Ellis was hanged in July 1955 after being convicted of murdering her partner, David Blakely, in north London. She was the last woman in Britain to be hanged, and her family have long campaigned for a pardon.

Her family, supported pro bono by law firm Mishcon de Reya, argued that evidence of the abuse she suffered at the hands of Blakely was not properly considered at trial. Victor Mishcon was brought in to fight for a last minute reprieve for Ellis during her lifetime, as such, this is a full circle moment for the firm.

Katy Colton, Partner and Head of Politics and Law, said: "The granting of a posthumous conditional pardon to Ruth Ellis is a landmark moment — for her family, for the British justice system, and for every victim of domestic abuse failed by the courts.

"Mishcon de Reya is proud to have acted for Ruth's grandchildren, alongside our colleagues at Matrix Chambers. This application had to be brought. The evidence was compelling, and we are pleased the Justice Secretary has recommended His Majesty grant Ruth Ellis a posthumous conditional pardon.

"Today's decision does not only right a wrong done over seventy years ago. It sends a clear signal about the aspirations of our justice system. Violence against women and girls remains a national emergency. The Government's public acknowledgement that the abuse Ruth Ellis endured should have impacted the outcome of her case reflects an important principle: that survivors of domestic abuse today deserve a justice system that properly understands and recognises the impact of that abuse.

"Our founder, Victor Mishcon, who fought to secure a last-minute reprieve for Ruth, would be immensely proud. We congratulate Ruth's grandchildren on their tenacity and courage in pursuing this application. It has been a privilege to stand alongside them as a firm."

Grace Houghton, Associate, Mishcon de Reya LLP, Solicitor for the Grandchildren said: "The granting of a posthumous conditional pardon for Ruth Ellis is both legally significant and historically important.

"The application demonstrated, on the evidence, that Ruth suffered from what is now understood as battered woman syndrome, and that the cumulative impact of the abuse she sustained would, under the law as it stands today, have supported defences of both diminished responsibility and loss of control. Had Ruth Ellis been tried just two years later, following the passage of the Homicide Act 1957, the outcome would have been very different.

"The Justice Secretary has exercised the Royal Prerogative of Mercy on a principled basis: that legal and social developments since 1955 make clear that the punishment imposed on Ruth was unjust.

"Today's pardon is a reminder that the law must reflect on its own history - and, where it finds injustice, must acknowledge those failings. We are honoured to have acted for Ruth's family in securing this outcome, and we hope they can now begin to heal from the generational trauma that has haunted them for decades."

Daniel joined the firm in 1998 and has been a Partner since 2004. Until April, he was Chair of the Employment department and sat on the Management Board. Daniel’s fee earning work includes advising on complex contentious and non-contentious employment matters and, as Chair of Employment, he oversaw substantial growth of the firm’s market-leading Employment practice.

Daniel serves as Managing Partner supported by an Executive Partner team of Johanna Walsh and Daniel Levy alongside the Chairs and other senior management, including the Operations Board. In addition to supporting Daniel in the management of the firm and the delivery of its strategic objectives, the Executive Partners will continue to advise and support their clients without change.

Johanna Walsh leads the White Collar Crime and Investigations team, as well as one of two divisions in the Dispute Resolution department. She joined the firm as a partner in January 2019 and sat on the firm’s Management Board for five years until 2025. 

Daniel Levy leads the Real Estate Litigation team and is Division Head of Property Litigation and Construction. He joined the firm in 2006, founding and leading the Real Estate Litigation team. He has sat on the Management Board since 2025 and, for the past two years, has served as Partners’ representative on the Operations Board. 

Daniel Naftalin, Managing Partner of Mishcon de Reya, said:

“I am very pleased to be taking over as Managing Partner and very proud that my partners put their faith in me to lead this exceptional firm. I care deeply about Mishcon de Reya, its people, what it stands for, and its place in an increasingly competitive market. Over the last few months, I have been working with my team to consult and develop our strategy to face our challenges and thrive. I was involved in the creation of our 2030 vision and our three pillars of private, real estate and innovation are fundamental to how I see the firm succeeding. 

“I want to guide Mishcon de Reya to a successful, profitable, and sustainable future. I want it to remain a values-led firm that rewards hard work and excellence and that people are proud to work for and to recommend. My team and I will work tirelessly to ensure that the firm is even stronger at the end of my tenure than it is today.”

Paying tribute to his predecessor James Libson, Daniel said: 

“James epitomises everything that is special about Mishcon de Reya, someone who is passionate about the law and has blended that with an exceptional commercial and strategic vision of what it takes for this firm to succeed. He has been involved in so many of the cases that have made us great and I am delighted that the Board has asked him to take on the honorary title of Senior Partner and that we will all continue to benefit from his extraordinary wisdom and love for this firm.”

Following Daniel’s election as Managing Partner, the Employment department elected partner Susannah Kintish as Chair of the Employment department from 1 April 2026.

• The Privy Council gave judgment earlier this year on whether a protector's powers are "wide" or "narrow" as a matter of default.
• The central question: is a protector limited to reviewing lawfulness only (Narrow), or must he exercise an independent discretion on the merits (Wide)?
• The Privy Council rejected this binary approach to the debate and held that the question that needs to be asked is: what if any constraints did the trust instrument actually impose, construed in its context and with regard to any constraints imported by the general law?
• The practical significance of this is that the majority of protectors' powers will be considered Wide.
• This has largely settled a longstanding and practically significant debate, but further questions arise about the impact of protectors' powers being wide, including whether applications for blessings of decisions by protectors to veto trustees' proposed courses of action will become more common.  

What did the Privy Council decide?

After much anticipation for those working in the trust industry, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council gave judgment in March this year on whether, as a matter of default, a protector's powers are "wide" or "narrow" in Re X. A detailed case note on this decision written by Peter Steen and Lawrence Hiller-Wood can be read here. In short, the parties to the appeal asked the Board to opine, as a question of Bermudian law, on the default role of protectors holding a fiduciary power of consent to the proposed exercise by a trustee of its power under a trust instrument – a question of significance for many common-law jurisdictions. The question was whether such a protector was limited solely to reviewing the lawfulness of the trustee's proposed course of action, or whether the protector needed to exercise an independent discretion by reference to their own view on the merits of the trustee's proposal.  The former is widely known as the "Narrow Role" and the latter as the "Wider Role".

The issue was presented to the Board as if it had to assume that the settlor must have had in mind either the Narrow Role or Wider Role for the trust deed. The Board did not consider this to be the correct approach, explaining that the issue needs to be resolved as a matter of construction of the trust deed. Thus, the question that needs to be asked is: what if any constraints did the trust instrument actually impose, construed in its context and with regard to any constraints imported by the general law? Applying these principles to the present case, the Board found that the relevant trusts did not by any express language impose any constraints upon the protectors in the exercise of the powers of veto.

Practical implications for protectors

The trusts in Re X were in relatively standard form and therefore many protectors will likewise need to exercise an independent discretion on the merits of a trustee's proposal. In circumstances of having such a wide discretion, this opens the question as to whether protectors will now increasingly seek blessings of decisions to refuse trustees' proposed courses of action where these refusals are in themselves momentous decisions – in the vein of the second category of decisions brought to the court for approval as outlined in Public Trustee v Cooper (HC-99-04500).

Will court applications increase?

Certainly, protectors can and do bring applications for blessings of decisions; for example, in the recent 2026 Guernsey case of Re X (Civil No. 2632), a protector sought a blessing of its in-principle decision to remove the trustee and appoint in its place a UK-based trustee, making the trusts subject to UK tax – a decision that was approved.

However, in this author's view, court applications for blessings of protectors' powers of veto will likely remain rare. This is because scenarios where exercising a power of veto amounts to a momentous decision are unusual. Furthermore, if a protector were to bring such an application, there would be a significant risk it would be contested by the trustee (who may well want to justify the decision it made, to avoid criticism), making the application potentially risky for the protector in terms of reputation and costs.

In terms of exercising powers of consent, it is likely  protectors will make it a term of their consent, where the decision is a momentous one and the value of the transaction justifies it, that the trustee make an application to the court for the in-principle decision to be blessed if the trustee has not already indicated it will be doing so. The protector could then apply in tandem or sit behind the trustee's application rather than bring a standalone application, therefore limiting additional legal cost to the trust fund. In this scenario it is difficult to see a protector in the receipt of legal advice taking any other course.

It is likely trustees in such scenarios would be making an application for a blessing in any event, which means applications to court for blessings of in-principle decisions by protectors are unlikely to increase.

Conclusion

So, as the dust settles on the Privy Council's decision in Re X, it can be said (at least in this author's view) that, whilst most protectors will have wide discretion when exercising their powers of veto, this will not necessarily result in an increase in applications to the court by protectors for blessings of decisions and therefore burdening trusts with the attendant legal fees.

Joao Paulo met with Pedro Vasques-Milhinhos, an Associate in our Corporate department and member of our Creators + Collectors group, to discuss the rise of Brazilian collectors on the global stage, how they think about art, and why Brazilian and Latin American art is finally getting the recognition it deserves — and what no algorithm or social media scrolling can ever replace.

You served as Lisson Gallery’s Latin America Representative and Associate Director from 2014 to 2017, before co-founding Art Consulting Tool and launching Panorama - two businesses with global reach. How has that journey shaped your understanding of what collectors want from an art adviser?

Since I started working in the arts, I've been a very pluralist professional, often wearing various hats. I've advised artists, curated exhibitions, published books and built art collections – I've never confined myself strictly to one role. I've always been more sensitive and intuitive, more drawn to opportunities than to fixed roles. My creativity and sense of entrepreneurship have always led me to create the projects I wanted to create, and to build unexpected bridges between people and ideas within the art world.

That plurality - moving between the gallery, the studio, the page and the collection - is exactly what shapes how I advise collectors today. I'm not advising from just one fixed point of view. In advising my clients, I weave all those different vantage points into the conversation.

According to the 2025 Survey of Global Collecting, Brazil now accounts for 23% of new art collectors worldwide, second only to the US. From where you sit as an advisor, what is different about how Brazilian art collectors approach collecting—not just what they buy, but how they think about art's place in their lives, homes and portfolios?

I must confess I didn’t know that number before - I find it both intriguing and exciting. In my view, those figures further emphasize the incredible, relentless energy that Brazilians bring to all areas of life. Brazil is such a melting pot of cultures and Brazilians are naturally open-minded and open-hearted to exploring art from everywhere. That’s also how I see my own role, and how I try to contribute to my clients’ lives. It doesn’t matter where they come from. Once they truly start engaging with art and the art world, they have trouble stopping. They’re not only interested in being at the zeitgeist of the art world, but also in defining and structuring a great collection - one that combines both cultural and financial value as well as one that sits between emotion and reason.

Next-generation Brazilian art collectors are among the youngest and most active in the world. What does that appetite look like in your early conversations with them? What are they excited about, which artists are they gravitating towards, and what fresh perspectives are they bringing to art collecting?

First and foremost, this new generation of collectors in Brazil is excited to be part of a community that brings together political, cultural, and economic dialogue alongside its aesthetic dimension - they have a keen sense that art is not there merely to adorn their walls, but as an expression of this discourse. They want to understand the emotion and discourse behind the pieces, to visit artists in their studios, to go to art fairs, to visit foundations and museums around the world - and, as a result, to bring that understanding home through art. There’s no doubt that painting, as a medium, now attracts not only newcomers but also very established collectors. I feel that in an age where we are overstimulated by screens, painting is so full of material and emotion, carrying that human, handmade quality that enchants us all. We are also seeing that Photography is experiencing a comeback and is increasingly being integrated in collections, as is sculpture.

SP-Arte is attracting an increasingly strong contingent of international collectors and institutional representatives. Are you seeing that translate into sustained demand in the Brazilian art market, or is it still more a moment of curiosity? And where does the centre of gravity of Brazilian art sit today—in São Paulo, Rio or somewhere more distributed?

Over the last 22 years since it was founded, SP-Arte has played an increasingly influential role and has changed the landscape of art collecting in Brazil. The fair’s consistently high-quality curation and organisation has increasingly ignited the curiosity of international collectors - not a large group, but one that is high quality one and understands the Brazilian art market. ArtRio, in turn, has done an incredible job bringing in major museum trustees and international collectors to Brazil. Rio de Janeiro, as a city, has its own power and poetry entrenched in its DNA which serves as a strong basis to attract these groups, along with so many artist studios who have found their home there and are spread across the city. That being said, São Paulo has a wonderful gallery scene, and is home to top tier museums such as Pinacoteca and MASP, as well as the second most important biennial in the world, the Bienal de São Paulo. In that sense, each city plays its own unique role. Outside of these two major cities, Recife also has a very active art scene, and we mustn't forget Inhotim, in Minas Gerais - a groundbreaking open-air contemporary museum housing works by some of the most significant Brazilian artists of our time - including Hélio Oiticica, Tunga, Olafur Eliasson and Adriana Varejão, which is regarded as one of the most ambitious and immersive artists experiences not just in Brazil, but in the world.

Brazilian artists have become a recurring presence at major international touchpoints, from the Venice Biennale to Frieze, while institutions continue to expand their Latin American acquisitions. Is this a sustained structural shift in how the global art world views Brazilian art, or does it still depend too heavily on the appetite of a handful of influential curators and collectors abroad?

I think this phenomenon is, in a way, a settling of accounts with the past. The art world, and other fields of culture, are finally coming to the realization that there is no single starting point and no single ending point. For centuries, we have credited the Western world as the center of the art world, and I’ve always disagreed with that way of thinking. Brazilian and Latin American art has been influential for at least a century. Of course, the European avant-gardes remain key to understanding what came after - but when we talk about contemporary art, all geographies must be considered equally. The world is now too inter-connected, and countries without a long tradition of modern art can still produce wonderful contemporary artists. I believe many leading curators and museum directors haven’t just expressed a will to change this discourse in the art world - they’ve worked hard to champion it and have achieved tangible results. I can happily name a few: Humberto Moro (Dia Foundation), Adriano Pedrosa (MASP), Ines Katzenstein (MoMA) and Pablo Leon de la Barra (Guggenheim).

Social media, and Instagram in particular, has opened the Brazilian art market to a much wider and younger audience. As someone who works closely with collectors at every stage of their journey, how do you think about that shift? Where do platforms like Instagram genuinely deepen engagement with art, and where do they fall short in fostering the kind of long-term relationship with collecting that you champion?

Social media, and Instagram especially, has really opened up culture at large - not just the art world. So many museums, galleries and artists that once felt distant are now genuinely reachable to a much broader audience, and that’s an unquestionably positive shift. That said, the nature of the content is often immediate and shallow by design. A scroll is not a conversation, and it certainly isn’t an encounter.

I try to see Instagram as an ally, when it’s used the right way. At Panorama, my team and I are very deliberate about the content we put out on our social media - we want to offer something substantive, to be a trusted source rather than just another feed to scroll past.

At the end of the day, though, I believe the physical encounter with a work of art can’t be replicated online. That’s the experience I want for my clients - something unforgettable enriching and mesmerizing, the kind that turns a moment of interest into a long-term relationship with collecting.

Finally, you have negotiated hundreds of works across your career, from international artists to emerging Brazilian voices you have helped bring to wider attention. Is there one acquisition you advised on that best captures what great art collecting can mean?

I have indeed. When I start counting, it’s hard to keep track. It would be difficult to name just one, though there are certainly a few that stand out. What I love the most about those moments when I am negotiating a piece for a client to add to their collection, is the feeling of bringing a piece of art history into my collectors’ homes. In that sense, I couldn’t name one single acquisition but the works that stand out to me are works by Barbara Kruger, Lucian Freud, Paula Rego, Lygia Clark, Helio Oiticica, Frank Auerbach, Anselm Kiefer, Louise Bourgeois, Ismael Nery, On Kawara, and De Kooning, among others.

How Mishcon de Reya we can help

Mishcon's Creators + Collectors team advises collectors, artists, galleries, institutions and family offices on the legal and commercial issues that arise when building, managing and preserving collections and other passion assets. Bringing together specialists from across the firm, we help clients realise their ambitions through strategic, practical and holistic advice tailored to the people behind the collection.

Dr. Amber Hill is the founder and CEO of Research Grid. With a background in biomedical neuroscience and artificial intelligence, she has led clinical trials and research engagement at institutions like UCL, Harvard, and MIT. Prior to founding Research Grid, she also established a global non-profit supporting patient involvement in research.

After decades leading medical research, Dr. Hill experienced firsthand how repetitive, manual admin tasks slowed progress and delayed patient access to treatment. Recognising that the brightest minds in medicine were being bogged down by back-office inefficiencies, she set out to change it. An expert in both clinical research and AI, she began building a solution. In 2020, she founded Research Grid to automate the clinical trial back office and eliminate all manual admin, from patient sourcing to trial management.

As CEO, Dr. Hill is responsible for product vision, strategic partnerships, and team leadership. Her leadership is characterised by technical expertise, deep empathy for patients, and a mission-driven approach to innovation in healthcare. She continues to drive forward her vision to make clinical trials admin-free and bring modern infrastructure to medical research worldwide. Listen here. 

• In Uber London Ltd & Ors v White & Ors (Re Disclosure) [2026] EWHC 1610 (Comm) the Commercial Court has handed down a significant judgment on the limits of litigation privilege.
• The court's decision that communications made to enable litigation funders to decide whether to fund proposed litigation did not attract privilege has important implications for both litigants and litigation funders, particularly in the context of group actions.
• However, the decision does not categorically exclude funders from claiming litigation privilege, and privilege will still be available to prospective claimants where the dominant purpose of communications is to enable them to decide whether or not to litigate.

Background

In the underlying claims Mishcon de Reya is instructed by approximately 13,300 black cab drivers and the assignee of two former ride-sharing companies against Uber London Ltd and its Dutch and US parent companies. The claims, which cover a period between 2012 and 2018, arise out of an alleged conspiracy by Uber to cause loss by unlawful means.

Although the claims were issued outside the primary limitation period, the claimants rely on section 32 Limitation Act 1980 to postpone that period on the basis that the alleged fraud had not, and could not with reasonable diligence, have been discovered by them before certain information was made public.

A preliminary issue trial on limitation was ordered and, in advance of the hearing, the defendants sought disclosure of communications which were made while a litigation funder had engaged the firm to investigate potential claims, but before any individual claimants were clients. The defendants argued that such communications were relevant (and thus disclosable) because they might indicate the actual knowledge of individual claimants, or at least what individual claimants could reasonably have discovered at the time.

Unusually, in this case there had initially been a lawyer-client relationship between the funder and the firm and so the defendants accepted that (subject to review) legal advice privilege would apply to many of the communications for which disclosure was sought. However, the claimants also contended that litigation privilege applied to all communications between the funder and the firm, without there being any need for review. This was the key issue addressed by the court.

Litigation privilege

Litigation privilege is one of the two categories of legal professional privilege. Resting on the principles of access to justice, the proper administration of justice, a fair trial and equality of arms, it enables a party to obtain advice and information in connection with the conduct of litigation without fear that what has been said or written will subsequently need to be disclosed.

In particular, litigation privilege protects:

• Confidential communications between a lawyer and client, or either of them and a third party;
• Made for the sole or dominant purpose of conducting adversarial litigation;
• Which is either in progress or contemplation.

The key question in Uber was whether the communications in question satisfied the dominant purpose test. The evidence indicated that the dominant purpose of the communications was to enable the funder to decide whether to fund the claim. The claimants contended that this was part of the conduct of litigation on the basis that the conduct of litigation includes deciding whether or not to litigate, an integral part of which is deciding whether or not to spend money on the claim.

However, the judge did not agree. He distinguished the position where an individual litigant takes a decision about whether or not to start a claim, including whether to put money into it, from the position where a funder decides whether to fund someone else's litigation. In the former case, the judge concluded that the claimant's decision is part of its conduct of litigation, but in the latter case he observed that it is not the funder's decision to start the litigation. Thus, the judge concluded that the funder was not conducting this or any litigation, with the result that litigation privilege would not be available.

The limits of the decision

The decision has important implications, particularly in group actions where a firm is seeking funding to investigate a potential claim in advance of building a book of claimants. In such circumstances, funders and lawyers need to be aware that their communications may not be protected by legal professional privilege. However, it is also important to remember that, particularly where limitation is not an issue, such communications are less likely to meet the relevant test for disclosure.

Moreover, the impact of the decision should not be overstated in the context of more typical commercial cases, where there is a pre-existing client relationship with a potential claimant before funders are approached. In those circumstances it may be more straightforward to satisfy the dominant purpose test. The judge also highlighted that materials provided to funders which contain or evidence privileged legal advice may remain protected by privilege. It may also be possible to rely on limited waiver where privileged material has been disclosed on confidential terms.

She joined from Pocket Living, where she served as Chief Development Officer overseeing its entire pipeline of major London schemes including the award-winning Sheepcote Road in Harrow and Atlas Wharf in Old Oak.  

Her earlier roles at Grosvenor and Muse Developments established a strong track record in regeneration and public–private partnership, working with local authorities and institutional stakeholders to unlock major development opportunities, including the two-acre South Molton Triangle in Mayfair.  

She has over 20 years of experience leading complex residential and mixed-use regeneration projects across London and the UK. 

Greystar’s 16-person UK Development team is currently delivering significant rental housing schemes, including the first homes at the 1,600-home Pearl Yard in Bermondsey, as well as Greenford Quay, Momento Hayes and Canvas Wembley, which are now fully operational. 

Thomasin holds a Bachelor of Science in Astrophysics from University College London and a Master of Science in Surveying from the University of Reading. She is a Fellow of RICS (Planning and Development). 

• The Government has proposed a significant overhaul of the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) system. The reforms aim to shift the burden of SEND support into mainstream education, reducing reliance on Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) and widely replacing them with a new system of tiered support. Whilst the ambition is to make support faster and more accessible, the changes carry important legal and practical implications for both schools and families.
• A new "universal offer" raises the baseline for all mainstream schools, with new inclusion standards, teacher training, and annual Inclusion Strategies assessed by Ofsted.
• A tiered support model replaces the current framework, with every child receiving an ISP and EHCPs reserved only for those with the most complex needs.
• ISPs carry less legal weight than EHCPs: they are not enforceable or appealable to the SEND Tribunal, potentially increasing the burden on internal complaints procedures and discrimination claims against schools.
• Full implementation is not until 2028/29: the SEND Code of Practice remains in force in the meantime, and schools should plan ahead.

What are the proposed SEND reforms?

In reform plans billed as "radical" by the Department for Education, the Government's Schools White Paper, "Every child achieving and thriving", was published in February, alongside its consultation paper on SEND reforms. The White Paper sets out proposed major reforms to the SEND system in the UK, prompted by a recognition that the current framework is not working effectively and is putting local authorities under unsustainable financial burden.  

Since the publication of the White Paper, there has now been a change in Government leadership, with Andy Burnham as Prime Minister and Lucy Powell as Secretary of State for Education. At this stage, it remains to be seen whether this change will result in any amendment to the proposed SEND reforms, although media commentary suggests it is unlikely the new leadership will depart significantly from the proposed reforms.¹

The Universal Offer

The proposed reforms are stated to be designed to equip mainstream schools to enable all children, including those with SEND, to participate and be supported in mainstream settings, thereby creating a more inclusive education system.

The Government's SEND consultation paper presents this as a "universal offer".  This is:

1. A universal standard described as "a new baseline for mainstream education settings" that "will raise standards for all" and "[place] inclusion at the heart of everyday practice".
2. Among other things, the "Universal offer" promises a high-quality curriculum designed for all learners; strong partnerships with families and wider services; and inclusive environments with continuous improvements to accessibility.
3. A further £200 million over 3 years will also go towards a new training programme for teachers, to ensure that all staff (not just those specialising in children with SEND) are well placed to provide the correct support to all students within mainstream schooling.

What is clear is that schools will bear more of the responsibility for supporting children with SEND. Schools will be held accountable for this: they will be required to produce annual Inclusion Strategies (instead of the current SEN Information Report framework), which will be subject to assessment by Ofsted. 

Beyond the "universal offer", the key reforms are as follows:

The key takeaways for parents are:

• The reforms are intended to make SEND support easier and faster to access, meaning that most children with SEND should be able to thrive in a mainstream environment without having to engage in lengthy, complex processes to get the help they need.
• Whilst children with SEND will be legally entitled to an ISP, these plans will not carry the same legal weight as EHCPs (access to which will become more limited). Challenges to an ISP will have to be made internally or through local authority procedures, as opposed to going through the Tribunal.
• Support already in place for your child will not be unilaterally removed. Even if your child's needs are not complex enough to warrant an EHCP under the new plans, their current EHCP will still remain in place until 2030 at the earliest.

The key takeaways for schools are:

• Schools should start planning ahead to help staff understand the new framework, how it will be implemented, and assess where there may be gaps in service provision.
• Given the heavily increased administrative burden on schools with, for instance, ISPs and associated record-keeping, schools should consider to whom those responsibilities will fall and whether staff have sufficient capacity.
• Whilst schools should look ahead to implementation, they should be reminded that the reforms are yet to be legislated and are not likely to take effect before 2029 – schools should be mindful not to make changes to children's care prematurely, and to continue complying with the SEND Code of Practice in the meantime.
• The onus to (i) identify the necessary support for children with SEND; and (ii) provide the same, will lie with schools. The majority of children with SEND will have ISPs, rather than EHCPs which will be focused on the most complex needs.  As ISPs are not challengeable in the SEND tribunal, schools could see a rise in complaints and disability discrimination claims.

We have been ranked Band 1 for Private Wealth Disputes, Private Wealth Law and Real Estate: High Value Residential in London, and Art and Cultural Property Law, Immigration: High Net Worth Individuals, and Landed Estates across the UK.

Amanda Gray, Idina Glyn, James Liffen, Johanna Walsh, Jonathan CY Mok, Karen Sanig, Mark Keenan, Patrick Harney, Peter Steen and Sonal Thakrar have been ranked in Band 1 for their respective practice areas.

Alice Mantle, Christopher Gribbin, Lavinia de Nazelle, Louise Moore, Michelle Stroube, Min Wiggins, Rhiannon Coleman, Sabrina Sears and Stephanie Lim Pierce have been recognised as Associates to Watch.

Carmen Cheng, Clare Radcliffe and Harry Eccles-Williams have been listed as Up and Coming lawyers.

Lawrence Hiller-Wood has been listed as Star Associate.

Individual accolades:

• Senior Statespeople: Sandra Davis
• Foreign Expert for Switzerland Spotlight: Filippo Noseda
• Foreign Expertise based abroad in UK: Kamal Rahman
• Foreign Expert for Middle East-wide Spotlight: Marianne Kafena
• Foreign Expert for United Arab Emirates Spotlight: Martin Davies

Rankings

London

Private Wealth Disputes

• Emilia Piskorz
• Jessica Medus
• Lawrence Hiller-Wood
• Mark Keenan
• Peter Steen

Private Wealth & Tax

• Charlie Sosna
• Filippo Noseda
• Fiona Lewsey
• Marianne Kafena
• Martin Davies
• Patrick Harney

Real Estate: High Value Residential

• Dee Aylward
• Fiona Callaghan
• James Liffen
• Sonal Thakrar

UK-wide

Art and Cultural Property Law

• Amanda Gray
• Karen Sanig
• Lavinia de Nazelle
• Michelle Stroube
• Simon Chadwick

Defamation/Reputation Management: High Net Worth

• Alexandra Whiston-Dew
• Emma Woollcott
• Harry Eccles-Williams
• Michael Frost

Family Offices & Funds Structuring

• Filippo Noseda

Family/Matrimonial Finance: Ultra High Net Worth

• Alice Mantle
• Antonia Felix
• Barbara Reeves
• Claire Yorke
• Clare Radcliffe
• James Rees
• Kate Clark
• Sandra Davis

Financial Crime: High Net Worth Individuals

• Christopher Gribbin
• Johanna Walsh
• Matthew Ewens
• Min Wiggins

Immigration: High Net Worth Individuals

• Hannah Barnett
• Kamal Rahman
• Maria Patsalos
• Steven Bostock

Landed Estates

• Andrew Williamson
• Idina Glyn
• Louise Moore

China

Family/Matrimonial: High Net Worth (International Firms)

• Jonathan CY Mok

Private Wealth Law (International Firms)

• Carmen Cheng
• Timothy Burns
• Wei Zhang

Cambridge and surrounds

Private Wealth & Tax

• Rhiannon Coleman
• Sabrina Sears

Singapore

Private Wealth Law

• Stephanie Lim Pierce

View the full listings on the Chambers website.

The latest guide also recognises several of the team’s leading practitioners: 

Partner Jonathan Mok retains his Band 1 ranking for China – Family/Matrimonial: High Net Worth. 

Managing Partner Wei Zhang advances to Band 2 for China – Private Wealth Law. 

Partner Timothy Burns retains his Band 3 ranking for China – Private Wealth Law. 

Legal Director Carmen Cheng retains her Up and Coming ranking for China – Private Wealth Law. 

Singapore Managing Associate Stephanie Lim Pierce achieves her inaugural ranking as an Associate to Watch for Singapore – Private Wealth Law. 

These results reflect Mishcon Asia’s continued momentum and growing standing across private wealth, family and matrimonial law. 

Learn more about the rankings.

Katy Colton, Partner and Head of Politics & Law in Mishcon Private was featured as The Times Lawyer of the Week. Katy explains how failures in the original police investigation and prosecution affected the evidence that survived, requiring the team to draw on a wide range of sources to reconstruct a picture of Ruth’s mental state. She also discusses her politically informed practice, the importance of achieving a tangible impact for clients and the people who have influenced her legal career.

Grace Houghton, Associate in the Private Department, was featured as the Law Gazette’s Lawyer in the News. Grace, who represented Ruth’s grandchildren, discusses the abuse Ruth suffered at the hands of David Blakely and why the pardon is a historic acknowledgement that she should never have been executed. She also reflects on the wider significance of the case, dealing with intense media interest and the privilege of helping Ruth’s family secure justice more than 70 years after her execution.

Read more:

• Katy’s interview: The Times
• Grace’s interview: The Law Gazette
• Background: Ruth Ellis granted posthumous conditional pardon

Hugging Face subsequently disclosed the intrusion, noting that it was, in its own words, different from anything it had handled before: an attack driven end-to-end by an autonomous AI agent, detected and dissected largely with AI of its own.

According to OpenAI, the models escaped their intended testing constraints, obtained external internet access by exploiting a previously unknown vulnerability, and subsequently compromised Hugging Face systems to obtain information that could help them succeed in the benchmarking task they had been set.

If the details disclosed by OpenAI are accurate, this may represent one of the first publicly documented cases of an AI escaping a testing environment and conducting a real-world intrusion against an external organisation, raising important questions around AI governance, accountability, and regulatory oversight.

Optimising for Success

Nobody told the model to attack Hugging Face. It was tasked with maximising its score on ExploitGym, a benchmark that presents an agent with hundreds of real vulnerabilities and asks it to weaponise each one. The model reasoned that the answer key probably resided on Hugging Face and that stealing it was the most efficient route to a high score. Breaking containment, finding a zero-day, and compromising another organisation’s database were, from the model's perspective, merely instrumental steps towards the objective it had been given.

The evaluation was designed to run in a sealed sandbox with no internet access, connected only to an internal package proxy that caches software downloads. That single convenience - the ability to pull in libraries - was the entire point of failure. The model discovered an undisclosed vulnerability in the proxy and used it to reach the open internet at will.

After obtaining external access, the models inferred that Hugging Face might host models, datasets, or solutions relevant to ExploitGym. They conducted reconnaissance, identified exploitable weaknesses, and reportedly leveraged vulnerabilities and compromised credentials to gain access to Hugging Face infrastructure. This ultimately allowed them to obtain benchmark solutions directly from production systems, effectively bypassing the benchmark rather than completing it as intended.

Hugging Face detected and contained the activity, initially attributing the breach to an "external AI agent" and reportedly suspecting involvement from a frontier AI laboratory given the sophistication of the attack.

Response Asymmetry

During the response, Hugging Face encountered a striking problem with its forensic analysis. Its team initially tried frontier models behind commercial APIs to analyse the attacker's action logs, but the requests were blocked by provider safety guardrails - systems that cannot distinguish an incident responder from an attacker. Submitting real exploit payloads, command-and-control artefacts, and attack commands trips the same filters designed to stop malicious use.

The result was a stark asymmetry: the attacker was a frontier model with its safety refusals turned off, while the defenders were unable to use equivalent commercial models to analyse the very attack it had carried out.

Breaking boundaries

A notable aspect of the incident is that the models were not instructed to attack Hugging Face. They appear to have determined independently that acquiring benchmark solutions was an efficient route to a high ExploitGym score. The objective remained unchanged; the methods chosen to achieve it simply extended beyond the boundaries OpenAI's testing framework anticipated.

The key takeaway is that the reported behaviour was not motivated by malicious intent. The models were pursuing a legitimate testing goal, yet they selected methods that created real-world consequences well outside the scope of the evaluation.

This demonstrates that organisations cannot assess AI risk purely through intended use cases; they must also consider the actions a system may take while pursuing those objectives. As advanced models become increasingly effective at discovering and exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities, organisations face a future in which vulnerability discovery and exploitation occur at machine speed rather than human speed.

This incident highlights that threat modelling can no longer assume intelligent adversarial behaviour is exclusively human. If OpenAI's account is accurate, organisations will need enhanced security, governance, and risk frameworks capable of addressing autonomous systems that can independently identify and exploit paths their creators did not anticipate. The threat landscape expands beyond criminals and nation-states to include failures and unintended consequences arising from advanced AI systems, potentially operating at a speed that outpaces many current detection and response processes.

Although the attack took place in the United States, it raises an obvious question for the UK - would comparable conduct be prosecuted in the same way under the Computer Misuse Act 1990? A Section 1 offence requires a person to intend to secure unauthorised access, which does not appear to be the case here. If the issue is characterised instead as negligence or recklessness in the design, containment, or deployment of that system, the current statutory framework may be less straightforward. That matters because the Act was enacted in 1990, long before autonomous agents capable of identifying and exploiting vulnerabilities at speed were contemplated. The incident therefore exposes a potential legislative gap, namely whether, and in what circumstances, it should be an offence to negligently or recklessly release a system capable of causing real-world cyber harm.

It remains unclear whether OpenAI will face legal consequences as a result of the intrusion. However, based on OpenAI's own account, the reported actions - including unauthorised system access, use of compromised credentials, exploitation of vulnerabilities, and retrieval of information from Hugging Face production systems - would likely fall within conduct ordinarily prohibited under the US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) if performed by a human actor. The legal complexity lies in the fact that the activity was not directed by an individual operator, creating uncertainty over how existing cybercrime legislation applies when the immediate actor is an autonomous AI system.

As the landscape develops, however, the scope for legal consequences may shift. The next organisation that finds itself in a similar position may find it harder to argue that it was ignorant of, or could not have foreseen, the consequences, given what has happened to Hugging Face and the worldwide attention it has drawn.

Furthermore, as organisations are driven to adopt security measures that extend far beyond the boundaries of their own systems, there is a risk that they may be found to have breached laws intended to criminalise malicious actors but which may not – at least from a liability perspective – distinguish between a defensive and an offensive act of unauthorised access.

Whilst in that situation an organisation would hope for prosecutorial discretion, that is by no means guaranteed; and going deeper still, there is inevitably scope for a bad actor to pose as a benign force – one driven ostensibly by a desire to keep systems secure from outside attack – but who is in fact masking a much more malign intent.

This incident may ultimately be remembered less as a breach of Hugging Face and more as an early demonstration of the governance and cybersecurity challenges posed by frontier autonomous AI systems. It is likely to become an important reference point for future legal and regulatory discussions, particularly those concerning liability, accountability, and the oversight of advanced autonomous AI behaviour.

In addition, the firm announced that it has increased its trainee salaries. First-year trainees will receive a salary of £52,500 and second-year trainees a salary of £57,500, effective from July.  

Earlier this year, the firm announced that Associates, Managing Associates and Of Counsel will be eligible for an additional bonus if they work significantly in excess of their standard expected hours. The bonus, which is in addition to the existing bonus scheme that rewards high performers, has been introduced to attract and retain talented employees, ensuring that the firm’s lawyers are rewarded well and competitively for effort and excellence - including the use of AI - particularly when clients require intensive support.

The firm has not changed its chargeable hours expectations; this means the firm’s lawyers can find the balance that best suits their lives and circumstances, either by emphasising work/life balance or longer hours.

Vanessa Dewhurst, Partner and Chief People Officer at Mishcon de Reya, said:  

“Our people are at the heart of our growth, our culture and our success and rewarding them fairly, competitively and sustainably is at the core of our strategy.

“Each year we assess how to provide a remuneration package that aligns with the firm's growth and to ensure that we continue to attract the brightest talent in the market. These increases, along with the additional bonus scheme, ensure we can competitively reward both the financial contributions and wider contributions that create long-term value for the firm and clients.”

The site was originally transferred by Berkeley in 2010 to facilitate delivery of the Woolwich Elizabeth line station. Following completion of the station in 2022, Places for London has now returned the site to Berkeley, unlocking a key development opportunity at one of London's most significant regeneration schemes.

The site benefits from planning consent for a 575-home mixed-use development, comprising four buildings arranged around a landscaped podium above the station. The scheme will also provide commercial space, public realm improvements and new landscaped amenity areas.

Royal Arsenal Riverside is a major regeneration project in southeast London, with around 4,000 homes already delivered and more than 5,000 homes expected across the wider development.

The Mishcon team was led by Anju Suneja, Partner in Real Estate, and supported by Oliver Neasham (Real Estate), Rebecca Murphy (Real Estate). Planning advice was provided by Partner Nicholle Kingsley, Anna Trafford and Jon Legg, Partner in Real Estate Tax, also advised.  

Anju Suneja commented:

"We are delighted to have supported Berkeley in reaching this important milestone at Royal Arsenal Riverside. This transaction demonstrates the value that can be created when the public and private sectors work together over the long term to unlock complex urban sites. At a time when developers continue to navigate evolving regulatory requirements, viability pressures and a constrained planning environment, bringing forward well-connected developments such as this remains critical to increasing housing supply".

Related coverage

Green Street News

Mark said that although this case was decided under Irish law, there are helpful learning points for HR professionals in the UK.

He explained that when an employee discloses their pregnancy, an employer should carry out a risk assessment, inform the employee of their “entitlement to maternity leave and pay, and allow [them] to take paid time off to attend antenatal appointments”.

Mark said that where there is a maternity policy, employers should “review that policy and comply with its terms... Failure to do so may create potential claims by the pregnant employee”.  

He concluded: “Although it is possible to make a pregnant employee redundant, she will have super priority in respect of any suitable alternative vacancies.”

Read the article in full

Join Tobias Ellwood for a candid conversation on his new book, Ten Steps to Prevent World War Three, as he sets out what’s really happening beneath today’s headlines and what can still be done to change course.

Drawing on his experience as a former soldier, Foreign and Defence Minister, and Chair of the Commons Defence Select Committee, Tobias brings a clear, unvarnished view of a world where conflict is already unfolding across multiple fronts from Ukraine to the Middle East to the intensifying US–China rivalry.

In this discussion, he will explore:

• how we’ve reached this point of growing instability
• why future conflict won’t look like the wars of the past
• and the practical steps needed now to avoid a much larger crisis

Our key insights include: 

• Ransomware is still the number one cyber crime issue. Data theft has overtaken encryption as the most common extortion tactic. Organisations should be considering their response, communications and regulatory strategies to deal with data leaks as well as backups and recovery. 
• Geopolitical cyber risk is no longer confined to critical infrastructure. We are in a more exposed world with state-aligned and destructive attacks increasingly affecting private sector organisations. We recommend understanding the impacts geopolitical shifts will have on technology, security and business reputations.  
• AI is helping threat actors operate faster and at greater scale. This occurs particularly through enhanced reconnaissance, phishing and operational automation, but there is a lot of hype. 
• Identity has become a primary attack surface, with attackers increasingly targeting helpdesks, privileged accounts and cloud management platforms rather than endpoints themselves. We recommend understanding how social engineering attacks target your people, or how your Cloud and Technology environments are secured, beyond adding more security tools. 

Fluidstack builds and operates high-performance compute infrastructure for leading AI companies. The company delivers large-scale GPU clusters purpose-built for AI training and inference, handling the full lifecycle of deployment: acquiring power, designing and constructing data centres, and operating them through integrated hardware and software teams. Its technology is designed to enable the delivery of gigawatts of computing capacity in industry leading time frames.

Phil Robinson, Partner at Mishcon de Reya, commented: “It was a real privilege to represent Fluidstack on this strategic transaction. We’ve seen the company go from strength to strength, and this deal marks a key moment in its growth trajectory. Huge congratulations to all those involved.”

The Mishcon de Reya team was led by Partner Phil Robinson and included Kunal Sankhla, John Hadfield, Ege Sever, Sophia Andronikou, Gwen Ballin-Reeler and Chanelle Cattin, together with Chris Driscoll from the firm’s US team.

For more information about Fluidstack, please visit fluidstack.io.

Planning Partner Nicholle Kingsley has shared her analysis with Housing Digital, Inside Housing and Planning Resource, examining whether the proposed changes mark a meaningful departure from the current planning framework.

Nicholle describes the revised approach to affordable housing targets as considered and practical. However, she notes that translating the Mayor’s ambitions into completed homes will require policies that reflect market conditions, address viability constraints and give developers and local authorities sufficient clarity and flexibility.

Related coverage

Housing Digital
Inside Housing
Planning Resource
The Planner
Property Week

• The decision in Trump v Slaughter has created uncertainty about the long-standing position of the independence of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the USA.
• Max Schrems (who has previously challenged the data transfer protections in place between the EU and USA) considers the decision in Trump v Slaughter to remove the independence of the FTC required under the Data Privacy Framework (DPF). Schrems's NGO "NOYB" has urged the European Commission to act, and threatened to bring proceedings if necessary.
• The DPF remains in place for now, though it is possible that a Schrems III action will invalidate the DPF should the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) agree with the position in Schrems's submissions. Should that happen, it seems inevitable that the UK-US "data bridge", which relies on the DPF, would be reviewed.

Trump v Slaughter decision

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is a US government regulatory agency, which has a variety of powers relating to the enforcement of competition law and consumer protection. The FTC operates with five Commissioners, who serve for a period of seven years following their appointment and historically it has only been possible to remove them from office following "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office". Until recently, it enjoyed statutory protection designed to ensure its independence.

In his second term as President, Donald Trump removed Commissioners Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter from their roles. Slaughter subsequently challenged this decision in the courts, and the case was eventually heard by the US Supreme Court. On 29 June 2026, the Court ruled in Trump v Slaughter that the President could fire Commissioners "at will" and was not restricted to the historic position relating to their conduct in office. The decision discusses at length the position of the FTC, and whether it exercises executive power (and therefore falls under the authority of the President) and ultimately concludes that it does – hence the President's ability to appoint and remove Commissioners without cause.

Max Schrems's view

Max Schrems is an Austrian lawyer and founder and Chair of NOYB, known for his complaints to the Irish Data Protection Commissioner that ultimately resulted in the landmark rulings by the CJEU on the validity of the adequacy decisions made by the European Commission for EU-US personal data transfers. These decisions were reliant on the "EU–US Safe Harbor" regime which was invalidated in the case known as Schrems I and the adequacy decision reliant on the "EU–US Privacy Shield" which was invalidated in the case known as Schrems II.

Both Schrems I and II resulted in a change to the approach that was necessary to transfer personal data between the EU and US in a GDPR-compliant manner.

Following the Trump v Slaughter decision, NOYB has stated its belief that the current "EU–US Data Privacy Framework" (DPF) used for transatlantic data transfers is invalid as the FTC (which is designated to independently enforce the DPF commitments of certified organisations) is no longer independent in the manner intended by the European Commission. In its statement, NOYB critiques not only the DPF, but also the ability to rely on EU SCCs or BCRs, as both rely on transfer impact assessments (TIAs) which NOYB believes should conclude the transfers are no longer legal. NOYB has also written to the European Commission, urging it to repeal the adequacy decision which approves the DPF, and threatening legal action if necessary.

Is Schrems right? Where do EU-US Transfers stand?

For the time being, at least, the European Commission adequacy decision still stands and relies on the DPF and assumed independence of the FTC.

It is unlikely that the European Commission will repeal its adequacy decision of its own volition. And if the matter does come before the CJEU, any decision is likely several years away. In the meantime, those businesses who rely on the DPF should generally feel confident that they can do so, awaiting a decision by the CJEU.

UK businesses should also be aware of the potential impact on the UK-US Data Bridge. The data bridge, which came into effect on 12 October 2023, is a UK extension to the DPF: US organisations must first be certified under the DPF in order to participate. Accordingly, if the underlying DPF were to be invalidated by the CJEU, the legal foundation of the data bridge would be called into serious question. However, since the threshold for adequacy was lowered from "essentially equivalent" to "not materially lower", the UK government might continue to allow US-UK data flows.

For businesses reliant on SCCs and BCRs, there is certainly some force in NOYB's position, and TIAs may need to be revised and updated. However, as with transfers to other countries not subject to an adequacy decision, both the SCCs and BCRs remain appropriate transfer mechanisms.

The new office space will be 161,000 sq ft across four floors, including a large client hospitality and events space. The firm will move into MidCity Place in 2029 following a full fit out and has also taken an option on an additional floor providing it with expansion space, in line with its growth plans. The space combines efficient and sustainable design, with the Mishcon “wow” factor the brand is known for.

Oxford’s comprehensive refurbishment programme will transform the building’s amenities, enhancing the arrival experience on the ground floor and adding a library podcast studio and social workspaces. It will also include the addition of outside spaces with a rooftop terrace and courtyard.

In line with Oxford’s sustainability and net zero carbon ambitions, MidCity Place has undergone a significant decarbonisation programme in 2026. The building is now fully electric in operation and supplied by 100% renewable electricity, improving both sustainability performance and operational efficiency.

MidCity Place is owned by a 50:50 joint venture between Oxford and Temasek, with Oxford managing the building on behalf of the joint venture. The building is now 100% committed to a range of strong global corporate occupiers, with a Weighted Average Unexpired Lease Term of 15 years.

Oxford was advised by JLL, Farebrother and Ashurst, and Mishcon de Reya was advised by CBRE and CMS.

Jay Drexler, VP, Asset Management at Oxford Properties, commented: “Securing Mishcon de Reya, one of London’s leading law firms, and achieving full occupancy further reinforces MidCity Place’s position as a premier Midtown office building. This long-term commitment reflects the quality of the asset and the investment we are making to enhance the occupier experience through best-in-class amenities and leading sustainability credentials.

“Supported by the continued demand for high-quality, well-located office space in Central London, this transaction highlights the value that active asset management can create by attracting world class occupiers to premier workplaces. As demand increasingly concentrates in the highest-quality buildings and future supply remains constrained, we remain highly confident in the long-term outlook for prime offices and continue to see opportunities to create value through repositioning and redevelopment across London and Europe.”

Daniel Naftalin, Managing Partner at Mishcon de Reya, remarked: "Moving to a new property can say a lot about a firm. We are tremendously excited about our upcoming move into MidCity Place, and believe it encapsulates the forward looking nature of the firm, a sense of our ambition and confidence in our future. The move marks the first time in some years our London office will be under one roof, and the move has been designed with connection and culture in mind.

"This move marks a significant milestone for the firm and supports our Vision 2030 strategy, reinforcing our commitment to growth, collaboration and excellence in client service. The area also has meaning for us – we have thrived in Holborn for decades, and this move cements it as our home for a long time to come."

Related coverage

The Lawyer
Law360 
Green Street News 
Estates Gazette
BeNews
Property Magazine International 

In brief

• The UK is on the verge of ratifying the Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions, commonly known as the Macolin Convention, having signed it in December 2018. The Convention is currently before Parliament for scrutiny, and the extended deadline of 12 October 2026 means that ratification could follow before the end of the year.
• The Convention is the only international treaty specifically addressing the manipulation of sports competitions. Seventeen states have already ratified it. Forty-three states are signatories in total, reflecting its reach beyond Europe. It creates a framework for cooperation between governments, law-enforcement agencies, sports organisations, competition organisers, betting operators and regulators.
• Ratification should prompt governing bodies and other sports organisations to review their integrity rules, reporting arrangements, education programmes and procedures for sharing potentially sensitive information. Organisations that begin that review now will be considerably better placed than those that wait for formal obligations to arrive.

A growing integrity threat

Match-fixing has come a long way from the back-room deals of football's past. It now reaches sports that would not, until recently, have featured on any fixer's radar. Evidence given to the House of Lords International Agreements Committee in July 2026 confirmed that the problem now extends to sports including darts, chess and skiing. Other sports such as boxing, tennis and cricket are not immune to this risk.

The mechanics of manipulation have also changed. It can involve an athlete deliberately underperforming, a player engineering a particular incident during a match, an official influencing a decision or an individual misusing inside information. It may be motivated by betting profits, sporting advantage or another financial or personal benefit.

Tennis has faced sustained scrutiny at the lower levels of the professional circuit, where players competing in smaller tournaments earn modest incomes but participate in matches on which significant sums are wagered internationally. Cricket's sustained reckoning with spot-fixing (the deliberate manipulation of individual moments within a match rather than the final result) has driven significant reform of its integrity frameworks over many years, and the sport's anti-corruption unit is widely recognised as an international leader in the field. Boxing, whose governance has attracted scrutiny well beyond individual fights, demonstrates that the problem is not always confined to the athletes themselves. And as for darts, chess and skiing: wherever there is a betting market and an information gap, there is an opportunity, and the operators who exploit it are rarely limited to one sport.

Esports is also an area of growing concern, with rapidly expanding betting markets that remain lightly regulated in a number of jurisdictions. The common thread is the growth of online and in-play betting, which means that almost any aspect of a competition can become the subject of a betting market and therefore a target for manipulation.

The House of Lords International Agreements Committee explored these international and technological dimensions of the problem across its evidence sessions on 9 and 14 July 2026. The Committee heard from the Gambling Commission, the Sports Betting Integrity Forum and the International Tennis Integrity Agency, as well as a former footballer who had been convicted of match-fixing. The evidence illustrated that organised criminal networks may use sports manipulation both to generate profits and to launder the proceeds of other criminal activity.

The Committee is scrutinising the Macolin Convention following its presentation to Parliament in June.

What is the Macolin Convention?

The Macolin Convention was opened for signature in 2014 and entered into force in September 2019. The UK signed it in December 2018 but has not yet ratified it. The Government presented the Convention to Parliament on 4 June 2026, beginning the domestic treaty-scrutiny process. The parliamentary scrutiny period has subsequently been extended to 12 October 2026.

The Convention defines the manipulation of a sports competition broadly. It covers an intentional arrangement, act or omission aimed at improperly altering the result or the course of a competition, removing some or all of its unpredictability in order to obtain an undue advantage.

That definition is important. The Convention is not limited to traditional match-fixing or to conduct connected with betting. It is capable of encompassing so-called “spot-fixing”, the manipulation of individual incidents and other conduct intended to distort the proper course of a competition.

The Convention’s central objective is to prevent, detect and sanction both domestic and transnational manipulation. It seeks to achieve this by joining together participants who may each hold only one part of the relevant intelligence: sports bodies, betting operators, regulators, public authorities and law-enforcement agencies. It is currently the only rule of international law dedicated specifically to this issue.

What does the Convention require?

The Convention does not replace the disciplinary jurisdiction of sports governing bodies. Instead, it establishes a framework within which sporting, regulatory and criminal processes can operate together.

Sports organisations and competition organisers are to be encouraged to introduce effective rules dealing with conflicts of interest, betting by participants and the misuse of inside information. Competition stakeholders should be required to report suspicious approaches or other conduct that may breach integrity rules.

Organisations should also have systems for monitoring competitions exposed to manipulation, reporting concerns promptly to the appropriate authorities and enabling individuals to disclose information safely. The Convention expressly recognises the importance of whistleblower protection and education, including education directed at young athletes.

Each state party must identify a national platform to act as an information hub. Its functions include receiving and analysing information about irregular or suspicious betting, coordinating the national response, issuing alerts and transmitting relevant intelligence to public authorities, sports organisations and betting operators.

The Gambling Commission’s Sports Betting Intelligence Unit and Sports Betting Integrity Forum together already fulfil the functions required of the UK's national platform under the Convention. The SBIU acts as the operational intelligence hub, working with governing bodies, operators and law-enforcement partners and participating in international integrity networks, while the SBIF provides the strategic framework within which those partners coordinate. Ratification would place that cooperation within a binding treaty framework and strengthen the UK’s formal involvement in the Convention’s international mechanisms.

The Convention also requires appropriate protection for personal data. This will be significant where organisations are exchanging information about athletes, officials or betting customers before wrongdoing has been proved. Information-sharing arrangements must therefore account for lawfulness, necessity, proportionality, accuracy, security and the rights of the individuals concerned.

The question of who holds inside information is also evolving, with content creators and influencers who have access to athletes and club environments increasingly falling within the Convention's framework, yet often without any awareness that their data may be shared with regulators or law enforcement.

Why ratification matters

The UK already has a comparatively developed sports-betting integrity framework. Ratification is therefore unlikely to produce an entirely new system overnight.

Its real significance lies in formalising existing arrangements, strengthening international cooperation and setting clearer expectations for every sport, not only those with substantial integrity departments or sophisticated betting-monitoring systems.

That matters because the vulnerability of a competition is not necessarily linked to its public profile. Lower-paid athletes, officials working without extensive institutional support, lower-tier competitions and events on which unexpected betting markets are offered may be particularly exposed. A governing body may also be unaware of suspicious activity if relevant data sit with an overseas operator or regulator.

The Convention recognises that no single organisation can respond effectively in isolation. A betting operator may identify an unusual market pattern but lack sporting context. A governing body may receive a report from an athlete but have no visibility of betting activity in another jurisdiction. Law-enforcement agencies may hold intelligence about individuals or financial flows that cannot be identified from sporting data alone.

The practical value of the Convention will therefore depend less on the existence of formal rules than on whether information can be shared lawfully, rapidly and with sufficient trust between the relevant organisations.

What should sports organisations do now?

Governing bodies, leagues, clubs and competition organisers should not need to wait for the ratification process to conclude before reviewing their existing arrangements.

In particular, organisations should consider whether their rules clearly prohibit all forms of competition manipulation, rather than only manipulation of the final result. Betting and inside-information restrictions should apply to the appropriate range of athletes, coaches, officials, employees, owners and other accredited individuals.

Reporting processes should be accessible, confidential and supported by appropriate protection against retaliation. Integrity training should address the circumstances in which approaches are now made, including through social media and encrypted messaging, and should explain the risks created by apparently minor requests to influence a particular moment within a competition.

Organisations should also understand where reports will be escalated, who has authority to communicate with the Gambling Commission or law enforcement, and what legal basis permits relevant personal data to be collected and shared.

Finally, investigation and disciplinary procedures should be capable of preserving evidence, protecting confidentiality and coordinating with external authorities without prejudicing parallel criminal, regulatory or sporting proceedings.

The Macolin Convention will not remove the commercial incentives behind competition manipulation. However, UK ratification would represent an important step towards a more coordinated response. For sports organisations, it is also a timely reminder that protecting integrity now requires more than a prohibition on match-fixing: it requires effective education, trusted reporting systems, careful information sharing and cooperation across borders.

How Mishcon de Reya can help

Mishcon de Reya's Sports law team works with governing bodies, clubs, leagues and athletes to ensure that policies align with evolving regulatory frameworks, including those arising from the Macolin Convention.

• Hannah Dart, Of Counsel in Private Wealth and Tax
• Sandra Davis, Partner, in Family
• Antonia Felix, Partner in Family
• Mark Keenan, Partner in Private Wealth Disputes
• Nicola Simmons, Legal Director in Private Wealth and Tax

Click here for more information and to see the full lists.

Victoria Pigott, Partner and Chair of Mishcon Private, examines why conflict resolution should form part of the planning process for internationally mobile families. She discusses governing law and jurisdiction, the choice between litigation and arbitration, and the challenges of enforcing judgments and awards across borders. The article explains how careful planning can preserve a family’s options and help avoid expensive disputes over where and how proceedings should take place.

James Hamilton, Legal Director in the Private Wealth & Capital group, and Steven Haywood, Corporate Partner, who leads the firm’s private funds practice, explore why family succession should be designed as an ongoing system supported by effective governance. They consider how ownership, control, management, information and family values can be transferred across generations, and how clear governance can protect family relationships and wealth while providing a practical framework for the next generation.

Read more:

• Victoria’s article: Families on the move: why dispute resolution must become part of the wealth planning conversation
• James and Steven’s article: Succession Isn't an Event. It's a System
• Full issue: Capital Under Pressure

The High Court of England and Wales ordered a fresh inquest to allow previously omitted social media evidence to be examined. Ellen Roome and Matt Sweeney, the parents of 14-year-old Gloucestershire schoolboy Julian “Jools” Sweeney, secured the ruling after a four-year campaign to find out what happened to their son in the hours before his death in April 2022.

Ellen Roome said:

“For more than four years we have fought every single day for the truth about what happened to our beautiful son, Jools. Today, the legal system has finally recognised that there are questions which deserve to be answered.

“This journey has broken us at times. It has taken an enormous emotional toll on our family, but we could never stop. We fought not only for Jools, but for every family who deserves to know the truth about how their child died.

“No parent should have to spend years battling for evidence that could explain the loss of their child. Every bereaved family deserves to know that every possible avenue, including a child's digital life, has been properly investigated.

“But our greatest hope is that one day no family has to walk this path. Social media companies must do everything in their power to stop children dying in the first place. No parent should ever have to bury their child because dangerous content was allowed to reach them.

“This ruling means that, at last, a coroner can examine Jools' digital life using legal powers that did not exist when he died in 2022. We hope this is a turning point, not only in finding the truth about Jools, but in making the online world safer for every child.

“To every parent facing the unimaginable, please don't give up. We never stopped fighting for our son, and today's decision shows that hope should never be lost. If Jools' legacy helps protect even one child or gives one family the answers they deserve, then he will have changed the world.”

Gary Miller, Partner at Mishcon de Reya and solicitor for Ms Roome, said:

“Ellen has had to navigate an obscure area of the law to help her begin the quest to find an answer to the question of why her son Jools died. Like most parents she trusted in the system to do the right thing. She realised quickly that the system is actually stacked against parents like her.

“Ellen's case has exposed just how much reform is needed to ensure that parents like her have a much greater say in the setting up and holding of inquests as well as to ensure that the authorities have both an obligation and the resources  to make data collection and examination a key priority  We are glad to have helped Ellen take one step closer to the truth behind her son's death and we hope the forthcoming inquiry will provide Ellen with the answers she deserves and serve as the catalyst for change, so that other grieving parents can avoid the same painful journey.

“Social media is integrated into the lives of young people, and the current investigative processes are not fit for purpose in this new world. The protocols are fragmented, inconsistent, and fail to ensure that all relevant data reaches the coroner at the point of appointment. This deprives parents of the answers they are entitled to. This fundamental failing cannot be allowed to continue.

“What we are calling for is not radical; it is common sense. The protocols and the powers of all state bodies involved in the death of a child must be thoroughly reviewed, updated, and critically, harmonised across all agencies so that every single piece of evidence, in particular, relevant social media data is preserved and placed before the coroner from day one.”

This recognition reflects the depth of talent within our Singapore team and the quality of support we provide to clients across the region. It also underlines our continued focus on delivering commercially astute advice that is responsive to clients’ needs.

Daniel is a disputes lawyer who has a focus on arbitrations in the energy, hospitality, banking and finance, and insurance sectors. He is qualified in Singapore and England and Wales, and has an active practice acting for clients across Asia, Europe, and Africa.

Stephanie advises HNW and UHNW international individuals and families on cross-border succession, wealth structuring, estate planning and tax. Her experience includes property and trust structuring, disputes and multi-jurisdictional wills.

Learn more about the rankings in Asian Legal Business.

This latest recognition reinforces Ethan’s established expertise and standing in the aviation sector, as well as his continued commitment to providing practical, commercially focused advice on aviation transactions.

Lexology Index identifies leading practitioners across a wide range of sectors and jurisdictions. Its independent research process combines qualitative feedback from clients, peers and corporate counsel with quantitative analysis of relevant market data.

Learn more about the rankings here.

• Cross-border remote working - where an employee works from a country other than the one in which they are contractually engaged - has become increasingly common in the UAE. While it offers significant opportunities, it also creates genuine legal complexity across employment law, immigration, tax, insurance and health and safety.
• Employment contracts should clearly address governing law, dispute resolution and place of work, but practical compliance is just as important as the drafting.
• Remote working from abroad can affect visa validity, create tax risk and expose gaps in insurance coverage.
• Employers owe a duty of care to employees when they are abroad, including in relation to health, safety and wellbeing.
• A structured, well-documented approach, which includes clear policies, defined approval processes and proactive monitoring, is essential.

Why is this important now?

Against a backdrop of ongoing regional instability, including the conflict in the Gulf and its broader impact on business confidence and workforce mobility, the ability to operate flexibly across borders has become an operational necessity, and not merely a matter of convenience.

Remote and hybrid working has proved to be one of the most effective tools available to employers seeking to maintain business continuity during periods of disruption. Beyond that, flexibility in working arrangements is no longer a 'nice to have' for employees but rather a bare minimum expectation. However, the legal risks of cross-border arrangements should not be underestimated, and given the expatriate demographic in the UAE, employers in the region are at the forefront of attempting to address those risks in a meaningful and sustainable manner.

Informal arrangements that drift on without clear parameters, or that are accommodated on an ad hoc basis without proper consideration of the consequences, can give rise to significant liabilities across multiple legal frameworks simultaneously. For the employer to be properly protected, it is vital that any cross-border remote working arrangements are clearly documented, defined as temporary (assuming that is the intention), and subject to clear approval and reasonable review processes.

What should your employment contracts cover?

A well-drafted employment contract is the starting point for any cross-border working arrangement. Where employees work across jurisdictions, questions of which country's law governs the relationship - and where disputes are to be resolved - can quickly become contentious. Employers should ensure that their contracts clearly address governing law, the mechanism for resolving disputes and the employee's designated place of work, but more is also needed on the practical aspects of this. A well drafted governing law and jurisdiction clause is largely irrelevant if the facts of a matter can undermine the intention entirely. This matters in practice because many jurisdictions will apply their own mandatory employment law protections to individuals physically working within their territory, regardless of what the contract provides. Taking advice at the outset is considerably less costly than resolving a jurisdictional dispute once it has arisen.

How does remote working affect visa and immigration status?

UAE residence and work authorisation is typically tied to a specific employer and location, and working from abroad can raise questions about the validity of an employee's arrangements in both the UAE and the country from which they are working. At present, immigration systems across the UAE and the wider Gulf continue to operate broadly as normal, though employers should monitor developments closely, including in relation to documentation requirements, which continue to evolve.

Employers should also be aware of the UAE Remote Work Visa, which enables foreign nationals to live in the UAE whilst remaining employed by a company based outside the country. Whilst this does not resolve every cross-border complexity, it is a genuinely useful mechanism, both for attracting internationally mobile talent to the region and for retaining valuable employees with ties to the UAE who may wish to relocate due to regional instability.

A particularly common and challenging scenario for employers is one in which an employee has relocated temporarily and is reluctant, or unwilling, to return. The legal position is generally unambiguous: employees remain contractually bound to work from their contractual place of employment, and an employer may, subject to the particular circumstances and with appropriate advice, require them to return, or impose penalties up to and including termination of employment. Managing such situations sensitively but firmly, with clear written communications and thorough documentation, is essential. Employers should also be alive to the implications of extended absences on employees' UAE residency status, and should review the position proactively (as well as having clear policies in place) rather than waiting for a problem to materialise.

Are there corporate tax risks with cross-border remote working?

Cross-border remote working can have significant tax consequences that many employers may not have fully considered. Where a senior or client-facing employee works from another jurisdiction for a sustained period, there is a material risk that their presence creates a taxable foothold for the employer in that country - commonly referred to as a "permanent establishment" risk. In such scenarios, UAE payroll obligations should continue to be met as normal, and any variations should be carefully documented with local authorities. However, seeking early tax advice regarding senior individuals - before a remote working arrangement begins - is always the preferable course.

Does your employer's duty of care extend overseas?

An employer's duty of care to its employees does not stop at the office door - or, indeed, at the UAE border. Health and safety obligations are inherent to the employment relationship and apply wherever an employee is working, whether from a home office in another country, during work-related travel or in the course of a temporary relocation. Employers can remain exposed to liability for incidents occurring in the course of employment, even in a remote setting, and should ensure that their health and safety frameworks explicitly address overseas and remote working scenarios. Where employees are working from locations affected by regional instability, additional risk assessments and clear employee communications are advisable.

Employee wellbeing deserves equal attention. Where employees are working in isolation or under personal stress, maintaining clear lines of communication and providing appropriate support is not simply good practice, but forms part of the employer's broader duty of care. There are, however, potential options around passing obligations back to employees contractually, using appropriate warranties and indemnities. While this is not always appropriate, it is a consideration which can be explored and utilised in certain circumstances.

Insurance: where liability and coverage diverge

One of the most important yet frequently overlooked risks in cross-border remote working is the gap between legal liability and insurance coverage. The two do not always align, and employers can find themselves exposed in circumstances where they assumed a policy would protect them.

Employers' liability and general liability policies commonly contain territorial restrictions that could leave an employer unprotected if an incident occurs abroad. Moreover, there are often inherent assumptions built into insurance policies around an employee's place of residence and other factors. Medical insurance will typically cover treatment within the UAE but may be limited or subject to specific exclusions where an employee is working overseas, particularly in higher-risk locations. In the current regional environment, war and political risk exclusions deserve particular scrutiny: standard policies may not respond to incidents arising from or connected to conflict, which can leave both the employer and the employee in a vulnerable position. This is a particularly important factor where government advice or instruction is clear in respect of travel to or from certain locations.

Employers should review their relevant policies with these questions in mind and should not assume that coverage follows liability.

How Mishcon de Reya can help

Our employment team advises employers across the UAE and the wider region on the full range of workforce challenges arising from cross-border and remote working arrangements.

If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised in this article, or would like us to review your existing arrangements, please do not hesitate to contact a member of our Employment team.

Speaking about how the inflation in value of many of the artworks can heighten the emotions and pressures during a restitution process, Amanda said such inflation “adds to an appetite to pursue, things get more heightened." And while not everything goes to court, lawyers are often brought in because family members don’t agree on next steps. Amanda commented: “We’re talking about very traumatic circumstances, collecting is an extension of identity and family history is very personal."

Read the article in the Financial Times (subscription required).

The article explores the separation of a trust's governing law from the law governing its administration, analysing the legal framework, practical drafting considerations, tax implications, and the potential benefits and challenges of this innovative approach to international trust planning.

Read the full article.

The contract forms part of a major defence initiative aimed at transforming collective training for the British Army. The ACTS programme brings together 44 British businesses, including a significant number of start-ups and SMEs, and is expected to support around 400 jobs across the country, as well as create 100 apprenticeships.

Naomi Hulme, Co-founder and CEO of Skyral, commented:

"Skyral couldn’t have got this done without the Mishcon de Reya team. Toby, Raj and the team have been outstanding – balancing the need to advance our interests alongside finding commercially pragmatic solutions to complex problems. The team’s deep understanding of the defence sector and the dynamics at play between the consortium members was invaluable."

Toby McCrindle, Partner and Head of Defence & DeepTech at Mishcon de Reya, commented:

"This is a huge triumph for the UK’s defence industry, which has come under significant pressure in recent years. It has been a privilege to support Skyral over the last two years and this contract award is a testament to the team’s tenacity, spirit and talent."

The Mishcon de Reya team was led by Toby McCrindle, Partner and Head of Defence & DeepTech, with support from Raj Shah, Managing Associate.

This is a moment that demands clear-eyed analysis – not simply of whether FRAs are a good idea, but of what impact they actually have in practice, and whether the Commission's approach is proportionate to the environment in which this scheme now operates.

What are the expectations?

The staged implementation will begin with the largest remote operators, triggering FRAs where customers exceed £5,000 in net deposits over a rolling 24-hour period; for under-25s the trigger is £2,500.  Once fully implemented "in due course", those thresholds drop considerably: to £1,000 in net deposits over a 24-hour period (or £3,000 over 90 days) for customers aged 25 and over, and to £750 per 24 hours (or £2,000 over 90 days) for those under 25.

Assessments will be conducted via Credit Reference Agencies (CRAs), and, according to the Commission, will have no impact on the customer's credit score.  The Commission has also stated that no enforcement action will be taken against operators who fail to act on an FRA result during the early stages of rollout, though all other existing licence conditions continue to apply.

In terms of what FRAs require in practice, the Commission vaguely states that it will "back operators to take appropriate proportionate action, considering everything they know about the customer" – with options ranging from reducing marketing to supporting customers to set deposit limits or more where needed.  Whilst this appears to be a sensible statement of intent, there are still fundamental questions about data reliability, consumer impact, and practical implementation that remain unresolved.  The Commission has itself acknowledged that CRA outputs can differ between agencies for the same customer, and operators will receive only an overall assessment accompanied by four data points: defaults, multiple arrears, significant arrears, and the existence of a Debt Management Plan.  Operators are therefore expected to make decisions that could materially affect customer relationships on the basis of information they cannot fully interrogate and that the Commission concedes is not entirely consistent.

The Commission's commitment not to take enforcement action for a failure to act following an FRA during the early stages represents a common sense approach.  However, operators must still comply with all other existing licence requirements, and the Commission will continue to conduct compliance assessments against those requirements.  The Commission has consistently maintained that FRAs are a distinct and more targeted tool, focused solely on identifying customers in financial difficulties rather than assessing what any given customer can or cannot spend.  Many operators will find that distinction difficult to maintain in practice, given the Commission's historic track record of applying affordability-related expectations during regulatory enforcement action despite there being no formal regulatory basis to do so.  Any sensible operator will be thinking carefully about how the information gathered from an FRA should be taken into account when discharging its other regulatory obligations, principally wider social responsibility requirements and AML obligations (where applicable), as the Commission will undoubtedly expect operators to take such information into account when dealing with a customer.

Frictionless or are document checks necessary?

Speaking at the Ethical Gambling Forum in April, Tim Miller said about FRAs, "… in 2026 it can't be right that this still leads to some operators asking consumers to share bank statements and other financial documentation. Such an approach is outdated, inconsistent and disproportionate."  He went on to state that one of the advantages of the FRA framework is that it would allow the Commission to give "clear guidance to operators that they should not require consumers to provide documents to assess financial risk following a financial risk assessment."  However, the Commission's FRA blog post on 7 July is explicit that some customers may not be assessable through a frictionless CRA check, and that for these customers this "might mean assessing financial risk through other processes such as open banking or document checks."  

These two positions are in direct tension: on one hand, document checks are contemplated as a legitimate fallback for customers who are not assessable through an FRA; on the other, the regulator suggests such checks are disproportionate and that the FRA framework should effectively end the practice.  Operators would be well advised to keep track of how many instances of failed FRAs they encounter so that they can help the Commission understand the true scale of this issue.  In the meantime, operators will need to resolve this contradiction themselves and take decisions based on all the other information available to them about the customer in question (and of course, record the rationale for those decisions).

Staged implementation plan

While the industry will quite reasonably question the decision to implement at all, especially in the absence of full published findings from the pilot, the staged approach carries several genuine benefits for operators: an initial scope limited to the largest operators and at thresholds higher than those which will eventually apply; time to prepare; and the Commission's commitment that no enforcement action will follow a failure to act on an FRA result during early rollout.  

We suggest that operators make use of this time to gather feedback and analyse data on their use of FRAs, including any challenges in implementing them, and what effect the use of FRAs has on their customer base.  It will be particularly interesting to know, for example, whether the data shows that FRAs identify (and therefore provide protection to) a raft of customers who would not otherwise have been captured by existing SR and AML requirements (where applicable) and the operator's own compliance framework.  This feedback will be crucial if operators are to meaningfully influence the forthcoming guidance on what constitutes proportionate action (whilst leaving scope in any appropriate areas for operator discretion) and how CRA outputs should be interpreted.  It will also help the Commission to evaluate the success of FRAs and to determine if they are indeed a proportionate response to the issue they believe to be addressing.

Another burden on an already pressured sector

It is worth pausing for a moment to consider the environment in which this decision lands.  As we commented in May, the cumulative compliance and cost burden on licensed operators today is substantially greater than when FRAs were first conceived.  Since 2023, the sector has absorbed wave after wave of regulatory reform; Remote Gaming Duty has nearly doubled to 40 per cent; a statutory levy is now in force; and increased licence fees are expected later this year.  FRAs arrive not as a standalone measure but as yet another layer on top of a regulatory stack that has fundamentally changed the economics of operating a licensed business in Great Britain.

Against that backdrop, the Commission's decision to press ahead without publishing an updated assessment of the cumulative impact of all these changes – let alone the expected incremental impact of FRAs in the current environment – is a significant omission.  The White Paper's estimated Gross Gambling Yield (GGY) reduction of between £380 million and £710 million as a result of 'Financial Risk Checks' was produced in a very different economic setting.  The real figure today could be materially higher, with consequences not just for operators but for the broader ecosystem – including the sports and racing industries that depend on the health of the licensed betting sector.  

Good regulation demands that the case for any new obligation be assessed against the system as it stands, not as it stood three years ago.  That assessment has not been made public, and the Commission's willingness to proceed without it is difficult to reconcile with the principles of proportionate, evidence-based regulation.

What operators should do now

Operators should not wait for formal guidance before progressing their FRA compliance preparation:

• First, begin mapping your existing customer interaction framework against the FRA trigger points.  The Commission has been clear that FRAs are in addition to, not a replacement for, existing customer interaction obligations.  An FRA flag, and the information gathered from it, will need to be considered alongside the information operators already hold about a customer.
• Second, document your decision-making.  Whatever action you take, or do not take, following an FRA result and the ability to demonstrate that you applied a coherent, evidence-based, and outcomes-focused process will be critical in any future compliance or enforcement context.
• Finally, engage with the implementation group process.  This is the mechanism through which operators have the best opportunity to shape the guidance that will determine what "proportionate action" actually means.  The Commission has said it wants that process to be collaborative.  Operators should take the Commission at its word and use it.

We will be monitoring developments closely and advising clients throughout the implementation phase and beyond.  If you have questions about these changes, please get in touch with our Betting and Gaming team.

Founded in 2018, Orbital sits at the centre of property transactions, automating the legal work that has traditionally been slow and manual and connecting the parties who depend on it.  

It now handles over 200,000 transactions a year for some of the UK's top law firms including Mishcon de Reya and works directly with the real estate businesses behind those deals: the developers, owner-operators, investors and REITs shaping the built environment.  

By bringing law firms and their clients onto a single platform, Orbital is building the infrastructure for how real estate gets bought, sold and financed.  

It opened a New York office in 2025 and, in January, raised a $60 million Series B to scale further across the US. 

The 197-bedroom hotel which overlooks the famous Hamilton Straight section of the Silverstone racetrack was developed by Bricks Capital over a number of years with funding from multiple lenders. The hotel successfully opened in July 2023 with Hilton as its operator. The Bricks Capital property owning vehicles fell into administration in August, with Ian Corfield and Simon Baggs of FRP Advisory appointed as joint administrators and Mishcon appointed to advise on the sale.

The Mishcon team was led by Paul McLoughlin, Partner in Restructuring and Real Estate Finance, Venessa Toofanny, Of Counsel in Commercial Real Estate and Troy Featherstone, Managing Associate in Corporate. The wider Mishcon team comprised of Hannah Naji and Jenna Oppong (Real Estate), Beth Hitchcock (Corporate), Nick Strutt, Roya Zohrabi, Gareth Jamieson and Sophia Andronikou (Real Estate Finance), Charles Jordan (Construction) and Jessica Williams (Insolvency).

Paul McLoughlin commented: "It was a pleasure to work once again with Ian and Simon and the wider FRP team on this transaction and help them deliver for creditors. This transaction was another great example of the full-service capacity of the Mishcon team as it utilised our extensive expertise across restructuring, real estate, hotels, corporate, debt finance and tax. We look forward to such a unique asset enjoying a successful future under new ownership with a strong capital structure."

• Surrogacy is becoming an increasingly common path to parenthood, despite Hong Kong’s restrictive legal framework.
• Without legal recognition of parentage, surrogate-born children may face significant inheritance and succession challenges.
• Intended parents should act early to secure legal parentage and implement appropriate estate planning measures.

Under the existing legal framework, commercial surrogacy remains unlawful in Hong Kong, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the arrangement is effected.  There is however no definition of what arrangement constitutes a commercial surrogacy.  Despite the absence of openly available surrogacy services or public promotion within Hong Kong, we note a gradual shift in societal attitudes in recent years whereby individuals and couples including those within the LGBTQ community, irrespective of their marital status, are increasingly proactive in exploring options for parenthood, often undertaking independent research and considering cross-border arrangements in jurisdictions where surrogacy is legally permissible and regulated.

Surrogacy as a concept has gained broader social recognition and acceptance. This development is partly influenced by well-established legal regimes in jurisdictions such as the United States, where owing to it being a birthright country, remains a popular destination for surrogacy arrangements, particularly given its mature and comprehensive system. The availability of structured and regulated arrangements abroad has contributed to the perception of surrogacy as a viable and legitimate pathway to parenthood, particularly for those unable to conceive naturally.

 What is the current trend in surrogacy planning?

Until recent years, clients that required legal assistance concerning surrogacy were previously primarily focused on immigration clearance, with the objective of securing lawful residence for the surrogate-born child. Issues relating to legal parentage were often treated as secondary. Intended parents were typically reluctant to pursue parental orders or adoption orders, given the stringent requirement for full and frank disclosure. Such applications necessitate detailed disclosure of the surrogacy arrangement, including financial aspects and the circumstances under which the arrangement was entered into, thereby exposing the intended parents to potential risk of contravening the legislation against commercial surrogacy.

Historically, concerns regarding risk of contravening the legislation against commercial surrogacy deterred intended parents from formalising their legal status with their surrogate child. In bringing a parental order application, it gives rise to self-incrimination by disclosing surrogacy paperwork has further reinforced this reluctance, discouraging many intended parents from taking steps to regularise their legal position.  However, there has been a noticeable shift in recent years with intended parents now adopting a more informed and strategic approach, for fear of their surrogate child not being recognised as their lawful issue. This is especially important if they already have natural born children. Parental order application is accordingly an essential mechanism for securing legal certainty, safeguarding parental rights, and promoting family stability.

Having said that, there is a recent Hong Kong judgement that reinforced the trite position of divorcing parents having treated their surrogate child as a child of the family which enables the Family Court to make custody and access orders.

What are the implications for succession planning?

While succession planning may not appear to be an immediate concern at the time of a child’s birth, it is nonetheless a critical consideration of a surrogate child being entitled to inherit from his/her parents in the event of intestacy as he/she is not regarded as a child of the parents, particularly in the absence of a parental order. Early and comprehensive estate planning is essential to minimise legal uncertainty.

In contentious probate proceedings, the absence of legally recognised parentage may materially affect a child’s standing and entitlement with his/her siblings. This is especially problematic in families with multiple children, where distinctions may arise between children born by the parents and those born through surrogacy. A child without formal legal recognition may face challenges in asserting inheritance rights, thereby creating potential inequities and disputes.

The risks are amplified in cases involving high-value estates, family-owned enterprises, or complex trust arrangements. In such cases, the identification of beneficiaries and the determination of their respective entitlements are often subject to close legal scrutiny. Any uncertainty over parentage can give rise to unnecessary prolonged disputes, interrupt business operations, and place significant strain on family relationships. The financial and emotional costs associated with such disputes can be substantial, potentially undermining family harmony and long-term wealth preservation objectives.

 Why is surrogacy law reform needed in Hong Kong?

In light of the evolving social landscape and the increasing prevalence of cross-border surrogacy arrangements, there is a compelling case for reform of the current legal framework in Hong Kong. The existing regime does not fully reflect modern family structures or the practical realities faced by intended parents.

By way of comparison, in England and Wales, both couples and single individuals may apply for a parental order, provided that the statutory requirements are satisfied. However, in Hong Kong, only a heterosexual couple who were married to each other at the time of the child’s birth are eligible to apply for a parental order. Families who fall outside this narrow category have no alternative but to consider applying for an adoption order. While an adoption order is capable of conferring legal parenthood and parental responsibility there is no comparison to a parental order. In particular, an adoption order does not recognise the genetic connection between the child and the intended parent(s). Reform is therefore essential to enhance legal certainty, better safeguard the welfare of children born through surrogacy, and reduce the risk of future disputes within the family.

There is currently no legislative intention to reform the current ordinances namely the Human Reproductive Technology Ordinance (Cap.561) and the Parent and Child Ordinance (Cap.429). The intended parents must in the meantime take proactive steps to safeguard their surrogate child's legal position such as applying for a parental order to establish formal legal recognition of parentage or where a parental order is unavailable, seeking an adoption order. In parallel, comprehensive estate planning, such as the preparation of wills or set up of trusts is essential to ensure the surrogate child’s rights and interests are adequately protected.

At the same time, maintaining clarity and mutual understanding within the family is equally important. Open communication and forward planning can significantly reduce the likelihood of disputes arising from uncertainty over legal status. By taking a proactive and structured approach, intended parents can better secure both legal certainty and long-term family stability.

How we can help

At Mishcon de Reya LLP, we understand that modern family-building including through surrogacy, assisted reproduction and donor conception are increasingly popular options. We have particular experience advising on the legal complexities arising from surrogacy arrangements involving Hong Kong and cross-border family structures. Our experienced Family team are able to advise you as to the legal implications of entering into such arrangements, ensuring that your journey to family building can be navigated as smoothly as possible.

Among noteworthy developments, last quarter:

• The European Commission's simplification review of the Deforestation-Free Products Regulation (EUDR) left deadlines unchanged. Application dates remain 30 December 2026 for large/medium-sized operators and 30 June 2027 for micro/small operators.
• The UK Government is finally moving forward with its own Forest Risk Commodities (FRC) regulation. Given proposed changes to turnover thresholds and in-scope commodities, companies that considered themselves outside the scope of a future FRC regime may need to reassess.
• Proposed reforms to the UK modern slavery reporting regime include new mandatory content requirements and penalties for non-compliance. As well as reviewing the quality of their current slavery and human trafficking statements, companies should also keep a close eye on the Government's wider responsible business conduct review, which could yet introduce more onerous obligations.
• Proposed Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards (MEES) for commercial buildings sharpen the focus on larger assets, which could become unlawful to let from 2031 unless properties are upgraded. Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) requirements become mandatory for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects from 2 November 2026.
• Revised and voluntary European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) have moved closer to adoption. Work has also resumed on standards for non-EU parent companies of groups (N-ESRS), re-emphasising the strategic choice to be made around alternative approaches to reporting.
• The Science Based Target initiative (SBTi) updated its Corporate Net-Zero Standard (CNZS V2). Although not compulsory for target submissions until 1 February 2028, companies should be using this runway to make necessary preparations, including development of now-mandatory transition plans.
• Publication of a draft framework by the Taskforce on Inequality and Social-related Disclosures (TISFD) marks an important milestone. It indicates that companies should expect systemic inequality risks to join climate and nature as part of mainstream disclosure, due diligence and resilience conversations.
• Actions against TotalEnergies, Shell and JBS show the strategic litigation frontier expanding. New claims are now targeting future corporate conduct, testing whether a company's duty of care can be translated into a concrete constraint on new fossil fuel production or the expansion of industrial agriculture.

UK standards and regulation

EU standards and regulation

International standards

ESG litigation

The outcome will matter to every employer that relies on non-competes to protect its business.

To understand how employers view these proposals in practice, we surveyed our clients on how they currently use non-competes and their views on the Government’s suggested reforms.

Our findings send a clear message: businesses are not ready for radical change and largely consider that the current legal framework already provides sufficient safeguards. Respondents also noted that restricting non-competes could redirect investment away from the UK. 

In our latest report, we set out our full findings, and what they may mean for employers.

Read the full report