt, making it considerably more straightforward to secure a financial judgment against a fraudster than a criminal conviction.

The missing partner

The UK's private sector community of civil fraud and asset recovery specialists - law firms, forensic accountants, private investigators and the evolving role of litigation funders and insurance providers - brings decades of experience tackling transnational fraud, alongside the skills, technology and capital to transform the fight. They are absent from the current partnership framework other than perhaps via in-house teams in big tech, telecoms and other such companies.

The solution

To make this work, we must overcome a stubborn reluctance to allow the private sector to share in recoveries or to be financially incentivised to win cases. The state can retain overall control of case selection with public interest oversight, and the state can control flow of information from law enforcement to private sector participants. Transparent fee structures can be put in place. But the solution is straightforward: the largest share of recovery goes to the victim, a share is set aside for the state to fund further prevention and recovery work, and a share goes to reimburse the private sector specialists who funded the action and made the recovery possible. A share of something is better for the victim than a hundred per cent of nothing. Until we embrace that principle, fraudsters will continue to profit - and billions will continue to be left on the table.

The law does not need changing. The moral imperative for meaningful action is long acknowledged. The Call to Action on Combating Fraud (endorsed at the same summit) includes commitments to "return the proceeds of organized fraud" and to establish procedures to "provide access to compensation and restitution for victims". That is precisely what private sector asset recovery specialists are equipped to deliver. What is now required is the ambition and vision to integrate those specialists into the partnership model and to recognise self-funded, victim-centred and privately driven recovery action through the civil courts as a critical pillar of the global response to fraud.

An 'investment scam' is a fraudulent scheme designed to steal the victim's money, often presented with little or no risk and very high returns. Common scams involve impersonating financial professionals to make the offer seem credible and convincing the victim to 'seize the opportunity' and invest quickly in order to make gains.  

According to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), reports of crypto investment frauds have more than doubled since 2020, with fraudsters seeking to exploit the often complex and largely unregulated nature of cryptocurrencies.

Crypto investment fraud is driven by cryptocurrency markets' characteristic and unique periods of extraordinary, highly publicised 'booms'. The so-called 'bull runs' of 2017 and 2020-2021, during which Bitcoin's price rose to nearly $69,000 and the media buzz around crypto wealth heightened, created an atmosphere of intense financial anxiety, fuelling a 'fear of missing out' which fraudsters were quick to capitalise on.

The regulatory response to the rise of crypto

The regulatory response to the 'crypto boom' has been incremental, partly due to a desire on the part of successive UK governments to position the UK as a global hub for crypto innovation and partly due to the difficulties involved in applying existing frameworks to an entirely novel type of asset.

For the majority of the past decade, cryptoassets such as Bitcoin and Ether did not come within the definition of 'specified investments' under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA). Therefore, in most cases, promoting or selling a cryptocurrency did not constitute a regulated activity, meaning fraudsters could operate with relative impunity.

In 2017, the government introduced a cryptoasset registration regime under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, requiring firms hosting crypto exchanges or providing wallet services to register with the FCA for anti-money laundering purposes. Whilst the FCA has sought to apply strict requirements for registration, this did not mean those firms were subject to the same controls as full FCA authorisation, and there remained a significant gap between traditional financial instruments (such as bonds and shares) and cryptoassets.

In 2023, the Financial Promotions Regime was extended to cryptoassets, meaning promotions made to UK consumers became subject to the same rules which govern the promotion of other regulated financial products under Section 21 of FSMA.

Nevertheless, there remain legal and practical difficulties in the FCA policing activities which are often carried out by entities based overseas, often in poorly regulated jurisdictions.

How will cryptocurrencies be regulated in the future?

The position substantially changed with the introduction of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, which will bring certain 'qualifying crypto assets' within the regulatory perimeter of FSMA.  This was followed in December 2025 by the publication of the FCA's proposals for UK cryptoasset rules.  Although not yet fully implemented, activities relating to the issuance, trading and promotion of these 'qualifying crypto assets' will be subject to the FCA's oversight and require authorisation in the same way as more conventional financial instruments.

It is hoped that this extension of the regulatory perimeter will help in the prevention of investment fraud, moreover, the Act's provisions on market abuse will provide more tools to address the 'pump and dump' schemes and wash trading that have been so endemic in the dark corners of the crypto market.

However, the global nature of the crypto world means the regulatory landscape is often described as 'patchwork'. It is not unusual for victims of crypto investment fraud to discover that the platform through which they were defrauded is entirely unregulated, thereby significantly limiting the recourse available to them. For the time being, the financial promotions regime, the AML registration requirement, and the general criminal law continue to constitute the primary defence against crypto investment fraud, provided that UK consumers ensure that they only deal with registered exchanges.

• In February this year, the Government announced plans to consult on a ban on the sponsorship of sports clubs by unlicensed operators.
• It is expected that the consultation will be launched imminently.
• This article examines the current legal position and context for the Government’s concerns, which gambling operators and sports clubs should be aware of before responding to that consultation. 

The Gambling White Paper

In April 2023, the then Government published its white paper, High Stakes: Gambling Reform for the Digital Age, which set out proposals for reforming the regulatory framework underpinning the Gambling Act 2005 and suggested various further reforms including regarding gambling advertising.

It recognised the amount of sponsorship revenue that comes from gambling operators, and the potentially serious financial impact – particularly for sports and leagues outside the Premier League – if gambling sponsorship were to be restricted or prohibited. In doing so, it also set clear expectations that a Code of Conduct should be adopted by sports governing bodies in relation to gambling sponsorship (which was already in development at the time of the white paper), and recognised the then newly-announced agreement by the Premier League to ban front-of-shirt gambling logos. In light of these voluntary steps by the sports and gambling sectors, the Government stopped short of proposing any legal restrictions on sports sponsorship.

The Premier League shirt-front ban and new Codes of Conduct

In April 2023, Premier League clubs collectively agreed to withdraw gambling sponsorship from the front of matchday shirts. The voluntary ban will take effect from the end of the 2025/26 season, and follows an extensive consultation involving the league, its clubs, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Gambling brands will still be permitted to appear on sleeves, in stadia, and as official partners.

In 2024, the Betting and Gaming Council developed a cross-industry voluntary Code of Conduct for gambling sponsorship deals, working alongside national sports governing bodies and leagues, including the Premier League, the English Football League, The FA, the Women's Super League, the Rugby Football League, the British Horseracing Authority, and official bodies representing darts, snooker and boxing. See our previous article on complying with the Code.

Sponsorship by unlicensed operators – the current position

What does the law say?

Put simply, the relevant provisions of the Gambling Act 2005 (as amended) are as follows:

• section 33 provides that it is a criminal offence to “provide facilities for gambling” to persons located in Great Britain without holding an operating licence issued by the Gambling Commission.
• section 330 prohibits the advertising of unlawful gambling, in particular gambling facilities where the relevant operator does not hold a licence from the Gambling Commission, and is committing the section 33 offence by offering its facilities to consumers in Great Britain.

A person charged with an offence under section 330 shall (depending on the specific activity) have a defence if the relevant person “reasonably believed that the advertised gambling was lawful”, or otherwise shall only have committed the offence if “he knows or should know that the advertised gambling is unlawful”. Similarly, the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014 came into force in May 2014, and made provisions relating to the application of the law to remote gambling; in particular, it introduced section 36(3A), which clarified that a person shall only commit the section 33 offence if they “know or should know that the facilities are being used, or are likely to be used, in Great Britain". 

These provisions mean, broadly, that if a club has confidence in an unlicensed operator’s geo-blocking measures, no offence will be committed under section 330.

Following the passing of the 2014 Act, however, the Commission’s then director, Nick Tofiluk, wrote to sports governing bodies warning about the dangers of sponsorship deals with unlicensed gambling companies, and the risk of liability under section 330 ‘if they do not ensure that the remote gambling activity is actually blocked to consumers in Great Britain’. The Commission has consistently expressed doubt about whether geo-blocking measures are effective – a position it maintains in the current guidance on its website.

The warnings and doubts expressed by the Commission have led to a large number of sports clubs striking deals either with licensed operators, or with ‘white label’ brands (i.e. brands owned by gambling operators that do not hold their own UK licence, but who enter into arrangements with licensed operators in order for the brand to be operated in the UK).

Recent developments

 In early 2025, TGP Europe exited from the UK market (following an investigation by the Gambling Commission and a subsequent fine of £3.3 million for breaches of its licence conditions). TGP was a prominent licensed operator that operated several ‘white label’ brands under its licence, including Stake.com. As several of TGP’s brands had sponsorship deals with sports teams, its exit meant that several major teams had deals with brands that no longer benefited from a white label arrangement in the UK (and were therefore, now, unlicensed). 

This shift brought the issue of unlicensed sponsors to the fore, and both the Gambling Commission and Government have expressed concern with what they see as a regulatory ‘loophole’ that exposes UK customers to unlicensed websites.

In February 2025, the Gambling Commission published guidance on its website stating that “the Commission will seek assurance from clubs that they have carried out due diligence on their gambling partners and that consumers in Great Britain cannot transact with the unlicensed websites" and that “It is essential that any organisation contracting with brands that do not hold a Gambling Commission licence manage their exposure to risk. This includes satisfying themselves as to the source of the funds for the arrangement.” Following this, in May 2025, the Gambling Commission wrote to certain of the affected clubs (AFC Bournemouth, Fulham, Newcastle United, Wolverhampton Wanderers and Burnley), warning of the risks of promoting unlicensed gambling websites. The letter warned that club officers could face prosecution - and, if convicted, a fine, imprisonment, or both - if they promoted unlicensed gambling operators that were transacting with consumers in Great Britain, largely repeating its warnings from 2014. The Gambling Commission also made clear that it would carry out checks without notice to verify that the sites remained blocked to UK consumers, and would conduct ongoing spot checks to ensure they were not accessible by any means.

While it has taken a robust stance in suggesting what kind of due diligence sports clubs should carry out, the Commission does not have regulatory remit over sports clubs. It does, however, have the ability to prosecute the section 330 offence, and so the risk to sports clubs of committing an offence is real if their unlicensed sponsors do not properly geo-block UK customers.

Planned consultation

On 23 February 2026, the Government announced a consultation on prohibiting unlicensed gambling operators from sponsoring British sports teams altogether. This would mean that only gambling operators licensed by the Gambling Commission would be permitted to sponsor a British sports team. The consultation is expected to be launched in Spring 2026.

While the Government notes that “Clubs are currently not acting unlawfully in maintaining these sponsorship arrangements as long as the gambling operators are not accessible to UK consumers”, its concern is that brand visibility through sport sponsorship could drive consumers towards sites operating outside the Commission's regulatory protections. This forms part of a wider effort by Government and the Gambling Commission to tackle the growth of the black market in the UK.

A newly established Illegal Gambling Taskforce has also been set up to prevent unlicensed operators from advertising on social media, block payments to unlicensed operators, and strengthen cross-agency collaboration.

What this means for gambling operators

The consultation has not yet been launched, but is expected imminently. It is not clear how long the consultation will last, nor how long the Government will take to review responses and publish their conclusions. If the Government does decide to go ahead with the ban, it is likely that this will require the creation of a new statutory offence (or amendment of the current offence under section 330 of the Gambling Act). This will require parliamentary time - meaning the potential timing for a ban becomes even less clear.

Licensed operators and sports clubs should, however, be reviewing their existing sponsorship agreements carefully to understand how changes in the law are managed, and what happens to commercial arrangements - including fees and termination rights - if the legal position changes.

Finally: we always recommend that affected parties engage with consultations and take the time to submit a considered response, as they are often the only way for affected parties to be heard and evidence considered. Post-consultation, there are very limited options to have any impact on the decision taken by government, or the legislative process.

How Mishcon de Reya can help

If you would like to discuss further or need any advice, please do not hesitate to reach out to our Betting & Gaming team.

• As of 6 April 2025, the UK's non-domicile framework has been abolished and replaced by the Foreign Income and Gains (FIG) Regime, a residence-based system with significant implications for anyone considering a move to the UK.
• Newly arriving individuals who have not been UK resident in any of the preceding 10 tax years may be eligible for up to four years of full relief on foreign income and gains, a potentially compelling window of opportunity for internationally mobile individuals.
• The regime requires active management: relief is not automatic, claims must be made annually via self-assessment, and there are trade-offs to consider including the loss of the income tax personal allowance and the capital gains tax annual exempt amount.
• Former remittance basis users should also be aware of the Temporary Repatriation Facility, which runs until April 2028 and offers a reduced tax rate of 12–15% on historical offshore income and gains brought within its scope.

What is the FIG Regime?

From 6 April 2025, the UK's tax treatment of individuals moving to the UK from overseas fundamentally changed. The non-domicile framework, under which an individual's domicile status determined their exposure to UK tax on foreign income and gains, has now been replaced by the Foreign Income and Gains regime (the FIG Regime), a residence-based model that applies regardless of domicile. For internationally mobile individuals considering UK residence, understanding how this regime works is essential.

Who qualifies for FIG relief?

Eligibility turns primarily on residence history. An individual must not have been UK resident in any of the 10 consecutive tax years before their arrival. If that condition is satisfied and the individual becomes UK resident under the Statutory Residence Test, they may claim relief on all qualifying foreign income and gains arising during their first four tax years of UK residence.

The years are consecutive not cumulative i.e. if an individual makes a claim in year 1, then does not make a claim in year 2, they can make claims in year 3 and year 4 but not in year 5. Once the first four years of residence have elapsed they can no longer make a FIG claim, even if they did not claim in all four years.

After those four years, the FIG Regime falls away. The individual moves onto the arising basis, under which worldwide income and gains are brought within the scope of UK tax at the time they arise, irrespective of whether the funds are ever remitted to the UK.

Making a claim under the FIG Regime

A claim under the FIG Regime does not arise automatically, individuals who wish to benefit must make an election within their self-assessment return for each relevant tax year. There is considerable flexibility in how this works in practice. A claimant is under no obligation to elect in every year of eligibility; elections may be made selectively, year by year. The claim does need not extend to all categories of foreign income and gains and it may be limited to income alone, gains alone, or individual sources. This can be a valuable consideration where claiming relief in the UK might have knock-on consequences for how that income or gain is treated for tax purposes overseas.

Claims must be submitted no later than 31 January falling in the second tax year after the relevant tax year so, for example, a claim relating to 2026/27 must be filed by 31 January 2029.

The trade-off for claiming under the FIG Regime is the loss of the income tax personal allowance (£12,570 for 2026/27) and the capital gains tax annual exempt amount (£3,000 for 2026/27).

The Temporary Repatriation Facility

The Finance Act 2025 also introduced the Temporary Repatriation Facility (TRF), which runs alongside the FIG Regime for three tax years: 2025/26, 2026/27, and 2027/28. It is aimed at former remittance basis users who hold pre-6 April 2025 foreign income or gains offshore and who wish to benefit at a reduced rate of tax. The rates are as follows:

• 12% for 2025/26 and 2026/27; and
• 15% for 2027/28.

An individual may identify the historical foreign income or gains they wish to bring within the TRF, designate those amounts in their self-assessment return, and pay the TRF charge on designation. The designated funds can subsequently be remitted to the UK (including after the end of the TRF period) without any further tax charge.

Thinking of moving to the UK?

Four years of relief on foreign income and gains (and potentially 9 years of generally favourable tax treatment) is an attractive prospect for any internationally mobile individual, but it requires planning from the outset.

How we can help

If you are considering a move to the UK or have recently arrived and want to understand how the FIG Regime applies to your circumstances, please get in contact with our Private Wealth & Tax team who would be pleased to assist.

George's artwork brings together illustration, machinery and AI, and has universal appeal across sectors, whether through collaborations with Fatboy Slim, public work at Brighton & Hove Football Club’s Amex Stadium, Williams Racing, or private commissions that are equally utopian and dystopian.

He met with Partner in Mishcon Private, Amanda Gray, to discuss  how his system‑based artistic style has evolved, how technology and collaboration extend his work, and how he is developing an artist‑led, legally grounded approach to using AI in creativity.

Your work has a very distinct style, fusing technical drawing, architecture, machinery and moving elements. Tell us more about how it has evolved. What inspires you? 

My work has always been about understanding how things function beneath the surface, not just visually, but structurally and emotionally. 

I was drawn early on to the great narrative engineers, Heath Robinson and Rube Goldberg, as well as architecture, diagrams and systems thinking. I love the idea that you can take something complex, a stadium, a brand, a cultural moment, and express it as a single, connected visual. 

Over time, that’s evolved into what I now think of as engineered artworks, pieces that bring together people, place, process and energy into one cohesive system. 

“I’m not just creating artwork, I’m building systems around it that can live, evolve and generate value over time.” 

That approach has taken me into some incredible environments, from being commissioned by Wimbledon, to working as an artist around the Paris 2024 Olympic Games with Team GB, through to installations for global brands and private clients. Most recently, I’ve been developing a full artistic identity for a hotel in the Alps, creating a body of work that lives across an entire space. 

The style has refined, but the principle hasn’t changed: everything is connected. And if you can draw those connections clearly, the story becomes both engaging and meaningful. 

If we look at examples of your work, they combine quite traditional drawing with new technology. Explain the genesis of using Artivive and modern technology. 

Everything starts by hand. The drawing is always the foundation, understanding the subject, building the system, and making sure it stands on its own. 

The move into digital layers came naturally. As the work became more detailed, it felt like there were additional stories, movement, sound and moments, sitting just beneath the surface that couldn’t be fully expressed in a static format. 

Using tools like Artivive allowed me to extend the artwork without compromising it. The technology sits over the piece, unlocking another layer, whether that’s motion, interaction or narrative. 

Importantly, it’s never about the technology itself. It’s about deepening the connection. 

From a commercial perspective, it also means the same artwork can operate across multiple environments, physical, digital and experiential, opening up entirely different ways for audiences and brands to engage with it. 

Tell us about your work with Fatboy Slim.

Working with Fatboy Slim came from a shared connection to Brighton and a wider series I’ve been developing around the city, spanning football, theatre, music, culture and the South Downs. 

We met for a coffee and began talking about creating a visual backdrop to his sets. One of the challenges was that the level of detail in my work doesn’t naturally translate to large-scale digital screens, a lot of the nuance gets lost, so we parked that idea, but stayed in touch. 

In his typically modest way, when a coffee brand approached him for a collaboration, he brought me into the conversation. That led to artwork for the product, which then extended into prints and a wider body of work. 

From there, it evolved further, integrating augmented reality so the artwork comes to life through his music, with the visual system and sound working together. 

It’s become an ongoing creative relationship and friendship. In fact, I’ve recently borrowed one of his original valve amplifiers as inspiration for a new piece exploring the mechanics of culture, a natural continuation of that shared space. 

Why do you think your work fits so well with multiple genres of sport, culture and fashion? 

I think it’s because I’m not really drawing a subject, I’m drawing a system. 

Whether it’s a football club, a musician, a brand or a cultural moment, they all share a similar underlying structure: people, history, energy and output. The visual language shifts, but the framework stays the same. 

“Whether it’s sport, music or brand, I’m drawing the system behind the story, that’s why the work translates.” 

That allows the work to move naturally across different worlds. Sport becomes performance and fan culture. Music becomes rhythm and shared experience. Fashion becomes identity and craft. Fundamentally, though, they’re all ecosystems. 

Because the work is built with depth, it can operate on multiple levels, visually engaging, but also able to live across campaigns, environments and long-term storytelling. 

That balance between aesthetic and function is what gives it range. 

AI is shunned and embraced by artists in equal measure. What is your view, and why do you not perceive it as a threat? 

I understand both sides. AI raises real questions around authorship, ownership and value, and those concerns are valid. 

But I don’t see it as a threat in itself. Like most technologies, it’s a tool, and its impact depends on how it’s structured. 

For me, the opportunity lies in shifting the relationship. Rather than AI extracting from creative work without recognition, there’s potential for genuine collaboration, where original thinking and intellectual property remain central. 

That’s where my focus has developed, not replacing creation, but building frameworks around it. 

If approached properly, AI can unlock new forms of expression and new commercial models for artists. But that requires transparency, trust and clear structures around ownership and usage as the technology evolves. 

“The future of creativity isn’t AI replacing artists, it’s artists owning how AI works with them.” 

You are working on a safe space for artists to collaborate and use AI, explain how this works. We have been exploring and working with you on the legal protections and implications around this. 

The starting point was a very real concern, that a huge amount of creative work is currently being absorbed into AI systems without consent, control or return to the artist. 

So I began developing a platform to address that directly, something artist-led, but built with the structure needed to operate properly in the real world. 

At its core, it’s a controlled environment where artists can engage with AI on their own terms. Their work isn’t passively scraped; it’s actively contributed, protected and used within clearly defined parameters. 

That allows for a shift in how creative work is valued. An artist’s style, process and intellectual property become recognised as assets, with transparent usage, permission‑based access, and the ability to generate ongoing value through licensing or royalty models. 

The legal framework is fundamental. Without clarity around ownership, usage and rights, none of this holds. That’s why the legal work being done is so important, it gives the platform credibility, structure and trust from the outset. 

It’s still evolving, but it’s no longer just an idea, it’s something actively being built. There’s a genuine opportunity to shape how artists and AI interact in a way that feels fair, sustainable and commercially viable. 

What are you working on currently? 

There are several strands running in parallel at the moment. 

On the artwork side, I’m developing a major piece celebrating 125 years of Brighton & Hove Albion, building on existing work and expanding it so it can live across the club, its supporters and wider outputs, as well as an exhibition running through May I have two others in August and October.

There’s also ongoing work in sport and venue environments, alongside more personal pieces exploring the mechanics of culture, particularly through music and place. 

Running alongside all of this, and increasingly taking focus, is the development of the AI platform. 

That’s the element with real scale. It sits at the intersection of creativity, technology and ownership, and it’s beginning to open conversations beyond the traditional art world. 

What’s important now is building it in the right way, with the right thinking, experience and people involved early. 

“There’s a real opportunity here to shape something at the intersection of art, technology and ownership.” 

I’m very clear on my role, I bring the creative vision, an understanding of artists, and the ability to translate complex systems into something tangible. 

This now needs to be supported by people who understand how to take it further, through investment, structure and strategic guidance. 

The foundations are there, the direction is clear, and the opportunity is real. 

“The platform is being built, the next step is bringing the right people into it.” 

Find out more about George's work.

• The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, Liz Kendall, launched the Sovereign AI Fund on 16 April 2026.
• The announcement strikes important conversation for innovators, across three intersecting areas of practice: the UK's innovation and technology ecosystem, the venture capital landscape, and the immigration routes available to global AI talent.

What is Sovereign AI?

The purpose of the Sovereign AI Fund is to help more British AI companies start up, scale up and compete globally, whilst ensuring the UK has greater sovereign capability in what the Government regards as a crucial technology.

The Government's position is that AI is the most powerful technology of our lifetime, with the potential to transform every aspect of our lives, that it is critical to economic prosperity and non-negotiable for national security, and that the UK must therefore be an "AI maker, not just an AI taker."

Sovereign AI is presented as distinct from prior government initiatives because it is designed to combine the speed of venture capital with the strength of the nation state. It operates independently, with an investment committee making its own decisions free from political interference, and is intended to operate at the speed of a VC fund rather than the traditional pace of government.

What does this mean for UK innovation?

The UK's technology sector will be watching the Sovereign AI Fund closely. The Government has framed the initiative as an active mobilisation of state capability in support of AI development going beyond conventional grant funding or policy statements.

Sovereign AI has already made two direct investments, the first in Callosum described as a team building the AI infrastructure of the future with a second to be announced. It has also signed five "right of first refusal" deals with companies working across healthcare AI (including tackling Alzheimer's and Parkinson's), the defence and security sector, and AI agents that learn and improve continuously from real-world use.

Sovereign AI is also providing fully funded access to the UK's largest supercomputers, with several companies already on board and thirty more in the pipeline. Access to compute infrastructure has consistently been identified as a critical constraint for early-stage AI companies, and this offering directly addresses that bottleneck.

For any startup the fund works with that wishes to restructure as a UK Limited Company, Sovereign AI will also cover the associated legal fees. This is a meaningful practical incentive for overseas-founded companies considering establishing or consolidating their presence in the UK, though the scope of what this will cover is still limited.

Moving your company across borders is not just a logistical challenge it is a high-stakes legal and tax operation. Whether you are executing a corporate "flip" or relocating your entire operation, the details matter enormously. Mishcon's cross-border experts are built for exactly this: guiding you through every legal, tax, and personal complexity so you can focus on what you do best, running your business. Couple this with the UK's established strengths: exceptional talent, leading universities, a vibrant AI ecosystem, the most venture capital in Europe, a pragmatic approach to regulation, and institutions such as the AI Security Institute: the Sovereign AI Fund will change the definition of Scaling.

What does this mean for venture capital?

The Sovereign AI Fund represents a significant development in the relationship between the state and the private venture capital market in the UK. Rather than operating as a passive co-investor or a grant-making body, Sovereign AI is designed to function with the agility and decisiveness of a VC fund, combining the commercial instincts of the private sector with the resources and convening power of government.

It is run by individuals described by the Secretary of State as people who "really know what they are doing", with James Wise as Chair and Josephine Kant as Head of Ventures, and a new managing partner to be announced shortly.

James Wise reportedly told the Secretary of State that his team has done in weeks what some VC funds would be proud to do in a year. If that pace can be sustained, Sovereign AI has the potential to reshape the early-stage funding landscape for AI companies in the UK not by displacing private capital, but by acting as a catalyst and a signal of sovereign confidence.

Critically, the fund's ambition extends beyond financial investment: it is about mobilising the power of the state to help the best of Britain succeed. For founders and investors alike, that framing matters. The question for the private VC community will be whether Sovereign AI's involvement enhances deal flow and de-risks early-stage positions, or whether its presence in a cap table changes the dynamics of subsequent fundraising rounds.

What does this mean for UK immigration?

The announcement of the Sovereign AI Fund marks a welcome development in the UK's immigration offering to early-stage AI talent.

The Government has indicated that startups backed by Sovereign AI will benefit from super priority visa decisions within one working day, as well as access to up to 10 visas for R&D talent ‘cost free’. Immigration application fees and associated costs (such as Government priority processing fees) are expensive, often running into thousands of pounds. The combination of expedited decisions and fee waivers should therefore be a meaningful incentive for internationally mobile talent.

Though the detail on the proposals remains to be seen, it is clear that the Government is actively seeking to position the UK as a leading hub for AI development, and that it recognises the role of international talent as part of this. The Secretary of State made a direct appeal to anyone working in AI, wherever they live, calling on them to come and build their company in the UK during a period of geopolitical uncertainty. This builds upon last year's launch of the UK's Global Talent Taskforce, which aims to attract and support skilled individuals to relocate to the UK, covering relocation and research costs over five years.

Existing immigration routes for AI entrepreneurs and startups

There are several immigration routes currently available to technology entrepreneurs and startups looking to establish themselves in the UK. These include:

• The Global Talent visa - aimed at exceptionally talented individuals who have demonstrated success in their field, or who show strong promise of becoming leaders in their field;
• The Innovator Founder visa - designed for those who wish to establish and run an innovative, scalable business in the UK; and
• The UK Expansion Worker visa - available to established overseas companies seeking to expand their operations into the UK.

Are the existing routes fit for purpose?

While this announcement is welcome, a broader question remains over whether existing visa categories are in need of reform to meet the needs of a wider pool of talent. The Global Talent visa has an extremely high bar for endorsement, and the Innovator Founder visa demands active day-to-day involvement in the business, strict innovation criteria, and a high threshold for business success to qualify for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK, factors which can deter some applicants from applying.

As the UK competes globally for the brightest and the best, it is encouraging to see the Government taking steps to streamline immigration pathways for selected AI talent. The Secretary of State's stated mission is ‘to help AI companies start in Britain, scale here and win globally.’ Whether the existing visa framework can deliver on that ambition for a wider class of international innovators, beyond those backed by Sovereign AI, remains an open question, and one on which broader reform may yet be required.

Richard brings deep experience advising businesses at the intersection of content, data and technology, with particular strength in media, sports, broadcasting and digital services. His appointment reflects the firm’s continued focus on supporting clients operating in highly regulated, fast-moving markets where commercial, regulatory and technological considerations are closely intertwined. 

Richard joins from Bird & Bird where he led the cross‑practice Digital Rights and Assets group, advising clients on the use, licensing and monetisation of data and content, as well as artificial intelligence, tokenisation, digital identity and trust services. He also headed their broadcasting group, advising on complex commercial and regulatory matters across UK and international broadcasting and video services regimes. He has over 25 years of experience advising leading sports organisations on media, data and commercial rights, as well as related technology and outsourcing arrangements. 

His client base ranges from multinational media, technology and data businesses to high‑growth start‑ups and scale‑ups, including broadcasters, OTT platforms, consumer brands, sports and entertainment rights holders, gaming and esports companies, investors and financiers. His recent work includes advising Peak Sports Media on its innovative strategic joint venture with LaLiga, Aser Group on the sale of Eleven Sports to DAZN, Alight Media on the fast growth of its scale UK digital out of home advertising network, Radioplayer on the evolution of its UK and international businesses, and Volleyball World on the re-imagining of its media rights arrangements. 

Richard McMorris said: “I’ve worked at the centre of industrial change in media and sport for the best part of three decades. The world in which my clients are operating has never been as fast-changing or uncertain. Mishcon de Reya’s Innovation group has all the key ingredients for a progressive new offering to media, content technology and sports organisations internationally. Blending first class legal expertise with invaluable industry insight, I look forward to helping my clients create direction in uncertainty, make good decisions in complexity, see around corners and navigate the ambiguity inherent in fast growth – and, in particular, to working with my new colleagues to bring Mishcon de Reya’s especially creative, strategic, and fearless brand of professional support to the sectors I support.” 

Jeremy Hertzog, Chair of Innovation, added: "Richard is recognised by clients not only as a legal adviser, but as a strategic partner to founders, boards and leadership teams. He is frequently engaged at key moments to help businesses define direction, anticipate regulatory and commercial risk, evaluate options and support informed decision‑making. His experience advising at the intersection of content, data and technology strengthens our ability to support clients operating in fast‑moving, regulated markets." 

Richard’s appointment forms part of Mishcon de Reya’s Vision 2030 strategy, strengthening its ability to advise clients on complex, cross‑disciplinary matters where technology, data and content are central to value creation and risk management. 

The awards celebrate the individuals, firms and cases that have shaped the IP landscape over the past year, recognising both legal excellence and meaningful impact across the market.

 Jeremy Hertzog, the Chair of the Innovation Department and Partner who represented Thom Browne said: "Awards like this matter because they shine a light on the kind of ambitious, precedent-setting work that defines the intellectual property sector and legal profession at its best. I am incredibly proud of what we achieved for our client, Thom Browne, in this groundbreaking case, and it speaks to the culture we have built at Mishcon de Reya: one that attracts both outstanding lawyers and innovative clients who are willing to challenge convention. This recognition inspires us to keep taking on the cases that shape what comes next."

This recognition reflects the strength and depth of the firm’s IP practice and the commitment of our team to delivering exceptional outcomes for clients.

Read more about the awards

UPC statistics and court news

The UPC has returned to publishing its statistics, with the latest set (covering the period up to end of March 2026) being published on 14 April 2026. Headlines include over 1100 cases before the court since its inception on 1 June 2023, with 125 cases filed in 2026. Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal continues to play an important early interpretive role, with over 300 appeals lodged at the Court of Appeal (45 in 2026).

The majority of cases filed in the first instance courts continue to be in Germany and the Chairman of the UPC Advisory Committee has sought input from stakeholders regarding the reasons for the current distribution of cases (and potential steps that might be taken as a result), leading to a number of strong views from in particular respondents based in Germany and those based elsewhere. It will be interesting to see whether the UPC takes steps to make structural changes as a result.

First CJEU reference: Court of Appeal refers questions on the extent of UPC's long-arm jurisdiction – Dyson Technology v Dreame International and Eurep – UPC_CoA_789&813/2025

Dyson issued infringement proceedings in the Hamburg Local Division against Dreame and others in relation to its 'Airwrap' hair styling product. Originally, a preliminary injunction was granted in respect of the UPC territories, which was extended to Spain in respect of one Dreame entity (a Hong Kong company – Dream International) and Eurep, a German-registered authorised representative acting on Dreame's behalf.

Both parties appealed: Dyson sought to extend the injunction to new Dreame products, whilst Dreame sought to set aside the injunction entirely.

The Court of Appeal stayed the proceedings in two respects: (i) the action against Dreame International relating to Spain, and (ii) the action against Eurep. Both raised unresolved questions of EU law about the risk of irreconcilable judgments, requiring interpretation from the CJEU.

The Court of Appeal has now referred four questions to the CJEU concerning the UPC's jurisdiction in non-UPC contracting states and the effect of intermediaries based in UPC contracting states. In summary:

• Can Eurep (based in Germany) be used as an anchor defendant to give the UPC jurisdiction over Dreame International's alleged infringement in Spain (not a UPC contracting state)?
• Does the UPC have jurisdiction to grant provisional measures in relation to Spain given that the same alleged infringing products are offered in both UPC and non-UPC EU member states through websites that are identical apart from the language?
• Is the fact that Dreame International uses the services of Eurep (which is based in a UPC contracting state) in order to allegedly infringe a relevant circumstance?
• Is Eurep's role as an 'authorised representative' under EU safety regulations (albeit it is not in practice capable of controlling Dreame International's acts) enough for it to be treated as an 'intermediary whose services are used' for the alleged infringement and against whom a preliminary injunction can be granted?

Hamburg Local Division grants preliminary injunction to cover Spain but not UK – Dyson v Dreame – UPC_CFI_2255/2025

Returning to the same Dyson patent for its 'Airwrap' hair styler, we reported on a preliminary injunction obtained against Dreame in the UPC contracting states and Spain in our September 2025 update.

Dyson has sought a further preliminary injunction in respect of Dreame's new versions of its hair styling products. The Hamburg Local Division has again granted a preliminary injunction to cover the UPC contracting states and Spain, but refused to grant it in relation to the UK.

The preliminary injunction covered Spain because the alleged infringing acts done in Spain were done by a Dutch company and the UPC's jurisdiction was established by the domicile of the company, not the location where the alleged infringing acts occurred. The Dutch company also served as an anchor defendant for another defendant, Dreame International (Hong Kong-based), as they were jointly active in the distribution of the alleged infringing products in Spain. This differs from the facts referred to the CJEU (set out above), as here the anchor defendant itself is an alleged infringer, not simply an intermediary.

However, the Dutch company could not serve as an anchor defendant for the UK defendant, Cellcom, with respect to the UK as there was not a sufficiently close connection between them. The Dutch company was listed as Dreame's 'Authorised Representative' in Northern Ireland (part of the UK) purely for the purpose of EU product safety regulations in respect of the soft border between Ireland (in the EU) and Northern Ireland and was not directed at the majority of the UK market. It was therefore not foreseeable that Cellcom would come within the UPC's jurisdiction in such circumstances and there was not a sufficient basis for the Dutch company to be a joint tortfeasor or intermediary under English law in order to bring Cellcom within the UPC's jurisdiction.

Court of Appeal defines limits on the reach of long-arm jurisdiction – Adobe, OpenAI & Others v KeeeX UPC_CoA_922-925/2025

KeeeX, a French company, brought infringement proceedings in the Paris Local Division against Adobe, OpenAI and others (all based in the US or Ireland) in relation to its patent for a method for externally verifying the integrity and authenticity of digital data blocks.

The defendants filed preliminary objections, but the Paris Local Division upheld the court's jurisdiction to hear alleged infringements committed in Switzerland, Spain, the UK, Ireland, Norway, and Poland. The defendants appealed.

The core jurisdictional dispute was whether the UPC could assert jurisdiction over patent infringement in countries that are not UPC contracting states. The Court of Appeal upheld the defendants' appeal, declaring the UPC had no jurisdiction over the Swiss, Spanish, British, Irish, Norwegian and Polish parts of the patent, for the following reasons.

Where jurisdiction is established under Article 7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012 (the Recast Brussels Regulation), i.e., on the basis of the court of the place where damage occurred or may occur (here the verification software was accessible on the internet in France), the UPC's jurisdiction was limited to its own territory and could not extend to non-UPC countries.

Meanwhile, Article 71b(3) of Brussels Recast provides that, where a court has jurisdiction over a defendant domiciled outside the EU relating to an infringement of a European patent which has caused damage within the EU, that court can also exercise jurisdiction in respect of damage caused by that infringement outside the EU. The damage outside the EU must be ancillary to the damage within the EU. To establish jurisdiction under Article 71b(3), it must be shown that the defendant owns property located in an EU member state with which the dispute has a connection. KeeeX's facts and submissions were insufficient to establish jurisdiction on this basis.

Paris Local Division declines jurisdiction over UK defendant not alleged to infringe in the EU – BMS v BYD  - UPC_CFI_2070/2025

The Paris Local Division has concluded that it has no international jurisdiction over a defendant domiciled in a third country (i.e., not the UPC or EU, here the UK), where that defendant was not alleged to have committed any act of infringement within the territory of a Member State of the EU.

US company BMS had sued various BYD entities, including companies domiciled in the People's Republic of China, the Netherlands, France, Germany and UK. The PRC and UK defendants filed a preliminary objection, particularly in relation to alleged infringing acts taking place in the UK. 

In relation to the UK defendant, the court noted that the alleged acts of infringement took place exclusively in the UK. As the UK defendant was also not domiciled in the EU, there was no connection with the UPC territory or EU: "the UK defendant cannot be expected to be sued before the UPC where its acts are limited to UK territory". 

However, the position was different for the PRC defendants. Whilst these defendants were not domiciled in the EU, they were also accused of acts of infringement within the EU, as well as in the UK. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction in respect of these defendants to also determine the alleged infringing acts in the UK, because the claims were closely connected to those brought against the other defendants in the EU, as well as the UK, so as to avoid the risk of irreconcilable decisions.

Mannheim Local Division grants without notice anti-suit injunction re Chinese interim licence application – Nokia v Geely – UPC_CFI_1291/2026

We have reported separately on ongoing developments relating to the InterDigital v Amazon case, where the UPC granted InterDigital an "anti-interim licence injunction", prohibiting Amazon from making an application in UK proceedings for an interim licence. The Court of Appeal will hear Amazon's appeal against this order on 28 May 2026.

In the meantime, the Mannheim Local Division has granted a without notice anti-interim licence injunction to Nokia against Chinese company Geely (a similar order was made by the Munich Regional Court), subject to a penalty of €50 million. In response to UPC infringement proceedings brought by Nokia relating to its standard essential patents (SEPs), Geely had brought proceedings in the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court seeking to establish terms of a global FRAND licence and included an application for a global interim licence (which was classified as confidential).

The Mannheim court concluded that Geely's application was in effect an anti-suit injunction aimed against Nokia exercising its rights to obtain an injunction before the UPC. Meanwhile, the proceedings in China continue and further information is awaited on the outcome.

Court of Appeal confirms litigation insurance can be taken into account on security for costs applications – Syntorr v Arthrex – UPC_CoA_889/2025

Syntorr brought infringement proceedings in the Munich Local Division against various Arthrex companies. Arthrex filed an application for security for costs, which was ordered in the sum of €2 million. Whilst Syntorr provided a bank guarantee to cover the security, it also sought a review of the order for security. In particular, it argued that it had the benefit of insurance with anti-avoidance endorsement (i.e., preventing the insurer cancelling or avoiding payment) from an insurer licensed in the EU. Arthrex argued, for various reasons, that the policy did not provide an adequate level of protection.

The court rejected Arthrex's concerns and concluded that, as a result of the terms of the insurance policy, the financial situation of Syntorr did not give rise to a legitimate and real concern that a possible order for costs may not be recoverable or only in an unduly burdensome way. The court therefore held the order for security was not necessary.

Court of Appeal confirms approach to security for costs on appeals – Suinno v Microsoft – UPC_CoA_21/2026

Under the UPC Agreement, an order for security for costs can only be made against an applicant and not in its favour. In this case, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, given an appellant initiates the appeal proceedings, they are the 'applicant' and therefore only the respondent is entitled to request security for costs in the appeal proceedings (including where the respondent is the claimant). Where both parties lodge an appeal, each party may only be able to request security for costs of the other party's appeal.

Suinno had lodged infringement proceedings against Microsoft in the Paris Central Division, with Microsoft lodging a counterclaim for revocation. The court ordered Suinno to provide security for costs for the infringement proceedings, which Suinno has to date failed to pay. The Central Division revoked the patent and Suinno appealed. Microsoft filed an application for security for the costs of the appeal – the court concluded that Microsoft was entitled to lodge the request in respect of the costs of the appeal in the sum of €600,000. However, the court refused to stay the appeal proceedings pending payment by Suinno of an earlier costs order.

Question of FRAND rate determination jurisdiction deferred – Vivo Mobile Communication and others v Sun Patent Trust – UPC_CoA_904/2025 & UPC_CoA_905/2025

Sun filed a claim against Vivo in the Paris Local Division for infringement of a standard essential patent (SEP), asking the court to (a) determine the infringement question (b) decide the terms of a FRAND licence, and (c) grant an injunction restraining infringement if Vivo did not accept a licence on terms the court considered to be FRAND. Vivo filed a preliminary objection to the court's jurisdiction to make the FRAND determination.

The court rejected Vivo's application. It held that the main issue was infringement, the question of what licence terms would be FRAND was incidental, and the question of jurisdiction could be determined in the main proceedings. The Court of Appeal has now dismissed Vivo's appeal. It considered that the Paris Local Division was right to defer the jurisdiction question to the main proceedings. This was a case management decision with which it should not interfere. The first instance court would only have to decide whether it had jurisdiction to make a FRAND determination if it found that the SEP was infringed and would only need to decide whether to grant an injunction restraining infringement if Vivo refused to accept a licence on those terms.

This decision therefore leaves open questions regarding the scope of FRAND relief that the UPC considers it has jurisdiction to dispense. No doubt the decision of the Court of Appeal following the forthcoming hearing (scheduled for 28 May 2026) in InterDigital v Amazon will provide guidance to the Local Division.

Court of Appeal orders licensing bars on defendants' employees – Vivo Mobile Communication v Sun Patent Trust – UPC_CoA_791/2025 & UPC_CoA_793/2025 and Ericsson v ASUS – UPC_CoA_631/2025

In these two decisions, handed down on the same day, the Court of Appeal imposed licensing bars (of different durations) on a party's employees in preference to making an "external eyes only" confidentiality order (i.e., granting access only to legal representatives and external experts) in relation to comparable licence agreements.

The court confirmed that the fact that a person was an employee of a party was not sufficient to deny access to documents to that person. Any potential harm for third parties (in both cases, Apple had intervened in the proceedings on this point) could be mitigated by requiring the relevant employee to refrain from being involved in patent licensing negotiations (without the relevant counterparty's consent) for a certain period of time. This was because such employees could not "unlearn information" that they have become aware of when given access.  

In Vivo v Sun Patent, Sun had requested a two-year licensing bar period and this had not been disputed by Vivo (though the court confirmed the two years ran from the date of the order and not after ceasing to be in possession/having access to the documents).  

Meanwhile, in Ericsson v ASUS, the licensing bar was applied in relation to the defendant's employee for a period of five years from the date of the order.

Confidentiality clubs: Munich Local Division rejects representative-based restrictions – UERAN Technology v Xiaomi Corporation – UPC_CFI_609/2025

The Munich Local Division has delivered an order clarifying that confidentiality clubs cannot be used as a tool to restrict a party’s choice of representative. The court reaffirmed that Article 48 UPC Agreement grants litigants a "fundamental right to freely choose" their legal team, a right that remains unaffected by whether a representative holds a legal or technical qualification. This aligns with the principle that lawyers and patent attorneys must be treated equally under the UPC framework.

The claimant had appointed a representative team comprising both legal representatives and patent attorneys. The defendants subsequently sought to amend a confidentiality order to restrict access to confidential information exclusively to the claimant's lawyers, arguing that the inclusion of patent attorneys was not necessary for non-technical aspects of the case.

The court rejected the defendants' efforts to bar the claimant’s patent attorneys from the confidentiality club, emphasising that the professional competence of patent attorneys is not confined to technical matters. Consequently, they cannot be excluded from viewing documents simply because of their technical background. By upholding this parity between representative types under Article 48 (representation) and Article 58 (protection of confidential information) of the UPC Agreement, the court effectively prevented the use of confidentiality orders to strategically weaken an opponent's chosen representation.

Additionally, the court rejected the defendants' attempt to exclude a proposed expert (a Chinese lawyer) from the confidentiality club based on alleged concerns regarding their independence. The defendants had failed to establish what information the expert would obtain from the confidentiality club that they did not already hold by virtue of their advisory role. The questions of independence and objectivity instead fell to be determined in the context of expert evidence, not in relation to the confidentiality club.

Court of Appeal clarifies there is no implicit confidentiality on use of information disclosed at the UPC – EOFlow v Insulet – UPC_CoA_930/2025

In April 2025, the Court of Appeal found that EOFlow's insulin pump products infringed Insulet's patent and granted a provisional injunction covering Italy and Sweden. The Milan Central Division subsequently ordered EOFlow to provide Insulet with complete information on the extent of its acts of infringement. EOFlow sought confidential treatment for that information, which the Milan Central Division refused, also ordering penalty payments of €150,000 for non-compliance with the provisional measures order. The Court of Appeal dismissed EOFlow's appeal against the penalty order on 4 February 2026. This appeal addressed the outstanding confidentiality question.

Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure provides that a party may request that certain information in written pleadings or evidence be kept confidential, in particular, by making documents available to the public in redacted form and providing specific reasons for such confidentiality.

Rule 262A meanwhile provides that a party may make an application for an order that certain information contained in its pleadings or the collection and use of evidence in proceedings may be restricted or prohibited or that access to such information or evidence be restricted to specific persons.

EOFlow argued that information provided pursuant to the court's order had an implied procedural limitation and could only be used for the purposes of pursuing the patent infringement claim. The Court of Appeal rejected this, stating that no such implied limitation exists. The use of confidential information would only be restricted where the court issued a Rule 262A order. Since Insulet had received the information without any restriction, it was no longer a trade secret or other confidential information. The same principle also applied to information submitted during the first instance proceedings.

Parties should therefore proactively seek Rule 262A protection if they wish to restrict the use of confidential information, as failure to do so may lead to a loss of confidentiality status.

Public access to documents: Court of Appeal confirms requirements for requesting access to documents – Boehringer Ingelheim v Zentiva Portugal – UPC_CoA_9/2026 and Sumi Agro v Syngenta – UPC_CoA_10/2026

The Court of Appeal recently issued two decisions reiterating the need for precision when requesting public access to documents under Rule 262.1(b) Rules of Procedure.

The court confirmed that any request for written pleadings and evidence must be specified "to the greatest extent possible" and cannot be made in terms "which would require the Court to search and select documents" based on criteria specified by the requesting party. General requests for access to "all exhibits" were rejected in both cases.

The court also issued a reminder that reasoned requests for documents should be directed to the relevant division which received the document at first instance, noting the separate responsibilities of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal. This separation of responsibility ensures that decisions will be taken by a judge familiar with the case.

Finally, the court confirmed that there is no need to re-lodge documents originally lodged with the Court of First Instance on appeal, as this would mean members of the public could request access to the documents from both courts, resulting in duplication of work. The Court of Appeal will instead consult the file of the relevant proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

Court of Appeal confirms duty of full and frank disclosure for ex parte evidence orders – Ecovacs Robotics v Roborock – UPC_CoA_3/2026

This case serves as a reminder that applicants seeking ex parte orders before the UPC must ensure that their initial applications are truthful, comprehensive and accurate. Omissions or distortions, even if capable of being addressed in later submissions, will not save an order that was improperly obtained.

Ecovacs applied for an ex parte evidence order against Roborock at the Düsseldorf Local Division. It sought to obtain samples of Roborock's robot vacuum cleaners from a trade show. Ecovacs argued that the trade show represented a rare opportunity to seize evidence that would not otherwise be obtainable. The Local Division granted the order without hearing Roborock.

Roborock subsequently requested a review of the order. The Local Division revoked the order (save for certain confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions), finding that the factual submissions underpinning the application had been ambiguous and incomplete. It ordered Ecovacs to bear the costs of the inspection, including the expert's report. Ecovacs appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety. Given that an ex parte order is granted without affording the opposing party an opportunity to be heard, an applicant is under a duty of full and frank disclosure. This means it must bring to the court's attention any material fact known to it that might influence the court's decision whether to proceed without notice.

Ecovacs had failed to meet this standard. In its application, it had described Roborock as operating in Europe solely through affiliated logistics and distribution companies, with no European presence of its own. It presented the trade fair as the only opportunity to examine the goods. Yet in parallel proceedings, Ecovacs had asserted that Roborock sold the products directly to German customers through its Amazon web shop, and had even carried out a test purchase. The Court of Appeal agreed that these omissions and distortions were of central importance to the assessment of the original application.

The Court of Appeal further held that an applicant cannot retroactively justify an ex parte order by introducing new grounds at the review stage. Facts not included in the original application will be disregarded on review, and the existence of potentially valid grounds that were not initially raised cannot save an order that was improperly obtained.

Düsseldorf Local Division highlights potential consequences of publicising ongoing proceedings – Canon v Katun Germany – UPC_CFI_351/2024, UPC_CFI_595/2024

This case highlights the risks associated with publicising ongoing proceedings before the court has come to its decision. Parties before the UPC should exercise considerable caution before making any public statements about the merits of ongoing proceedings, as such statements can carry the risk of being used against them.

Canon enforced its unitary patent against the Katun group of companies at the UPC. The patent relates to how a toner supply container interacts with a corresponding receiver apparatus of a printer or copier, with the invention aimed at providing a smoother insertion and connection. Katun filed a counterclaim for revocation, but the UPC found the patent to be valid and directly infringed by Katun. It awarded Canon a number of remedies.

In particular, the court made an order on publicity of its decision. During the course of proceedings, Katun had stated on its website "Katun is confident the products it is selling and distributing for use in Canon applications are non-infringing", thereby creating what turned out to be a false impression that there had been no patent infringement.

Under Article 80 UPC Agreement, the court may permit publication of a decision following a two-step test: (1) does the claimant have a legitimate interest in publishing the decision? (2) does the defendant's interests outweigh this interest? Given that the defendant had chosen to publicise the proceedings on its website, it was necessary to correct the false impression created. Further, given that it was necessary to effect recalls, and the defendant had 8,000 customers worldwide, it was more feasible to effect the communication in this way than through private communication alone.

The court therefore permitted Canon to publicise the decision for one month across various public media and ordered Katun to publish the decision on its websites for one month.

He has received multiple honorary fellowships and an MBE for his contribution to social justice. Steve continues to lead Oasis, is a regular media commentator, and is the author of A Manifesto for Hope. 

The hearing will address whether Ols Dado, the lead prosecutor in Mayor Veliaj’s criminal case, was lawfully appointed under Albanian law. In his letter, Mayor Veliaj outlines a legal challenge asserting that Mr. Dado failed to meet mandatory qualification requirements — specifically, completion of Magistracy School or securing a lawful exemption — rendering his appointment invalid and his prosecutorial actions void from the outset.

Mayor Veliaj warns that the case may be dismissed on procedural “standing” grounds without addressing the merits, potentially in a closed setting shielded from public and international scrutiny. He argues that such an outcome would raise serious concerns about due process and the rule of law.

“My legal challenge is not just about me or Mr. Dado. It is an effort to ensure that our republic follows the law governing the appointment of prosecutors, and to rectify any errors in the vetting process that result in the appointment of unqualified candidates,” Mayor Veliaj wrote.

The letter further details the consequences of appointing an unqualified prosecutor like Mr. Dado, including indefinite pretrial detention, restricted access to counsel and evidence, and overexpansive investigative measures affecting Mayor Veliaj’s family and personal life. Mayor Veliaj calls on international representatives to attend the hearing, monitor proceedings, and amplify the issues globally.

Daniel Fetterman, a partner at Kasowitz added: “This is a fundamental rule-of-law issue.  If a prosecutor lacks the legal qualifications to hold office, every action taken under that authority is inherently suspect. Transparency in this proceeding is essential not only for Mayor Veliaj’s rights, but for public confidence in Albania’s judicial institutions.”

The full letter in English can be accessed here.

In particular, Suresh explores challenges and strategies for employers when managing employees who manifest their beliefs in the workplace. Employers must strike a careful balance between the need to prevent discrimination, harassment and disruption to the workplace, and an individual's right to manifest their beliefs, even if they do so in ways that are considered objectionable.

Read the full article (access requires ELA membership).

The statutory regime that is contained in the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (as amended) (SI 2006/246) (TUPE) has barely changed since 2006. The call for evidence on TUPE, which the government published on 8 April 2026, is therefore an opportunity to update the legislative framework and to address difficulties that corporate and transactional employment lawyers and HR professionals have long identified. The call for evidence, which closes on 1 July 2026, seeks evidence from all interested parties, including businesses, employees and employee representatives.

Read in full or download the article.

In this episode of Oxford Plus, host Susannah de Jager sits down with Dr Christiaan de Koning and Michael Collyer, co-founders of the Founders and Funders community, to explore how Oxford is organising itself for a new chapter in innovation. What started as a small gathering during COVID has grown into a 4,000-strong network and a registered foundation connecting researchers, founders, investors, and institutions across the city.

Now, with UK startup funding reaching $7.8 billion in Q1 2026 alone – a 60% increase year on year, Oxford is well placed to capture a growing share of that momentum. Christiaan and Michael discuss why the city's problem is not a lack of capital or talent but a lack of connection, and how their upcoming Oxford Tech Week (26–29 May 2026) aims to change that by creating a visible, city-wide platform for the ecosystem.

From the Oxford Innovation Map to the vision of making Oxford the global home of deep tech, this is a conversation about what happens when a city that has always excelled at discovery starts to organise itself around building, scaling, and global relevance.

Centauri, an immunotherapy company based in Alderley Park, Cheshire, is advancing CTX‑187 – its lead clinical candidate – towards Phase I clinical studies. CTX‑187 is a transformative immunotherapeutic approach designed to combat Gram‑negative infections in even the most vulnerable patients, based on Centauri’s proprietary Alphamer platform. The £6 million investment from AMR Action Fund sits within Centauri’s wider £30 million Series A round and reflects global concerns around the growing global burden of antimicrobial resistance.

Centauri’s leadership team (predominantly female‑led) continues to focus on bringing forward new antimicrobial innovations at a time of acute clinical need.

Mishcon de Reya has advised Centauri for nearly a decade, supporting the business from early‑stage development through to major fundraising milestones. Partner Hayley Cross and Associate Emma O’Rourke lead the company's corporate transactions, together with a wider team across the firm's Life Sciences Group.  

Hayley Cross commented: “We are delighted to have supported Centauri once again on this important milestone. The company’s work is both pioneering and urgently needed and it is an absolute pleasure to work with Jen and her team. This latest investment gives Centauri a fantastic platform for future development and the Mishcon team looks forward to continuing to support them on the journey ahead."

The annual guide highlights practitioners who have delivered significant results for individuals, groups and businesses in complex, high‑value disputes — including competition claims, financial litigation, consumer group actions, product liability and human rights matters. Lawdragon’s editorial notes the increasing global prominence of claimant‑side work and the emergence of new leaders shaping the future of collective redress. 

Mishcon de Reya honourees 

This year’s list includes: 

• Shazia Yamin, recognised for her leadership in large‑scale product liability and consumer group actions, including her role in securing key disclosure orders in the UK Dieselgate litigation and representing more than 120,000 Volkswagen owners in claims that led to a £193m settlement. 
• Hazel Chambers, acknowledged for her growing profile in complex financial and consumer group litigation. 
• Ralph Fearnhead, recognised for his work on high‑value financial claims, including plaintiff‑side collective actions. 
• Luke Horton‑Grimes, highlighted for his expertise in competition litigation and opt‑out collective proceedings. 
• Wessen Jazrawi, commended for her leadership in major UK and EU competition collective actions. 
• Sarah Houghton, recognised for her work in UK and EU competition law, with a particular focus on claimant‑side enforcement and collective redress. 
• Ben Lasserson, acknowledged for his leading role in major competition class actions and his expertise in representing claimants in complex, high‑value collective proceedings. 
• Richard Leedham, recognised for his extensive experience acting for claimants in high‑value financial disputes and group actions. 

Strength in collective redress 

The firm’s inclusion in this global ranking reflects Mishcon de Reya’s long‑standing commitment to championing claimants’ rights and advancing transparency in high‑stakes disputes. The firm continues to play a leading role in shaping the UK’s collective actions landscape, acting on some of the most significant group claims of the past decade. 

Mishcon de Reya Partner, Richard Leedham, said: “We are delighted to see our lawyers recognised among the world’s leading claimant advocates. Their work demonstrates the firm’s commitment to securing justice for individuals and groups facing complex and systemic wrongdoing. This recognition reflects the strength and depth of our disputes and collective actions practice, and our continued investment in delivering meaningful outcomes for clients.”

• The Building Safety Levy (BSL) will significantly affect scheme viability, with particular impact on brownfield development and those schemes with a focus on communal space.
• Developers currently bringing forward residential developments should pay particular attention to the 1 October 2026 implementation date, as schemes having their viability assessed now may submit their Building Control Application after this date.
• The BSL is a forthcoming charge on developers of new residential buildings in England, chargeable on floorspace.
• It is the latest in a suite of post-Grenfell measures aimed at increasing building safety and funding remediation of unsafe buildings.
• However, it is unclear whether the risks to housing delivery, and especially for social housing, have been fully understood.

The Background to the BSL: Grenfell and the Building Safety Act

On 14 June 2017 a fire at Grenfell Tower tragically claimed 72 lives. The rapid spread of the fire, amongst other building safety failings, was attributable to the aluminium composite panels with a combustible polyurethane core which constituted the external cladding of the tower.

Since then, over 5,000 buildings above 11m tall have been identified as having unsafe cladding similar to that present at Grenfell. The scale of the construction issues facing the sector, identified in the Hackitt report, led to the introduction of the Building Safety Act. Compliance with the Act and other new regulatory measures aimed at enhancing building safety has left a country-wide remediation bill in the range of £12.6 to £22.4 billion.

The BSL

While some major developers have voluntarily signed up to the Developer Remediation Contract, committing to remediation of unsafe cladding in their buildings over 11m, the Government has turned to taxes to foot the remainder of the remediation bill. The Residential Property Developer Tax, expected to raise £2 billion over 10 years, is now to be supplemented by the BSL, designed to raise £3.4 billion by 2030. The key points on the chargeability of the BSL are:

• The BSL will apply to "major" new residential development, regardless of height, including private homes, build-to-rent schemes, purpose-built student accommodation, retirement housing and changes of use to residential.
• Developments of fewer than 10 new dwellings or, for purpose-built student accommodation, of fewer than 30 new bedspaces, are exempt from the levy.
• Hotels are excluded from the scope of the BSL.
• The BSL will be calculated on the 'gross internal area of floorspace' of a development, including communal space, with the chargeable rates based on average house prices in the charging authority area.

This article explores the effect the BSL will have on viability and the extent to which this is compatible with the Government's present house building aims.

The effect of the BSL on viability

In the first instance, the BSL will obviously increase the general costs of development as it will be charged on floorspace of developments. All relevant developments will see some increase in cost.

The increase in cost will vary substantially depending on where the new development takes place. For example, the regulations set Kensington & Chelsea’s (RBKC) rate at £100.35 per sqm, whereas Stockton-on-Tees' rate is set at £14.70 per sqm. This means that an average-sized London flat would be subject to an added £4,315 cost in RBKC, with additional expense for any associated floorspace such as stairwells and corridors. Local authority-wide values are a relatively blunt tool that will not always accurately reflect changes in land values and need (and therefore viability) across administrative areas.

Irrespective of location, this additional cost will need to be built into viability considerations. The BSL will not only affect whether a scheme comes forward, but also the manner in which it comes forward. Added cost will directly affect, for example, the affordable housing that schemes can support. Many of the housing schemes which are already unable to meet full affordable housing contributions will inevitably deliver even less once the BSL comes into force. This means that viability will be affected even for straightforward developments, which do not have special characteristics making them particularly vulnerable to the BSL (as explored further below).

The viability of brownfield developments

Particular viability concerns arise in the context of brownfield development. Where a site is 'Previously Developed' under the Regulations, there is a 50% discount for the BSL payable. This aims to make development of costly sites more attractive.

However, the Government's definition of 'Previously Developed Site' (PDL) is likely to significantly affect the viability of brownfield development post-BSL. The new regulations require 75% of the land to have had a building situated on it at some point since 1948. Rather than adopting the definition used in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the BSL regulations have narrowed the scope of brownfield land by requiring a building to have been situated on the land. The NPPF defines PDL more broadly:

"Land which has been lawfully developed and is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any fixed surface infrastructure associated with it, including the curtilage of the developed land"

Many brownfield sites consist only partly of buildings and will largely be made up of ancillary facilities such as car parks. This means that less land will fall within the definition of PDL under the BSL regulations and will not qualify for the 50% discount.

It is still to be seen how this stricter definition of PDL aligns with the Government's agenda that "the first port of call must be brownfield land" in reaching housing targets, and that developers should be "prioritising the development of previously used land wherever possible". What is apparent, however, is that site layout, design and phasing are unlikely to improve when driven by arbitrary definitions. There is a real risk of "salami-slicing", with developers bringing forward residential buildings only on land where buildings where previously situated to fall within the PDL definition and secure the discount, while deferring associated infrastructure to later permissions. It is difficult to see how this serves either good planning or the Government's agenda.

The viability of communal space provision

The BSL is not only charged on the dwelling itself, but also on all ‘residential floorspace’ including ‘communal space’. Regulation 11 defines communal space as areas "wholly or mainly for the benefit of occupants". Government guidance gives the examples of stairways, lobbies, landings and service areas.

Charging the BSL on communal space has two effects. First, it increases the cost of providing communal spaces. Facilities such as gyms, shared workspaces and lobbies will be subject to added cost which may affect their provision within developments. Second, many required design elements of developments, such as London's second staircase requirement, will attract additional BSL as "communal space". This means that building safety improvements, which already increase expense, will result in even higher costs.

Developers may respond by reducing communal spaces, opting instead to increase the number of residential units in a development to secure value for money. Alternatively, they may open the use of the spaces to external visitors, in order to take the floorspace outside the 'communal space' definition. For example, gyms may be open for public use, with discounts or fee waivers for occupants of the building.

Looking forward: What can we expect?

BSL coming into force

The BSL will apply to Building Control Applications (BCA) from 1 October 2026. Developers should be aware of this deadline for three key reasons.

First, developers should note that if a BCA made before the deadline is rejected and needs to be resubmitted after 1 October 2026, this may bring a site within the scope of the BSL. This is particularly pertinent given the current delays in processing applications.

Secondly, some developments will already have gone through viability assessment under the planning system but will not yet have submitted a BCA. This presents a challenge to the viability of these projects, with the potential for significant costs that were not factored into the original viability assessment.

Finally, there is an additional consideration for developers in London, where emergency housebuilding measures were introduced in March 2026 to tackle the housing crisis. These include a time-limited planning route (where planning permission can be secured without a viability assessment if developers commit to at least 20% affordable housing) and a temporary reduction in the Community Infrastructure Levy for sites delivering at least 20% affordable housing (the greater the proportion of affordable housing, the greater the reduction). London developers therefore have a limited window during which certain developments will be considerably more viable, before the BSL comes into force and erodes some of that benefit.

Future viability discussions

The BSL will increasingly appear in discussions between developers and local planning authorities about the viability of projects. Major projects will now have to build in this additional expense when considering the viability of affordable housing proposals and section 106 contributions.

The feasibility of the charge, in light of these obligations and contributions, will undoubtedly be the subject of significant debate, particularly with the Government's pledge to build 1.5 million homes by 2029. With the S&P Global UK Construction PMI (which measures the performance of the construction sector) remaining at its lowest levels since May 2020, indicating a contracting sector, and emergency measures already introduced by the Greater London Authority, will the BSL be shelved? While this seems unlikely, the Government has already consulted on the possibility of raising the exemption threshold from 10 to 49 dwellings. This may indicate growing concern about the impact of the BSL and signal that further changes are to come.

How Mishcon de Reya can help

Mishcon de Reya's Real Estate department can help both developers and investors understand and navigate the Building Safety Levy and the wider Building Safety Act. The team advises on timing and Building Control risk ahead of the October 2026 implementation date, supports negotiations with local planning authorities on affordable housing and section 106 obligations, and analyses eligibility for brownfield discounts.

If you have any queries about how the Building Safety Levy or the Building Safety Act will affect you, please get in touch.

• OFSI's Strategy for 2026-29 includes two key KPIs – a pledge that 50% of licensing cases will be completed within 6 months and a commitment to 90% of enforcement investigations being decided within 18 months.
• The Strategy follows the PERC framework – Promote, Enable, Respond and Change – focussing on how the UK will design, implement and enforce financial sanctions over the coming years.
• Ahead of the anticipated increase in regulatory activity, businesses, professionals and individuals should review their sanctions compliance frameworks.

The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation has published its Strategy for 2026-29, setting out how the UK will design, implement and enforce financial sanctions over the coming years.

 This will be important for all those who engage with sanctions regimes - businesses, professionals and individuals – particularly in the Strategy's explanation of how OFSI plans to deliver its stated ambitions in practice.

The Strategy comes at a testing time for OFSI. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 presented the organisation with its greatest challenge yet – the implementation of the largest ever sanctions regime in the UK, with extensive new delegations and measures.

Moreover, OFSI is having to evolve in response to a more polarised and unpredictable geopolitical landscape, new technologies reshaping sanctions evasion, and the emergence of cryptoassets presenting novel challenges for compliance systems.

At its core, the Strategy presents four strategy pillars – the 'PERC' framework:

• Promote: to continuously make sanctions rules, risks and expectations clearer through targeted sector campaigns, guidance, and collaboration with the private sector such that non-compliance is visibly costly;
• Enable: to ensure firms can comply with sanctions regimes quickly, with a pledge that 50% of licensing cases will be completed within 6 months;
• Respond: to deploy the full 'toolkit' – settlements, monetary penalties, referrals, counter-terrorism designations and preventative action – to protect the sanctions system through timely and visible enforcement, with a commitment to 90% of new enforcement investigations being submitted for decision within 18 months of commencement; and 
• Change: to move beyond one-off solutions to sustained compliance cultures in firms and sectors, including the use of AI-enabled workflows and feedback from industry to shape official guidance.

If met, these stated ambitions will have a material impact on businesses, professionals and individuals who engage with sanctions regimes. For example, with a target of 90% of investigations decided within 18 months and a new settlement scheme, the consequences of non-compliance will be felt more quickly and more intensely, and the 6-month KPI for licensing applications will no doubt be welcomed.

The new strategy sees OFSI enter its most ambitious phase yet and ushers in a more proactive, better resourced, and more technologically capable organisation. Ahead of the anticipated increase in regulatory activity, businesses, professionals and individuals should review their sanctions compliance frameworks, ensuring they can provide complete and accurate information and be transparent wherever sanctions risks may arise.

The BBC notes that UK Biobank has suspended access to its research platform and referred the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

BBC News reported: "Jon Baines, senior data protection specialist at law firm Mishcon de Reya, said the regulator would likely be seeking to confirm volunteer information was truly de-identified and, as such, does not constitute personal data under UK law."

Read the full piece.

• The Government's ambitions for the Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor are significant — and Oxford is firmly in the frame.  
• After launching consultation on a proposal to establish a Greater Cambridge Development Corporation earlier this year, the Government last month announced that it would double its initial £400 million investment in the Oxford-Cambridge Corridor and consult on forming a Greater Oxford Development Corporation.  
• The two development corporations, underpinned by up to £800 million in funding, are intended to 'supercharge growth in the Oxford-Cambridge Corridor'. 

What is a Development Corporation? 

A development corporation is a statutory body established to regenerate areas by bringing land together, facilitating development and improving infrastructure. Examples include the London Legacy Development Corporation (Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park and surrounding areas), the Milton Keynes Development Corporation (Milton Keynes) and the London Docklands Development Corporation (Canary Wharf and the Docklands Light Railway). 

What can Oxford learn from the Cambridge experience? 

Between 4 February and 1 April 2026, the Government consulted on establishing a Greater Cambridge Development Corporation, a centrally-led urban development corporation focused on accelerating sustainable economic growth and unlocking development within the Greater Cambridge area. 

The consultation asked fundamental questions including whether a centrally-led urban development corporation is the right approach; what its objectives and boundary should be; what planning and infrastructure powers it should hold; and how local interests should be represented.   

While responses to the proposal that have been publicly published have been generally supportive, concern has been expressed (particularly by local authorities) that centralising planning functions away from democratically-elected authorities will marginalise local voices and reduce democratic accountability. It is also unclear whether the development corporation (even with the powers proposed to be given to it) will be effective in tackling systemic infrastructure constraints in the short to medium term.  

The Government is now considering responses and a formal government response is expected to be published in due course, together with further details and any secondary legislation required to bring the development corporation into operation. These responses will inevitably guide the proposal for Oxford.  

What can we expect for Greater Oxford? 

While no timeframe for a similar consultation on the proposed Greater Oxford Development Corporation has been confirmed, the Cambridge consultation and the public responses to date provide useful insight into what Oxford can expect. 

Drawing from the Cambridge consultation, a Greater Oxford Development Corporation is likely to be equipped with a broad suite of powers designed to accelerate development and unlock housing, employment and economic growth in the Oxford region. The Cambridge proposal was for a centrally-led Development Corporation rather than a bottom-up approach. Oxfordshire councils may well resist this with similar concerns about democratic deficit.  

While the precise scope and nature of the development corporation have not yet been disclosed, the following areas are expected to form the core of the corporation's remit: 

• Planning powers: the ability to exercise both plan-making and development management functions to shape the long-term spatial strategy for the area and determine planning applications on strategically important sites.  
• Infrastructure delivery: powers to co-ordinate delivery with infrastructure and transport providers, as well as to itself plan, fund, approve and deliver essential infrastructure and transport schemes necessary to support growth. 
• Land assembly and disposal: the ability to assemble fragmented sites, remediate contaminated land and, where necessary, exercise compulsory acquisition or land disposal powers to facilitate strategic development. 
• Investment leverage: access to central government funding and borrowing facilities, together with mechanisms to capture land value uplift and attract private sector investment. 

The final form and extent of any Greater Oxford Development Corporation's powers will be informed by the Government's response to the Cambridge consultation and, in due course, by the responses received to the Oxford consultation itself.  

How can we help? 

The establishment of a Greater Oxford Development Corporation will have significant implications for landowners, developers, businesses and local communities in a region that has already seen considerable growth in recent years. 

Mishcon de Reya is excited to be part of this growth, moving our Oxford offices into a new development. If you have questions about what a Greater Oxford Development Corporation could mean for your interests or would like to discuss how to engage with the forthcoming consultation, please do not hesitate to get in touch with our Planning team, or visit us at our new offices at Oxford North, The Red Hall, 8 Thomas White Street, Oxford, OX2 8GD. 

• UK Inheritance Tax (IHT) is charged at up to 40% on a person's estate when they die and on certain lifetime transfers.
• Since 6 April 2025, the rules on who pays IHT changed fundamentally, ending the non-dom regime and replacing it with a residence test. 
• With the right planning, IHT liability can be mitigated.  

What is Inheritance Tax and why does it matter?

IHT is a tax on a person's estate at the time of their death and on certain lifetime transfers. The applicable rate is up to 40% over and above the nil rate band (currently £325,000). Given the high rate of tax and relatively modest threshold, proactive inheritance tax planning is essential for high net worth individuals and families.

Do I have to pay it?

UK situs assets (such as UK property, shares in UK companies and UK bank accounts) are generally subject to IHT regardless of the residence status of the individual who owns them. Historically, offshore structures have been used to “block” IHT exposure by converting UK situs assets into non-UK assets. However, anti-avoidance rules now significantly limit their effectiveness in relation to UK residential and agricultural property.

From 6 April 2025, the rules determining who is assessed to IHT changed dramatically and a new residence-based test replaced the previous domicile-based rules. Under the new rules, a person's worldwide estate is subject to IHT if they have been resident in the UK for at least 10 out of the last 20 tax years immediately preceding the tax year in which the chargeable event (including death) arises, in which case they are known as a "long-term resident" (LTR).  An individual can also be LTR if they have been UK resident for the previous ten consecutive tax years.

If an LTR leaves the UK, their worldwide estate remains within the charge to IHT for up to 10 years after departure (the 10-year tail). However, special transitional rules can apply giving people a shorter IHT tail if they were non-UK domiciled and deemed domiciled on 30 October 2024 and they were non-UK resident from 6 April 2025.

When is IHT payable?

As noted above, the standard rate of IHT is 40% on death, subject to the reliefs and exemptions outlined below.

IHT can also be levied on lifetime gifts or transfers as below:

• Transfers into trust and certain companies: Lifetime gifts of UK assets or any assets gifted by an LTR into a trust or certain companies may be subject to an immediate IHT charge of 20% over and above the available nil rate band.
• Trust charges: Assets subject to IHT within a trust are subject to periodic (10 year) and exit charges at a maximum rate of 6%. There is also an exit charge of up to 6% if a formerly LTR settlor becomes non-LTR. 
• Gifts to individuals: Gifts to individuals are generally treated as potentially exempt transfers (PETs) and fall outside the scope of IHT if the donor survives the gift by seven years. If the donor does not survive the full seven years, taper relief on the IHT rate applies after three years. This assumes the donor is not caught by other anti-avoidance rules known as the 'gift with reservation of benefit' rules.

Are there any reliefs and exemptions?

There are certain reliefs and exemptions available to reduce the amount of IHT payable:

• The IHT-free threshold (the nil-rate band) is £325,000 per individual and married couples (and civil partners) can combine their allowances, giving a potential joint nil-rate band of £650,000.
• Residence Nil-Rate Band (RNRB): relief of an additional £175,000 is available if the person's Principal Private Residence is left to a direct descendant. Tapering applies for estates above £2 million to reduce the applicable RNRB by £1 for every £2 the estate exceeds £2 million such that the RNRB is no longer available for estates worth £2.35 million and over.
• Spouse / civil partner exemption: assets transferred between spouses during lifetime or on death are 100% exempt from inheritance tax, which can be a powerful planning tool. However, if one spouse is LTR and the other spouse is non-LTR the full spouse relief may not be automatically available.
• Charitable donations: If at least 10% of the deceased's net estate is donated to qualifying charities, a reduced IHT rate of 36% applies to the balance of the net estate.
• Business Property Relief (BPR) and Agricultural Property Relief (APR): As of 6 April 2026, business assets and agricultural assets up to £2.5 million respectively can qualify for 100% relief from IHT. The value of business/agricultural assets in excess of the £2.5 million threshold can qualify for a 50% relief from IHT. 
• Annual gifting exemptions: A person can give away £3,000 per year (plus one year's unused carry-forward), and up to £250 per person as small gifts, without any IHT consequences.

Planning Considerations

We can assist with strategies to structure your estate in an IHT efficient manner, including lifetime gifting, transfers into trusts, and preparing an appropriate will to make full use of available reliefs.

For any queries arising from this article, please contact a member of the Private Wealth & Tax team. 

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, containing the ban on UORRs, is likely to receive Royal Assent in late spring or early summer 2026.

The ban on UORRs is expected to take effect at a later stage, currently thought to be sometime in 2027 (called the Commencement Date in this briefing). 

The ban on UORRs will impact mainly new/renewed commercial leases entered into after the Commencement Date. UORR clauses in leases already in existence on the Commencement Date will remain unaffected. 

However, a recent amendment now means certain lease renewals pursuant to options dated on or after 17 March 2026 will also be caught by the ban. More detail on this below.

The legislation – summary of the provisions

The ban on UORRs will apply to all business tenancies, whether or not the lease is contracted out of the 1954 Act and even if the tenant is not in occupation of the property or has sublet it. The ban will also apply if the permitted use includes business use, even if the tenant is occupying for non-business purposes.

The ban will apply to any rent review where, on the date the lease is granted, the new rent is not yet known and cannot yet be determined. This means "stepped" rents with pre-agreed increases are not affected.

If the review clause contains an upwards-only provision, it will be of no effect. The higher amount is not payable. The new rent is what the figure would have been without the upwards-only clause.

If the rent review process requires a trigger notice, then the Bill gives the tenant the right to trigger the process even if the lease has allocated this power only to the landlord. The same applies to referring any dispute for expert determination.

If a pre-commencement superior lease requires any sublease to contain upwards-only rent reviews, that requirement will be disapplied.

Recent amendments – UORR ban retrospective in certain cases

In the original version of the Bill, the ban on UORRs would not have applied to a lease entered into pursuant to a renewal option, so long as the option was dated prior to the Commencement Date.

However, the Bill has now been amended so as to be partly retrospective. Renewal leases will now be caught by the ban, if the renewal is pursuant to an option dated on or after 17 March 2026. The ban will cover both (1) the rent payable on day one of the renewal lease; and (2) any rent reviews under the renewal lease.  

The Government's explanatory note states "the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that non-statutory tenancy renewal arrangements entered into on or after 17 March 2026, and any subsequent rent reviews during the term of the tenancy, are also afforded the protection of the ban on upwards only rent reviews in order to prevent avoidance."

In other words, the Government is concerned that landlords might use renewal options as a way to get round the ban. The retrospective provisions apply to both call options and put options.

Landlords currently negotiating business leases with an option to renew should be aware that those renewal leases are likely to be caught by the ban on UORRs – both the day one rent and subsequent rent reviews during the renewal term.  

Note that this is different from an agreement for lease being entered into by a new tenant – i.e. not a renewal. A "non-renewal" lease of this sort will fall outside the UORR ban if the agreement for lease is dated prior to the Commencement Date.

We will continue to monitor the progress of the Bill as it progresses to Royal Assent. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please contact Mishcon de Reya.

For more detail and some FAQs about the Bill, please see our recently updated article: Newsflash: Proposed ban on upwards-only rent reviews.

Rob Green brings deep paint and coatings expertise, having led EMEAI Product Management for the world’s largest paint company and previously held roles at 3M and Honeywell. He oversees Product, Operations and Customer Experience at COAT, shaping a direct, premium and sustainable experience rooted in strong technical and supply‑chain insight. 

Together, they pair strong brand insight with deep industry expertise to drive COAT’s continued growth.

• The Court of Appeal has handed down an important judgment (RTM v Bonne Terre Ltd & Anor) on the meaning of “consent” in the context of data protection and ePrivacy law, and overturned what had been a problematic prior judgment of the High Court, which had left many businesses, especially those in the betting and gaming sector, facing an “ineradicable” risk of claims that potentially they could not reasonably have defended.
• The Court of Appeal has confirmed that consent under the UK GDPR and PECR is an objective test, meaning that data controllers do not need to establish individuated subjective consent.
• Businesses relying on consent as the lawful basis for processing personal data, particularly those in the betting, gaming and online marketing sectors, should take note of the court's decision, which provides greater legal certainty around what constitutes valid consent under the UK GDPR and PECR.

What is valid “consent” under UK data protection and electronic marketing law?

Under the UK GDPR (Article 4(11)) consent means: "any freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s wishes by which he or she, by a statement or by a clear affirmative action, signifies agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him or her”.

Article 7 puts the onus on the data controller to prove that the standard has been met.

Section 2(1) of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (“PECR”, which deal with the sending of direct electronic marketing to individuals and the use of cookies and similar technologies), adopts the Article 4(11) UK GDPR definition (and applies it to “subscribers” and “users” as opposed to data subjects).

The facts of RTM v Bonne Terre

So far, so straightforward. But what happens in the case of someone who purports, by a clear affirmative action, such as ticking a box, to give a specific, informed and unambiguous indication of their wishes, signifies agreement to the processing of personal data relating to them, and to the receiving of direct electronic marketing, but who later argues that the consent was vitiated by factors of which the data controller/sender of the marketing was unaware, and could not reasonably have been aware? Put another way, is the sending of direct electronic marketing on the basis of the objectively valid consent of someone who was subjectively incapable of giving valid consent, to be treated as lawfully sent?

The High Court decision

“No”, said the High Court in the first instance. RTM was someone who, in his own submission, had engaged in “compulsive, out of control and destructive” gambling, and claimed, in data protection and in misuse of private information, for damages on the basis that, as he argued, Bonne Terre (operating as Sky Betting and Gaming, or “SBG”) had "gathered and used extensive information, generated by his use of its platforms, unlawfully…especially by way of personalised and targeted marketing which he could not handle and which fed his compulsive behaviour".

Mrs Justice Collins Rice DBE had held in her judgment (despite RTM not pleading in these terms) that, even though RTM had not lacked capacity to consent, and “that he wanted the direct marketing material – even perhaps craved it” he was one of a small subset (an “irreducible minimum”) of “individuals for whom decision-making…was already out of control in relation to gambling, and for whom the consenting mechanisms and information provision meant nothing other than barriers to gambling to be overcome”. Whilst SBG had adopted controls in line with gambling regulatory requirements and expectations to avoid the risk of marketing to “problem gamblers” (the judge’s words) and even though these controls “can and do help manage and minimise the particular risks of direct marketing to online gamblers…they cannot and do not eliminate them”. This was because he “lacked subjective consent”; “the autonomous quality of his consenting behaviour was impaired to a real degree”; and “the quality of [his] consenting was rather lower than the standard required”, and “insufficiently freely given.”

The first instance judgment had presented all businesses, but especially those in the betting and gaming sector, with a problem and a risk: i) how could they establish in each case the subjective aspect of a data subject’s consent? and ii) if they could not establish that subjective aspect, how could they deal with the risk that marketing which would, on the face of it be lawfully sent, would be held not to be, if the recipient was one of the irreducible minimum whose consent was not, subjectively, valid? Perhaps unsatisfactorily, the judge had said that this was "a risk which is ultimately ineradicable. Problem gamblers may not always be easy to recognise, and there will always be relevant information about them which is ultimately unreachable by the provider, and properly so because it is information which is itself in the private domain".

Court of Appeal confirms consent under UK GDPR is an objective test

The Court of Appeal has now roundly overturned the decision. Giving the main judgment, Lord Justice Warby revisited what a data controller must be able to demonstrate, in circumstances where consent is said to be present:

• the controller must “show that the data subject made a statement or took some other clear affirmative action…that ‘signifies agreement’”
• they must also prove that “the data subject’s ‘indication’ met each of the four criteria prescribed by the legislation, namely that it was (i) freely given, (ii) specific, (iii) informed, and (iv) unambiguous”. Each criterion is an objective test: “the data controller does not have to prove what was actually in the mind of the individual data subject at the time of the ‘indication’”.

In a classic example of judicial understatement, Warby LJ noted that the effect of the decision of the judge below was to establish a “principle that decisions deliberately made by a capacitous individual may nonetheless be vitiated for lack of consent” and further noted that it was a “legally novel” principle, whose “contours are not clear to me”.

Recitals 4 and 7 of the UK GDPR are relevant here. Recital 4 reminds us that: "The right to the protection of personal data is not an absolute right; it must be considered in relation to its function in society and be balanced against other fundamental rights". Recital 7 meanwhile reminds us that: "Legal and practical certainty for natural persons, economic operators and public authorities should be enhanced".

As Warby LJ notes, an “inevitable corollary” of the original ruling would be that a business “could not guarantee its ability to ‘demonstrate’ conformity with the consent requirements of data protection law and PECR”, and "the unsatisfactory and ultimately opaque nature of the test for legally effective consent which the judge applied…would create considerable legal and practical uncertainty for economic operators".

Unless there is a further appeal by RTM, which would require permission from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal has now gone a long way towards restoring legal and practical certainty as to the meaning of “consent” in data protection law, and how data controllers should approach the task of gathering and proving consent.

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

A different kind of pressure on employers

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

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

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

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

Starting point: what does “reasonable” look like?

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

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

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

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

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

Workplace presence, travel and employee wellbeing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flexibility versus control: making remote working work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Managing change without creating unnecessary exposure

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

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

In practice, employers should therefore think carefully about:

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

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

Cost management: thinking beyond immediate fixes

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

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

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

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

Planning for scenarios that may not arise

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

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

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

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

Workforce mobility and practical realities

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

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

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

The role of communication and leadership

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

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

Employers who navigate these periods well tend to:

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

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

What should employers do now?

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

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

Looking beyond the immediate situation

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

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

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

How can Mishcon de Reya help?

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

To find out more, please contact Natalie Jones.

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

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

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

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

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

The "Big Tobacco" parallel

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

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

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

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

The substantive position in England and Wales

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

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

Procedural barriers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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