RPC Perspectives RSS

The Week That Was - 17 April 2026

Fri, 17 Apr 2026 16:46:00 +0100

Vinci appointed on £100m Derby redevelopment plans

Vinci UK Developments and Ion Developments were appointed by Derby City Council on 8 April as development partners for a series of redevelopment plans on council-owned city sites.

Redevelopments include the former Assembly Rooms and a nearby multi-story car park on Market Place. The plans include the construction of three new buildings, including the cultural and commercial hub 'DerbyMADE' as well as a Grade A office building. Plans also include public realm improvements in the heart of the city.

This joint venture was selected via a Pagabo Framework with a two-stage procurement process which began in 2023. The scheme's total cost is £100m, split 60% public sector and 40% private investment and includes an additional £3m from the East Midlands Combined County Authority.

The full article can be accessed here.

Leeds Bradford Airport redevelopment on track for Phase Two

Leeds Bradford Airport is undergoing a £100m expansion in two main phases while remaining fully operational. Phase One (worth £35m) was completed on time and delivered a 9,500sqm three-storey extension with a new arrivals hall, international baggage reclaim and UK Border Force facilities. Built on a former WWII munitions shed, the extension involved managing challenging sandstone rock conditions, keeping passenger walkways and aircraft apron operations live.

Phase Two (worth £65m), is now progressing towards demolition and refurbishment of the existing terminal, will enlarged security, check-in, duty free, retail and arrivals, with completion targeted for late 2026. This phase is more complex, involving staged demolition, extensive temporary works, strengthening old foundations and dealing with live aircraft operations. To keep the 120 daily flights and around 18,000 passengers moving, Farrans Construction will be using careful sequencing, close coordination with the airport, segregated access routes, enclosed gantries, and off-site cutting to minimise disruption and safety risks.

The full article can be accessed here.

MHCLG publishes factsheet on implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025

From 1 May 2026, the Renters’ Rights Act changes start for private landlords and for social housing landlords that are not private registered providers (PRPs). PRPs with social housing assured tenancies carry on under the old rules (including Section 8 and Section 21) until October 2027, using existing forms and guidance. Long leases over 21 years (including shared ownership) are no longer treated as assured tenancies.

From October 2027 for PRPs: all social housing assured tenancies will become periodic tenancies, section 21 “no fault” evictions will no longer apply, updated possession grounds will apply, a new section 13A process will be able to be used to put up rent, and landlords will need to give tenants an official information sheet explaining these changes.

Please find more information here.

Contractors face tougher CIS supply chain fraud sanctions from HMRC

Recently, HMRC introduced new Construction Industry Scheme (CIS) rules with tougher sanctions against contractors and subcontractors, to tackle supply chain tax fraud. These rules emerged in response to pressure from the government to close the tax gap between tax due and what is paid. Under these new rules, a company that doesn't actively push back against tax evasion will lose its gross payment status (GPS). This is a considerable sanction because GPS status allows contractors not to pay tax liabilities of their subcontractors. Loss of GPS could seriously affect cashflow and access to tenders. Operationally, contractors must now carry out more rigorous due diligence and ongoing monitoring across their supply chains, regularly review and update subcontractor contracts, and improve internal education. Two further changes reintroduce mandatory monthly CIS nil returns and exclude payments to local and public authorities from CIS.

Please find out further information, here.

Keon Homes boosts mental health and construction careers by building new partnership with ‘The Way Youth Zone’

Keon Homes has become a patron of Wolverhampton’s The Way Youth Zone, launching a partnership to support local young people through a programme focused on STEM learning, employability and wellbeing. This initiative aims to address local challenges, including social isolation or youth unemployment and to tackle stigma around wellbeing in traditionally male-dominated sectors, such as construction.

The Way Youth Zone is a dedicated and popular centre for young people, offering activities such as sport, music and arts, it helps build confidence, reduce anxiety and develop key life skills. Keon Homes’ proposed programme will use its construction expertise and live sites to provide structured learning, mentoring and real-world industry exposure. Activities will include site visits, mentoring by Keon staff and construction workshops at The Way Youth Zone, helping young people understand the diverse career opportunities available in the construction sector.

To find out more, click here.

With thanks to Aleksander Polaszek and Sydney Kowalczyk.

Disclaimer: The information in this publication is for guidance purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. We attempt to ensure that the content is current as at the date of publication, but we do not guarantee that it remains up to date. You should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content.

If you have any queries please do get in contact with a member of the team, or your usual RPC contact.

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 17 April 2026

Fri, 17 Apr 2026 12:43:00 +0100

The fifth episode of Season 4 of our podcast, Money Covered – The Month That Was, where the team looks at the Financial Conduct Authority's Vehicle Finance Redress Scheme Consultation, is now available.

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Headline development

ICAEW introduces "credible basis test" for tax planning activities in updated Code of Ethics

The ICAEW has updated its Code of Ethics to include new sections on tax planning and related services.

The updated Code defines tax planning activities and services as follows:

Tax planning activities - “advisory activities designed to assist an employing organisation in planning or structuring its affairs in a tax-efficient manner."
Tax planning services - “advisory services designed to assist a client, whether an individual or an entity, in planning or structuring the client's affairs in a tax-efficient manner.”

It confirms the role is for practitioners “to use their expertise and experience to assist their employing organisations or client in achieving their tax planning goals and meeting their tax obligations.” The new provisions require professional accountants to do the following before advising on or recommending a tax planning arrangement:

Familiarise themselves with relevant tax laws and regulations (including those that might be referred to as anti-avoidance rules, or that limit or prohibit certain tax planning arrangements).
Advise the employing organisation or client to comply with relevant tax laws and regulations.
Obtain an understanding of the proposed tax planning arrangement (including its purpose, facts and circumstances and ultimate beneficiaries).
Apply the “credible basis test.”
Stand back and consider the wider reputational, commercial and economic consequences of the proposed tax planning arrangement.

The "credible basis test" confirms a professional accountant can only advise on a tax planning arrangement if they have determined the arrangement has "a credible basis in laws and regulations." This includes a review of the circumstances/substance of the arrangement, the relevant tax legislation, relevant court decisions and tax authority (e.g. HMRC) rulings or guidance, and whether the proposed arrangement is an established practice that has not been challenged by the tax authorities.

The Code encourages practitioners to consider consulting with legal counsel or experts (or tax authorities if applicable) to reassess the validity of the credible basis determination if they become aware of circumstances that impact the original determination. If it transpires that there is no credible basis, the practitioners should inform their superiors or the client, explain the basis of their conclusion, and potentially recommend an alternative arrangement.

The updated Code comes into effect on 1 July 2026 – to access it please click here.

Auditors

ICAEW issues publication after members received extension requests for going concern assessment periods

The ICAEW has issued guidance noting that ICAEW members have contacted the Audit and Assurance Facility, flagging that they have received extension requests for going concern assessment periods.

Pursuant to ISA (UK) 570, assessments of going concern must cover at least 12 months from the date that the financial statements are approved, however ICAEW members have reported increasingly common requests for assessment periods to be extended to 15 months. The ICAEW states that this is often down to regulators, trade bodies or other third parties looking for direct or indirect comfort regarding the financial resilience of the audited entity.

The ICAEW publication states that careful consideration to these requests is required, and notes that they can potentially result in the creation of a duty of care in circumstances where auditors are asked to report explicitly on an extended going concern assessment period in the statutory audit or other report.

The ICAEW goes on to state that agreeing extension requests would result in additional work, greater auditor challenge, increased costs and extra exposure to risk.

To read more, please click here.

Brokers (including insurance)

COVID BI claims move into final phase as limitation issues come into focus

As limitation deadlines approach, COVID-19 business interruption claims appear to be entering their final phase. The broad coverage issues which dominated the early stages of the litigation have largely been resolved, and the disputes now emerging are narrower, more technical and often turn on particular policy wording.

The Supreme Court’s FCA test case was the key turning point, establishing that many disease and prevention of access clauses could respond to COVID-19 losses. Later cases have also addressed issues such as aggregation and policy limits. As a result, many of the larger coverage questions have now been resolved.

The issues still likely to generate disputes include:

bespoke policy wording, particularly around prevention of access clauses.
whether losses arising from later lockdowns can still be pursued in some cases.
when time starts to run for limitation purposes if insurers only formally deny claims later.
the treatment of furlough payments in business interruption calculations.
the evidential burden on policyholders in proving the occurrence of disease.
possible claims for late payment; and
reinsurance disputes arising out of business interruption losses.

One issue still awaiting authoritative resolution is the treatment of furlough payments. In Bath Racecourse Co Ltd and others v Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE and others, policyholders are challenging whether insurers were entitled to deduct furlough support from successful claims. Depending on the outcome, that issue could have a material effect on recoveries.

Overall, the remaining disputes appear to be fewer in number and more technical in nature, with outcomes likely to depend on relatively small differences in wording and application.

Pensions

FCA targets alleged misuse of pension funds at Hartley Pensions

The FCA has announced plans to take action against Hartley Pensions Limited (Hartley), a former Self-Invested Personal Pension operator that entered administration in July 2022, and an individual involved at the firm.

The FCA alleges that Hartley provided false and misleading information and improperly withdrew and invested substantial amounts of customers’ pension funds without their consent, to benefit an individual at the firm. The individual is alleged to have dishonestly used these pension funds and made false representations to obtain money for a company they owned, before misleading the FCA to conceal this misconduct.

Warning Notices have been issued but do not represent the FCA’s final decisions. The recipients have the right to make representations to the Regulatory Decisions Committee. If final decisions are made, the FCA intends to publish its findings in due course.

To read more, please click here.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

FCA consult on amending the guidance on permissions for regulated crypto asset activities

On 15 April 2026, the FCA published a consultation paper on its proposals to amend the existing Perimeter Guidance Manual (the Guidance) to clarify when permission is required to undertake regulated crypto asset activities.

The proposed amendments on the Guidance include the eventual transition of firms operating under the Financial Services Markets Act 2000 (Crypto assets) Regulations 2026 and will help firms to determine whether a crypto asset activity is within the perimeter. The amended Guidance also aims to provide certainty on new regulated crypto asset activities, including stablecoins and specified investment crypto assets. It will also outline what permissions may be needed and if any exclusions operate and apply.

The consultation closes on 3 June 2026.

To read more, please click here.

With thanks to this week's contributors: Heather Buttifant, James Parsons, Brendan Marrinan, Ben Simmonds, Alison Thomas and Kerone Thomas

If you have any queries please do get in contact with a member of the team, or your usual RPC contact.

Take 10 - 17 April 2026

Fri, 17 Apr 2026 11:59:00 +0100

"Article 10.1: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

Widespread call for action over SLAPP claims

On Wednesday this week, media organisations across the UK took part in a Day of Action against SLAPPs, coordinated by the News Media Association and the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition. Participating media outlets published op-eds on the issue and called on the government to introduce robust anti-SLAPP legislation. The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition highlighted the particular vulnerability of smaller, local media outlets (including student newspapers) less able to absorb the significant costs required to defend SLAPPs. The call for reform has also been backed by a MPs across the political spectrum, including Labour's Lloyd Hatton, the Liberal Democrats' Jess Brown-Fuller and the Conservatives' Sir David Davis. A Government spokesperson told PA Media that it will detail its future legislative programme in the "usual way through the King's Speech" taking place on 13 May, and was "continuing to engage with stakeholders as we consider further action to clamp down on SLAPPs in other areas" beyond economic crime.

Meanwhile, the Claimant in the first judicially-branded SLAPP claim has been ordered to pay indemnity costs of £146,643.88. Last month, Setu Kamal's libel and malicious falsehood claim against Tax Policy Associates and Dan Neidle was found to be a SLAPP (as defined by s.195 Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023) and would have been struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(d) had the Defendants' concurrent strike out application pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a-c) not also succeeded (see the previous Take 10 here). Costs were subsequently determined. Tax Policy Associates was given permission by Mrs Justice Collins Rice to publish its own summary of her reasons for awarding indemnity costs.

In summary, the fact that the claim met the s.195 SLAPP criteria was relevant but "by no means determinative or even necessarily a particularly weighty factor" as the test for indemnity costs requires a holistic approach and conduct which is "morally reprehensible or unreasonable to a high degree". The s.195 test focused on a Claimant's intention as opposed to the outcome of that conduct on the litigation. Collins Rice J had regard to the significant £8m+ valuation of the claim which would have had (and she found was intended to have) a significant effect on the Defendant's conduct of the litigation. She also gave weight to the poor particularisation of the malice claim without a proper basis. The Claimant did not submit any objections before the decision was finalised.

Court of Appeal rules on meaning: Currie v Soho Theatre [2026] EWCA Civ 400

In a relatively rare Court of Appeal case where permission to appeal was granted in respect of a meaning determination in a libel claim, comedian Paul Currie has lost his appeal against Soho Theatre.

Mr Currie issued libel proceedings against Soho Theatre over a 2024 press release issued by the Theatre following an incident between Mr Currie and members of the audience. At a preliminary issue trial on meaning, Mr Justice Nicklin found that the meaning of the press release was (our paraphrasing): that Mr Currie had verbally abused Jewish members of an audience at Soho Theatre (found to be a statement of fact) and that this was intimidating, antisemitic, appalling, unacceptable and inconsistent with the values of the Theatre (found to be a statement of opinion).

Mr Currie appealed the decision, seeking a variation of the words which would add 'because they were Jewish' to the statement of fact, an implication which he said the ordinary reasonable reader would have read into the words complained of.

However, the Court of Appeal exercised "disciplined restraint" not to interfere with the first instance meaning unless that meaning was outside the range of the ones reasonably available to the judge (per Stocker v Stocker [2019] AC 593 at [59]), and upheld the meaning found at first instance. Whilst the Court was prepared to accept that there could have been an implication that the Appellant acted in the manner that he did because he knew or perceived the audience members to be Jewish, those implicit words did not have to be placed in the category of statements of fact, and the judge was entitled to place them in the category of opinion. The meaning found was therefore one which was reasonably open to the first instance judge and the appeal was rejected. RPC acts for Soho Theatre.

Crispin Odey discontinues £79m libel claim against the FT

On 10 April 2026, Crispin Odey discontinued his £79m libel claim against the Financial Times (FT). Odey had issued libel proceedings over two articles published in June and July 2023 reporting on 19 women's allegations of sexual assault and/or harassment by Odey. The FT relied on both truth and public interest defences. Witness statements were due to be exchanged on 24 April and a five-week trial was due to commence on 29 June 2026.

In discontinuing the claim, Odey reiterated his denial of the allegations "in the strongest possible terms". His solicitors said that following review of the FT's "extensive disclosure" provided earlier this year, Odey had been "forced to accept" that the FT's public interest defence was "likely to succeed" at trial.

The FT's Editor, Roula Khalaf, has described the withdrawal of the claim as "a vindication for investigative journalism and for the victims whose stories of abuse we reported". RPC acted for the FT.

Publishers push back against reduced cost ceiling for processing FOI requests

The News Media Association (NMA) has expressed concerns and called for "clarity" on the government's proposals to reduce the cost ceiling for processing Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. Under s.12 Freedom of Information Act 2000, a FOI request can be rejected if the anticipated cost of responding exceeds "the appropriate limit", currently set at £600 for central government or £450 for other public authorities. In 2024, central government received 83,041 FOI requests, said to be the highest number since records began in 2005. Against the rising number of requests, the government is reportedly considering whether to reduce the cost cap.

The NMA's chief executive Owen Meredith has reportedly written to the government to point out that such a measure would "place a wider category of important information entirely beyond scrutiny". According to the Press Gazette, Meredith's letter also pointed out that the cost limits have not risen in line with inflation over the 20 years since they were set. He also noted that the discretion to refuse requests on costs grounds were not measured against any public interest balancing exercise, and that rather than preventing trivial requests, lowering the cost cap was more likely to exclude "the most sensitive and significant requests".

Phase 1 of Southport Inquiry makes online safety recommendations

The Southport Inquiry has published its report of Phase 1 of the public inquiry, which examined the events leading up to the attack and the decision-making and information-sharing of local services and agencies of the risk the perpetrator (AR) posed to the public.

Of the 67 recommendations made by the Inquiry, several relate to online safety. The Inquiry concluded AR had "a deep and enduring preoccupation with extreme violence and the brutal deaths of others". He had twice downloaded an academic article with text from an Al-Qaeda training manual and accessed "a wide range of vile and disturbing imagery" andarticles and papers relating to atrocities. He was also able to purchase a number of weapons and toxins online.

The report recommends that Phase 2 of the Inquiry consider whether there should be greater powers to restrict or monitor access to the internet for children who pose a significant risk to others, as well as considering age-verification for the use of Virtual Private Network (VPNs) software to avoid VPNs being used to circumvent age-related protections in the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA). The report also recommends that the training and technical tools of Counter Terrorism Police for investigating online activity should be strengthened. Finally, the inquiry has called for the government to consider extending the powers under s.101 OSA to allow senior coroners to make a notification to Ofcom to obtain access to social media accounts of perpetrators of similar incidents (not just the accounts of a child who has died) and for this power to extend to statutory public inquiries as well.

Government approves Axel Springer's £575 million takeover of the Telegraph

German media firm Axel Springer's £575 million acquisition of Telegraph Media Group (TMG) has been given government approval to proceed. Axel Springer is hoping to expand TMG's business to become the "leading centre-right media outlet in the English-speaking world" and grow the company's presence in the US market. The approval comes after a previous attempt by the Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT) to acquire TMG was blocked due to potential competition concerns given DMGT's existing significant share of the UK newspaper market. The deal is still subject to further regulatory hurdles in Ireland and Austria. Provided those hurdles can be surpassed, the takeover is anticipated to be finalised before the end of Q2 2026.

Banksy awarded indemnity costs in libel claim

Following the discontinuance of a libel claim against famed artist Banksy and his company, Mr Justice Nicklin has awarded the Defendants indemnity costs in Full Colour Blank v (1) The artist known as "Banksy" and (2) Pest Control Office Limited [2026] EWHC 795 (KB).

Following a long history of allegations of unauthorised exploitation of Banksy's work by Full Colour Bank (FCB), FCB had entered into a collaboration with clothing brand Guess to sell clothing which featured Banksy's artwork. In response, Banksy posted an image on Instagram which encouraged shoplifting of the clothing from the Guess store in Regent Street. FCB sued for libel in respect of the Instagram post but discontinued under threat of a summary judgment/strike out application.

The general rule pursuant to CPR r.38.6 is that the claimant is liable for the defendant's costs up to the date of discontinuance. Those costs are usually assessed on the standard basis, unless there are grounds for the court to award indemnity costs. In this case, Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that in addition to the case lacking real prospects of success [120], the proceedings were also deployed inappropriately to exert pressure on Banky's well-known concern to preserve his anonymity [121]. The Court was therefore satisfied that the proceedings "were pursued in a manner and for purposes which were unreasonable to a high degree and which take the case outside the norm" [128], making an indemnity costs order appropriate. The case serves as a good example that indemnity costs orders are available not only for unreasonable conduct, but also where litigation is pursued in the face of impenetrable defences or otherwise for improper purposes.

Duke of Sussex labelled an "architect" of "adverse media campaign" in charity's defamation claim

Sentebale, a charity supporting young people in southern Africa, has issued a defamation claim against its co-founder, the Duke of Sussex, and his close friend and former trustee, Mark Dyer. Sentebale accuses the Defendants of conducting an "adverse media campaign" against the charity, its leadership, and its strategic partners since March 2025. The charity is seeking the court's "intervention, protection, and restitution" claiming the Defendants caused them to suffer from "operational disruption", "reputation harm", and an "onslaught of cyber-bullying".

Internal conflicts within the charity first emerged in early 2025 when the Duke of Sussex and several trustees left the charity amid a dispute with its chair. In August that year, the Charity Commission concluded that there was poor governance of the charity, but did not find any evidence of alleged bullying or harassment. The Defendants have "categorically" rejected the claim (which was issued in March 2026), calling it "offensive" and "damaging".

Trump's defamation lawsuit against Wall Street Journal dismissed

A Florida court has dismissed Donald Trump's $10 billion defamation claim against The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and others. Trump claimed damages equivalent to £7.4 billion over an article in July 2025 reporting that Trump allegedly sent a birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003 featuring a drawing of a woman's body. Trump claimed the letter was fake and the story was concocted to defame him.

The WSJ filed a motion to dismiss on several grounds, including that the article was true, that it was not defamatory and that Trump failed to adequately plead that the article was published with "actual malice" (one of the requirements of a defamation claim under Florida law). The court found that Trump was "nowhere close" to establishing that the WSJ had deliberately avoided investigating the veracity of the statement in order to evade learning the truth. The WSJ had gone to Trump, Justice Department officials and the FBI for comment and the article reflected Trump's position. The court declined to rule on whether the article was true and/or defamatory. Trump reportedly intends to refile an amended claim.

Ofcom consultation on transparency reporting

On 15 April, Ofcom announced it is consulting on what categorised service providers should be required to publish in their annual transparency report under the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA). Schedule 8 of the OSA includes the possible matters on which Ofcom might request information in annual transparency notices issued under s.77 of the OSA. Ofcom is calling for views to help shape the development of the transparency notice scheme. Responses are required by 5pm on 30 April 2026.

Ofcom says it intends to begin issuing draft transparency notices following the publication of the Register of Categorised Services in summer 2026. While all service providers in-scope of the OSA must have suitable measures in place to protect users from online harms, "categorised" services have additional transparency, risk assessment and record keeping duties.

Quote of the fortnight

“Journalists should not have to weigh the public interest against the threat of financial ruin. Strong, effective anti-SLAPP protections are essential if scrutiny journalism is to survive.”

James Mitchinson, Editor at The Yorkshire Post

Transfers from offshore bank account were taxable remittances

Thu, 16 Apr 2026 10:00:00 +0100

In Afzal Alimahomed v HMRC [2025] UKUT 00428 (TCC), the Upper Tribunal considered whether transfers from an offshore bank account and the use of an offshore credit card, were taxable remittances.

Signing your name away

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 15:18:00 +0100

In March 2026, the Estée Lauder group of companies, including Jo Malone Ltd and Inc, brought a High Court claim against Joanna Willcox (aka Jo Malone), Jo Loves and Zara UK. At the nub of the spat is the use of various credit lines including: 'created by Jo Malone CBE, founder of Jo Loves' on signage, product labelling, packaging, websites, and social media in respect of a Jo Loves x Zara fragrance collab.

Regulatory Pulse - 14 April 2026

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 10:35:00 +0100

The biggest news this edition has been the Court of Appeal's reversal of Mazur. Without getting into the history of the case and the detail of the decision, what are the main takeaways?

The Week That Was - 10 April 2026

Fri, 10 Apr 2026 15:34:00 +0100

Ardmore to appeal landmark £15m Building Safety Act ruling

A landmark High Court ruling against Ardmore has extended liability for £14.9m of alleged fire safety defects across multiple group companies after its principal contracting subsidiary fell into administration. In Crest Nicholson v Ardmore, Justice Constable granted Crest Nicholson two Building Liability Orders (BLOs) under the Building Safety Act 2022 which may make associated Ardmore entities liable for historic defects at Portsmouth’s Admiralty Quarter development, built between 2007 and 2009.

Crest Nicholson alleges serious fire safety failings, including combustible insulation, missing cavity barriers and defective fire stopping. In 2025, an adjudicator ruled that Ardmore Construction had breached its duties under the Defective Premises Act and ordered it to pay £14.9m. However, the firm entered administration the day before the decision was issued and, as such, has not paid. The court held that adjudication awards can constitute a “relevant liability” for the purposes of a BLO and found it “just and equitable” to extend liability across the group, citing insolvency, restructuring, and evidence of defects. Ardmore argues the legislation was not intended to apply in this way and says the decision has wider implications for the construction sector. Ardmore has indicated it intends to appeal the decision.

Please access the full article here.

Farage sacks housing spokesman over Grenfell comments

Nigel Farage has dismissed Reform UK’s housing chief, Simon Dudley, following controversy over Dudley’s comments on post-Grenfell fire safety regulations. Dudley claimed that regulations introduced after the Grenfell Tower tragedy had gone too far, reportedly saying that “everyone dies in the end” and that tragic events such as fires cannot be entirely prevented. His remarks prompted condemnation from Labour.

Dudley later apologised, insisting he was not belittling the disaster or its “huge loss of life” and stressing it “must never happen again”. A Reform UK spokesperson has said that homes must be built safely but warned that “overly burdensome” building safety regulations risk stifling housebuilding. They said Dudley’s comments reflected a broader concern that the “regulatory pendulum has swung too far” since the Grenfell tragedy.

Please access the full article here.

UK construction costs remain stable despite Iran conflict

Dr David Crosthwaite, Chief Economist at BCIS, has examined how the Iran conflict might impact UK construction, and while early estimates expected the disruption to be short-lived, it’s now clear that the conflict could affect both demand and costs.

A BCIS survey conducted in late March found that 95% of the more than 300 construction professional respondents expect material prices to rise over the next year. While tender prices haven’t changed yet, a prolonged conflict could result in stalled projects, reduced workloads, and downward pressure on prices. Fluctuating energy markets could also shift cost pressures from labour to materials.

Compared to the volatility caused by the Ukraine conflict in March 2022, the situation is more stable for now, but rising material costs (especially steel) are still a concern. Therefore, if energy prices remain high, the construction sector’s recovery could be delayed, adding to broader inflationary pressures.

You can read more here.

New Rail Station to Boost 4,000-Home Development in East London

The government plans to include a new rail station in the Beam Park development scheme in Havering, east London, as part of efforts to unblock stalled housing projects.

The scheme, led by Countryside Partnerships and housing association L&Q, is delivering over 4,000 homes, with 50% designated as affordable and 25% suitable for families. Over 1,000 homes have already been completed, along with amenities like a primary school and health centre. Another 520 homes will soon be handed over to BeFirst, Barking and Dagenham's regeneration company.

The housing ministry, alongside the Greater London Authority, Havering council, and Transport for London, is securing funding for the station under the New Homes Accelerator programme. Kevin Delve, Managing Director of Vistry East London, has emphasized that this station will help "unlock the complex site" and keep the project on track.

You can read more here.

Building Safety Regulator introduces external remediation improvement plan

On 8 April 2026 the BSR announced on its website that it has introduced a "comprehensive external remediation improvement plan to reduce delays to higher-risk building safety works" to speed up higher-risk building (HRB) safety works across England.

The BSR say a major source of delay is poor quality or incomplete applications and with the plan they aim to reduce decision times for remediation applications to under 12 weeks and achieve approval rates above 65%.

The plan's key measures are:

The creation of a dedicated external remediation multidisciplinary team (MDT), modelled on BSR’s Innovation Unit, with dedicated account managers to streamline communication.
Further recruitment to increase regulatory lead capacity and reduce individual caseloads from around 25 to about 10 applications each.
The use of more flexible “approval with requirements” so projects can start safely while some technical issues are finalised.
The publication of new guidance on external remediation.

Access through the government website here.

With thanks to Jonathan Carrington, Josh Wong, Keira-Anne Dowsell, Elizabeth Terry and Sky Arklay

If you have any queries please do get in contact with a member of the team, or your usual RPC contact.

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 10 April 2026

Fri, 10 Apr 2026 11:43:00 +0100

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Headline development

FOS publish response to the FCA review into the impact of AI

On 2 April 2026, the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) published its response to the FCA's recent review into the use and impact of advanced AI on retail financial services.

In the FCA review, the FCA confirmed that it was not intending to introduce extra regulations around AI. Instead, it confirmed the continued reliance on existing frameworks (such as the Consumer Duty) to focus on outcomes and the mitigation of any risks associated with the use of AI.

In its reply, the FOS note the increased use of consumers (and some advisors) using AI in complaints and correspondence which has led to longer and inaccurate submissions. It is also noted that although complaints against firms using AI are relatively low, any alleged 'financial advice' provided by AI is outside of the FOS's remit. FOS highlight the continued risk to vulnerable consumers where the AI algorithms are unclear and have therefore called on the FCA to:

Provide guidance for firms to follow in evidencing the firm's identification and support for vulnerable customers.
Allow consumers to request human review and receive plain English explanations in scenarios where AI has provided an outcome.
Set clear expectations that firms should provide the FOS and consumers with a clear explanation on how AI contributed to an outcome (including the prompts and documents input in the AI system).
Clarify the current expectations for record-keeping, paths to human escalation, and dispute handling in scenarios where no human is involved (such as where a consumer's AI agent may interact directly with a firm's AI chatbot).

To read more, please click here.

Tax practitioners

Cash for information: how HMRC is paying for intelligence

In November 2025, HMRC launched the Strengthened Reward Scheme (SRS), an enhanced informant and reward scheme, marking a significant shift in the UK’s approach to tackling serious tax avoidance and evasion. This initiative, announced in the 2025 Budget, represents a deliberate move towards providing financial incentives for whistleblowers, closely modelled on established programmes in the US and Canada.

Under the SRS, individuals who supply information that enables HMRC to collect significant unpaid tax may receive a share of the revenue recovered. HMRC's official guidance states that a reward may be payable where information leads to the collection of at least £1.5 million in additional tax, with awards ranging from 15% to 30% of the amount collected (excluding penalties and interest). The SRS applies primarily to serious tax avoidance and evasion involving large corporations, wealthy individuals, or offshore structures.

However, any system that offers potentially substantial financial rewards is likely to attract attention beyond the sphere of legitimate informants. Generous rewards may encourage vexatious, speculative, or opportunistic reports that allege wrongdoing but lack credibility or actionable evidence.

RPC's Michelle Sloane has written a blog which explores the likely impact of the SRS and how it falls broader global trend for incentivised enforcement. To read it please click here.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

FCA publishes findings from multi-firm review of CDD controls

The FCA has published the findings of its multi-firm review into customer due diligence, enhanced due diligence and ongoing due diligence controls across a range of sectors.

The review, carried out in 2025, assessed firms’ systems and controls through questionnaires, desk-based reviews of policies and procedures, customer file reviews and interviews with staff. The FCA considered firms’ arrangements against the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 and its Financial Crime Guide.

The FCA highlighted a number of weaknesses, including:

policies and procedures that did not explain clearly what additional measures should be taken for enhanced due diligence;
a lack of guidance for staff on how to identify and verify customers who could not provide usual forms of identification;
insufficient detail on the frequency of periodic reviews and what should happen following an event-driven review;
failures to gather or record key customer due diligence information, including the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship;
failures to evidence and document enhanced due diligence measures for higher risk customers;
limited evidence showing how firms differentiated between low and high-risk customers;
failures to carry out periodic reviews where required;
a lack of independent second line assurance, with the same staff sometimes responsible for both onboarding and reviewing customers; and
poor version control, meaning firms could not demonstrate a proper audit trail of changes to documentation.

The FCA says firms should consider these findings in the context of their own business and continue reviewing their customer due diligence controls. The findings will be of interest to businesses outside of FCA regulated entities given the proposal that the FCA's remit with respect to money laundering is to extend to other professional service firms – law firms and accountants in particular.

To read more, please click here.

Backlog of claims being dealt with by FSCS

In a letter seen by Citywire from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) to an adviser working on claims against failed advice firms, the FSCS has reported having a backlog of claims and that it is unable to provide a timeframe as to when cases will be allocated.

Citywire reports that it has seen other letters noting the same issues and after Citywire reached out to the FSCS for comment, the FSCS responded stating that it operates an efficient claim system and that for more complex claims, it is continuing to innovate so that claims can be dealt with as efficiently as possible.

From the FSCS's comments the extent of the backlog is unclear. It also seems that the backlog largely relates to advice claims, with the FSCS confirming that claims times concerning insurance and deposits are operating within service level expectations.

To read more, please click here [requires registration].

With thanks to this week's contributors: Heather Buttifant, James Parsons, Brendan Marrinan, Ben Simmonds, and Kerone Thomas

Sports Ticker #149 - Dyson invests in Bath Rugby and the new equestrian Premier Jumping League - a speed read of commercial updates from the sports world

Fri, 10 Apr 2026 08:59:00 +0100

As always, if there are any issues on which you’d like more information (or if you have any questions or feedback), please do let us know or get in touch with your usual contact at RPC.

From Vacuums to Victory: Sir James Dyson invests in Bath Rugby
Inventor and vacuum tycoon, Sir James Dyson, has purchased a 50% share in Bath Rugby. The value of the investment is currently undisclosed, but it will mean that Sir James will become a co-owner of the current Gallagher Premiership champions, alongside Bruce Craig. The billionaire founder of Dyson Limited (Dyson) already has links to the city, famously developing the world's first bagless vacuum cleaner in Bath. Similarly, Dyson and Bath Rugby share a long history since the brand became the club's title partner in July 2014. Though Bath has never been relegated from English rugby's top division, the Rugby Football Union's announcement that automatic relegation from the top division will be scrapped (see Sports Ticker #147 for more on this) is likely to make Premiership Rugby clubs more attractive to investors and lenders, who no longer have to be concerned about the effects of relegation on infrastructure and club development plans.

Jumping the Class Barrier: McCourt's $300m Showjumping League Backed by Marseille Football Club owner, McCourt Global, the Premier Jumping League (PJL) has officially launched with a record-breaking $300million guaranteed prize fund. The prize fund spans three years, with $100 million earmarked for the first year (dwarfing the €22 million distributed by the Global Champions Tour last year). The PJL aims to attract the world's top riders by reshaping the economics of international showjumping and enabling riders to compete as full-time professional athletes. The first competition is scheduled to commence in March 2027, with 16 teams set to battle it out across 14 international venues. The PJL's backers hope that by transforming the structure of the competition to create a season-long team narrative, the sport will be able to target a new generation of fans.

YouTube joins the World Cup as FIFA's preferred platform
YouTube has become a preferred platform for the 2026 FIFA World Cup under a new deal with football’s governing body. For the first time, rights‑holding broadcasters will be able to stream the first ten minutes of every match – or selected matches in full – on the YouTube platform. During the 2026 tournament (11 June–19 July), broadcasters will also be able to post extended highlights, behind‑the‑scenes footage and clips throughout the competition, giving both FIFA and YouTube valuable insight into how fans engage with World Cup content. Currently, YouTube isn't technically positioned as a direct competitor to ad-supported TV services, as they too can use the platform to connect with the wider, younger audience. However, this agreement may hint at future partnerships between the streaming giant and the football association. FIFA made $2.9billion from the 2022 World Cup television broadcasting rights; with this price tag, will YouTube consider bidding for live rights in the future? Stay tuned.

Right on Cue: Snooker World Championship's spiritual home secured until 2045
Despite previous reports that the tournament could be moved abroad, World Snooker Tour (WST) has announced that the Snooker World Championship will remain at the historic Crucible until at least 2045. WST reached an agreement with Sheffield City Council ensuring that the iconic Sheffield venue will celebrate 50 years of hosting the tournament in 2027. As part of the deal, the Crucible will undergo a £45 million refurbishment expanding its capacity by 500 seats – a 50% increase – which will be funded by local government and private investors. The move reflects a strong demand for tickets, with standard tickets to the 2026 event selling out almost a year in advance. This year’s tournament will begin on 18 April, with defending champion Zhao Xintong looking to break the “Crucible Curse”, which has seen no first-time champion retain the title since the tournament moved to the Crucible in 1977.

Rock On! The Curling Group eyes US $25m ahead of league launch
The Curling Group (TCG), a sports business venture “dedicated to revolutionising the sport of curling”, is on the hunt for $25 million in Series A funding as it prepares to launch the Rock League, the sport's first fully professional competition. Originally slated for 2027, the league's debut has been accelerated to capitalise on the curling frenzy generated by February's Milano-Cortina Winter Olympics. A shortened one-week inaugural season is set to commence in Toronto this month, intended as a proof-of-concept showcase to entice investment ahead of a full five-week season scheduled for January. The Rock League will adopt a franchise model comprising six teams of five men and five women each. TCG will initially own and operate all six franchises, with plans to sell the entities into private ownership from 2028. Organisers hope this month’s showcase strikes t5he right chord investors, or else the Rock League find itself skating on thin ice ahead of January’s full launch.

Extra time...

…and finally, the government-backed Women’s Football Taskforce has commissioned Loughborough University to work with leading insurers and brokers to ensure female athletes have access to appropriate and comprehensive insurance cover. Following recommendations set out in the Carney review, published in July 2023, the initiative aims to address key gaps in existing policies. These reforms focus on areas where provisions have historically been lacking, particularly in relation to conditions that disproportionately affect women. This includes relative energy deficiency in sport (Red-S), as well as health considerations such as pregnancy, contraception and menopause. Karen Carney herself has welcomed the changes, stating: “Seeing the recommendations being taken seriously and resulting in tangible improvements is always amazing,” adding that the development “justifies why the report was important.” Early implementation is already underway, with major insurance broker Aon extending its personal accident policies to include miscarriage resulting from a sporting accident as standard, marking a significant step toward closing gaps in athlete protection and supporting the continued growth of women’s sport.

Cash for information: How HMRC is paying for intelligence

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 10:00:00 +0100

In November 2025, HMRC launched the Strengthened Reward Scheme (SRS), an enhanced informant and reward scheme, marking a significant shift in the UK’s approach to tackling serious tax avoidance and evasion. This initiative represents a deliberate move towards providing financial incentives for whistleblowers and is a transformative addition to the UK's tax enforcement toolkit.

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 2 April 2026

Thu, 02 Apr 2026 14:31:00 +0100

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Headline development

Supreme Court reviews scope of principal liability for appointed representative’s dealings with retail clients

In Kession Capital Ltd (in Liquidation) v KVB Consultants Ltd and others, the Supreme Court considered whether an appointed representative agreement can limit a principal firm’s liability for the acts of its appointed representative in dealings with retail clients.

Kession Capital Ltd (KCL), an authorised firm, entered into an appointed representative agreement with Jacob Hopkins McKenzie Ltd (JHM) under section 39 FSMA. The agreement authorised JHM to carry on certain business on KCL’s behalf, but prohibited it from dealing with retail clients.

JHM later promoted and operated a number of property investment schemes. Investors, including KVB Consultants Ltd, invested around £1.7 million. When the schemes failed, claims were brought to recover those losses.

Summary judgment was entered against KCL on the basis that, under section 39 FSMA, it had assumed responsibility for JHM’s marketing of the schemes.

The Court of Appeal upheld that decision. It agreed that the agreement prohibited JHM from advising on and arranging the schemes, but held by majority that the agreement did not limit KCL’s liability for JHM’s acts and omissions in conducting business with retail clients. That latter issue was the subject of the appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court upheld Kession's appeal, deciding unanimously that Kession (as principal) was not responsible for the advice given in respect of the investment schemes by JHM on the basis that they themselves did not have permission to give such advice, and JHM was expressly prevented from doing so under the AR agreement.

The case addresses an important question for authorised firms using appointed representatives - whether contractual limits in an AR agreement can narrow the statutory responsibility imposed by section 39 FSMA.

To read the decision, please click here.

Auditors

FRC publishes Annual Plan and Budget for 2026/27

The FRC has now published its Annual Plan and Budget for 2026/27. The document doesn’t contain any major surprises, but it does give a clearer indication of the regulator’s priorities for the coming year.

The focus remains on (1) audit supervision and enforcement, (2) support for smaller firms, and (3) work on wider issues affecting the market, including AI and ESG. The plan also points to further work on standards and guidance across audit, actuarial work and pensions, whilst also referring to changes to enforcement processes and the continued development of the FRC’s supervisory approach to audit oversight.

The FRC says it wants enforcement cases to move through the system more quickly, whilst continuing work intended to help smaller firms build capability and take on a greater role in the audit market. More broadly, the plan suggests continuity rather than any real change in direction, but it’s still a useful guide to where the FRC’s attention is likely to fall over the next 12 months.

To read RPC’s article in more detail, click here.

FRC issues guidance on the use of generative AI in audits

On Tuesday, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), the audit watchdog, issued guidance to audit firms on the use of generative AI. According to the FRC, this is the first such guidance on AI issued by any audit regulator globally.

The FRC emphasizes that the guidance has not been issued in response to any quality concerns in audit work already identified, but rather it "codifies good practice, promotes audit quality, builds confidence in the use of these technologies, and provides a conceptual foundation for future FRC work in this area."

Although the FRC is clearly not opposed to the careful and responsible use of AI in audits, it nevertheless reaffirmed that human auditors will bear the ultimate responsibility for the quality of audits, and careful attention will need to be paid to alleviating the inherent risks of generative AI, such as hallucinations.

To read the FRC's announcement and the guidance, click here.

Tax practitioners

UT allows SDLT overpayment relief claim despite calculation error

In BTR Core Fund JPUT v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal allowed an appeal, holding that an error in calculating SDLT was not a “mistake in a claim” for the purposes of the overpayment relief rules.

BTR had claimed Multiple Dwellings Relief in its SDLT return but, following HMRC guidance at the time, applied the higher residential rates and overpaid SDLT. After HMRC later changed its guidance, BTR sought overpayment relief. HMRC refused the claim on the basis that the overpayment arose from a mistake in the claim itself.

The UT rejected that argument. It held that the mistake was in the calculation of the SDLT liability, not in the making of the MDR claim. On that basis, the statutory exclusion did not apply and HMRC was required to give effect to the claim.

To read RPC’s article in more detail, click here.

Pensions

TPR publishes guidance on Virgin Media issues

TPR has issued guidance for trustees dealing with historic scheme amendments affected by the Virgin Media decision. The guidance accompanies the proposed changes in the Pension Schemes Bill, which are intended to allow schemes to obtain retrospective actuarial confirmation where section 37 confirmation is missing, or there is no evidence that it was obtained.

The guidance covers the steps trustees should now be considering, including whether the scheme is affected, what legal and actuarial input is needed, and how any remedial exercise should be scoped and documented. TPR also says it does not expect exhaustive searches for historic evidence before actuaries are instructed, and indicates that past failures to obtain section 37 confirmation are unlikely to be materially significant to its regulatory functions now.

To read RPC’s article in more detail, click here.

Pensions ombudsman confirms no duty on a scheme administrator to carry out extra due diligence

In the complaint by Mr N (CAS-69397-X3Y6) (30 January 2026), the deputy ombudsman dismissed the assertion that Mr N's defined benefit scheme administrator (the DBA) should have conducted further due diligence before allowing Mr N to transfer his pension.

Mr N was cold called by an advisor who offered a free pension scheme review. The pension advisors recommended the Mr N transfer his defined benefit pension into a small, self-administered pension scheme (SSAS) for higher returns.Mr N instructed his DBA to complete the transfer, and signed several documents which confirmed he was aware of the risk of pension fraud and that he had done is own research and had not been cold called.

Mr N's SSAS subsequently failed and his pension funds were lost. Mr N sought to complain against the DBA, alleging that the DBA failed to conduct adequate due diligence on the SSAS. This failure included not spotting the red flags of the SSAS, including that the SSAS was newly registered and the pension advisor was unregulated. Mr N maintained that his signature on the waiver prior to the transfer was not evidence that he adequately understood the risks involved.

The deputy pensions ombudsman dismissed Mr N's complaint and confirmed that the DBA completed the relevant checks and obtained assurances from Mr N as required of them. The DBA was under no further obligation, nor did they assume the responsibility to do so, to carry out further checks.

To read more, please clickhere.

FRCC report and FCA response bring renewed focus to BSPS

The Office of the Financial Regulators Complaints Commissioner (FRCC) has published its final report on the FCA’s oversight of the British Steel Pension Scheme (BSPS), with the FCA publishing its response on the same day. The two documents revisit the FCA’s handling of the BSPS transfer episode and, in particular, whether it acted quickly enough to protect members from unsuitable transfer advice.

The FRCC concluded that the FCA failed to protect former BSPS members from foreseeable harm. In particular, it found that the FCA had failed to:

take preventative action by strengthening the regulatory framework or other consumer protection measures before the BSPS advice was given.
intervene effectively during the “time to choose” period when unsuitable advice was being given to BSPS members; and
respond with sufficient urgency once the damage had materialised.

The FRCC’s report also addresses complaints from former BSPS members about the FCA’s regulation of defined benefit transfer advice following the Tata Steel UK restructuring. It notes the FCA’s own estimate that almost half of the advice given was unsuitable, and recommends that the FCA revisit its decision not to uphold any of the complaints made against it.

The FCA says it has learned important lessons from BSPS and has already accepted and implemented recommendations arising from earlier reports. However, it does not accept the FRCC’s conclusion that it was behind the curve in anticipating, preventing and responding to widespread unsuitable advice. The FCA also maintains that the regulatory framework in place at the time was appropriate and designed to protect consumers, although it accepts that poor information-sharing between organisations affected early visibility of the issues.

The FRCC also recommended that the FCA consider evidence that some firms may not have complied with the three-month deadline for making redress offers following the valuation date. The FCA has accepted that recommendation and says it will consider any such evidence from complainants.

To read more, please click here.

FOS developments

FOS 2026/27 financial year priorities for a quicker clearer service

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has published its Plans and Budget for 2026/27, outlining the most significant operational transformation in its 25‑year history. Working with the FCA and government, the FOS is progressing an ambitious reform programme to refocus on its core role as a quick, informal alternative to the courts. A joint consultation with the FCA proposes updates to processes and greater transparency.

Over the coming year, the Ombudsman will prioritise making its service quicker, clearer and more accessible, including through enhanced digital tools that streamline customer journeys and free up caseworkers to focus their time on complaints. Complaint volumes are expected to fall to 199,000 new cases in 2026/27, driven by fewer motor finance commission and professional representative complaints, with 266,500 cases planned for resolution. To fund reforms amid inflationary pressures and reduced reserves, the compulsory levy will rise to £86m and case fees will increase, though overall costs will remain below 2023/24 levels.

See here for the Press Release and the full documents can be found here.

FOS increases case fees for 2026/27

As mentioned above, in the plans and budget for 2026/27, FOS has set out that its case fees will increase.

After two years of case fees and levies remaining the same, FOS has said that this is no longer sustainable as result of inflationary challenges, reduced reserves and the cost of implanting the largest reforms to FOS since its creation.

The increase will see respondent firms now charged £680 per case, up from £650 per case. For professional representatives which bring cases on behalf of consumers, if the case is decided in favour of the consumer, a professional representative will be charged a case fee of £80 and in circumstances where the case is decided in favour of the respondent firm, the professional representative will be charged a case fee of £260, with the respondent firm's case fee reduced to £500.

Further changes are also being made, which in the future will allow FOS to introduce differentiated case fees – including changing the free case allowance to a monetary value of £2,000 for both respondent firms and professional representatives.

To read more, please click here.

More on the proposed changes to FOS, including the 10-year complaint limit

Continuing with the FOS reforms, the some of the proposed changes designed to make complaint resolution quicker, more consistent and more predictable for firms and consumers include:

a 10-year absolute time limit for bringing complaints to the FOS, subject to limited FCA exceptions.
a new referral mechanism requiring the FOS to seek the FCA’s view where there is uncertainty over FCA rules or wider market implications.
changes to the FOS’s fair and reasonable test, so that where firms have complied with relevant FCA rules they must be treated by the FOS as having acted fairly and reasonably.
structural changes intended to improve consistency in FOS decision-making, including giving the Chief Ombudsman overall responsibility for determinations.
a requirement for the FOS and FCA to publish regular thematic reports to help firms and consumers understand how certain complaints will be approached; and
provision to ensure the FCA has the tools it needs to respond quickly and effectively to mass redress events where appropriate.

The consultation response also confirms that the FOS will not become a subsidiary of the FCA. Legislation is due to follow when Parliamentary time allows.

To read more, please click here.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

FCA release final policy statement on the motor finance consumer redress scheme

Following the consultation launched in October 2025, the FCA have introduced the motor finance consumer redress scheme for customers who were treated unfairly in taking out motor finance loans or leasing agreements between 2007 and 2024.

It is estimated that the average consumer will be entitled to £829 in redress per agreement entered into, giving a total costs to the industry of around £7.5bn - £9b. The overall estimate for the redress bill has decreased slightly from when the consultation opened, when the overall estimate was between £8bn and £11bn. The scope has also reduced, with around 12 million agreements now falling to the scheme, down from 14 million. Other changes include a move away from an automatic presumption of unfairness in some cases, along with different treatment now being applied to cases that pre and post-date 2014.

There will be a short implementation period so that firms can prepare to operate the scheme and start dealing with complaints. The implementation period for loans taken out from 1 April 2024 will be 30 June 2026 and 31 August 2026 for loans taken out earlier.

For consumers who complain before the implementation period ends, the lenders will have 3 months to confirm if redress is owed, and if so, how much. Consumers will then have 1 month to accept or challenge the redress calculation. For consumers who do not complain within the implementation period, lenders will within 6 months, invite the consumer to join the scheme and the consumer will have 6 months in order to do so.

It is intended that nearly all cases should be resolved by the end of 2027, which highlights the work that some lenders have been implementing ahead of the scheme being finalised.

To read more, please click here.

FCA leads cross regulator taskforce on motor finance claims

The FCA has also announced a new cross regulator taskforce to address poor practices by some claims management companies (CMCs) and law firms in relation to motor finance claims. The initiative brings together the FCA, SRA, ICO and ASA to share intelligence and take swift, co ordinated enforcement action using the full range of their powers. The taskforce will focus on tackling unsolicited and misleading advertising, meritless or duplicative claims, multiple representation, and unfair exit fees.

The FCA has reiterated that its forthcoming motor finance redress scheme will be free and that consumers do not need to use CMCs or law firms, which may take up to 30% of any compensation. Consumers are urged to avoid signing up with multiple representatives, be alert to potential scams and report nuisance calls, texts, and misleading adverts. Complaints about authorised CMCs or regulated law firms should follow established FCA, SRA and Legal Ombudsman routes.

See the FCA Press Release here.

Relevant case law updates

High Court finds auditors do not owe a common law duty to report directly to shareholders

The Chancery Division has refused an application by a claimant company for permission to re-amend its Particulars of Claim to expand its claim to allege that the defendant auditors owed a duty to report directly to individual shareholders.

Whilst the Court found that the new claim involved a new cause of action and was statute barred as it introduced new factual elements (such that it could not be said the claim arose out of the same facts as the original pleaded case), the relevant finding – for auditors at least – is that the Court found that the new cause of action had no real prospects of success. The Court held that auditors do not owe a common law duty to report direct to individual shareholders, even if there are suspicions of fraud on the part of the directors.

The decision was made in The Wine Enterprise Investment Scheme Ltd (in liquidation) (acting by Finbarr O' Connell and Colin Hardman in their capacity as Joint Liquidators) v Crowe UK LLP (formerly Crowe Clark Whitehill Llp) [2026] EWHC 692 (Ch).

To read the judgment, please clickhere.

Settlement agreement held to cover later £10 million-plus claim

The High Court has held that a settlement agreement entered into for £200,000 also extended to multi-lateral interchange fees related claims brought by a company that only became associated with the claimant after the agreement was signed.

The dispute arose from a settlement between Luxottica Retail UK Ltd and Visa companies in relation to interchange fee claims. After the agreement was executed, Grandvision - a company in which Luxottica’s parent later acquired a controlling interest - brought a further claim said to be worth more than £10 million. The Court found that, on the wording used, the agreement was wide enough to capture claims brought by associated companies, including those becoming associated after execution.

The Court rejected the argument that the settlement should be read more narrowly by reference to the original claim being settled. Instead, it placed weight on the breadth of the drafting and the absence of any express limitation. While Visa was entitled to declaratory relief and damages, the Court declined to order specific performance of the obligation to ensure withdrawal of the later claim.

To read the judgment, please click here.

With thanks to this week's contributors: Heather Buttifant, James Parsons, Brendan Marrinan, Ben Simmonds, Alison Thomas and Kerone Thomas

If you have any queries please do get in contact with a member of the team, or your usual RPC contact.

ML Covered - April 2026

Thu, 02 Apr 2026 12:45:00 +0100

Fiduciary agent forced to pay compensation after dishonestly asset-stripping company

In Hawkes v Cook [2026] EWHC 506 (Comm) it was ruled that an independent consultant was a fiduciary agent and trustee of company property and had to pay equitable compensation for diverting the proceeds of the sale of the property.

Background

Mark Glenn Hawkes (the Claimant) was the sole director and shareholder of Michael Green Plant Ltd (the Company), a company that specialised in demolition and clearance, and owned plant and land in order to perform this activity. By 2004, the Company was in serious financial difficulty and subject to a HMRC winding‑up petition for c.£311,000.

Through a director of County Leasing Ltd (CLL), the Claimant was introduced to Gordon Cook (the Defendant), who traded as “Chard Wallis”, and was described as an independent consultant experienced in insolvency and with offices in multiple countries.

On 16 November 2004, the Defendant sent an engagement letter recording that the Claimant had instructed him “to arrange the liquidation of the company and the ‘buy back’ of all of the company’s assets including plant and equipment, land and book debts”. This was to be done via financing from CLL, with the Defendant's fees to be paid from asset realisations.

Company minutes drafted by the Defendant and signed by the Claimant, in his capacity as director of the Company, empowered Chard Wallis to realise the Company’s assets, collect monies due and “hold monies on trust for the company” and to make payments out of Company funds pending liquidation.

The Defendant implemented a pre‑pack style sale‑and‑leaseback, with CLL buying additional items, the plant and the land for a total of about £222,700 and leased them to the Claimant's new companies. On 28 January 2005, an administration order was made, and an administrator (later to become liquidator) was appointed for the Company. Despite realisations of c. £222,700, only about £11,223 was ultimately available to HMRC as preferential creditor. The liquidator assigned the Company’s claims against the Defendant to the Claimant.

Decision

The court held that the Defendant had been engaged on behalf of the Company, not merely by the Claimant personally. That appointment made him a fiduciary agent and trustee of Company property. The court found the Defendant had deliberately misrepresented his status and position, as he was an undischarged bankrupt and disqualified director, operating as a sole trader from home and these misrepresentations had induced his appointment.

The court found that the Defendant had dishonestly diverted company monies far beyond the agreed £15,000 fee. The judge also found the Defendant to have committed a fraudulent breach of trust and deceit, and awarded equitable compensation of £123,250.

Key Takeaways

With the number of companies becoming insolvent remaining high, directors and officers should be mindful when appointing third parties to assist with the sale of company assets, and whether such an arrangement makes the third party a fiduciary agent and de facto trustee of the company and its property, and what remedies are available to them should the third parties commit any wrongdoing.

To read the case in full, please click here.

Company held to be beneficial owners of properties funded by breach of fiduciary duty

In L&S Accounting Firm Umbrella Ltd v Shiloh Holdings Ltd [2026] EWHC 618 (Ch), a company was found to hold three properties on constructive trust, after the funds to pay for them had originated from a prior breach of fiduciary duty by the directors.

Background

L&S Accounting Firm Umbrella Ltd (the Company) operated a payroll service and supplied labour to healthcare staffing agencies. The Company invoiced agencies for workers’ gross pay plus VAT, and, as their employer, was responsible for PAYE and NICs. In October 2022, HMRC investigated the Company and obtained a freezing injunction. In 2024, a court gave summary judgment against the Company's two former directors (the Directors), and their associated companies, finding a large‑scale “labour supply fraud” against HMRC involving both VAT and PAYE/NICs. The Directors had diverted the Company's funds from the Company bank account into personal and linked accounts, in breach of fiduciary duty, and used false accounts and returns to conceal the fraud.

The present claim involved three properties in Bedford acquired between August 2022 and February 2023. The properties were acquired in the name of Shiloh Holdings Ltd (Shiloh), with the Directors also acting as the directors of Shiloh, or de facto controllers, with their minor children as shareholders.

The liquidators of the Company contended that the purchase monies for the properties were traceable to the Company's funds paid away in breach of duty through various accounts controlled by the Directors, and that Shiloh received those funds with the requisite knowledge, giving rise to a knowing receipt/constructive trust claim.

Decision

The judge granted summary judgment for the Company, holding that Shiloh held the three properties on constructive trust for the Company. The judge ruled that the 2024 judgment against the directors and their associated companies bound Shiloh, and it would have been an abuse of process to relitigate those issues. The Company's money had been traced to the monies used to purchase the properties, and Shiloh was liable in knowing receipt because of the Directors' knowledge of their breaches of fiduciary duty.

Key takeaways

The judgment highlights the willingness of courts, in circumstances where directors have profited by breaching their fiduciary duty to a company, to recover misappropriated funds by way of a constructive trust.

To read the case in full, please click here.

Court of Appeal revisits the ‘reason why’ test in social media religious belief case

The Court of Appeal has refused to reopen its decision to refuse permission to appeal in a case concerning an actor whose contracts were terminated following controversy over her social media posts expressing religious beliefs about homosexuality.

The judgment provides an important clarification of the “reason why” test in discrimination cases and clarifies the boundary between protected beliefs, their manifestation and an employer’s response to reputational risk.

Background

The case arose from the dismissal of actor Seyi Omooba, who had been cast in a stage production of The Colour Purple, in the role of Celie, a lesbian character. Shortly after casting was announced, an old social media post resurfaced in which she expressed her belief that homosexual conduct was a sin.

The post triggered significant backlash directed at both the production and her talent agency. In response both the theatre producer and her agency terminated their contractual relationships with her, citing reputational and commercial concerns rather than disagreement with her beliefs themselves.

Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal decisions

At first instance, the Employment Tribunal (the Tribunal) held that:

Ms Omooba's belief qualified as a protected belief under the Equality Act 2010; but
The reason for termination was not the belief itself, but the commercial impact of the social media backlash.

On that basis the Tribunal found that there was no direct religion or belief discrimination on the part of either the theatre or her agent. Her claims for harassment and breach of contract claim also failed.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed her appeal. It held that the tribunal had been entitled to conclude that, while Ms Omooba’s belief formed part of the factual background, it was not the “reason why” she had been dismissed. The operative reason was the employer's response to the reputational fallout.

The Court of Appeal

Ms Omooba then appealed to the Court of Appeal, but permission to do so was refused on the grounds that the 'reason why' test was a question of fact and that both the EAT and Tribunal had reached fair conclusions on that reason. Ms Omooba then applied to reopen the refusal of permission to appeal, alleging that the Court of Appeal had been inconsistent with a decision in Higgs v Farmor's School [2025] EWCA Civ 109. In this case, the Court of Appeal's dismissal of an employee because of posts on social media, could have led people to believe she was homophobic, which was in of itself an act of discrimination.

In doing so, the Court of Appeal has fully reviewed the 'reason why' test and put together the below principles:

When determining whether someone has been treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic, the Tribunal must identify the “reason why” the treatment occurred.
The test is primarily subjective (save for criterion-based cases): what, in fact, motivated the decision-maker?
A distinction must be drawn between the reason why someone was treated less favourably and the motives.
If a protected characteristic had a significant influence on the 'reason why', then this is sufficient to establish discrimination.
A desire to avoid accusations of discrimination against others will not, by itself, prevent a finding of discrimination.
It is not enough that the protected characteristic is part of the sequence of events.
The 'separability approach' is useful to determine the 'reason why' – for example the manner of the expression of a protected belief.
The 'reason why' is a question of fact, appeals can only be allowed on errors of law.

Applying these principles, the Court of Appeal held that there was no inconsistency with Higgs and that the lower tribunals’ reasoning in Ms Omooba’s case disclosed no arguable error of law.

Why this case matters

This decision is now a significant authority on the boundary between:

protected religious or philosophical beliefs;
the manifestation of those beliefs, particularly on social media; and
the extent to which employers can legitimately respond to reputational and commercial risk.

It sits alongside Higgs as part of a growing body of case law on belief-related social media expression. While Higgs is likely to be more relevant to the proportionality of a dismissal where the underlying reason is “uncontroversial”, this decision provides valuable clarity on how tribunals should approach the core “reason why” question in discrimination claims.

For employers, especially those in high-profile or reputation-sensitive sectors, the case underlines the importance of:

carefully documenting the true reasons for disciplinary or contractual decisions;
distinguishing between objection to the content of a protected belief and concerns about the manner or context in which it is expressed; and
recognising that reputational concerns will not automatically insulate a decision from discrimination scrutiny.

Revised compensation rates for injury to feelings

In the Employment Tribunal, 'Vento' bands are used to value compensation for injury to feelings in discrimination and whistleblowing detriment claims. Presidential Guidance ordinarily updates the numerical values of each band, every year, to account for inflation.

This year is no exception, as on 25 March 2026, the ninth addendum was published which has marginally increased the value of each Vento band in accordance with the Retail Price Index as of March 2026. The bands are split into three main brackets based on severity; they are outlined below, alongside the new rates which are to apply:

Lower band for less serious cases. For example, a one‑off incident with limited lasting impact (£1,300 – £12,600; previously £1,200 – £12,100).
Middle band for more serious or repeated conduct causing greater distress (£12,600 – £37,700; previously £12,100 – £36,400).
Upper band for the most serious cases, such as a sustained campaign of discrimination with long‑term consequences for the claimant (£37,700 – £62,900; previously £36,400 – £60,700).

The amended rates will be applicable for all claims made on or after 6 April 2026 and will not be retrospectively applicable to claims made prior to this date.

Click here to view the Ninth Addendum which updates the applicable compensation bands.

TPR sets out projections for next ten years of DB schemes

The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has published a report setting out its projections for the next decade of defined benefit (DB) schemes. TPR projects that over 75% of schemes could be in a position to buy-out by 2035, with more than half expected to do so. It estimates that around 2,400 – 2,600 schemes, holding in excess of £200 billion of assets, may ultimately transfer to the insurance market. At the same time, the sector has moved from widespread deficits to material surpluses on both low dependency and buy-out bases.

TPR anticipates an aggregate buy-out surplus of around £120 billion (in real terms). For open schemes, a further £30 billion of surplus could be used to fund future accrual. The forthcoming Pensions Schemes Bill is expected to expand the menu of options, particularly around accessing surplus that would previously have been ‘trapped’ while facilitating alternative consolidation vehicles, including superfunds. Against this backdrop, TPR highlight a number of strategic choices that trustees and sponsors now face:

when and whether to exit the DB sphere via a traditional insurance buy-out.
whether to run on and deploy surplus to support ongoing benefit accrual or wider scheme objectives.
whether to consolidate under the new superfund regime, taking advantage of additional capacity alongside insurers.

TPR’s analysis suggests sufficient market capacity for all schemes that wish to buy-out over the next decade, albeit with potential short-term pressures. The key challenge is no longer simply achieving full funding but deciding how and when to access, and allocate, surplus between savers and employers and ensuring scheme rules do not create unintended trapped value. These issues are new ones for trustees in many cases and with that bring different risks such as challenges to the use of surplus and whether to 'run on' or buy-out.

To read TPR's report, click here.

Master trusts dominate as smaller schemes continue to exit the DC market, new TPR data reveals

TPR's report (above) also highlights the continued shift in the defined contribution (DC) market towards fewer, larger schemes, dominated by master trusts. The number of DC schemes fell by 15% to 790 in 2025, driven largely by the exit of schemes with fewer than 5,000 members. In contrast, total DC assets rose by 22% from £205 billion to £249 billion, with memberships increasing by 7%. Master trusts now hold 92% of DC memberships (30.1 million) and 83% of assets (£208 billion), underlining their market dominance.

TPR is clear that schemes which cannot demonstrate value for savers should consider consolidating, stressing that larger schemes are typically better positioned to deliver value-for-money (VfM) through stronger investment propositions and better governance and service. Trustees of smaller schemes are urged to review their arrangements now and, where they cannot match leading performers, to transfer members to better value solutions.

The Pension Schemes Bill proposes new powers to force the transfer of member benefits out of DC schemes and to different schemes if the ceding scheme is failing to provide VfM – schemes are seemingly reviewing their position ahead of the introduction of this new power.

TPR publishes updated capital reserve guidance for DC master trusts

TPR has updated its capital reserve guidance for DC master trusts to balance member protection with a reduced regulatory burden and support for innovation. As the market matures and schemes consolidate, TPR’s revised approach allows a more scheme-specific mix of assets to meet reserving requirements, potentially freeing capital previously held as cash. Updated expectations reflect stronger governance, improved risk management and TPR’s experience of supervising schemes and exits. TPR plans to enhance data collection from 2026 and publish annual reserving data from 2027, supporting greater transparency as the market evolves towards larger 'megafund' master trusts.

To consider the updated guidance, click here.

TPR urges innovation in 'new pensions era'

Speaking at the JP Morgan Pensions and Savings Symposium, TPR Chief Executive, Nausicaa Delfas, has called on the pensions industry to embrace innovation to deliver sustainable retirement incomes in a “new pensions era”. Delfas highlighted that automatic enrolment has brought over 22 million people into workplace pensions, but 14.6 million are still under-saving.

Delfas signalled a shift towards fewer, larger, well-run schemes that can provide better value and clearer retirement choices. Key areas for innovation include:

Endgame options for well-funded and underfunded DB schemes, including buy-out, run-on to generate surplus, and superfund transfers.
Investment strategies for DC schemes, supported by the forthcoming VfM framework to move thinking beyond cost alone.
Default guided retirement pathways that reflect the reality that only one in five savers currently has a decumulation plan.

She also pointed to the critical role of strong governance, efficient administration, quality data and responsible use of AI, with an AI action plan expected in May. TPR will continue to move towards more outcome-focused regulation and reduce unnecessary burdens, illustrated by updated DC master trust reserving guidance published alongside the speech.

DWP guidance for DC schemes to meet £25bn scale measures

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has outlined how DC master trusts will be expected to meet a proposed £25bn scale requirement under the Pension Schemes Bill.

Existing master trusts that have not yet reached £25bn, and are unlikely to do so by 2030, may be able to join a “transition pathway” if they can credibly project that they will reach £25bn by 2035. New entrants will face a separate pathway and will need to offer something materially different from existing providers, alongside demonstrating strong potential growth.

The requirement will apply to a scheme’s “main scale default arrangement”. In some cases, a combination of a master trust and a group personal pension (GPP) using the same core investment strategy may be treated as a single default for the purposes of the scale test. The DWP’s proposals also include standards on governance and investment expertise, not just size.

The Pension Schemes Bill is still being debated in the House of Lords, where peers have tabled amendments seeking exemptions from the £25bn threshold. These include carve-outs for schemes with consistently high VfM ratings, those where consolidation would not clearly improve member outcomes, and those with above-average investment performance or qualifying innovative default strategies. Other amendments seek flexibility for providers with multiple default funds.

In practice, many DC providers are expected to consider consolidation, as organic growth alone may not be sufficient. Employers and trustees should begin reviewing their long-term DC strategy, assessing whether their chosen arrangement can realistically achieve scale or whether moving to a larger provider may better support member outcomes.

Pension Schemes Bill 2025: proposed amendment to impact investment decisions

The government has tabled an amendment to the Pension Schemes Bill 2025 introducing a new power for the Secretary of State that could materially affect how trustees approach investment decisions.

The proposed new section 36ZA of the Pensions Act 1995 will require the Secretary of State to issue, publish and periodically update guidance explaining the law in regulations made under section 35(4) (statement of investment principles) and section 36(1) (choosing investments). The first iteration of this guidance must be produced within 12 months of the provision coming into force. The government has confirmed that the guidance may define key concepts such as 'financially material considerations' (e.g. environmental, social and governance factors) and the 'best interests of members'. Crucially, trustees will be required to 'have regard to' the guidance, effectively shifting interpretative authority from the courts and the Regulator towards government.

If enacted as drafted, trustees and advisers will need robust processes to track, document and justify how they comply with each iteration of the guidance. The Bill is scheduled to proceed to the House of Lords report stage on 16 March 2026. The changes may increase risk for trustees around investment decisions.

TPO holds trustee liable for deferred scheme benefits as no valid transfer-out was evidenced

A recent determination by the Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) highlights the high evidential bar trustees must clear to demonstrate that a historic transfer-out has validly taken place.

The Background

The Complainant worked for Midland Bank (later HSBC) from 1972 to 1990 and was a member of their Pension Scheme. Under Schedule 1A to the Social Security and Pensions Act 1975, transfers had to be applied for within six months of leaving service and completed within 12 months of that application, with trustees only discharged once a transfer was properly completed.

The Complainant left employment and became a deferred member in March 1990. In January 1991, she received a cash equivalent transfer value (CETV) quotation of £5,287, guaranteed for three months. The Scheme ledger later recorded that her benefits were transferred to a Liberty Life personal pension on 2 September 1992 for £6,181.11.

When the Complainant reached normal retirement age in 2016, the Scheme’s administrator told her that her pension had been transferred out in 1992. She then tried to trace the benefits through successive acquirers of Liberty Life, ultimately Sun Life Financial of Canada (UK) Ltd (SLFC), but no records of her policy could be found. HMRC's records also suggested that some pensionable service remained in the Midland Bank Pension Scheme. The Complainant complained, asserting that she had never requested or consented to a transfer.

The Decision

The trustee relied on three main items: the 1991 CETV, the 1992 ledger entry and HMRC membership data. SLFC, however, found no evidence that it had ever received or held the Complainant’s benefits.

TPO found the evidence of a transfer to be incomplete and inconsistent. Crucially, there was no written transfer request from the Complainant, no discharge or receipt from the receiving scheme, and no proof of payment. TPO also noted:

Discrepancies between the CETV of £5,287 and the purported transfer of £6,181.11;
Reliance on a CETV that had expired long before the alleged transfer date; and
Non-compliance with the statutory time limits in Schedule 1A SSPA 1975, rendering any purported statutory transfer invalid.

On the balance of probabilities, TPO held that the Complainant’s pension had not been validly transferred. The trustee remained liable; SLFC did not. The trustee was directed to pay the Complainant £1,000 for distress and to pay past and future benefits as if no transfer had occurred, based on the 1991 CETV, adjusted for inflation and including a retirement uplift with interest.

The Key Takeaways

The decision underlines that trustees cannot rely on bare ledger entries or incomplete administrative data to prove a historic transfer; documentation and evidence of payment are essential. Where such evidence is lacking, trustees risk remaining on the hook for benefits they believed had been transferred out, especially where statutory transfer conditions were not met at the time. This is also an important decision in the context of buy-out and the risks to trustees of members later challenging their benefits (including transfers out).

To read the full TPO decision, click here.

TPO holds that delay in completing transfer documentation amounted to maladministration

TPO has upheld a complaint by the Complainant confirming that an employer’s delay in completing transfer documentation caused the Complainant to lose the opportunity to transfer on favourable terms. Importantly, TPO found that the employer owed contractual and common law duties to take reasonable steps to enable the Complainant to exercise his transfer rights and held it liable for resulting financial loss, as well as distress and inconvenience.

The Background

The Complainant was employed on 9 November 2020 and wished to transfer his Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) benefits to the NHS Pension Scheme (NHSPS) on favourable Public Sector Transfer Club terms. Under the Public Sector Transfer Club Memorandum (2019) and corresponding NHSPS regulations, an election for a 'club' transfer must reach the receiving scheme within 12 months of the employee becoming eligible to join it.

The Complainant requested a cash equivalent transfer value (CETV) from the LGPS on 13 November 2020 and received a CETV on club terms on 16 March 2021. He promptly sent Form A to his employer on 24 March 2021 for completion. The employer did not complete its part until 17 June 2021, six days after the CETV guarantee expired. Multiple subsequent CETVs were issued, but delays (including further employer inaction and issues at scheme level) meant that by August 2022, the scheme administrator treated the Complainant as outside the 12‑month club window and only non‑club terms were available.

The Decision

The Ombudsman found that the employer’s delay in completing Form A was the effective cause of the Complainant losing club transfer terms, even though other parties also contributed to later delays, noting that the employer:

Breached an implied contractual term to do what was reasonably required to enable the Complainant to exercise his right to request a club transfer within the necessary timescales, reflecting the duty of trust, confidence and mutual co‑operation; and
Breached a common law duty of care not to cause foreseeable harm by failing to carry out administrative tasks with reasonable skill and care.

The employer was held liable for the Complainant’s financial loss arising from the loss of club terms, as well as his distress and inconvenience. The directions included:

Paying £500 for distress and inconvenience.
Actively supporting an application for a late club transfer.
If a club transfer is ultimately refused, meeting 80% of the actuarially assessed financial loss (plus any tax-related sums).

The Key Takeaways

TPO's decision is a useful reminder that employers owe a legal (not merely administrative) duty to take reasonable steps to facilitate pension transfers within scheme and other deadlines. Delay in completing transfer documentation can result in liability for substantial financial loss if employees miss advantageous club terms. Equally, failing to engage with TPO's investigations may prejudice an employer’s position.

To consider TPO's full decision, click here.

TPR publishes guidance for trustees dealing with Virgin Media issues - a practical approach

TPR has published guidance for trustees to address historic pension scheme alterations impacted by the decision in Virgin Media Ltd v NTL Pension Trustees II Ltd & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 843.

Schemes can now resolve any uncertainty by obtaining retrospective actuarial confirmation in respect of past alterations impacted by the judgment (alterations lacking actuarial confirmation or evidence of the same), as permitted by s.101 of the Pension Schemes Bill.

Recap on Virgin Media

Virgin Media Ltd was a landmark case that cast doubt upon the validity of historic alterations to pension scheme rules (some as far back as 1997). The Court held that a lack of written actuarial confirmation (as required by section 37 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 for amendments impacting member benefits in contracted-out schemes) would render an amendment void, regardless of whether such actuarial confirmation would have been granted had it been sought at the time. Broadly, actuarial confirmation requires the scheme actuary to confirm that an alteration does not prevent the pension scheme from continuing to meet the "reference scheme test".

In February the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) published guidance for scheme actuaries responsible for giving retrospective confirmation in accordance with the Bill. The FRC made it clear that actuaries could take a proportionate approach and rely on "indirect evidence" that actuarial confirmation would have been given at the time, in recognition of the fact the Bill does not require the actuary to be certain (it needs to be "reasonable to conclude" that the alteration would not have prevented the scheme from continuing to satisfy the statutory standard).

TPR's guidance

TPR confirms that the guidance is for trustees, scheme managers and responsible authorities (collectively referred to as governing bodies in the guidance) of occupational pension schemes that:

Were contracted-out on the salary-related basis at any point between 6 April 1997 and 5 April 2016; and
Have not been fully wound up or transferred to the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) or the Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) at the date the Bill receives Royal Assent.

The second bullet point reflects the fact that the Bill confirms that alterations in wound up schemes will be treated as having met the requirements of the regulations from their original effective date and so are to be treated as valid. TPR makes it clear that schemes that have not been fully wound up will need to obtain actuarial confirmation (which indicates TPR does not condone leaving the issues unresolved where the scheme is in the process of winding up in order to benefit from the carve-out in the Bill).

TPR confirms that governing bodies should:

Establish whether the scheme is affected by the judgments in the Virgin Media case and, if so, decide whether it will use the potential remediation available under the Bill;
Understand the Virgin Media judgment and the remediation available under the Bill;
Seek advice and information from the scheme's legal adviser and actuary;
If using the remediation under the Bill, provide formal written instructions to the scheme actuary to undertake the work. TPR confirms the scope of work should specify:

the alterations requiring consideration; and
"where multiple alterations occurred at the same time, eg in a single deed of amendment, whether your actuary can consider the overall effect of all these alterations together, or consider each alteration individually, or a combination of both approaches. A new trust deed and rules may have contained substantive amendments even if it is called a consolidating deed and these will need to be identified".

Agree a practical and realistic timescale with the actuary, and discuss timings with the sponsoring employer;
Ensure that document retention policies will not cause the destruction of relevant records until matters are resolved;
At the outset, consult the actuary to determine whether they have sufficient information. Consistent with the FRC's guidance advocating a proportionate approach, TPR confirms "we do not expect you to carry out exhaustive searches before your actuary undertakes the remediation work". If further information is required, TPR encourages governing bodies to liaise with former administrators, actuaries, legal advisers, employers, and trustees.

As a starting point it encourages governing bodies to "consider the circumstances impartially" and determine whether alterations required a s.37 confirmation (noting alterations before 6 April 1997 or after 5 April 2016 will be out of scope) and, thereafter, whether any of those alterations are missing a s.37 confirmation. If so, TPR propose that trustees weigh up the cost/benefit of devoting resource to searching for evidence instead of assuming there was no certification and moving directly to remediation.

TPR notes there will be situations where the actuary cannot provide the retrospective confirmation for all the affected alterations; in such circumstances governing bodies should consider the reasons and decide what to do next. TPR does not address what these circumstances may be, but if an actuary is unable to provide actuarial confirmation it is likely trustees will need input from the scheme's legal adviser as to how it should proceed, including consideration as to whether actuarial confirmation can be provided if further information is provided. TPR also notes that schemes will need to consider the extent to which validity issues impact the funding position of the scheme; this will be more relevant if it becomes apparent the scheme cannot obtain retrospective actuarial confirmation via the Bill.

TPR also provides practical tips by encouraging governing bodies to take the following measures when carrying out this exercise:

Make decisions in line with decision-making procedures in the scheme's governing documentation;
Maintain a clear audit trail for decisions, actions, and results;
Store actuarial confirmations alongside the alterations, with whoever holds the scheme's formal documentation, and provide copies to the sponsoring employer who should be kept informed of decisions;
Prepare "a reactive response on this issue to manage member queries in a clear and consistent way", and update it following completion of the remedial exercise; and
Assess quality of scheme data in light of the exercise, and improve it as necessary.

Trustees will be pleased to note that TPR confirms that it does not expect governing bodies to report remedial actions or failures to obtain s.37 confirmations in the past. TPR notes that "any historic breach is very unlikely to be materially significant to us now in carrying out any of our functions".

Commentary

TPR has issued practical guidance that is similar to that issued by the FRC to actuaries, in that it makes it clear that trustees should take a proportionate and cost-effective approach to resolving s.37 issues. This is reflected in its recognition that trustees may decide to assume there is no actuarial confirmation and move directly to remediation instead of carrying out exhaustive searches for evidence. TPR notes that trustees can instruct actuaries before the Bill receives Royal Assent (which is expected to happen in April).

That said, TPR clearly expects schemes to address these issues rather than simply ignoring them and assuming compliance. Schemes in the process of winding up are expected to bottom out any Virgin Media issues, albeit in practice this may not make a practical difference if buy-out providers are unwilling to assume the risk of leaving s.37 issues unresolved (particularly as there should now be a route to validating alterations that would have been given actuarial confirmation had such been sought at the relevant time).

It is also interesting to note that TPR calls on trustees to assess Virgin Media issues "impartially", and in this respect it is noteworthy that TPR suggests that it does not expect to be informed of s.37 issues and that it is "very unlikely" to take any action in respect of the same.

If you have any queries or questions on this topic please do get in contact with a member of the team, or your usual RPC contact.

UT finds that calculation error was not a “mistake in a claim” and allows SDLT overpayment relief appeal

Thu, 02 Apr 2026 10:00:00 +0100

In BTR Core Fund JPUT v HMRC [2026] UKUT 27 (TCC), the Upper Tribunal held that a calculation error was not a “mistake in a claim”, for the purposes of paragraph 34A(2), Schedule 10, FA 2003, and allowed the taxpayer's SDLT overpayment relief claim.

Significant Changes to the Construction Industry Scheme coming into effect on 6 April 2026

Thu, 02 Apr 2026 08:25:00 +0100

From 6 April 2026, significant changes to the Construction Industry Scheme (CIS) will come into effect, introducing new measures to streamline CIS administration and combat fraud in the construction sector.

TPR publishes guidance for trustees dealing with Virgin Media issues – a practical approach

Wed, 01 Apr 2026 17:50:00 +0100

The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has published guidance for trustees to address historic pension scheme alterations impacted by the decision in Virgin Media Ltd v NTL Pension Trustees II Ltd & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 843.

Schemes can now resolve any uncertainty by obtaining retrospective actuarial confirmation in respect of past alterations impacted by the judgment (alterations lacking actuarial confirmation or evidence of the same), as permitted by the Pension Schemes Bill.

FRC Annual Plan and Budget 2026/2027 – the FRC's plans for the next 12 months

Wed, 01 Apr 2026 12:54:00 +0100

We are now in the second year of the FRC's three-year plan (for 2025-2028) and the FRC's Annual Plan notes that the FRC's "purpose and strategic objectives remain unchanged".

The Work Couch: Non-financial misconduct, regulation and the law (Part 3): Creating a "Speak Up" culture and post-investigation actions

Wed, 01 Apr 2026 10:49:00 +0100

In the third and final part of our mini-series on non-financial misconduct, regulation and the law host, Ellie Gelder is joined by Sybille Raphael, joint CEO at whistleblowing charity Protect and Patrick Brodie, partner and head of RPC's Employment, Engagement & Equality team.

Alien abduction insurance (With Zach Ewell & Simon Burgess)

Wed, 01 Apr 2026 10:27:00 +0100

In this April fools special we explore the quirky world of alien abduction insurance through the lens of journalist Zach Ewell, and Simon Burgess, who according to reports had sold numerous alien abduction policies.

Tax Bites - April 2026

Wed, 01 Apr 2026 09:00:00 +0100

News

HMRC publishes Guidance on when you should register as a tax adviser

The requirement for tax advisers to register with HMRC will come into effect in May 2026 and HMRC has published Guidance on how to check whether you are required to register.

HMRC's Guidance can be viewed here.

HMRC publishes Guidance on penalties for Making Tax Digital for Income Tax

From April 2026, new penalties for late submission and late payment will apply for those taxpayers required to use Making Tax Digital for Income Tax. HMRC has published Guidance on these new penalties.

HMRC's Guidance can be viewed here.

HMRC updates its Guidance for off-payroll working (IR35)

HMRC as updated its Guidance entitled "Understanding off-payroll working (IR35)" to clarify that a deemed employer is not responsible for deducting student or postgraduate loan repayments. The worker must make these repayments by registering for Self-Assessment.

HMRC's updated Guidance can be viewed here.

UK government publishes a consultation with proposals to extend the Uncertain Tax Treatment regime

The Uncertain Tax Treatment (UTT) regime, introduced by the Finance Act 2022, requires large businesses to notify HMRC when they adopt an uncertain tax position in their VAT, corporation tax, or PAYE returns, where the amount of tax at stake is over £5 million.

The UK government's latest consultation explores the possibility of extending the UTT regime to individuals and trusts, and to include Stamp Duty Land Tax, National Insurance Contributions, Construction Industry Scheme contributions, Capital Gains Tax, and Inheritance Tax.

The consultation can be viewed here.

HMRC publishes Guidance on software required to report Pillar 2 Top-up Taxes

HMRC has published Guidance on what commercial software companies will need to report Pillar 2 Top-up Taxes.

HMRC's Guidance can be viewed here.

HMRC publishes Guidance on what information it can publish for misconduct by a tax adviser

HMRC has published Guidance on what information it can publish about a tax adviser who has carried out misconduct and has received an HMRC sanction. HMRC will be able to publish such information from 1 April 2026.

HMRC's Guidance can be viewed here.

Case reports

Purchase of an apartment and storage unit was a mixed-use acquisition for SDLT purposes

In Raj Sehgal and another v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1439 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) held that a storage unit acquired alongside a luxury apartment were separate land transactions and therefore the mixed/non-residential rates of SDLT applied to the purchase.

The FTT commented, at [167] of its decision, that this appeared to be a surprising result given the relatively small value of the storage unit. However, the SDLT legislation unambiguously provides that residential rates only apply if the relevant land consists entirely of residential property, the FTT considered that Parliament would not have used this word unless this was the intended outcome.

This is a significant decision and will be of wider interest due to the significant difference between residential and non-residential rates of SDLT.

You can read our commentary on the decision here.

Court of Appeal considers burden of proof in penalty appeals

In HMRC v Sintra Global Inc and another [2025] EWCA Civ 1661, the Court of Appeal decided that taxpayers, not HMRC, must prove they are not liable to the underlying tax, when challenging penalties on that basis.

This judgment is notable, not only because it overturned the conclusions reached by both the FTT and the Upper Tribunal, but because it has confirmed that when a taxpayer challenges a civil evasion penalty on the basis that the underlying tax liability underpinning the penalty is incorrect, the taxpayer bears the legal burden of proving that they are not liable for the underlying tax.

It is understood that the taxpayers have sought permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

You can read our commentary on the decision here.

Tribunal confirms licence to use client list qualifies for fixed asset amortisation

In Ripe Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1606 (TC), the FTT held that a licence to use a client list constituted an intangible fixed asset (IFA), entitling the company to amortisation relief under what is now parts 8 and 9, Corporation Tax Act 2009.

This decision provides a helpful reminder that the tax treatment of an asset will often depend on its substance rather than its form. The fact that the licence was not documented and was incorrectly described as 'goodwill' in the accounts of the company was not determinative.

It would no doubt have saved a great deal of time and expense if the licence had been carefully documented at the time it was granted, but the FTT was nevertheless satisfied that both the licence and its assignment existed, based on the witness evidence relied upon by the appellant taxpayer.

Although this decision is a helpful illustration of some of the basic principles applicable to the taxation of IFAs, it should be noted that the rules for taxing goodwill and customer-related IFAs have changed significantly since the events considered by the FTT in this case.

You can read our commentary on the decision here.

And finally…

Webinar available on dawn raids

On 10 March 2026, Michelle Sloane and Tom Jenkins delivered a webinar to in-house Counsel and business leaders on 'dawn raids'.

Dawn raids by regulatory authorities can be highly disruptive and, if mishandled, are likely to result in serious repercussions for a business. This webinar will equip you with the essential knowledge to understand what dawn raids involve, why they occur, and how to prepare effectively in advance.

A recording of the webinar can be viewed here.

Lawyers Covered - March 2026

Tue, 31 Mar 2026 09:12:00 +0100

Mazur Judgment handed down

The Court of Appeal has today handed down its judgment in the appeal of the High Court's decision in Mazur.

You will no doubt recall that the appeal, brought by CILEX, concerned the question of whether a non-authorised person may lawfully conduct litigation under the supervision of an authorised person under the Legal Services Act 2007. The Court heard submissions from a number of parties, including CILEX, the SRA, the Law Society, the Legal Services Board and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers.

CILEX argued that the High Court's decision was wrongly decided and has generated uncertainty across the profession. Its position is that it is lawful to delegate tasks involved in litigation provided that an authorised person retains responsibility and accountability. It was argued that the Legal Services Act 2007 does not provide for delegation because it is implicit that solicitors can delegate.

The Court of Appeal has allowed the appeal and confirmed that, "provided the authorised individual puts in place appropriate arrangements for supervision of and delegation to unauthorised persons, those persons may perform tasks that amount to the conduct of litigation for and on behalf of the authorised individual".

This decision will no doubt bring much relief to the legal industry.

Worse than worst case for LeO

The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) has published its Q3 2025/26 complaints data. It says it is experiencing a "sustained and accelerating demand for its help". To the end of Q3 of 2025/26 the number of new complaints received by the LeO increased by 29.8% year-on-year - exceeding LeO’s worst-case projections.

The data shows record complaint volumes and high uphold rates, particularly in residential conveyancing, personal injury, and wills and probate. The data shows that poor communication, delay and weak first-tier complaint handling remain systemic issues.

The total remedies awarded in Q3 stood at £869,300. Where poor service was found, in 82% of cases the LeO awarded compensation for emotional effects. The LeO noted that emotional distress compensation is often an overlooked remedy at first tier complaint handling. It suggests that a "significant number of complaints may have been resolved earlier had appropriate compensation for emotional effects been offered when service failings were acknowledged".

Law Society warns the SRA against its plans to separate compliance roles in firms

The Law Society has stated that the SRA needs to rethink its proposals on compliance officer changes, which it sees as "impractical and unlikely to prevent the perceived risks."

The SRA has been consulting on how best to protect client money held by solicitors. The most recent consultation ended on 20 February 2026, and sought views on improvements to the accountants' reports regime and strengthening checks and balances provided by compliance officers.

In a response on 23 February 2026, the Law Society expressed "serious concerns" about the SRA's proposals relating to restrictions on appointing compliance officers (COLPs, responsible for legal practice and COFAs, responsible for finance and administration). The SRA has proposed that within firms that meet specified risk thresholds (£600,000 a year in turnover and/or £500,000 held in client money at any point in the most recent reporting period) any individual that can unilaterally determine or direct significant management decisions cannot be a COLP or COFA. There is a specific exemption for sole owner manager firms in some circumstances. These proposals come after collapses of firms where the same person was responsible for monitoring financial and legal practice.

The Law Society believes that the proposed thresholds to determine the separation of roles are set too low and will negatively impact a significant number of firms, especially small-to-medium sized firms. Regulatory costs would be passed on to clients, and impact access to justice. The Law Society believes that the SRA's plans are not based on evidence, and think a better option would be to better utilise the data in the SRA's possession, to consider relevant factors like late filing, sudden fluctuations in client account balances, and ownership changes etc.

The Law Society welcomes engagement with the SRA to ensure that meaningful client protection can be ensured, but without damaging the diversity and accessibility of the profession.

Criticism for firms using AI for legal research

The Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber has criticised firms for using AI to conduct legal research and draft court documents: see here. The judgment records that the Upper Tribunal received grounds of appeal which included non-existent case law authorities, which had likely been hallucinated by AI. The solicitor involved also admitted uploading emails he had drafted for the client file to ChatGPT to improve them and confirmed that he had uploaded documents from client files to ChatGPT to assist in summarising them for clients.

In the past year, we have seen a significant increase in litigants in person, and even law firms, providing documents that appear to have been drafted (either wholly or in part) by AI. AI tools are not a replacement for legal research and there is a significant risk of AI tools hallucinating case law authorities that do not exist. As the Tribunal flags, uploading client data to open-source AI tools places that data in the public domain, breaching client confidentiality and waiving legal privilege. As a result, practitioners who have uploaded client information to open-source AI will need to consider whether a self-report to the ICO and SRA is needed.

Lawyers’ liability, when is a claim "brought" and limitation traps

The decision in Lukins v Quality Part X Ltd Ravensale Ltd [2026] EWHC 301 (KB) is a stark illustration of how procedural missteps around electronic filing can expose solicitors to lost litigation claims.

The defendants sought summary judgment on the basis that the claims were out of time for limitation purposes. The claimants resisted the applications on the basis that the claims were brought when the court received the claim form, or in the alternative, the Court should exercise its power to remedy any error of procedure pursuant to CPR r.3.10. The Court granted summary judgment against the claimants.

For a more detailed analysis of the decision, see here.

Regulators set out concerns regarding AML disciplinary action

We have previously reported on the UK government's plan to give the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) a much larger role in supervising anti-money laundering (AML) compliance for selected professional services, including the legal and accountancy sectors, in respect of which it is to become the single supervisor.

The current oversight body for the legal and accountancy sectors is the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision (OPBAS), which will be abolished once the FCA takes over. OPBAS' role is to oversee the AML activities of the nine legal and thirteen accountancy regulators in the UK, and to ensure that these professional body supervisors (PBS) are supervising robustly and consistently.

In its recent 2024/2025 supervisory report published in March 2026, OPBAS has expressed concern that some PBS "aren't taking consistent, proportionate and sufficiently dissuasive disciplinary measures in circumstances where it would be warranted and justifiable".

The report suggests that PBSs report common breaches of inadequately documented policies and procedures, customer due diligence, client assessment or records and no or inadequate firm-wide risk assessment. OPBAS' view is that these "continued failures call into question the consistency and effectiveness of PBS supervision" and that samples of file reviews demonstrate that some PBSs take an "overly member-centric approach or assisted compliance view", which hinders robust AML supervision and might be linked to an "assisted compliance" culture found within some PBSs, whereby OPBS focus on working with firms to correct failures.

Whilst OPBAS states that there are limited circumstances in which assisted compliance may be appropriate, this should not be the default preference. Its view is that more effective practice includes balancing guidance provided to a PBS' supervised population with a demonstrable track record of taking enforcement action when appropriate.

OPBAS' report states that despite the above concerns, standards at PBSs have improved, providing a strong foundation on which to build a new regulatory model.

Hong Kong: Anti-Money Laundering – Law Firms required to complete Online Compliance Form

A Law Society of Hong Kong circular dated 2 January 2026 notified all law firms and sole proprietors in Hong Kong that they had to complete an online anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AMLCTF) "Compliance Self-Assessment Form" on or before 2 March 2026. The Law Society is the designated AMLCTF regulatory body for solicitors and registered foreign lawyers in Hong Kong, pursuant to the AMLCTF Ordinance (Cap. 615).

The AMLCTF Compliance Self-Assessment Form came as no surprise – for example, law firms were required to complete an AML Questionnaire in the Autumn of 2022 and informed that the Law Society would be "sharpening its supervisory oversight of member firms in relation to AMLCTF compliance". At the time, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) – the intergovernmental body responsible for assessing compliance with AMLCTF global standards – was preparing a follow up a report on Hong Kong for 2023, with particular focus on (among other things) FATF Recommendation 28 ("Regulation and Supervision of Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions – DNFBPs").

The AMLCTF Compliance Self-Assessment Form had to be completed online by a partner, money laundering reporting officer or compliance officer or sole proprietor. Completion of the form was mandatory. The AMLCTF Compliance Self-Assessment Form should not have been difficult to complete. It focuses on four main areas for the year ended 2025: (i) type of legal practice (e.g., nature and size); (ii) type of business activities; (iii) client identification and due diligence measures; and (iv) AMLCTF compliance measures – such as recordkeeping, policies, procedures and training.

At the time of writing, it is understood that, of the approximately 1015 local and foreign law firms in Hong Kong (928 and 87, respectively) only a dozen or so failed to complete the AMLCTF Compliance Self-Assessment Form by the deadline – an impressive return rate. Those firms are likely to be granted a short extension of time; a failure to comply with that could be treated by the Conduct Section of the Law Society as a matter of professional conduct requiring investigation.

Law firms and sole proprietors in Hong Kong can expect more AMLCTF regulatory activity in the coming years, in the run up to the FATF's next mutual evaluation for Hong Kong (2028-29). FATF Recommendation 28 (DNFBPs) requires effective regulatory supervision and monitoring. The Law Society's AMLCTF unit within the secretariat will proceed to review the data from the self-assessment exercise before offering more support for law firms and sole proprietors through training, including on-site initiatives.

With thanks to additional contributors: Sally Lord , Aimee Talbot, Charlotte Thompson and Alice Tittensor

The Week That Was - 27 March 2026

Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:31:00 Z

Construction Sector Welcomes Retention Ban but Warns of Loopholes

The Department for Business and Trade (DBT)has announced that it will outlaw the use of retention payments in construction contracts, meaning money now cannot be withheld as security against defects or incomplete work.

The construction industry has welcomed the Government's intervention, suggesting it will "supercharge the supply chain" but warning of the need to ensure there are "no back-door loopholes to get around the ban". In this regard, the DBT has acknowledged that some firms may seek to ignore the ban, but this could be remedied through adjudication. There is also a risk that firms might attempt to circumvent the ban by adjusting payments to the supply chain, with payments moved to later in the project schedule. However, the DBT consider this risk (which is said to be 'material') is "not likely to outweigh the potential benefits to be gained through protecting retentions from insolvency and abuse".

For more information, see here [May require subscription] and here.

Awards for Wirral Council North West Contractor Framework

Wirral Council has awarded places on a four-year North West contractor framework worth £1.2bn across 13 Lots. The framework is due to run from 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2030.

The 11 winners of Lot 6 relating to construction projects above £30m (worth c.£220m) are BAM Construction, Bowmer and Kirkland, Galliford Try Construction, John Graham Construction, John Sisk & Son (Holdings), Kier Construction, Morgan Sindall Construction & Infrastructure, Tilbury Douglas Construction, Vinci Building, Wates Construction, and Willmott Dixon Construction.

Read more in Construction News here for further details of the winners [May require subscription].

SME Home Builders Pessimistic about Success of New Projects

The Home Builders Federation's SME Developer Sentiment Survey March 2026 has found that 70% of SME housebuilders reported that current market conditions are reducing their appetite for starting new sites. In addition, 25% of SME housebuilders reported that they expect to cut back on land purchasing. Respondents reported concerns including a lack of buyers, higher taxes, and costs constraining delivery. London-based developers are the most pessimistic.

Read the Survey here.

Renters' Rights Act Information Sheet released

The Government has released the Renters' Rights Act Information Sheet 2026 (the Information Sheet) that is to be provided by Landlords (or their Property Managers) to all tenants by 31 May 2026.

The Information Sheet provides a summary of the new rights and protections afforded to tenants from 1 May 2026 as a result of the Renters' Rights Act 2025. This includes (amongst other things) protections in relation to rent increases, the abolition of no-fault evictions (previously known as section 21 evictions), and the right for tenants to request to keep a pet.

Failure by Landlords to provide the Information Sheet to tenants by the deadline could result in a fine of up to £7,000.

You can find the Information Sheet here and also find further details about the reforms in RPC's updates here.

BCIS Report Price Rises and Concerns about Middle East Unrest

The Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) have reported a "strong appetite to tender" among contractors and an increase in tender prices of 0.7% between Q4 of 2025 and Q1 of 2026. This has resulted in 2.8% annual growth in the BCIS All-in Tender Price Index.

However, there are concerns that the conflict in the Middle East could affect supply chains and material costs, thereby disrupting project pipeline growth. Although the unrest has not yet influenced tender prices, this is likely to change if the conflict continues.

It is also reported that material and labour availability is generally good, but skills shortages remain, particularly in relation to fire safety works (such as sprinkler installation and façade works). In addition, delays are reported as a result of the Building Safety Regulator Gateway 2 approvals.

You can read BCIS' full update here.

Court of Appeal clarifies meaning of "building"

In SGL 1 Ltd v FSV Freeholders Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 267, the Court of Appeal revisited what counts as a “building” under Part 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987( the Act) and the validity of section 5 offer notices.

The dispute concerned four blocks at Fox Street Village, Liverpool, and whether they formed one building or several. This was a key issue for whether the landlord had to sever the proposed disposal under section 5(3). The High Court had held they were a single building and that the section 5 notices were invalid.

The Court of Appeal disagreed. For the purposes of Part 1 of the Act, the term "building" does not extend to multiple structures merely because they share appurtenant premises. The focus is on a functionally integrated built envelope. On the facts, Block A was a separate building; Blocks C and E formed one building; and Block B formed part of the same building as Block C and E. The Court held that the section 5 notices were valid.

You can read Lexis+ UK's case summary here or the full judgment here.

Seven new towns named to close homes delivery gap

Government ministers have unveiled seven proposed new towns which could deliver up to 200,000 homes. Each location is expected to deliver at least 10,000 homes, with several schemes scaling up to 40,000. The sites span London and key regional growth corridors, with a strong focus on investment on transport links alongside the new sites to help unlock development and support jobs.

To speed up delivery of the projects, the Government is reviving development corporations and are bringing funding through a new National Housing Bank launching on 1 April 2026 with up to £16bn of capacity and which is expected to unlock more than £53bn of private investment.

For more information, see here.

With thanks to Zack Gould-Wilson, Ella Green, Harry Langford-Collins, Nishtha Guha

If you have any queries please do get in contact with a member of the team, or your usual RPC contact.

Take 10 - 27 March 2026

Fri, 27 Mar 2026 14:12:00 Z

Landmark SLAPPs judgment

On 11 March 2026, Mrs Justice Collins Rice handed down judgment in Kamal v Tax Policy Associates Ltd. The case is the first court-mandated SLAPP pursuant to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA).

In determining whether the claim was a SLAPP pursuant to s.195 ECCTA, the Court explored whether the Claimant's conduct was intended to cause distress "beyond that ordinarily encountered in the course of properly conducted litigation". Collins Rice J determined the Claimant's intention was to interfere with the Defendants' journalism "beyond his arguable entitlements as a defamation claimant" [217]. In reaching this assessment, the Court noted the "chilling effect" of various factors, including the Claimant's purported requirement to access the Defendants' subscriber base and therefore compromising proper journalistic source protection [188, 217], disproportionate attempts to compel the Defendants to publish particular documents or statements (including an attempt to recognise the Claimant as "the country's leading tax barrister" [190, 201]) alongside failing to discharge duties of full and frank disclosure in respect of an injunction application, an inflated claim valuation and oppressive inter-partes correspondence.

Collins Rice J noted that whilst the Claimant demonstrated intentional conduct, a lesser standard of recklessness or wilful disregard could be sufficient [220].

Under CPR 3.4(2)(d) (the new provision put in place pursuant to s.194 ECCTA), the Court held the Claimant had not demonstrated the claim was more likely than not to succeed at trial: his malicious falsehood claim lacked the particularity required to proceed [46], and he had no real prospect of defeating the Defendants' honest opinion defence to his libel claim [103]. Given the intentionality of the Claimant's conduct, the claim's inherent defects and that no good reason was presented for it to advance to trial, the Court would have exercised its discretion to strike out the SLAPP if it were necessary (it was not owing to the Defendants' concurrent strike out application pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a)-(c) which succeeded) [228].

Judgment on preliminary issues in Paul Sculfor and Ors v MGN

Following the trial of a preliminary issue in Sculfor & Ors v MGN, the Court has dismissed four of the claims on grounds that they are time-barred. Following his 2023 judgment in Sussex & Ors v MGN, in which Fancourt J found that two claims were time-barred, certain remaining claimants sought to distinguish their claims on the basis of different fact patterns and the Court ordered a trial of those matters as a preliminary issue, selecting five claims as test claims. The five Claimants also advanced a new 'counterfactual' case which had not been advanced at the 2023 trial. This was based on the argument that if they had consulted solicitors more than six years before issue, they would have been advised not to issue a claim and therefore time had not started to run.

The Judge held that MGN's limitation defence succeeded in four cases. The four Claimants could not rely on s.32 of the Limitation Act 1980 to overcome the limitation defences due to a combination of their actual and constructive knowledge, i.e. they either knew or could with reasonable diligence have discovered MGN's concealment of its wrongdoing (for the purposes of the preliminary issue, MGN had conceded such concealment). The fifth Claimant, Paul Sculfor, a former male model, overcame MGN's limitation defence. The Court found that he was causally misled into believing that specific family members and friends were the source of the articles complained of; he had heard very little about the phone hacking scandal due to his exceptional circumstances; and he had no connection or conversation with anyone who believed they had been hacked or had brought a claim. His claim will therefore now proceed to a hearing on its merits.

The Court dismissed the 'counterfactual' case, holding it was irrelevant: there is no requirement in s.32 for prospective claimants to obtain legal advice before time starts to run and the matter of whether a solicitor is willing to act under a CFA has no impact on whether a claimant could with reasonable diligence discover sufficient facts to appreciate they had a 'worthwhile claim'. RPC acted for MGN.

Article 10 a "strong factor" in Norwich Pharmacal decision

On 13 January 2026, the High Court handed down judgment in Tooley v Associated Newspapers and Guardian News & Media(a claim for malicious falsehood and libel brought against Associated Newspapers (ANL) and the Telegraph (TMG)) dismissing an applicationfor a Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO) made against the third party respondent, the Guardian (GNM). The judgment has only recently been made available.

The Claimant sought disclosure from GNM regarding the identity of a source alleged to have leaked confidential family court material. The identity of the source had according to the Claimant been disclosed verbally, yet the Claimant sought GNM's written confirmation [9].

Mrs Justice Heather Williams considered the test to grant an NPO as clarified in Davidoff v Google. The Judge considered that the first and second conditions (requiring (1) a wrong to have been carried out and (2) a need for the NPO to enable action to be brought against an ultimate wrongdoer) were "just about" made out. The Court considered that, in respect of (1), "there was some potential" that private information related to the family court proceedings was shared whilst it was confidential [34-35], and in respect of (2), considered the delay the Claimant could face if obtaining the information via alternative means (by the ICO and/or a data subject access request) albeit it still doubted whether this met the "strict threshold of necessity" [40-41].

However, the Court held that the third condition was not met. It held GNM was not properly mixed up in or facilitated the alleged wrongdoing given GNM was a mere recipient of the relevant information and did not take steps to publish [43]. Even if the three threshold conditions had been met, the Court would not have exercised its discretion to grant the NPO given the apparent weakness of the Claimant's underlying claim and, in particular, the public interest in "maintaining the confidentiality of journalistic sources". The Court held that Article 10 was a "strong factor" in GNM's favour [49-50].

Similarly, on 23 March 2026, Mrs Justice Steyn handed down a judgment in the same proceedings, in respect of various applications made by the Claimant against the Defendants, ANL and TMG.

The Court refused the Claimant's application for interim relief with reference to the rule in Bonnard v Perryman. The Court did not agree with the Claimant's submission that the articles were "unarguably" defamatory, and the Defendants confirmed that they intended to plead a truth defence [71]. The Court also noted the terms of the injunction sought were unnecessarily wide, ANL had the benefit of limitation arguments, and unjustified intrusions into Article 10 rights would arise if the application was granted given the Claimant's "lengthy delay" prior to issue [77]. As with GNM, the Claimant's application for an NPO against ANL was rejected, with the Court again reiterating the importance of "strong protection against disclosure of journalistic sources" [96].

County Court remains the appropriate forum for simple, low value data protection claims

On 29 January 2026, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Wysokinski v OCS Security Limited (the judgment was only recently made publicly available). The judgment endorses earlier High Court judgments which indicate that the County Court is the appropriate forum for low-value, straight-forward data protection claims which do not raise matters of significant public importance.

The Claimant alleged unauthorised disclosure of special category data (being the Claimant's medical data) without consent. On the facts of the case, the Court of Appeal determined that the County Court was the appropriate forum. The Claim Form valued the claim between £15,000 and £30,000 ("well within the ambit of the County Court"), the claim did not suggest any factual or legal complexity which would warrant nomination to a High Court judge (particularly as the Defendant had admitted liability pre-action) and there was nothing to suggest any significant general public importance [31].

Meaning determined in Raphael Berg v Owen Jones

On 12 March 2026, Mrs Justice Steyn gave judgment on the meaning of an article published by Owen Jones on Drop Site News, titled "The BBC's Civil War Over Gaza". The article analysed the output of the BBC's Middle East Online desk, which the Claimant, Mr Berg, oversees as editor.

The Claimant argued for a factual meaning that the Claimant "is a rogue journalist and editor" with a deliberate disregard for impartiality to present reporting in a manner "falsely favourable to Israel" [17]. The Defendant contended the Claimant's stated meaning was too high, submitting that the article bore an opinion meaning that the Claimant is responsible for coverage on Israel-Palestine "that appears to show bias in favour of Israel, in breach of the BBC's own Editorial Guidelines" [18].

Steyn J ruled that the article bore an opinion meaning that the Claimant had "consistently failed to meet the BBC's editorial standards…by shaping coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict" favourably to Israel, including in ways that "promote the government of Israel's narratives" and "fail to humanise Palestinians killed or injured" [32].

In rejecting the Claimant's submission that the article meant the Claimant had a deliberate bias, the Judge commented that whilst a couple of sentences in the article could support this submission, the hypothetical reader's overall impression would be an allegation of unconscious bias [29].

In respect of the opinion finding, the Judge noted that the article is (1) clearly "based on the product of the Claimant's editing and writing", (2) presented as a subjective assessment and (3) cites a body of "extraneous material…which by its nature invites comment". The judgment noted that the reader was permitted to form their own view, particularly given the article was set in the "polarised" context of Israel-Palestine [30]. RPC acts for Owen Jones.

Babbs v ICO – First-tier Tribunal dismisses appeal against ICO and Ofcom

On 17 March 2026, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) dismissed a second appeal against Ofcom's refusal to disclose information concerning meetings held with major technology companies throughout the development of its Illegal Content Codes of Practice (Codes) under the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA).

The information was sought via a freedom of information (FOI) requestfrom the organisation Clean Up the Internet (of which the Appellant is the lead consultant). The Appellant's stated purpose of the request was to understand Ofcom's decision-making regarding content of the Codes as the Appellant is concerned that Ofcom "may have been influenced by arguments and information from large tech platforms",which had not been properly scrutinised in the public domain [3].

Ofcom withheld the requested information pursuant to s.44(1) Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) which determines information is exempt from disclosure if prohibited by statute. Ofcom relied specifically on s.393 of the Communications Act 2003, which provides that information with respect to particular businesses which have been obtained in exercise of a power conferred by the OSA cannot be disclosed without the business' consent, and makes it an offence to disclose such information outside of prescribed circumstances.

The FTT rejected the Appellant's argument that s.393 should be interpreted narrowly and only apply to information obtained by Ofcom via compulsory powers i.e. not information provided voluntarily [15i]. The FTT held that the reference in s.393 was to the OSA in its entirety (rather than specific provisions) which meant it could be inferred Parliament intended s.393 to apply to all provisions of, and therefore all information received by virtue of, the OSA [24-25].

Siniakovich v Hassan-Soudey & Ors – Court of Appeal holds that High Court was wrong to grant "backdating" order

On 4 March 2026, the Court of Appeal allowed the Defendants' appeals in relation to an order which backdated the date of issue for claims in defamation and malicious falsehood.

The Claimant's filing of the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim was rejected by court staff on the basis she had paid the incorrect court fee. The attempt to issue the claim was made one day prior to expiry of the limitation period meaning later attempts to re-issue would fall outside.

The Claimant therefore made an application for relief to treat the claim as being issued on the original date of submission under CPR 3.10 and CPR r.3.1(2)(p). The High Court granted the relief sought.

The Court of Appeal considered two central questions being (1) whether the High Court had the power to backdate the issue; and (2) whether failure to pay the correct court fee on that date meant that the action was not brought in time for limitation purposes.

In respect of (1), the Court of Appeal held that a court does not have power to backdate the issue date of a Claim Form, or to alter the date that an action is brought as this is fixed by statute and does not form part of its case management powers [40 – 44].

However, in respect of (2), the Court held that the claims were not time barred for limitation purposes and were brought on the original date of issue as the date a claim is "brought" solely relied on the actions of the Claimant (i.e. the date it sought to issue) and not the steps subsequently taken by the Court office in order to process (and therefore its later assessment of whether the correct court fee was paid) [97, 101].

BBC files motion to dismiss Trump's claim

On 16 March 2026, the BBC filed a motion to dismiss President Trump's lawsuit in Florida relating to the Panorama episode “Trump: A Second Chance?” (see our reporting in a previous edition of Take 10 for the background). The BBC seeks to challenge jurisdiction and Trump's defamation pleading.

In relation to jurisdiction, the BBC focuses on the fact the Panorama episode was not broadcast in, or aimed at, the Florida jurisdiction and/or the BBC did not itself make the episode available via other platforms.

The motion also alleges that Trump fails to properly plead both (a) 'actual harm' (relying on Trump's re-election afterthe episode aired, and his increase in votership at the 2024 election compared to the 2016 and 2020 elections) and (b) 'actual malice' (an element required by US defamation law where the plaintiff is a public figure). In the alternative, the BBC argues that the episode contained expressions of opinion related to "hotly contested events…which have been the subject of extensive controversy and litigation", which is the sort of content that the US constitution offers strong protection.

Online Safety Act updates: age assurance measures

On 12 March, the ICO published an open letter to social media and video sharing platforms calling for their implementation of robust age assurance measures, citing recently developed technology that more accurately verifies age in order to stop under-13s accessing services. The ICO notes many services are still relying on self-declaration of age as opposed to technologies such as facial age estimation, digital ID or photo matching.

On the same day, Ofcom wrote to Facebook, Instagram, Roblox, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube with a call for further action, paired with statutory information requests, in respect of the measures they have taken for the protection of children on their services. The call for action again focuses on the implementation of effective age assurance alongside the steps taken to protect children from harmful algorithms. Ofcom is expected to report on the platforms' responses in May and has indicated an intention to take enforcement action if it is not satisfied with those responses.

Quote of the fortnight

"Libel claimants are entitled to seek redress for tortious reputational harm according to the law. To do so is always to challenge defendants' entitlement to say whatever they want about claimants… A libel claimant is fully entitled to test that through litigation, whether or not the publication challenged has to do with economic crime or was made for a purpose related to the public interest in combating it. …What converts a claim into a statutory SLAPP, however…is all about how litigation is conducted."

Mrs Justice Collins Rice in Kamal at [155-156]:

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 27 March 2026

Fri, 27 Mar 2026 12:20:00 Z

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Headline development

FCA to confirm approach to motor finance compensation scheme

Following consultation in October 2025, the FCA has confirmed that it will make an announcement setting out its final approach to the motor finance compensation scheme just after 4:30pm on Monday 30 March 2026. We'll of course provide more details in next week's edition.

Auditors

FRC announces major changes to audit supervisory model

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has announced that it will be making significant changes to its audit supervisory model.

With a view to enhancing audit quality and reinforcing resilience across the UK audit market, the FRC stated that it will be introducing a more proportionate, effective and integrated framework.

The FRC states that this revised approach will place more emphasis on firms' Systems of Quality Management, and that this will be at the heart of supervision activity. The FRC states that this more integrated method has been designed to promote a more resilient audit system, strengthen audit quality and ensure organisations continue to enjoy an environment in which they can confidently grow and scale.

The FRC has said that it will begin implementing these changes for the largest firms in April 2026, and that there will be further piloted developments throughout 2026/27. The FRC has said that these changes will complement its Building Capacity and Capability for Smaller Firms and SME Market Study initiatives, which support a more coordinated supervisory framework across both Public Interest Entity (PIE) and non-PIE audits.

To read more, please click here.

Mortgage brokers

FCA announces Later Life Mortgage study

Due to older homeowners relying on housing wealth in retirement, on 20 March 2026, the FCA announced the launch of a market study into whether change is needed to enable the lifetime and retirement interest only (RIO) mortgage sector to meet consumers' changing needs.

Lifetime and RIO mortgages operate in a similar way to standard mortgages in that they are loans secured against a homeowner's property. However, they are not typically used when purchasing a property and there is also no set mortgage term.

The market study will focus on the provision and distribution of these products to UK customers, as well as whether any new products could benefit consumers. The FCA states that the aim is to understand any barriers preventing firms from offering these products and to what extent consumers understand these products and their options.

The FCA has invited any views by 17 April 2026 and is aiming to publish an update by the end of 2026.

To read more, please click here.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

FCA sets out rules for ‘consumer segments’ ahead of 6 April targeted support launch

From 6 April, retail banks, pension providers and financial advisers authorised to provide targeted support will be able to begin targeted support to customers as an alternative to individualised advice. The FCA has provided examples of how financial services firms should construct “consumer segments” when providing targeted support, ahead of the regime going live.

The new guidance, comes on the back of the FCA's published policy statement and aims to provide firms with greater detail and support in making judgements. The regulator stresses that segments should comprise groups of customers with a shared financial support objective and, where relevant, common characteristics. Firms must be able to explain why a ready-made suggestion would be suitable (or unsuitable) for individuals within the group, without attempting a full fact-find akin to regulated advice.

The FCA outlines a three-step approach: assessing data readily accessible to the business area giving support; considering whether additional accessible data outside the core segment characteristics should influence suitability and, where relevant, disclosing to consumers where certain data has not been taken into account.

The watchdog warns that targeted support may not be appropriate where a firm cannot define a suitable suggestion without comprehensively assessing a consumer’s circumstances, and that any assumptions used in segment design must be reasonable.

To read more, click here.

FSCS sets out 5-year plan to deliver value to consumers and levy payers

The FSCS has published its 5-year strategy (for 2026-2031) to advance its purpose – to support financial stability and give confidence to consumers by ensuring consumers get continuity and compensation quickly when firms fail.

The FSCS has set three core priorities:

continuing to optimise its claims model to deliver timely, high quality customer outcomes at any level of demand.
embedding a strong purpose and performance-led culture that matches purposefulness with the highest standards of delivery; and
acting as a responsible steward of the levy payers’ funds by operating efficiently, collaboratively and maximising recoveries.

For priority one claims the FSCS confirms it will simplify its processes and enhance the tools and technology it uses to boost productivity in the busiest parts of its service.

For priority three (recoveries) the FSCS confirms it will prioritise high value recoveries to help offset the cost of compensation for levy payers and pursue those "that are reasonably possible" and "cost-effective".

To read the three-point plan please click here.

FCA Publishes its Regulatory Priorities report on Payments

On 25 March 2026, the FCA published its Regulatory Priorities report aimed at firms authorised or registered under the Payment Services Regulations 2017 (SI 2017/752) and the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/99). The report sets out the FCA's priorities for the payments sector in 2026, in particular relating to:

Supporting effective competition, innovation and growth: The FCA expects firms to prepare for regulatory changes, engage with it on future rules and use its support services to ensure compliance. The FCA will focus on support for open banking growth, regulation of payment services/electronic money, and explore integrating stablecoins into regulated payments.
Ensuring firms implement the consumer duty effectively: Firms must continually check their products, services and processes against FCA rules, fix any gaps, and ensure transparent pricing and fair treatment of vulnerable customers, with the FCA threatening to take action where firms fail to address gaps.
Protecting financial system integrity and keeping customers' money safe: Firms are expected to have effective governance and systems to identify, assess and mitigate risk and to invest as appropriate to further embed operational resilience into their processes. Firm should also be ready to implement the new safeguarding regime, which will come into force on 7 May 2026

Annual Regulatory Priorities reports are replacing FCA portfolio letters, and the FCA expects firms to read the reports in detail, consider the priorities they set out, and take action where appropriate.

To read the Regulatory Priorities report, click here.

FCA to legacy review trail commissions

Trail commissions, being commissions paid to advisors, brokers and other platforms are paid over the duration of the product's lifetime rather than in an up-front fee. Following the Retail Distribution Review in 2012, trail commissions were banned on all new investment products bought after 31 December 2012, however existing agreements made prior to that date were allowed to continue.

In a consultation paper posted on 25 March, the FCA is seeking to open a discussion into the future of trail commissions so as to prevent potential consumer harm and ensure that consumers receive value for money. The FCA is seeking input from the profession in respect of the impact of trial commissions and the four proposed options for the next steps:

maintain the status quo and allow the arrangements to continue.
create greater transparency of trail commission arrangements for those affected, which will allow consumers to make more informed choices.
end the existing arrangements in the future with a sunset date set; and
end the existing arrangements but with a transitional period to enable financial advisers ‘more time to adapt, agree final payments’ or to blend previous trail commission payments in with ongoing advice charges.

The consultation closes on 22 May 2026.

To read more, please click here.

FCA rules out action on funeral insurance plan

The FCA has confirmed it will not take further action in relation to the termination of the Family Protection Plan, following a review prompted by Government concerns.

The withdrawal of the product has affected around 5,000 policyholders, including individuals who had paid into the policy over many years. The plan provided a lump sum on death, primarily intended to cover funeral expenses.

The policy was underwritten by Maiden Life and distributed by credit union CM Mutual. Although closed to new members in 2009, existing members continued contributing in return for cover. Maiden Life subsequently exercised its contractual right to withdraw from underwriting, giving extended notice in 2024 to allow time to find a replacement insurer. CM Mutual was ultimately unable to secure an alternative provider, and cover expired after members were told in October that it would end 30 days later.

The FCA carried out a supervisory review of the product’s historic sale and the regulatory framework in place at the time. It considered the treatment of consumer rights, the value delivered, the adequacy of communications and disclosures, and whether its regulatory powers could address any resulting harm. It concluded that, given the limits of those powers, it would not take further action at this time in relation to historic conduct.

The issue drew parliamentary attention, with MPs raising concerns and the Treasury requesting that the FCA investigate. The FCA noted that some customers under 80 may still be able to obtain alternative cover, although not on equivalent terms, while others are likely to face difficulty given age-related limits in the market.

The FCA has indicated that its focus will now shift to supporting those unable to secure replacement cover. It has also engaged with CM Mutual and the wider credit union sector, with the industry exploring potential solutions.

More information regarding help for those affected by the closure of the Family Protection Plan can be found here.

FCA publishes 2026 priorities for the wholesale buy-side sector

On 19 March 2026, the FCA published its Regulatory Priorities report for the wholesale buy-side sector. The report is aimed at asset managers, alternative asset managers, and custody and fund services providers.

The FCA’s focus for 2026 centres on three broad areas:

Innovation and regulatory development - Firms are expected to have proper governance around the use of AI, DLT and other emerging technologies, with clear accountability and risk management. The FCA also intends to consult during 2026 on a more proportionate regime for AIFMs and on simplifying product-level climate disclosure requirements.
Customer outcomes - There’s a continued emphasis on embedding the Consumer Duty in retail-facing business and applying a consumer lens to products such as model portfolio services and retirement solutions. Firms are expected to communicate clearly with investors and maintain effective oversight of appointed representatives. The FCA will consult in mid-2026 on how the Consumer Duty applies across distribution chains and to wholesale firms.
Market integrity and resilience - Firms should review and strengthen governance and valuation processes, maintain effective arrangements for managing conflicts of interest, and ensure product development for retail products and retirement solutions aligns with Consumer Duty expectations.

The FCA has also issued a separate report for the wholesale markets sector. These reports replace portfolio letters and will now be published annually.

To read the Regulatory Priorities report, please click here.

Relevant case law updates

Court of Appeal confirms a claim is 'brought' for limitation purposes even if wrong issue fee is paid

In the case of Siniakovich v Hassan-Soudey and others [2026] EWCA Civ 215, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that paying the wrong issue fee does not prevent a claim being 'brought' for limitation purposes.

The Court found that a claim is 'brought' under the Limitation Act 1980 when it is delivered to the court office, provided that a fee is proffered or paid (or 'help with fees' sought). In doing so the Court confirmed the question of when a claim is brought for limitation purposes is a matter of substance not form. The ruling does not mean that claimants can deliberately underpay court fees – if a claim has been deliberately undervalued to avoid paying a larger court fee, the court can apply sanctions and could strike out the claim.

This is clearly helpful to claimants, particularly where mistakes may arise out of uncertainty as to the value of the claim. On the other hand, this could be unhelpful to defendants and their insurers if a claimant looks to take advantage of such uncertainty in order to pay a lower court fee without consequence.

To read the judgment please click here.

High Court provides guidance on summary judgments and further case management directions

In the case of Manek v Sintl Ventures Ltd [2026] EWHC 600 (ch), the High Court gave guidance on filing a defence where summary judgment is sought but only in relation to part of the claim.

CPR24.4(4) provides that where a summary judgment is sought before a defence has been filed, the defendant need not file a defence before the hearing of the summary judgment application. In this case, it was the Claimant's position that as the Defendants had not filed a defence prior to the summary judgment application (as they were not required to), following the summary judgment application, the Claimant could then seek judgment in default on the balance of the claim.

His Honor Judge Hodge KC, did not agree and went on to consider the overriding objective and concluded that the answer was provided for in CPR 24.6(a). CPR 24.6(a) provides what when a court dismisses a summary judgment application, it may give directions as to the filing and service of a defence. This is further supported by the White Book commentary which directs the court to give case management directions.

The judgment is helpful for both claimants and defendants in understanding the procedural requirements where a summary judgment is sought at least in part, and a defence on the remaining part of the claim is likely to follow. It will allow for a more focused defence to be filed (subject to the outcome of the summary judgment application) with active case management moving forward.

To read the Judgment, please click here.

With thanks to this week's contributors: James Parsons, Alison Thomas , Heather Buttifant, Ben Simmonds, Kerone Thomas, Rebekah Bayliss, Brendan Marrinan

What surveyors and property managers need to know about the new Service Charge Residential Management Code in force from 7 April 2026

Fri, 27 Mar 2026 09:26:00 Z

The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors has published the fourth edition of the Service Charge Residential Management Code, which comes into force on 7 April 2026. The Code, which sets out RICS' expectations for management of residential leasehold properties in England, has been extensively rewritten and updated to reflect the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA). In this article, we explore what's changed and what RICS members and regulated firms acting as managing agents need to know.

Sports Ticker #148 - F1 meets darts and Chelsea FC suffers financial penalty - a speed read of commercial updates from the sports world

Thu, 26 Mar 2026 15:55:00 Z

As always, if there are any issues on which you’d like more information (or if you have any questions or feedback), please do let us know or get in touch with your usual contact at RPC.

Blues Concede (Financial) Penalty: Chelsea handed £10.75 million fine and transfer ban
Chelsea FC has been hit with a record breaking £10.75 million fine – the largest in Premier League history – after two investigations uncovered historic rule breaches involving unreported payments and academy registration irregularities. The club self-reported the irregularities in 2022 and 2025 after finding evidence of potential violations. The Premier League found that, between 2011 and 2018, third parties linked to Chelsea made undisclosed payments totalling £47.5 million to players, agents and other third parties. Chelsea was also found to have breached regulations governing the registration of youth players. Alongside the financial penalty, the club accepted a one-year first-team transfer ban (suspended for two years), and a nine-month academy transfer ban. In a statement announcing the outcome of the process, the Premier League stressed that the steps Chelsea took to proactively cooperate with the investigation, including through self-reporting, “acted as significant mitigating factors”.

Back of the Net(company)? Ineos Grenadiers to be Re-Named in €100 Million Sponsorship Deal
Ineos Grenadiers, the cycling team owned by Jim Ratcliffe, is set to be renamed and rebranded in a sponsorship deal with Danish IT firm, Netcompany. The deal is reported to be worth €100 million (£86 million) over five years, with re-branding expected before the 2026 Tour de France starts on 4 July. It follows recent news that Ineos had appointed former Tour winner Geraint Thomas as its Director of Racing and signed the promising Scottish talent Oscar Onley, who impressed many by finishing fourth in last year's Tour. Any challenge at the top of the sport will require significant funding, given that team UAE Emirates currently enjoys a £51 million annual budget and Red Bull-Bora-Hansgrohe recently agreed an €8 million per year contract with 2024 Olympic champion Remco Evenepoel. Ineos will hope that Netcompany's sponsorship can set them up for their first Grand Tour win since the 2021 Giro d'Italia.

A Disc-ernible Difference? WFDF eyes “World Frisbee” rebrand
The World Flying Disc Federation (WFDF) has announced formative plans to rebrand to ‘World Frisbee’, subject to first securing a cost-free, irreversible intellectual property usage agreement with Wham-O, the owner of the Frisbee™ trade marks. The move would see the WFDF join the likes of World Climbing (formerly the International Federation of Sport Climbing), World Gymnastics (formerly the International Gymnastics Federation) and the International Tennis Federation (soon to be World Tennis) in what marks a growing trend amongst international sports federations to streamline branding in a bid to enhance their commercial and public appeal. The rebrand is viewed as a key opportunity to increase global recognition for the body as it continues to eye an invitation to the Olympic Games. It is also hoped the rebrand will unlock new financial opportunities for the entity, which generated just US $42,000 of its US $765,400 2024 revenues from sponsorship. Will the move (subject to Wham-O’s approval) throw the WFDF into focus, or is it all just spin?

Snowed Under? Big Ski's business model struggles after poor winter
Vail Resorts, one of the two dominant chains in the US ski slope market, has refused refunds to purchasers of their annual 'Epic pass', after many runs have been unavailable due to a poor winter, which saw less snowfall than usual. To the disappointment of the over 2 million who had paid US $1,100 for the Epic pass, low snow levels do not classify as one of the 'qualifying events' which would entitle them to a refund. For Vail, the subscription-style pass meant that despite visits falling by 13% on the previous year, ski pass revenue only fell by 3%. Vail has however missed out on the incidental food, drink and accommodation opportunities which has resulted in its actual earnings being down US $155 million on its predicted US $900 million for the year. As weather patterns become increasingly unpredictable, Vail will no doubt be concerned how many customers will continue to lock themselves down to an annual pass.

F1–Darts Crossover Takes Flight: Luke Littler and others set for darts showdown at Silverstone
From the checkered flag to treble twenties, world-champion Luke Littler is set to be involved in “A Night at the Darts” taking place at Silverstone, after the conclusion of the British Grand Prix on Sunday 5 July. Littler will be facing off against other world-famous darting stars Luke Humphries, Michael van Gerwen and Fallon Sherrock at Silverstone's BOXPARK trackside fan park, as organisers look to supercharge the day's spectacle beyond the events of the track. Silverstone's Chief Commercial Officer, Nick Read stated, “Fans can enjoy two major sports in one ticketed experience, creating a one-of-a-kind day on and off the circuit. It's about delivering more excitement, more entertainment, and even greater value for everyone who joins us.” The announcement follows the news that DJ David Guetta, amongst others, will also be performing at the Northamptonshire race track. Will this unconventional collaboration help boost attendees beyond the crowds in excess of 500,000 present at last year's race?

Extra time...

…and finally, touted as golf's answer to T20 cricket, Blitz Golf is set to land in UK this summer. It reinvents the traditional formula in dramatic fashion, by cutting play time down to just three hours and featuring 12 pros and 12 non-pros, mainly comprising of athletes and other celebrities. The participants embark on a 10-hole showdown, during which numbers are progressively cut down, culminating in a four-way, winner-takes-all finale. Since its conception in Australia back in 2018, Blitz Golf has had several events draw crowds in excess of 10,000. Founder and chief executive, Simon Zybek, has now turned his sights oversees and is hoping to tee-off Blitz Golf's foray into the global market with success in the UK. Four events will be taking place across England this June in London’s Bush Hill Park, Leeds, the West Midlands and Lincoln, with further plans in place for events in the US and Continental Europe.

Filing deadlines - the CAT pounces

Thu, 26 Mar 2026 10:34:00 Z

In September 2025, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) issued guidance note 1/2025 on filing deadlines. The language was forceful – calling out parties who fail to observe filing deadlines or who seek an extension of time very shortly before the expiry of the deadline without providing adequate explanation of why an extension is necessary. "Failure to file by the deadline causes inefficiencies," it said.

Upper Tribunal agrees with HMRC in mixed member partnership tax rules case

Thu, 26 Mar 2026 10:00:00 Z

In Mark Benedict Holden v HMRC and HMRC v The Boston Consulting Group UK LLP and others [2026] UKUT 00025 (TCC), the Upper Tribunal considered the tax treatment of the partner reward structures implemented by The Boston Consulting Group UK LLP affecting various managing directors and partners and the application of the mixed member partnership tax rules (section 850C, Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005) to profit sharing arrangements.

When Arbitration Agreements Are Ignored, English Courts Will Act

Wed, 25 Mar 2026 14:10:00 Z

EuroChem North-West-2 v Tecnimont S.p.A & MT Russia LLC ([2026] EWCA Civ 5 and [2026] EWHC 255 (Comm))

FOS reform: clarity, consistency, and a 10-year cut-off

Wed, 25 Mar 2026 13:47:16 Z

The Government has announced a package of reforms to the Financial Ombudsman Service aimed at improving the speed, predictability, and consistency of complaint resolution.

VAT update March 2026

Wed, 25 Mar 2026 11:35:00 Z

News

HMRC updates its Guidance on the domestic reverse charge procedure

HMRC has added a new section 3.5.4 'Electric vehicle charging' to its Guidance which explains why the reverse charge does not apply to the supply of electricity at a charging point for electric vehicles.

HMRC's updated Guidance can be viewed here.

HMRC updates its manual: VAT Assessments and Error Correction

HMRC has updated its internal manual to provide information on how HMRC's discretion to issue an assessment under section 73, Value Added Tax Act 1994 operates in relation to input tax error cases.

HMRC's updated manual can be viewed here.

HMRC updates its manual: VAT Cost Sharing Exemption Manual

HMRC has updated its internal manual to provide an example of how VAT operates in relation to cost sharing groups where two or more organisations with exempt and/or non-business activities join together to purchase services on a cooperative basis.

HMRC's updated manual can be viewed here.

Case reports

FTT confirms that reduced-rate VAT is capable of applying to the supply of public Electric Vehicles (EVs) charging

In Charge My Street Ltd v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 318 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) considered whether Charge My Street Ltd's (CMSL) supplies of electric vehicle charging to EVs at public charge points (CPs) were subject to tax at the standard rate or the reduced 5% rate.

The key issue to be determined by the FTT was whether these supplies would be considered a supply of "domestic fuel or power" under Note 5(g), Item 1, Group 1, Schedule 7A, Value Added Tax Act 1994 (Note 5(g)), which indicated that supplies can be considered for "domestic use" where the relevant supply is "of electricity to a person at any premises where the electricity (together with any other electricity provided to him at the premises by the same supplier) was not provided at a rate exceeding 1000 kilowatt hours a month".

HMRC disputed the application of Note 5(g) on the basis that CMSL did not always provide the supply "to a person", often supplying through third-party intermediaries. In addition to upfront payment, customers could initiate a charging session using CMSL's partnered app (Fuuse) or through external apps operated by third parties.

The FTT held that supplies of EV charging made by CMSL to drivers as the relevant "person" were capable of falling within Note 5(g). Provision of supply through the Fuuse app did not alter this arrangement as Fuuse merely provided software and a payment processing system. The commercial and economic reality was that CMSL remained the supplier, notwithstanding a contractual term to the contrary. In contrast, operators of third-party apps acted as principals and/or commission agents and thus were considered suppliers to the consumer, rather than CMSL.

The FTT allowed the appeal in part, concluding that insufficient information was available to determine whether some or all of CMSL's supplies fell within the 1,000 kWh threshold.

The decision can be viewed here.

Why it matters

This decision confirms that a reduced 5% "domestic fuel or power" rate can, in principle, apply to electricity supplied at public charge points if the requirements set out in Note 5(g) are satisfied.

The decision emphasises that the FTT will consider what is the true commercial and economic reality of the relationship between the parties and contractual wording will not be sufficient to re-characterise the true commercial relationship. The case highlights the importance of robust evidential data when resisting HMRC's position.

UT upholds FTT's decision that VAT is chargeable on the full price of prepaid mobile plan bundles at the time of sale

In Lycamobile UK Ltd v HMRC [2026] UKUT 74 (TCC), the Upper Tribunal (UT) considered whether VAT on Lycamobile UK Limited’s (Lycamobile) prepaid mobile 'plan bundles' became chargeable when the bundles were sold, or only when customers used the call, text or data allowances included within them.

HMRC issued an assessment to Lycamobile for more than £50 million in VAT, on the basis that VAT was due when the bundles were purchased. Lycamobile argued that the bundles merely provided rights to future telecommunications services, and therefore VAT should arise only when the allowances were actually used. It also contended that the bundles should be treated as multi-purpose vouchers, and VAT would only become due on redemption.

The key issue for determination was the nature of the supply and whether Lycamobile supplied telecommunications services when the bundle was sold, or only when the allowances were later used.

The UT upheld the FTT’s conclusion that the relevant supply arose when the bundle was sold. In the UT's view, customers were contracting for allowances which conferred the right to access telecommunications services for a fixed period and price, and that there was a direct link between the consideration paid and those allowances once the bundle was acquired. The fact that customers often used only a small proportion of their allowances did not affect the VAT analysis. The UT also rejected Lycamobile's argument that the bundles constituted multi-purpose vouchers.

Accordingly, the UT dismissed Lycamobile’s appeal and confirmed that VAT was chargeable on the full price of the bundle at the time of sale, regardless of whether the allowances are subsequently used.

The decision can be viewed here.

Why it matters

This decision confirms that where customers pay for guaranteed access or availability of services, the taxable supply may occur when that access is granted rather than when the service is actually used. The case provides important clarification for telecom and subscription-based business models where customers purchase bundled service entitlements that may not be fully utilised.

FTT finds that the supplies were supplies of staff and not VAT exempt services

In Genuine Care Homecare Services Ltd v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 235 (TC), the FTT considered whether Genuine Care Homecare Services Ltd (GCHS) was liable to account for VAT under the reverse charge mechanism on supplies received from Atena, a Slovak company, and whether HMRC’s assessments and failure-to-notify penalty were valid.

GCHS operated a domiciliary care business in the UK and engaged carers through Atena. HMRC argued that Atena was supplying staff to GCHS, and therefore GCHS should have accounted for VAT under the reverse charge rules. GCHS contended that Atena contracted directly with service users or that GCHS acted as an undisclosed agent, such that exempt welfare services were supplied.

The FTT rejected these arguments. It found that there was no contract between Atena and the service users, and that Atena’s supplies were supplies of staff to GCHS. As a result, GCHS was required to account for VAT under the reverse charge rules.

The FTT also held that HMRC’s assessments were issued within the applicable time limits and that GCHS did not have a reasonable excuse for failing to notify its VAT liability. GCHS's appeal was therefore dismissed.

The decision can be viewed here.

Why it matters

This decision highlights the importance of the contractual and economic reality in determining whether a supply is one of staff or services, and confirms that cross-border staff supplies may trigger the reverse charge, even where the underlying services are welfare services.

FCA to progress its review of Model Portfolio Service (MPS) firms this year

Wed, 25 Mar 2026 11:08:21 Z

On 4 March 2026, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published its annual Regulatory Priority report for consumer investments and confirmed that it will progress its review of Model Portfolio Service (MPS) firms in 2026 as part of its regulatory priorities.

Financial Crime Time - Your update from RPC: 2026 Q1

Wed, 25 Mar 2026 10:32:00 Z

To read more, please click on the headlines below.

Crypto fraud: will the new UK Cryptoasset Regulations help?

Wed, 25 Mar 2026 09:17:00 Z

The Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) regulation of financial services firms in the UK is due to be extended to entities conducting cryptoasset-related activities.

Section 172 CA 2006: A walk in the park for directors?

Wed, 25 Mar 2026 09:01:00 Z

Here is the second article in our series on what lessons can company directors and their insurers learn from the Oscars (or for film buffs!)

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 20 March 2026

Fri, 20 Mar 2026 12:51:00 Z

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Headline development

Government confirms changes to FOS operations following review

The government has set out a package of reforms aimed at returning the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to its original role as a fast, impartial complaints body.

Changes will include legislation to:

Adapt FOS' fair and reasonable test - where a firm has complied with its obligations under the relevant FCA rules, the FOS must find that the firm acted fairly and reasonably.
Introduce a referral mechanism to the FCA where there is ambiguity in what the FCA's rules require, or where there may be wider market implications across the financial services industry.
Introduce a 10-year longstop for complaints to the FOS, subject to limited exceptions, such as for long term products such as pensions. The FOS will also be able to decline particularly complex cases that are better suited to the courts or other routes.
Implement structural changes to provide greater consistency across decisions through giving the Chief Ombudsman overall responsibility for FOS determinations.
Make it easier for firms and consumers to understand and learn from FOS decisions through requiring FOS and the FCA to produce joint thematic reports to improve transparency around how certain types of complaint are handled.
Ensure the FCA has the tools to respond to mass redress events in the small number of cases where intervention is necessary.

To read more, please click here.

Accountants

Consultation launched on expanding HMRC’s Uncertain Tax Treatment rules

The Uncertain Tax Treatment (UTT) regime was introduced in 2022 and is designed to narrow the tax gap arising from differing interpretations of tax law between companies or partnerships and HMRC.

Under the UTT regime, large businesses must notify HMRC when such differences in interpretation exist. The UTT currently applies only to companies or partnerships that meet specific reporting and financial criteria, including thresholds for turnover and balance sheet totals. The regime does not currently apply to individuals or trusts.

On 12 March 2026, the government published a consultation setting out proposed changes to the UTT regime, including extending it to individuals and trusts, introducing an additional trigger and bringing more taxes within its scope. The consultation closes on 4 June 2026, with the government intending to publish its response in the summer and include any legislation in the next available Finance Bill. The changes would apply to returns filed after 1 April the following year.

To read more, please click here.

To read the consultation, please click here.

ICAEW updates engagement letter templates

The ICAEW has published updated engagement letter templates with new schedules added to reflect recent regulatory, operational and technological developments.

The changes include dedicated schedules covering:

Identity Verification (IDV) – Firms acting as Authorised Corporate Service Providers and which offer IDV services will now need tailored engagement terms which articulate the scope of IDV services, responsibilities of the client and firm and fees and limitation.
Filing company accounts on behalf of clients – the updated schedules require clear allocation of responsibility for obtaining verification codes, definition of the firm's role in submitting filings and clarity on the reliance placed on client-provided information.
Making Tax Digital – the updated schedule help firms set out which services they provide, what digital records the client must keep, and any reliance on third party software or agents.
Schedules for agreed upon procedures – firms providing agreed-upon procedures will need to define responsibilities and applicable standards and confirm the engagement provides no assurance or opinion, specify exactly which procedures will be performed and note reliance on management-provided information, and limit use by restricting how the report may be used or shared and confirm that the firm has no responsibility to third parties.
The use of AI – the Terms of Business have been updated to refer to the use of AI, and new guidance surrounding the terms of use of AI.

The ICAEW publication also contains some helpful reminders for when firms take on new clients, and what will need to be considered for current clients. The publication further provides guidance on common pitfalls with engagement letters and provides guidance on disengaging clients.

To read the ICAEW publication, please click here.

HMRC Updates Guidance on Payment of CGT by Trusts

UK resident taxpayers, including trusts, must report disposals of UK residential property and land to HMRC within 60 days where capital gains tax (CGT) is payable. A report made on behalf of a trust must include its unique taxpayer reference (UTR) or unique reference number (URN).

Under updated HMRC guidance, if the trust does not have a UTR or URN, it must be registered with HMRC’s Trust Registration Service before it can create a CGT on UK property account or submit a paper return, even if the trust would normally be exempt from registration.

The 60-day deadline applies both to reporting the disposal and paying any CGT due. If, after filing the self-assessment (SA) tax return for the year of disposal it transpires that too much CGT was paid under the 60-day rules, HMRC will first set the overpayment against any SA tax still outstanding. Any remaining CGT overpayment is not refunded automatically: the taxpayer must contact HMRC directly to claim the balance.

To read more, please click here.

Auditors

FRC issues new Interim Guidance on Payment and E-Money Safeguarding and Assurance Engagements

In advance of the FCA's new Supplementary Regime (the Regime) which comes into force on 7 May 2026, the FRC has published new Interim Guidance on Payment and E-Money Safeguarding Assurance Engagements (the Guidance), providing support for safeguarding auditors.

The Regime introduces enhanced requirements for reconciliations, recordkeeping and governance to addresses weaknesses in current safeguarding arrangements and to strengthen consumer protection.

The Guidance, which the FRC emphasises is non-mandatory and is not a performance standard, sets out principles in support of high quality, consistent safeguarding assurance engagements to bridge the gap between implementation of the Regime until 2027, which is when the FRC is expected to issue a dedicated safeguarding assurance standard following a public consultation.

The FRC also states that the Guidance does not create new requirements and it does not replace or override the Electronic Money Regulations, Payment Services Regulations or CASS 15.

To read the Interim Guidance, please click here.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

FCA publishes Regulatory Priorities report for retail banking sector

The FCA has published its Regulatory Priorities report for the retail banking sector. Its four priorities for the next 12 months are:

1. Access to cash and essential banking services – the FCA observes that many consumers now bank digitally and many banks are "undertaking digital-first transformations". The FCA stresses that digital transformations must avoid causing foreseeable harm to retail customers, and that any alternative service firms propose should be accessible to customers before branches close. The FCA notes this is closely monitored, and it will intervene where it needs to.

2. Good outcomes from products and services – the FCA calls on firms to continue driving positive outcomes under the Consumer Duty and develop their data for monitoring retail customer outcomes to identify where further action is needed to support customers and avoid causing foreseeable harm.

3. Fighting fraud and other financial crime – the FCA notes that threats are evolving rapidly and firms must continuously refine their defence to fraud, money laundering and other risks. Firms must help customers understand fraud risks and support victims.

4. Operational resilience and data security – the FCA requires firms to identify emerging risks and critical third-party dependencies. The regulator expects firms to improve their cyber and information protection strategies with tested recovery plans.

To read more, please click here.

FCA publish its 2026/2027 regulatory priorities for consumer finance

On 17 March 2026, the FCA published its annual report on regulatory priorities for consumer finance. The three key priorities for the upcoming financial year are:

1. Consumers accessing credit that meets their needs – this includes firms lending responsibly with adequate support, suitability assessments, and fair value.

2. Firms supporting consumers who struggle with debt – debt advice should be clear and concise, and provided in a timely matter to avoid escalation and to ensure good outcomes. Emphasis has been placed on the importance of those struggling with debt being able to get the support they need – including advice from both firms and institutions.

3. Consumers being able to complain when things go wrong and get appropriate redress – firms are expected to properly identify issues and deal with complaints so that they can provide fair value to customers. Whilst this is a requirement across financial services, the clear focus this financial year will be on motor finance firms cooperating with the FCA as the compensation scheme for vehicle finance arrangements goes live later this year.

The three priorities outlined by the FCA are heightened in circumstances where credit lending has increased by 8% in 2025, the emerging risk/benefit of AI and in an economy where people are struggling with the cost of living. The priorities indicate that the FCA recognise that increased use of consumer credit leads to an increased risk of unsuitable advice, loss and redress claims.

To read more, please click here.

FCA sets out Regulatory Priorities for the UK Mortgage Market

On 12 March 2026, the FCA published its Regulatory Priorities report for the mortgages sector aimed at mortgage and home finances lenders, administrators, and intermediaries.

The report outlines the regulator’s supervisory focus for the UK mortgage market and signals a shift toward a more flexible, yet consumer-focused, framework. A central initiative is the Mortgage Rule Review, which seeks to modernise existing rules by simplifying requirements around affordability assessments, advice, and product switching while preserving safeguards against unsustainable lending.

The FCA emphasises that firms must continue to deliver good consumer outcomes under the Consumer Duty, particularly when supporting borrowers experiencing payment difficulty. Lenders and intermediaries are expected to identify vulnerable customers early and provide appropriate forbearance and tailored assistance. The report also highlights concerns about advice quality and suitability of recommendations.

To read the full report click here.

FCA publishes findings following a review of the second charge mortgage market

On 12 March 2026, the FCA published its findings following a review of mortgage advice, fees and charges and affordability assessments conducted by second charge lenders.

Overall, there is evidence of good practice amongst lenders and intermediaries, particularly in relation to the Consumer Duty requirements. The FCA found clear evidence of discussions and innovative use of technology aimed at improving customer outcomes. The areas where some firms could improve relate to:

The standard of advice given in relation to debt consolidation. The focus should be on consumers' genuine needs and circumstances, not just eligibility.
More robust affordability assessments which focus on realistic customer expenditure.
How intermediaries and lenders work together to deliver good customer outcomes. Some intermediaries did not always pass on all relevant customer information to lenders, which then led to inaccurate or unfair assessments by lenders.
More complete record keeping. Incomplete record keeping made it hard for the FCA to assess the suitability of advice or the basis of some lending decisions.
The level of fees charged by intermediaries. They are often higher than for first charge holders and there was very little evidence to justify the higher fees.

Consumers are often using second charge mortgages to consolidate debt, meaning they are at a greater risk of suffering harm due to vulnerability, level of debt and low financial resilience. The Consumer Duty is paramount in ensuring that these vulnerable customers are receiving fair and accurate advice which provides for good outcomes.

The FCA is continuing to work with firms to improve the second charge market and will monitor firms where concerns have been noted.

To read more, please click here.

APPG calls for overhaul of UK financial regulation

The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Investment Fraud & Fairer Financial Services released a 250-page report this week, calling for extensive reform of financial regulation in the UK. The report calls for a Royal Commission to examine wide-ranging reforms for the FCA, similar to what has already been done in Australia.

The report is particularly critical of the government's current efforts to reduce regulation to promote economic growth, concluding that this policy will simply weaken protections for the public in a time when protections for the public are already inadequate. This latest report echoes a 2024 report from the same group, which was highly critical of the FCA.

There have been mixed responses to the report, with a consumer group accusing the report of being unbalanced and merely a rehash of the 2024 report. The FCA, in response, pointed to its recent improvements and increased rates of criminal prosecution.

To read more, click here.

To read the APPG's press release, click here.

FCA announces changes to incident and third-party reporting

Following consultation in December 2024, the FCA has confirmed rule changes regarding reporting disruptions, such as cyber-attacks and power outages. The rules are aimed at providing more clarity to firms about what to report and when, and how to deal with third-party outages which might cause major disruptions across sectors.

The FCA states that it has:

Created a simple, streamlined reporting regime with the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and Bank of England, including a single reporting portal.
Removed duplicative incident reporting for payment service providers and credit rating agencies.
Refined the overall information required, allowing most of the firms the FCA solo regulates to complete a short form to tell them about their incident.
Added clearer guidance on thresholds, definitions and responsibilities.

The FCA has also provided guidance giving firms examples of what to report, guidelines on the thresholds for reporting, and assistance in completing reporting forms. The new rules are set to come into force in March 2027, giving firms 12 months to prepare. The FCA is hosting a webinar on 29 April 2026 on the new rules to help firms with the transition.

To read more, including links to the rules, guidance, and the webinar, please click here.

FCA says firms not proactive enough in identifying vulnerable customers

Firms will be aware that, as part of the Consumer Duty, they are required to identify vulnerable customers and ensure they are treated fairly. In a recent review, the FCA has noted that firms are taking too reactive an approach when it comes to identifying vulnerable customers.

Rather than relying on customers to self-identify as vulnerable or for staff to spot flags for vulnerability, the FCA says that firms need to adopt a more proactive approach. For example, firms can embed "structural vulnerability assessments at key decision points such as onboarding, renewal, and arrears" and ensure that all communications are tailored to maximise accessibility for all, rather than waiting to tailor communications for a specific customer after vulnerability has been identified.

The FCA noted other areas for improvement, such as ensuring that promotions highlight risks as much as the benefits and carrying out real customer testing to ensure their communications are clear and easily understood.

To read the FCA's review, please click here.

FCA issues guidance on good and poor practice on identifying and rectifying harm

The FCA has issued a Finalised Guidance paper setting out its expectations of firms on identifying harm and rectifying it through redress exercises (a requirement under the Consumer Duty).

The guidance paper notes that a redress exercise is likely to require a firm to:

Consider its previous conduct.
Decide if it owes remedial action to customers; and
If so, provide affected customers with the necessary remedy without the customer having to raise a complaint.

The FCA identified the following as good practice for the key stages of a redress exercise:

1. Proactively identifying harm – good practice includes having a central complaints forum to discuss trends and cases from across their business and using external help.

2. Designing a redress exercise – good practice examples involved ensuring the firm had captured all customers impacted by its error. Poor practice included deciding on an opt-in process without considering the information needs of customers, with one firm having decided to only send 1 letter to customers and failing to use multiple means of communication.

3. Designing a communication plan – good practice includes setting key dates for contacting customers and contact method, setting deadlines for customers to provide further information, draft templates for communicating with customers, and informing frontline staff about the redress exercise.

4. Communicating with customers – good practice includes explaining information in a logical way, using plain language, and giving adequate time for customers to respond. The guidance also notes that deciding on an opt out approach may be appropriate where there are vulnerable customers that are less likely to engage with the redress exercise. The guidance also notes that good practice would include testing communications internally or with a third-party consultant before communicating with customers.

5. Record keeping – good practice includes monitoring the performance of the redress exercise. This may involve recording how many customers have been contacted and how many had responded, as well as recording redress awards to determine whether the exercise had achieved good customer outcomes.

To read the Finalised Guidance paper please click here.

Relevant case updates

High Court refuses dismissal for CPR 7.7 non-compliance

In Global Fintech Investments Holding AG v Linklaters LLP [2025] EWHC 2969, the High Court refused an application to dismiss a claim under CPR 7.7(3), despite non-compliance with a CPR 7.7(1) notice, which required service of the claim form or discontinuance.

The claim form was issued by the Claimant the day before limitation expired but did not serve the claim form until the final day of its validity period. Prior to service of the claim form, the defendant became aware of the claim through the legal press and served a CPR 7.7 notice, requiring service of the claim form or discontinuance. In response, the Claimant said investigations were ongoing, and that it was not in a position to serve, leading to the Defendant issuing the application under CPR 7.7(3).

The judge held that compliance with a CPR 7.7 notice isn’t mandatory and that non-compliance instead triggers the court’s discretion. In the judge's view, there was there was no presumption in support of or against the argument that the claim should be dismissed. Instead, the judge held that the court can make whatever order is just, taking into account all the circumstances and the overriding objective.

The judge also made clear that CPR 7.7 is not a workaround for striking out weak claims and that if a Defendant wants to challenge the merits, the proper route is an application for strike out, pursuant to CPR 3.4.

The judge also held that:

Non-compliance with a CPR 7.7 notice is a precondition to the exercise of discretion - it is not a factor that weighs for or against dismissal.
Prejudice is not a ground to justify dismissal of the claim.

To read the judgment, please click here.

Court of Appeal rejects limitation arguments following a rectified issue fee error

The Court of Appeal (CofA) in Hassan-Soudey (aka Hamilton) and others v Siniakovich 2026 EWCA Civ 215 has held that, for the purposes of limitation, a claim is brought when the claim form is first delivered to the court office, even if the appropriate fee has not been paid in full and the court office legitimately refuse to issue it.

The Claimant's solicitor sought to issue defamation and malicious falsehood proceedings the day before the limitation period expired. An issue fee of £10,000 was paid based on the monetary claim stated on the claim form, however the particulars of claim also sought an injunction which would have required an additional issue fee of £626. The court office (after the date for limitation had passed) rejected the filings due to the underpayment of the issue fee.

The Claimant's solicitor issued a relief from sanctions application, requesting that the court treat the claim as issued on the first date it was filed. The application was granted in the first instance and then formed the subject of the Defendant's appeal.

The CofA held that the court had no jurisdiction to change the date when an action was brought or backdate the date of issue. The court emphasised that bringing the action was reliant on the Claimant's conduct and not the court's administrative processes. The reasons for payment error were not relevant for the purposes of issuing a claim and if the Claimant's conduct was deliberate or dishonest, other sanctions, such as strike out were available. It was not therefore appropriate or proportionate to not allow the case to carry on, particularly where the issue of underpayment had been swiftly rectified.

This case stands as a reminder to both Claimants and Defendants that where the particulars of claim are filed with the claim form and are intended to be read together, the issue fee must be calculated based on the relief claimed in both documents.

To read the judgment, please click here.

High Court declares first ‘statutory SLAPP’ in libel claim

The High Court has made a novel ruling declaring a libel and malicious falsehood claim to be a statutory strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP) under section 195 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA 2023). This is the first time the High Court has had to consider whether a claim amounts to a SLAPP under the new statutory regime.

The Claimant was a tax barrister who brought proceedings against Tax Policy Associates Ltd and Daniel Neidle (the Defendant) following the publication of an article criticising tax avoidance schemes and the barrister's conduct. The Defendant's opinions in the article were supported by the public record court proceedings, regulatory positions and the claimant's own public statements. The High Court granted summary judgment having agreed with the Defendant's honest opinion defence under section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013.

The High Court found the claim to be a SLAPP having decided that the Defendant's article concerned economic crime for the purposes of s.195 of the ECCTA – it raised concern that the Claimant had cheated the public revenue, and its publication was intended to combat economic crime. The High Court found the claimant had intended to cause harassment beyond that ordinarily encountered in properly conducted litigation.

To read more please click here.

With thanks to this week's contributors: James Parsons, Alison Thomas, Daniel Goh, Heather Buttifant, Ben Simmonds, Kerone Thomas, Rebekah Bayliss

The Week That Was - 20 March 2026

Fri, 20 Mar 2026 08:42:00 Z

Renters’ Rights Act 2025: Why more tenants will now face SDLT on their rent

The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 (the Act) will make assured periodic tenancies (APTs) the default form of residential letting, so that most tenancies in England will continue indefinitely rather than for fixed terms. Stamp duty land tax (SDLT) can apply to rent, calculated by reference to the lease’s net present value (NPV). At present, many tenants fall outside the SDLT regime because the first £125,000 of NPV is charged at 0%, with SDLT at 1% only on any excess.

Under the new APT regime, the NPV must be recalculated annually as the tenancy continues, meaning more tenancies will ultimately exceed the £125,000 threshold. Tenants who fall within scope will be required to submit an SDLT return and pay the tax within 14 days of the liability arising, failing which penalties may apply. The SDLT rules themselves are unchanged, but the Act will draw many more tenants into scope.

Find out more information here.

Kier Nuvia JV lands £200m nuclear fusion job

The ILIOS consortium has been appointed as the construction partner for the £200m redevelopment of the former West Burton power station in Nottinghamshire to build a fusion power plant. The consortium is led by a joint venture between Kier and Nuvia (Vinci's nuclear specialist subsidiary). Supporting the delivery are Amanda Levete Architects and consultancies Aecom and Turner & Townsend.

The project forms part of the Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production (STEP) Fusion programme, a government-backed initiative aiming to deliver the UK’s first operational fusion prototype power plant by 2040 on the site of the former coal-fired station. During peak construction, the redevelopment is expected to generate up to 8,000 onsite roles.

Read the full article here [May require subscription].

7,750-home garden community proposed east of Colchester

Haworth Tompkins and Latimer, the development arm of Clarion Housing Group, have submitted proposals for a 7,750-home garden community east of Colchester, Essex. The proposal includes a town centre, civic and health facilities, schools and an integrated public transport network. More than half of the site is allocated to open space, featuring a 60ha country park and retained hedgerows, while 30% of the homes will be affordable.

The project follows the 2021 allocation of land by Tendring District and Colchester City councils and has progressed after securing £186m in funding for a dual-carriageway linking the A133 and A120 earlier this March. Phase one will deliver 837 homes, with first residents expected in the late 2020s. The full development is scheduled for completion by 2030.

To read further, please click here [May require subscription].

Golden Thread duties remain off the boardroom radar

A new industry white paper, Turning Building Safety into a Strategic Advantage: The Golden Thread from BIM in Asset Management, suggests that 89% of CEOs and CFOs may be unaware of their legal responsibilities under the post Grenfell building safety regime.

The report warns this lack of awareness could expose organisations to significant legal, financial and reputational risk, given the Building Safety Act’s focus on senior level accountability.

Far from being a narrow compliance burden, the Golden Thread is framed as a board level governance issue: reliable, accessible digital building information should enable leaders to understand safety critical assets, who is accountable for them and whether they are functioning correctly.

By embracing modern digital asset management, organisations can reduce unnecessary maintenance spend, cut repeat surveys and strengthen regulatory compliance, turning building safety information into a genuine strategic advantage.

Back to Square One: Late Appeals After Medpro

Thu, 19 Mar 2026 10:00:00 Z

In HMRC v Medpro [2026] EWCA Civ 14, the Court of Appeal affirmed the guidance given by the Upper Tribunal in Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC) concerning the test to be applied when considering whether to allow a late appeal.

The Work Couch: Non-financial misconduct, regulation and the law (Part 2): Key watch-outs before and during an investigation

Tue, 17 Mar 2026 13:59:00 Z

In part two, host Ellie Gelder is joined by Kelly Thomson, Partner and ESG Strategy Lead, and Charlotte Reid, Associate, who both work in our Employment, Engagement & Equality team, explain the nuts and bolts of the investigation itself, including:

• dos and don'ts when triaging a complaint of NFM;
• important questions to ask when planning and scoping an investigation, including who in the organisation should form part of the investigation team;
• the business case for delegating an investigation to an external investigator or law firm;
• common tricky issues, for example anonymous complaints, historic allegations, and whether to suspend the alleged wrongdoer;
• confidentiality and striking the right balance in respect of all parties;
• how to handle the overlap between employment and regulatory processes; and
• Kelly and Charlotte's key practical takeaways.

Green claims update: March 2026

Mon, 16 Mar 2026 09:25:00 Z

For future updates, please subscribe here.

Key updates

From factory to shelf: CMA’s new green claims guidance

The CMA has released guidance for businesses on best practice when making green claims across the supply chain. The guidance, to be read alongside the Green Claims Code, contains 5 illustrative examples of different supply chain relationships indicating parties' respective responsibilities and who the CMA would likely enforce against. For example, where retailers stock third-party branded products, the CMA indicates it would most likely pursue the brand for any misleading green claims as it is originally responsible for the claim and is in a better position to remedy the issue.

New EU era for environmental claims

EU member states are starting to implement new green claims rules under the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive into national law. The directive bans certain egregious green claims outright and introduces stricter requirements around forward-looking green claims. Many EU members states, including Germany, France and Italy, have either passed or are currently negotiating draft national legislation to introduce these rules which must come into force by 27 September 2026.

Overhaul of B Corp certification

B Corp has launched a new certification model to strengthen credibility and address criticisms of greenwashing. The previous points-based system which enabled companies to offset poor performance in one area with strengths in another, is being replaced by minimum required standards across seven core impact areas, including climate action, human rights and fair labour. B Corp have also introduced independent verification with applications now being audited by accredited third party bodies.

UK Sustainability Reporting Standards published

The UK government has published a new set of Sustainability Reporting Standards (UK SRS) introducing more detailed disclosures for companies' annual reports of their material sustainability-related financial risks and opportunities. The UK SRS are currently available for voluntary use however the Government will consult on changes to the Companies Act 2006 to make these disclosures mandatory for certain types of companies (details tbc). The FCA is currently consulting on changes to the UK Listing Rules to introduce the UK SRS for listed companies. The consultation closes on 20 March 2026.

ASA rulings

Lacoste, Nike and Superdry

The ASA has upheld complaints against Lacoste, Nike and Superdry for ads claiming that various lines of clothing were "sustainable". Despite the three retailers providing evidence to show they were taking steps to reduce their carbon footprint, or otherwise use recycled materials, the ASA ruled the ads' unqualified environmental claims were likely to mislead consumers without any information to verify them.

Kit & Kin

The ASA has ruled that Kit & Kin Ltd's website claiming its "eco" nappies and baby wipes were "sustainable", "made from sustainable plant-based materials" and "biodegradable" misled consumers about the products' environmental impact. According to the ASA, the claims were not properly substantiated across the full product lifecycle and did not include adequate information about any negative by-products of the biodegradation process.

Cheeky Panda

The ASA has ruled that Cheeky Panda Ltd breached the CAP Code by misleadingly advertising its bamboo nappies and baby wipes as "sustainable bamboo", "biodegradable" and "kinder to the planet ... protecting the planet". According to the ASA, Cheeky Panda had not provided sufficient evidence around the full life cycle of the products, the basis for the comparative claim "kinder to the planet" was unclear, and the ads contained no information about the biodegradation process for the nappies/ wipes or any by-products.

Sector updates

Consumer brands and retail

Shein drops online net zero claims in Germany after greenwashing challenge

Shein has dropped its net-zero claims in Germany following a claim brought by the environmental campaign group, Deutsche Umwelthilfe, alleging that Shein's claim of reaching "net-zero greenhouse gas emissions" across its value chain by 2050 was not sufficiently substantiated and was undermined by Shein's 23% increase in greenhouse gas emissions since the previous year. This follows various regulatory fines against Shein for misleading green claims (see our previous update).

Financial services

FCA publishes guidance around using sustainability labels

The FCA has published examples of good and poor practice for using labels under the UK Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR) regime. The guidance covers all four labels (Focus, Improvers, Impact and Mixed Goals) and is intended to help firms draft pre-contractual disclosures that accurately reflect fund strategies and holdings and assist consumers in navigating more sustainable investment products.

What lessons can company directors and their insurers learn from the Oscars? (Or for film buffs!)

Mon, 16 Mar 2026 08:00:00 Z

In celebration of the 98th Academy Awards, our management liability experts explore directors' duties through the lens of Oscar winning films. With the benefit of some creative licence, we aim to bring the duties to life and distil key risk management tips designed to help boards, and those who insure them, strengthen governance, and evidence compliance in the face of regulatory and shareholder scrutiny.

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 13 March 2026

Fri, 13 Mar 2026 14:18:00 Z

Our latest edition of the Financial Ombudsman Newsletter is out now and can be found here.

On the fifth episode of Season 4 of our podcast, Money Covered – The Month That Was, Mel is joined by David Allinson to discuss the FCA’s proposed section 404 consumer redress scheme for vehicle finance.

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Headline development

Generali and Zurich reach agreement over sale

On 9 March 2026, Generali announced that it had reached an agreement with Zurich Insurance Group AG to sell its property and casualty (P&C) business in Ireland.

The agreement involves the sale of the Irish and Northern Irish branches of Generali Spain, housed under the RedClick brand, to Zurich Insurance Europe AG and Zurich Insurance Company Ltd, UK Branch, for €337 million in cash. Generali Spain will retain an additional €51 million in excess capital that is currently allocated to the Group's Irish P&C businesses.

From Generali's perspective, the sale forms part of the Group's wider focus on core insurance markets where it already holds scale and a leading presence.

From Zurich's perspective, the purchase of the RedClick team and customers will cement Zurich as a top-three provider of life and non-life insurance in Ireland.

To read more, please click here.

Pensions

Pensions sector told to do more to protect against impersonation fraud

The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has warned more than 35,000 pension sector professionals on the risks posed by fraudsters seeking to impersonate savers. This warning following a sharp rise this year in reports of impersonation fraud affecting UK savers. This sharp rise follows a year-on-year rise over the last decade, with over £17million being lost to pension crime in 2024.

Trustees and pension administrators are being urged to:

Review their identity and verification check policies and procedures. These procedures should include overseas verification where appropriate.
Encourage members to strengthen their own online security; and
Report any suspected fraudulent activity as soon as possible

To read more, please click here.

FCA regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

FCA confirms it will finalise the VFM framework rules this year

The FCA has confirmed it will finalise its Value For Money (VFM) rules this year in order to give firms time to implement changes before the rules come into force in 2028.

The report 'Regulatory Priorities – Pensions' identifies four areas it will target over the next 12 months:

Ensuring well-run schemes that provide value for money to savers.
Encouraging effective support for consumers.
Supporting growth and innovation; and
Modernising pensions and long-term savings

In respect of VFM – a clear priority based on the report – the regulator confirms it expects firms to:

Engage with the regulator as it finalises the VFM framework and rules permitting transfer of savers – the FCA encourages firms to provide feedback on the draft framework and get ready to implement by considering what it will need to provide accurate data.
Work to ensure savers will not remain in poorly performing workplace schemes: firms should plan to address schemes unlikely to be providing value. The FCA notes asset reallocation or transfers may be required.
Plan for introduction of scale test: Liaise with the FCA in relation to business changes or acquisitions, and consider the operational impact on the business.

The FCA have previously called on pension providers to engage with them in building the VFM rules, so as to support innovation in pensions investment and encourage appropriate risk controls be put in place.

To read more please click here.

Relevant case law updates

Court of Appeal confirms approach for penalty appeals

In the recent case of HMRC v Sintra Global Inc and another [2025] Civ 1661, the Court of Appeal (CofA) determined that, in circumstances where a taxpayer is challenging a penalty on the basis that the underlying tax liability was wrong, a separate legal burden rests on the taxpayer to prove it.

The background to this case involved Sintra Global Inc (Global), Sintra SA (SA) and Mr Parul Malde. HMRC argued that, between 2004 and 2014, Global, SA and Mr Malde had been involved in a process called 'inward diversion fraud', to fraudulently divert alcohol into the UK from the EU.

This subsequently led to HMRC imposing various decisions and penalties against Global, SA and Mr Malde. Some of these were appealed by Global, SA and Mr Malde before for the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) and the FTT allowed some of the appeals. HMRC then appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT), which dismissed the appeals. HMRC then appealed to the CofA.

The key issue before the CofA, was whether, in circumstances whereby a taxpayer was seeking to challenge the penalty on the basis that underlying tax liability was wrong, the burden of proof fell on the taxpayer or HMRC.

The CofA concluded that, where a taxpayer wishes to contend that an underlying tax liability is wrong, a separate legal burden rests on the taxpayer to prove this. This is separate to the test whereby HMRC is required to establish the facts needed to justify imposing a penalty.

It is understood that the taxpayers are seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

To read the judgment, please click here.

To read RPC's blog, please click here.

If you have any queries please do get in contact with a member of the team below, or your usual RPC contact.

With thanks to this week's contributors: James Parsons, Alison Thomas, Daniel Goh, Heather Buttifant, Ben Simmonds, Kerone Thomas, Rebekah Bayliss

The Week That Was - 13 March 2026

Fri, 13 Mar 2026 08:52:00 Z

Turning Demolition into Innovation

Tipping Point East, the UK’s first dedicated circular construction hub, has launched on a 20,000m² meanwhile-site (a piece of land/building temporarily utilised for a specific purpose while it awaits long-term redevelopment, etc.) in the Royal Docks, Newham. Backed by the Greater London Authority and Newham Council, the scheme aims to become Europe’s largest facility of its kind and to support the mayor of London’s zero-carbon by 2030 ambitions.

The hub brings together large-scale material recovery and storage, low‑carbon construction, skills training and community-focused cultural programming. It will pilot a new model for circular construction by salvaging, testing and redistributing materials such as structural timber and fittings, targeting the diversion of at least 950 tonnes of waste from landfill over five years.

As the first phase of a wider Circular Economy Village in Silvertown, Tipping Point East will operate as a live prototyping environment and education space, supporting greener construction of thousands of new homes and demonstrating how circular practices can create green jobs, reduce waste and embed climate resilience across the sector.

Read the full article here.

All construction products to be subject to safety requirements by 2027

The government has opened a further consultation on expanding existing safety requirements for construction products. The government intends to use powers under the Building Safety Act 2022.

Under the proposals, general safety requirements would be applied to all construction products, which are currently unregulated. Currently only products to which design standards apply are subject to regulation.

General safety requirements would also apply to importers, distributors, and fulfilment providers, who would be responsible for ensuring traceability of construction products through the retention of customer information.

Further reforms are detailed in the government's white paper on construction products reform, which can be found here.

To read more, please click here.

GSK HQ in London to undergo redevelopment

Hadley Property Group's proposal for a mixed-use scheme at the former GSQ HQ in Brentford has been approved, which will see the building transformed into more than 2,300 homes. It will also include commercial, community and education space.

The developer considers its approach to retrofit will save more than 34,500 tonnes of embodied carbon in construction phases. The development will comprise 22% affordable housing by habitable room and will include an NHS primary care facility.

The design team was led by Haworth Tompkins and Buro Happold covered MEP, sustainability, and services engineering (amongst several others in the wider project team).

To read further, please click here.

Algorithm vs Architect: Planners Warn Over Reliance on Google's New AI Tool

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has awarded Google Cloud a £6.9m contract to develop an AI tool to support planning officers. The system will initially focus on householder applications, aiming to cut average decision times from eight weeks to four and, in time, enable near‑instant decisions for straightforward cases. It will assist with administrative and analytical tasks and generate recommendations, rather than formally replacing human decision-making.

This project sits alongside other uses of AI in planning, including tools that generate objection letters for residents and council-led pilots such as the Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire model, which summarises thousands of consultation responses.

Planning professionals broadly welcome efficiency gains but warn of risks. Concerns include over-reliance on AI at the final decision stage, erosion of professional judgement, pressure to standardise local policies to fit rigid machine-readable rules, reduced creativity in design, and a possible shift towards more binary, zonal planning systems.

Find out more information here [May require subscription].

Women in construction powering solutions to the skills crisis

Construction’s acute skills shortage and ambitious housing targets cannot be met while half the potential talent pool remains underused. Women account for only around 15% of the UK construction workforce and about 1% of onsite roles, with limited representation in senior positions. Persistent gender pay gaps, inconsistent flexible working, weak parental leave and poor return-to-work pathways all undermine attraction, progression and retention.

From April 2026, the government’s new Equality Action Plans offer a framework to tackle these issues. Employers with 250+ employees will be encouraged (and are expected to be required from April 2027) to publish targeted plans alongside gender pay gap reports.

For construction, treating inclusion as core infrastructure is critical: safer, more flexible sites, stronger apprenticeships and visible female role models will be essential to closing gaps and securing the future workforce.

Find out more about Equality Action Plans here and how it applies to the Construction Industry here [May require subscription], and Construction News's view on the skills shortage in the construction and housing sectors here [May require subscription].

With thanks to Brendan Marrinan, Sharona Sexton and Courtney Reylin

Sports Ticker #147 - Queensberry’s billion dollar boxing battle and Prem Rugby’s promotion reform - a speed read of commercial updates from the sports world

Thu, 12 Mar 2026 11:43:00 Z

As always, if there are any issues on which you’d like more information (or if you have any questions or feedback), please do let us know or get in touch with your usual contact at RPC.

Hammers to gavels: West Ham United weighs up Supreme Court appeal
West Ham United’s parent company, WH Holding Limited (WHH) is considering an appeal to the Supreme Court after being ordered to pay £3.6 million to its landlord, London Stadium LLP. The 99-year concession agreement between the parties includes an “anti-embarrassment” clause, entitling the stadium’s owners to a share of profits from certain share disposals. London Stadium says the clause was triggered when Czech investor Daniel Křetínský bought a 27% stake in the club in 2021. WHH initially agreed to pay £2.6 million, but disputes a further £3.6 million sum, tied to an £18 million call option premium paid as part of the transaction. An expert determination found in favour of London Stadium, but WHH appealed to the High Court, successfully arguing the decision was affected by a “manifest error” – that is, an error so obvious that it cannot be construed otherwise. However, the Court of Appeal has since overturned that judgment. The club’s announcement that it “has sought leave to appeal” means the dispute may ultimately be decided before the UK’s highest court.

Raducanu serves up brand switch with new £2.6 million-a-year Uniqlo deal
Tennis star Emma Raducanu has ended her long-standing partnership with Nike and signed a new clothing sponsorship deal with Japanese brand Uniqlo. The British number one has been sponsored by Nike since her teenage years, extending her contract after winning the US Open in 2021. Uniqlo teased the announcement on social media before confirming Raducanu on Instagram as its newest global brand ambassador. The company said she will represent its “LifeWear” philosophy, which focuses on “excellence”, and “making meaningful contributions to society”. Raducanu debuted her new Uniqlo kit at the 2026 BNP Paribas Open, currently underway in Indian Wells, California. The move mirrors Roger Federer’s high-profile switch from Nike to Uniqlo in 2017. Despite Raducanu’s departure, Nike’s portfolio of stars still includes men’s and women’s world number ones Carlos Alcaraz and Aryna Sabalenka.

From Relegation to Regulation: RFU vote for Prem Rugby overhaul
Automatic promotion and relegation between Premiership Rugby and the Championship has been abolished, following a vote by the Rugby Football Union (RFU) Council. Instead, entry to rugby’s top tier will be decided on a points-based system, with new franchises considered through an application process. A new Expansion Review Group will assess potential entrants, with the league aiming to expand from 10 to 12 teams by the 2029–30 season. Birmingham City owners Knighthead Capital are among those reportedly interested in purchasing a new franchise in Prem Rugby. The agreement brings English rugby closer to an NFL-style model, with individual franchises operating within a closed league. RFU CEO, Bill Sweeney, said that the reform “is about safeguarding the future”, giving clubs and investors greater financial certainty.

Lead climber found liable after Austrian mountaineering tragedy
An amateur mountaineer has been convicted of gross negligence manslaughter after an Austrian court found that he failed to call for help, following the death of his fellow climber and girlfriend on Großglockner, Austria’s highest peak. The mountaineer (identified only as ‘Thomas P’ in accordance with Austrian privacy laws) was found to have acted as a “Führer aus Gefälligkeit” – a “courtesy guide” – by planning the route and assuming responsibility for the ascent. Prosecutors argued that he ignored clear avalanche risks, failed to turn back when his climbing partner, ‘Kerstin G’, showed obvious signs of exhaustion, and proceeded without adequate equipment. The court accepted that his significantly greater experience created a special duty of care towards his partner and held him criminally liable for breaching it. However, the case remains open to appeal. While the “courtesy guide” concept has no direct equivalent in English law, the ruling is likely to concern visiting mountaineers and may have an effect on informal mentorship in the climbing community.

Ringside to Courtroom: Warren challenges Zuffa heavyweights in billion-dollar showdown
Frank Warren, head of Queensberry Promotions and long-time promoter of Tyson Fury, is preparing for what could be the biggest fight of his career – in court rather than the ring. He is reportedly pursuing a potential $1 billion claim against Saudi state-backed events company Sela and US sports group TKO (owner of UFC and WWE). Queensberry says it agreed exclusive boxing services with Sela in September 2023 and separately granted TKO access to its online data. It alleges Sela and TKO then sidelined Queensberry, breaching both contracts, to form rival venture Zuffa Boxing. Zuffa, fronted by UFC chief Dana White and Saudi General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki Alalshikh, has already secured a major broadcast deal and a roster of fighters, and is aiming to disrupt boxing's status quo. A High Court showdown now looms – the outcome potentially reshaping who calls the shots in top tier boxing.

Extra time...

…and finally, the rise of artificial intelligence is producing a surge of hyper realistic deepfake images and videos showing footballers in situations that never happened – from Kylian Mbappé on a ski holiday with a turtle, to fabricated transfer unveilings. The spread of this so-called “AI slop” online highlights how difficult it is becoming for users to identify fake content. Players and clubs have traditionally protected their brands through trade marks (notably, Cole Palmer registering “Cold Palmer” and his famous shivering celebration). However, English law does not offer the same protection for a person’s likeness, leaving few clear routes to challenge the most prevalent types of deepfaked content, unless reputational or financial damage can be proven. As AI tools become more accessible, and ways to produce deepfakes that are potentially damaging to the image of clubs and players alike increase, calls for clearer labelling of AI-generated media are likely to grow.

Tribunal confirms licence to use client list qualifies for fixed asset amortisation

Thu, 12 Mar 2026 10:00:00 Z

In Ripe Limited v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1606 (TC), the FTT held that a licence to use a client list constituted an intangible fixed asset, such that amortisation relief was available for corporation tax purposes.

Regulatory Pulse - 11 March 2026

Wed, 11 Mar 2026 09:42:00 Z

The seismic Mazur decision concerning the activities which non-solicitors may lawfully perform in litigation reached the Court of Appeal in February. At stake is the ability of firms lawfully to staff matters with legal executives and paralegals under the supervision of a solicitor (or other authorised or exempt person), with the economies and cost savings which that entails, not to mention the careers of those affected. Across three days of submissions, CILEx argued in favour of a less restrictive interpretation of the rules, with the SRA and Law Society taking the opposing position.

Digital Markets, Human Consumers: Consumer Protection and Enforcement Developments in Singapore

Tue, 10 Mar 2026 09:46:00 Z

In the past few years, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) has taken an increasing amount of enforcement action against errant retailers for breaches of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA). From 2023 to 2025, the CCS reported 15 instances of enforcement action, as compared to 8 instances of enforcement action from 2020 to 2022.

Lawyers’ liability, when is a claim "brought" and limitation traps - Lukins v Quality Part X Ltd

Mon, 09 Mar 2026 15:23:00 Z

The decision in Lukins v Quality Part X Ltd Ravensale Ltd [2026] EWHC 301 (KB) is a stark illustration of how procedural missteps around electronic filing can expose solicitors to lost litigation claims.

Setting priorities – the FCA publishes its areas of focus for consumer investments in 2026

Mon, 09 Mar 2026 14:21:00 Z

This week, the FCA published its Regulatory Priorities for Consumer Investments. The intention is that these publications will be published annually and replace portfolio letters. This serves as a useful summary of what the FCA's been doing and its intentions for the near future.

The Week That Was - 6 March 2026

Fri, 06 Mar 2026 14:42:00 Z

Consultation on General Safety Requirements for Construction Products opened

Alongside the White Paper for Construction Products Reform, a consultation has been launched for the scope of the proposed General Safety Requirement (GSR) for all construction products, as part of the proposed overhaul of construction product safety more generally. The GSR is the proposed second route for products to meet requirements, with the other being where designated standards apply.

The GSR in general terms is proposed to be a requirement for a manufacturer to assess the safety risks connected to the intended use and the normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use and take proportionate action to control such risks. The Consultation sets out key proposals including: mandatory risk assessments, product information requirements, labelling, record keeping, storage and transportation, obligations on importers and distributors and monitoring of safety issues.

The consultation is open until 20 May 2026 and can be found here.

Manifest error for expert determination clarified – WH Holding Ltd v London Stadium LLP (formerly E20 Stadium LLP) [2026 EWCA Civ 153

An appeal against the High Court's judgement, setting aside an expert's determination, was allowed by the Court of Appeal. The expert’s determination was valid and binding on the parties. Summarised, the test is "[a]bsent contractual terms which provide differently when interpreted in context, an error will be manifest if, after investigation limited in time and extent, it is so obvious (and obviously capable of affecting the determination) as to admit of no difference of opinion" (para 45). There was no restriction in the authorities as to the judge's reasoning process, however the Court of Appeal noted that the test did invite a 2-stage approach, firstly has there been an error and secondly was it so obvious as to admit no difference of opinion.

The Court of Appeal also rejected the argument that the limited investigation allowed adversarial argument to be shut out or restricted. That is, if the expert's determination is challenged in court, the court will need to review competing statements of case and evidence, as well as the parties being able to make submissions.

The judgment can be found here.

Doubts cast over delivery of two Grenfell Inquiry reforms

Government documents released on 26 February 2026 have cast doubt on the deliverability of two key Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase two recommendations previously accepted by ministers. A rapid review by the government’s Open Innovation Team questioned the practicality of creating a new construction library containing product data, fire reports and academic research. While experts agreed such a library could improve building safety and reduce costs, they highlighted major obstacles, including fragmented data, lack of standardisation, multiple existing repositories and legal and commercial sensitivities around sharing information. Despite these concerns, the government maintains it will support development of a digital construction library with the industry. Separately, the government’s first annual progress report signalled potential retreat from a proposed legal requirement for senior managers at principal designer firms to certify that all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the safety of higher-risk buildings, saying it is exploring alternative mechanisms to secure senior-level accountability.

Read the full article here.

Bournemouth stadium redevelopment to start in the summer

AFC Bournemouth’s £85m redevelopment of the Vitality Stadium, approved in principle by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council in January, is due to begin this summer, with preparatory enabling works already under way. The project will almost double capacity from 11,286 to about 20,000, although it remains subject to further planning permissions. Initial off season works (June - August 2026) includes demolition of the existing South Stand, construction of a new 3,000 seat lower tier, a new ticket office, internal refurbishments to the East and West stands with three new hospitality areas and upgraded media/broadcast facilities. This first phase will add more than 1,500 seats for the 2026/27 season, and a South Stand upper tier, further corner, and stand extensions to the North and East in 2027 will complete the expansion. This development marks the largest redevelopment in the ground’s history.

Read the full article here.

Fire safety warning issued over zero-compression cavity barriers

The Masonry Association of Great Britain’s (MAGB) Technical Committee has warned that cavity fire barriers must be assessed for performance over the whole life of a building, not just at laboratory test stage. In its first technical note, TN-01/26, it raises concerns about zero-compression cavity barriers, which may pass controlled fire tests but depend on “perfect geometry” that does not reflect real building behaviour. Over time, structural frame shortening, thermal expansion and construction tolerances can all widen cavities. Gaps as small as a few millimetres may allow flames and hot gases to bypass barriers, with failures hidden from view and not detectable through routine inspection, creating serious life-safety, liability and reputational risks. MAGB therefore recommends cavity barriers with positive compression, specifying a nominal minimum preload of 5mm (or more if supported by testing), to maintain continuous contact and integrity as buildings move during their service life.

Read the full article here.

RIBA enshrines abolition of ARB in official strategy

RIBA has set out a reform strategy, Towards Tomorrow’s Architecture, making the repeal of the Architects Act 1997 and abolition of the Architects Registration Board (ARB) a primary objective. It argues that scrapping the Act would further its 'campaign on competence' pushing for the introduction of reserved activities for competent professionals. Other priorities include reforming architectural education with a five year route to becoming an architect. Measures will include publishing fee guidance for clients, developing a Master of Business Administration in Architecture, and improving public and private procurement processes. RIBA frames the package as necessary modernisation of professional regulation and practice.

Read the full article here.

With thanks to Richard Tosh, Emrys Moore and Jessica Hill

If you have any queries please do get in contact with a member of the team, or your usual RPC contact.

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 6 March 2026

Fri, 06 Mar 2026 13:32:00 Z

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Headline development

Spring Statement 2026 – Key Takeaways

Chancellor Rachel Reeves delivered her Spring Statement on 3 March 2026. Whilst it contained relatively few new policy announcements, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) used the update to revise a number of its economic forecasts.

The OBR now expects UK growth of 1.1% this year, down from the 1.4% forecast at the time of the Autumn Budget. The downgrade reflects signs of a softening labour market and weaker business activity.

Looking further ahead, the outlook is slightly stronger. The OBR expects growth to average around 1.6% a year from 2027, with forecasts of 1.6% in 2028 and 1.5% in both 2029 and 2030. Fiscal headroom is also expected to improve modestly, increasing from £21.7bn to £23.6bn by 2029–30 under the Government’s stability rule.

The OBR also highlighted geopolitical developments as a key risk to the outlook. In particular, conflict in the Middle East could affect global energy markets and place renewed pressure on inflation and growth.

On defence spending, the OBR said the Government’s commitment to spend 3.5% of GDP on defence would require national security expenditure to rise from 2.4% in 2025-26 to 3% by 2030-31. The OBR also estimated that the additional 1.1 percentage points of spending referenced for 2034-35 would cost close to £40bn in 2025-26 prices.

Changes to the inheritance tax (IHT) regime announced since the October 2024 Budget are also expected to have a notable impact. According to the OBR, these changes could account for around 14% of total IHT revenue by the end of the 2030–31 financial year. This includes bringing inherited pension pots within the scope of IHT from April 2027, alongside changes to agricultural and business property reliefs.

The OBR also expects unemployment to increase in the near term, reaching around 5.3% in 2026, before falling back to around 4.1% by 2030.

Market reaction to the Statement itself appeared fairly muted, with little movement from pre-Statement levels. Bond yields rose during the morning and equity markets fell, reflecting concerns that higher energy prices could feed through into inflation.

To read more, please click here.

Accountants

Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision publishes report on AML

On 3 March 2026, the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision (OPBAS) published its review of the Professional Body Supervisors (PBSs) responsible for preventing financial crime in the legal and accountancy sectors (the "Review").

The Review found that professional services firms are more effective than they have ever been since 2018, and that of the 25 PBSs that OPBAS oversees, it found that PBSs generally demonstrate good levels of compliance.

However, concerns remain over OPBAS' ability when it comes to the use of enforcement as a deterrent against firms falling short of the expected standards. Concerns were also raised for some PBSs where their dual role as both a membership organisation and a supervisor can hinder effective action.

OPBAS also found that law firms were being fined up to six times more than accountancy firms for AML breaches.

Whilst the figures cover the 2023/24 period, they provide an interesting insight into how the professional services sector is regulated. With the FCA due to take the role as a single regulator for AML, this is likely to be one of the final reports published by OPBAS.

To read a copy of OPBAS' report, please click here.

Insolvency Practitioners

Insolvency Service publishes 2025 Individual Voluntary Arrangements statistics

The Insolvency Service has released its 2025 statistics on Individual Voluntary Arrangements (IVAs) outcomes and providers in England and Wales.

The statistics show that 71,855 IVAs were registered in 2025, which represents a 7% increase from 2024. IVAs accounted for 57% of all individual insolvencies - showing a steady decline when compared to 62% in 2023 and 70% in 2022. At the same time as the decrease in IVAs, the volume of debt relief orders (DROs) has increased in proportion. This shows that individual insolvency management trends are shifting towards the short term, with DROs being in place for 12 months.

The failure rate of IVAs has also remained steady, with 1 in 17 (just over 6%) of the IVAs registered in 2024 failing within the first year of the IVA being in place. The failure of IVAs, meaning that the debtor has failed to keep to the terms imposed, is a difficult statistic to establish following the Covid-19 pandemic and the support measures in place at that time. However, overall, the IVA failure rate for agreements in place from 2021, appears to be increasing for one-, two- and three-year agreements.

To read more, please click here.

Pensions

Pensions Regulator releases analysis of defined contribution market

On March 5 2026, the Pensions Regulator (TPR) released its analysis of the occupational defined contribution (DC) market.

The analysis has revealed that more than 13 million members are in defined contribution schemes that offer drawdown and 86% of the largest schemes offer at least one retirement income option. Joey Patel, TPR's Director of Policy, has heralded this shift towards the inclusion of in-scheme retirement options as "just the start".

However, the TPR's analysis has identified that the smaller end of the market is lagging behind with only 46% of small schemes offering any decumulation products. Significantly, the report identified that over two fifths of all schemes offer their members no decumulation products at all.

The TPR has highlighted this issue; noting that "too many members in smaller schemes are left without support when they reach retirement. This is not good enough."

To remedy this market gap, the TPR has urged that small schemes must either act or consolidate in order to promote savers' interests.

To read more, please click here.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

Regulator begins accepting applications for permission to provide targeted support

On 2 March 2026, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) began to accept applications for permission for firms to provide targeted support.

In a previous policy statement dated 11 December 2025, the FCA identified that consumers were getting insufficient advice on investment decisions, creating what the FCA termed as an "advice gap".

The targeted support scheme is designed to address firms' reluctance to provide advice or guidance due to the ambiguous distinction between what constitutes investment advice (a regulated activity) and guidance (an unregulated activity). There were also concerns that the framework governing investment advice was particularly onerous and the operational burden of complying with obligations under this framework vastly outweighed any benefit gained by providing guidance to consumers.

The targeted support scheme provides regulated firms with a four-step process that enables guidance to be provided to consumers without having to comply with the obligations under the FCA rules in COB9 and 9A.

These four steps are:

(i) Pre-define the circumstances in which targeted support will be provided.

(ii) Pre-define the consumer group to be supported.

(iii) Pre-define the guidance that will be provided to that consumer group; and

(iv) deliver the pre-defined guidance to a consumer who falls within the scope of the pre-defined consumer group.

For the full set of rules, please click here.

Financial Conduct Authority releases second Regulatory Priorities Report

On 4 March 2026, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published its Regulatory Priorities Report for the consumer investment sector.

This report is the second of nine Regulatory Priorities reports that are designed to replace its portfolio letters. Each report sets out the FCA's areas of focus for that sector.

In relation to the consumer investment sector, the FCA is prioritising building a strong investment culture, strengthening trust, securing good consumer outcomes and strengthening financial crime controls.

To build a strong investment culture, the FCA is aiming to streamline its investment advice rules and guidance through its Advice Guidance Boundary Review. It is also planning to implement the Consumer Composite Investments (CCI) framework which will aim to support retail investors as they navigate their investment choices. The CCI framework will provide a sole framework, and is an attempt by the FCA to provide a more flexible and outcomes-focused approach to product disclosure compared to the previous regime under UCITS KIID and PRIIPs.

To read more, please click here.

Financial Conduct Authority finds good and poor practice by asset managers under greenwashing regime

On Friday, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) confirmed that it had found good and poor practice by asset managers using labels under the Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR) regime, which came into force in July 2024.

The regime seeks to help consumers navigate the market and combat greenwashing, but the regulator noted "it hasn’t always been clear whether or how firms meet the labelling requirements, or whether disclosures accurately reflect what the fund invests in."

Asset managers can select one of four labels for qualifying investment products under the regime: sustainability focus, sustainability improvers, sustainability impact, and sustainability mixed goals. The FCA noted that although firms have become more familiar with requirements, their sustainability objectives were not always clear and some funds held conflicting investments (having invested in companies that are inconsistent with the fund's sustainability objective).

To read the FCA's publication, please click here.

Guidance released on good and poor practice under the Sustainable Disclosure Requirements regime

Following on from the above, on 27 February 2026, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) released guidance on good practice and poor practice for firms wanting to apply a sustainability label under the Sustainable Disclosure Requirements (SDR) regime.

SDR labels were introduced to improve transparency and assist consumers with their investment decisions in the sustainable fund market.

The FCA has stated that good disclosures are "clear, concise and easy to read and understand." Firms should consider the overall impression that a disclosure provides, including its visuals.

Good disclosures should also disclose relevant information regarding the fund, and accurately reflect what the product invests in. In order to determine whether the requirements are compiled with, the FCA will require a model portfolio as part of its authorisations process.

To read more, please click here.

Regulator submits request for information from interest platforms

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has raised a request for information on the interest platforms are holding relating to cash, along with information on transfers out and outsourcing to third parties.

The request is the latest in a series of requests, the last of which saw the FCA request that advice firms provide information about their businesses and client propositions last summer.

The FCA has not conducted a market study of advisor platforms since 2019. There is speculation that these requests may be the start of another inquiry into the industry.

To read more, please click here.

Financial Conduct Authority to ask some firms to take remedial actions regarding ongoing advice

The FCA confirmed, in its paper setting out Regulatory Priorities in Consumer Investments, published on 4 March 2026, that it will be asking a small number of firms to take remedial actions following the February 2025 review on ongoing advice. The ongoing advice review sought feedback from 22 firms who provide ongoing advice services. The review found that, whilst the vast majority of firms providing those services, at the very least, contacted clients who'd signed up for the services to offer to carry out a review of their ongoing suitability advice, less than 2% did not even attempt to conduct an ongoing advice review.

The FCA confirmed in February 2025 that this would need to be 'put right', and it seems that they now intend to follow up on this.

To read the Regulatory Priorities: Consumer Investments paper, click here.

Financial Conduct Authority to update on MPS review later this year

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said it will provide an update later this year on its review of model portfolio service (MPS) providers.

The review, which looks at how firms are applying the Consumer Duty, was referenced in the regulator’s Regulatory Priorities for 2026, published on 4 March 2026.

In February last year, the FCA announced it would begin a multi-firm review of MPS providers to examine how firms are applying the Consumer Duty and whether customers are receiving good outcomes. Since that announcement, the regulator has said little publicly about the progress of the work.

In its priorities document, the FCA confirmed it will continue progressing the review of MPS firms to assess whether consumers are receiving good outcomes, with further updates expected later this year.

The regulator did not provide further detail on the scope of the review. However, it is understood that much of the work so far has involved engagement with firms to help ensure the review focuses on the right areas.

The Consumer Duty, introduced in July 2023, requires firms to demonstrate that they are delivering good outcomes for customers.

To read more, please click here.

Implementation period announced for motor finance compensation scheme

On 4 March 2026, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced that they will include an implementation period for the highly anticipated motor finance compensation scheme under s.404 of FSMA.

The final rules are expected to be published in late March. The implementation period will then run for a minimum period of 3 months, but it may be extended up until 5 months for older agreements.

The latest guidance from the FCA is that individuals who were not fully informed about the commission involved in their motor finance deal should complain now in order to get compensation sooner. Individuals who complain before the scheme starts will not be asked to opt out. Rather, within 3 months of the implementation period, their lender should tell them whether compensation is owed.

To read more, please click here.

Relevant case law development

Claim issued within limitation period considered time-barred

On 18 February 2026, the High Court granted summary judgment to Quality Part X Limited and Ravensale Limited (the Defendants) on the basis that the Claimants' negligence and nuisance claims were time-barred under section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980 (the "Act").

The Claimant had sought damages for possessions that had been destroyed by a fire that had originated in a commercial unit that was occupied by the First Defendant and owned by the Second Defendant.

The key issue before the Court was whether the Claimants' solicitors had failed to issue proceedings within the six-year limitation period. They had sent claim forms by post to the Court within the limitation period. However, they had failed to comply with CPR Practice Direction 51O which mandated electronic filing for legally represented parties.

It was held that the filing by post had failed to meet the test outlined in section 2 of the Act as the mandatory electronic filing requirement had been in place for over five years and the Claimant's solicitors should have been familiar with it.

The Court rejected submissions that (i) the Claimant could rely on CPR Practice Direction 7A paragraph 6.1 on the basis that it did not apply where mandatory procedural requirements were not followed, and (ii) that CPR 3.10 could remedy the error.

To read more, please click here.

With thanks to this week's contributors: James Parsons, Alison Thomas, Daniel Goh, Heather Buttifant, Ben Simmonds, Kerone Thomas, Rebekah Bayliss

If you have any queries please do get in contact with a member of the team below, or your usual RPC contact.

ML Covered - March 2026

Fri, 06 Mar 2026 13:02:00 Z

11-year disqualification for director over Covid-era support

In The Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Pal [2026] EWHC 262 (Ch), a director and shareholder was disqualified for 11 years and forced to repay Covid-era financial support, after breaching the conditions under which the support had been provided.

Background

Sehar Pal (the Defendant) was the sole shareholder and director of 7Speed Ltd (the Company), a company incorporated in May 2018. The Company’s stated business was the sale of used cars and motor parts.

Following the Covid pandemic, the Bounce Back Loan (BBL) Scheme was introduced in May 2020. It allowed loans of up to £50,000, or 25% of a company’s actual 2019 turnover, whichever was lower. Only companies established after 1 January 2019 could use estimated turnover. On 10 May 2020, the Defendant completed an online BBL application on behalf of the Company with Santander. The Defendant entered “2019 company turnover” of £220,000 on the application and requested £50,000. The application process stated that funds must be used wholly for business purposes and to provide economic benefit to the business.

The BBL agreement was signed on 11 May 2020 and £50,000 was paid into the Company’s account on 12 May 2020. Between 12 May and 18 June 2020, £49,997.50 was transferred out, with approximately half of this amount being transferred directly to the Defendant, with the rest being transferred to other companies and individuals.

No repayments were made by the Company when the loan became due from June 2021. The Company was dissolved on 27 July 2021 and Santander, under the government guarantee, was paid £50,843.21. Santander then made a complaint to the Insolvency Service, in respect of the BBL to the Company.

Decision

The court made a disqualification order against the Defendant for 11 years under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA) and made a compensation order under section 15A of the CDDA for £50,000 plus interest at 2.5% from 21 June 2021, for the benefit of Santander.

It was found that the Company’s actual 2019 turnover was nil or close to zero, based on the dormant accounts and bank statements, and that the Defendant's declaration of £220,000 was knowingly false or at least reckless. The Defendant had understood the BBL rules and the significance of the turnover figure. The judge also found that £49,997 of the loan was used for purposes other than the Company's business and not for its economic benefit. The Judge noted that the Defendant's lack of supporting documentation was “conspicuous by its absence”. The Defendant's actions were held to be serious misconduct and falling below the ordinary standards of commercial morality, thereby demonstrating unfitness to act as a director.

Key takeaways

The number of enforcement actions taken by the Insolvency Service remain high, with many being a legacy of abuses of the Covid financial support scheme. The Government launched a voluntary repayment scheme from September 2025 to December 2025 for any improper claims made for financial support during the Covid pandemic. HMRC and other government bodies are now expected to intensify scrutiny and enforcement efforts across all Covid-related support schemes. All businesses and individuals should ensure they have adequate documentation to evidence that any financial support received was used in accordance with the conditions that the support was provided.

To read more, please click here.

Nonprofit organisations facing an increasing D&O risk exposure

According to recent reports, nonprofit organisations are facing rising D&O exposure. The D&O liability risk landscape for nonprofit organisations is increasingly resembling those currently faced by private and public companies.

Economic uncertainty, heightened regulatory scrutiny, and escalating employment and cyber claims are all contributing to the risks facing nonprofit boards and is reshaping nonprofit D&O risk.

Economic uncertainty (in particular, inflation, higher borrowing costs, and tighter public funding) is the dominant force behind the rising nonprofit D&O exposure. Nonprofits often rely heavily on a single revenue stream, such as donor contributions and government grants. The risk at board level can increase if these revenue streams dry up, and the increasing complexity of government funding, with differing compliance requirements for national and local requirements, is also adding to board-level risk. Mistakes in respect of fundraising compliance can quickly escalate into regulatory actions or reputational harm, both being common triggers for D&O claims.

There has also been a notable rise in employment practices liability (EPL) claims. This is often attributed to nonprofits having tight budgets, which can lead to limited staffing and therefore overworking. Unsurprisingly, cyber exposure is also emerging as a significant management liability risk for nonprofits, with many nonprofits lacking the resources to invest in adequate cyber protection or employee training, which increases their vulnerability.

Key takeaways

Directors and officers of nonprofits should ensure they stay on top of the emerging risks facing the nonprofit sector. Dedicated policies for key risk areas should be introduced in order to help mitigate those risks, as well as training for relevant employees.

To read more, please click here.

Disciplinary policies can be contractually binding: Dr MN v NHS Foundation Trust L

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that provisions in workplace disciplinary policies can have contractual effect and be legally enforceable where their wording and context justify it. The decision in Dr MN v NHS Foundation Trust L [2026] serves as a cautionary reminder to employers – particularly in the NHS and wider public sector – that they must follow their own procedures carefully.

Background

Dr MN is a consultant employed by an NHS Foundation Trust. The Trust commenced an internal investigation into his professional conduct after a parent of a child connected to the Lucy Letby alleged that he had breached patient confidentiality.

Under the Trust's disciplinary policy – which was aligned with the national framework of Maintaining High Professional Standards in the Modern NHS (MHPS), the Trust's Medical Director was stated to act as 'Case Manager' in any investigations that involved a consultant.

Despite this, the Trust appointed a different senior manager (Director of Corporate Affairs) to act as Case Manager. Dr MN argued that this breached his contract of employment and that the disciplinary formed part of his contractual terms.

High Court Decision

The High Court agreed with Dr MN and held that the Trust was in breach of contract. It found that:

The relevant provision of the Trust's disciplinary policy was incorporated into Dr MN's contract.
The policy imposed a binding obligation on the Medical Director to act as Case Manager on cases involving a consultant.
Delegation of that role was not permitted, save in exceptional circumstances.

The court also awarded Dr MN his costs in full.

Appeal

The Trust appealed, arguing that:

The provision in the policy was not contractually binding
Even if it was incorporated into Dr MN's contract, that it did not impose any mandatory requirement that only the Medical Director could act as Case Manager; and
Separately, the High Court had made an incorrect decision in relation to costs.

Court of Appeal Decision

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's findings.

It confirmed that provisions in workplace disciplinary policies can have contractual effect, depending in their wording and context. It was held that:

The clause was sufficiently, clear, precise, important and closely linked to the employment relationship that it was incorporated as a term.
The language used in the policy mandated the Medical Director to act as Case Manager by use of the phrase 'will act', which showed there was no discretion in the matter. Separately, the policy specifically mentioned scenarios where delegation was possible, which did not apply here.
Dr MN's breach of contract claim succeeded.
There was no error in the High Court's decision in relation to costs.

Key Points

This decision has wider implications beyond the NHS. It highlights that:

Policies can be contractual: Clear, specific and important provisions, particularly those closely tied to the employment relationship, may be incorporated into contracts.
Language matters: Mandatory wording such as 'must' and 'will' is more likely to be treated as binding.
Follow your own procedures: Where a policy prescribes a particular decision-maker, or sets out specific steps or exceptions, employers should adhere to those requirements. Departing from them may give rise to a breach of contract claim.
Review and update policies: Employers should review disciplinary and other HR policies to ensure that the intended status (contractual or non-contractual) is clear, and that any scope for delegation or flexibility is expressly identified.

Managing belief in the workplace: Mr F Ngole v Touchstone Leeds [2026] EAT 29

In 2022, Mr Ngole accepted a conditional job offer as a discharge mental health support worker with Touchstone Leeds, a charity providing mental health and wellbeing services to the LGBTQI+ community and to various faith groups. The offer was withdrawn following Touchstone's discovery of news articles citing Mr Ngole's negative comments on social media regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Mr Ngole was subsequently invited to a second interview to discuss his views; however, Touchstone ultimately decided not to reinstate the offer on the basis that Mr Ngole's views did not align with their values.

Mr Ngole subsequently pursued Employment Tribunal (ET) claims for direct discrimination, harassment and indirect discrimination.

Decision

The ET upheld Mr Ngole’s claim for direct discrimination, finding that the reason for withdrawing the offer was materially influenced by his religious beliefs. Mr Ngole's claims for indirect discrimination and harassment were dismissed.

On appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), it was held that the ET has erred in failing to determine whether Touchstone's actions were based on Mr Ngole's beliefs or on the manifestation of those beliefs, namely his social media posts.

If Mr Ngole’s offer was withdrawn because of his beliefs, this would likely amount to unlawful direct discrimination. However, if the offer was withdrawn because of Touchstone’s concerns about the impact of his publicly expressed views on vulnerable service users, should they discover the posts, Touchstone’s conduct could be justified as a proportionate response to its obligation to protect vulnerable service users. The EAT has redirected the case back to the ET for reconsideration of these points.

What this means for employers and insurers

Employers must take care when making decisions based on an employee’s or applicant’s expressed views, particularly where those views relate to protected beliefs such as religion. While employers are entitled to consider the wider impact of public statements, including those made on social media, they must distinguish between the holding of a protected belief and the manifestation of that belief in a professional context. Employers should avoid making assumptions about how an individual might behave without first discussing any concerns with them, and any action taken must be proportionate and in pursuit of a legitimate aim.

Pensions Commission to report back in 2027

The Pensions Minister, Torsten Bell, has confirmed that the Pensions Commission will report back to the government in early 2027 with ideas on how to fix the long-term retirement savings problem.

The Pensions Commission, which was revived last summer, is considering several key issues, including whether the current auto‑enrolment minimum contributions – 3% from employers and 5% from employees – should be increased. It is also examining options to narrow the gender pension gap and to encourage greater pension participation among self‑employed workers. Bell emphasised that the Commission operates independently and has a broad remit to examine any reforms it considers appropriate. The government, he noted, is committed to considering all of its recommendations. He highlighted the scale of the challenge, observing that, on current trends, those retiring in 2050 are likely to have lower retirement incomes than today’s retirees. He also noted that any reforms arising from this work are unlikely to have a material impact over the next five years. The focus is instead on securing pension adequacy for future generations. When asked whether the priority should be expanding pension coverage or improving adequacy, Bell indicated that both must be addressed, as they affect different groups in different ways.

Changes to the level of pension contributions will be relevant to employers and with that PTL insurers given the level of enforcement activity from the Pensions Regulator around failures by employers to meet their auto-enrolment obligations.

Audit regulator proposes updated standards for ‘Third Way’ CDC pensions

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has launched a consultation on proposed revisions to the Technical Actuarial Standard 310 (TAS 310), the key standard governing actuarial work for collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes. The consultation is open for responses until 23 March.

The consultation follows recent government legislation enabling the development of multi-employer CDC arrangements, allowing different employers within broadly the same industry to participate in a single pension scheme. These 'third way' pensions are intended to sit between traditional defined benefit and individual defined contribution schemes, pooling risk collectively among members. The FRC has indicated that the expansion of CDC to multi-employer structures introduces new areas of actuarial work, particularly in supporting trustees and scheme sponsors to ensure fairness between participating employers. In this context, the FRC is seeking to ensure that TAS 310 keeps pace with the evolving legislative and market landscape.

Key elements of the proposed changes include:

Strengthening consistency across actuarial calculations for CDC schemes; and
Introducing explicit requirements around actuarial equivalence, so that the expected value of future benefits accruing to members is aligned with the expected value of contributions paid into the scheme.

The FRC’s executive director of regulatory standards, Mark Babington, emphasised that high-quality actuarial work is essential to maintaining confidence in the UK pensions system and that the updated standard is intended to support informed decision-making as CDC schemes scale to cover more employers and members.

CDC remains a relatively new feature of the UK pensions landscape. Royal Mail launched the first UK CDC scheme in October 2024, under a legislative framework introduced in 2021. In parallel, the Pensions Regulator has proposed a new code of practice to support multi-employer CDC schemes from 2026, setting out authorisation requirements, supervisory expectations and how its statutory powers will be used to oversee these new arrangements.

FRC issues guidance for actuaries to deal with Virgin Media issues

The FRC has also issued practical, non-prescriptive guidance to actuaries tasked with reviewing historic pension scheme alterations impacted by the decision in Virgin Media Ltd v NTL Pension Trustees II Ltd & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 843.

The Virgin Media case raised the risk that historic rule changes to contracted-out schemes could be void if written actuarial confirmation under section 37 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 could not be evidenced, even where confirmation would likely have been given at the time. Draft legislation in the Pension Schemes Bill seeks to address this by allowing “potentially remediable alterations” to be treated as valid, if specified actuarial confirmations are obtained under section 101.

The FRC’s guidance focuses on how actuaries should approach this retrospective exercise. Crucially, it confirms that actuaries are not required to be certain an alteration would have passed the reference scheme test. Instead, they must reach a “reasoned and justifiable” view based on a proportionate review of the information available. The costs aspect of engaging actuaries may well be sought under PTL policies, and if an actuary refuses to agree to retrospectively confirm a change as s.37 compliant this could lead to overpayment and underpayments of benefits.

To read RPC's recent blog post on the FRC guidance, which explores the legislative background, the regulator's expectations and practical examples in much greater depth, click here.

If you have any queries or questions on this topic please do get in contact with a member of the team below, or your usual RPC contact.

Take 10 - 5 March 2026

Thu, 05 Mar 2026 16:03:00 Z

Enhanced Ofcom regulation for video-on-demand services

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has announced that video-on-demand (VoD) services provided by platforms such as Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Disney+, and public service broadcasters like ITVX and Channel 4 will be brought within Ofcom’s regulatory regime under secondary legislation to implement the Media Act 2024. Ofcom intends to introduce a new VoD Code which will set out specific rules for VoD services with over 500,000 UK viewers. This is expected to mirror many of the rules in place for traditional broadcasters under the Broadcasting Code in relation to harmful and offensive content, privacy, fairness and due impartiality and accuracy in news. It will also set minimum accessibility requirements. A public consultation will commence after the relevant services are designated on 1 April 2026, with the final VoD Code expected to be published later this year, before coming into effect one year after publication. Under the new regulatory framework, Ofcom will have powers to investigate alleged breaches of the VoD Code and, if appropriate, impose financial penalties of up to £250,000 or 5% of a service’s UK revenue.

High Court grants limited RRO over findings on allegations of criminal conduct

Mrs Justice Jennifer Eady DBE has granted a reporting restriction order (RRO) under s.4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 in respect of ten findings in her trial judgment in Feldman & Alexander v Gambling Commission [2026] EWHC 474 (KB). The claim relates in part to a criminal investigation by HMRC into a company of where the claimants held senior positions at the relevant time. Eady J held that while there was a public interest in understanding the court's decision on allegations made in open court proceedings, particularly where such allegations concern a regulatory body, the RRO was necessary to avoid a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in respect of criminal proceedings against the claimants due to be tried in 2028. There was a nexus between the court's findings and the matters to be determined in the criminal proceedings, and there was not an insubstantial risk that reporting at this stage would prejudice the claimants on an issue of real significance in those proceedings, notwithstanding the standard judicial direction to jurors to disregard any material outside that adduced as evidence at trial. Eady J was not persuaded by the claimants' request for the RRO to cover the entire judgment, finding that the publication of a redacted judgment would not give rise to a risk of prejudicial speculation as there would be no unfairness to the claimants with the RRO postponing the need for the claimants to explain or comment on the findings.

Updated media guidelines published for police

Following a consultation on its media and communication standards last year, the College of Policing has published new guidance governing police communications with the media. The guidance encourages engagement with the press to rebuild trust and strengthen the relationship between the media and police forces, while combating the proliferation of misinformation through the provision of prompt, accurate information to the public. The guidance provides that the police have no power to stop the press filming or photographing public incidents, should confirm the nationality/ethnicity of suspects arrested in high-profile investigations and release readily available information to the press. The guidance also reiterates the need for openness and transparency in relation to police misconduct cases and that secrecy should be maintained over the name of arrested suspects save where there are exceptional circumstances where there is a legitimate policing purpose to do so, such as a threat to life or the prevention or detection of crime.

New media coalition to challenge unauthorised use of content by AI

Five UK media organisations (BBC, Financial Times, The Guardian, Sky News and Telegraph Media Group), have announced the formation of the Standards for Publisher Usage Rights coalition. The announcement comes in advance of the report and economic impact assessment on AI and copyright policy due to be completed by the UK Government by 18 March 2026. Media stakeholders have expressed concern that the Government may introduce a copyright exception for the use of content in training AI models where this is characterised as being for research purposes. The coalition's mission is to develop shared industry standards governing the use of publishers’ content by AI companies while ensuring that publishers retain practical control of their content and receive fair payment for its use. The coalition also seeks to promote transparency in how content is used and to strengthen the protection of intellectual property rights. The coalition's open letter can be found here.

High Court dismisses appeal over Qur’an burning acquittal

The decision in DPP v Coskun [2026] EWHC 427 (Admin) provides commentary on of the scope and limits of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR. Mr Coskun set fire to a copy of the Qur’an while shouting negative statements about Islam outside the Turkish consulate in London in February 2025. He was charged with religiously aggravated public order offences and subsequently convicted in the Magistrates' Court before being acquitted on appeal to the Crown Court. The DPP appealed the Crown Court's decision. In dismissing the DPP's appeal, the High Court noted that the right to freedom of expression is not confined to the use of written or spoken words but extends to "expressive acts". While it is not an unqualified right, Article 10 does not prohibit provocative or offensive behaviour provided it is not aimed at the destruction of democratic values nor amounts to a criminal offence. The High Court found no error of law in the Crown Court's decision, ruling that it had been entitled to take into account the nature of the protest, its location outside a diplomatic mission, the fact that Mr Coskun was acting alone, and the short time it lasted, when deciding whether his behaviour amounted to criminal conduct. Mr Coskun's actions, which constituted robust political and religious protest, were covered by Article 10 and did not attract criminal liability.

Police and MI5 admit to unlawful surveillance of former BBC journalist

At a hearing before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) last week, the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) admitted that it illegally obtained information relating to over 1,500 telephone calls and texts made and received by Vincent Kearney, a Belfast journalist, between 2009 and 2014 to identify his journalistic sources. This follows admissions by MI5 and the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) that they unlawfully obtained Mr Kearney's data on four separate occasions between 2006 and 2009 and in 2012. The Tribunal reserved its judgment. Mr Kearney's claim follows in the footsteps of the successful IPT claims brought by Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney, two Northen Ireland-based journalists. In 2024, the IPT ruled that they had been subjected to unlawful surveillance by the PSNI and that Mr McCaffrey's phone data had been unlawfully accessed by both the PSNI and the MPS. Various bodies, including the National Union of Journalists and Amnesty International UK, are now calling for a full public inquiry into the unlawful surveillance on journalists.

Nicklin J permits 'key' witness to give evidence remotely

Mr Justice Nicklin has handed down judgment on an application seeking permission for a witness to give evidence via video-link in the ongoing trial in Baroness Lawrence & Ors v Associated Newspapers Limited. The witness's testimony provides the basis for a substantial number of vigorously disputed allegations of unlawful information gathering made against ANL. He previously withdrew his cooperation from the Claimants who rely on his evidence only as hearsay. Under CPR 32.3 and PD32 Annex 3, the Court may permit remote evidence where there is a good reason, a legitimate aim is served, and it accords with the overriding objective. Nicklin J was satisfied that the conditions were met. The witness resides in an undisclosed foreign jurisdiction and is not compellable and refused to voluntarily attend in person due to security concerns but confirmed he would give evidence via video-link. On the evidence before the Court, the law of the foreign state does not prohibit the giving of remote evidence. The witness's evidence was held to be of vital importance to the fair resolution of the issues in dispute with there being a clear benefit for it to be tested adversarially. The trial continues.

Provisional Ofcom finding regarding breach of the Online Safety Act 2023

Ofcom has issued a provisional notice of contravention to the provider of an unnamed online suicide discussion forum under section 130 of the Online Safety Act 2023. After it opened an investigation into the provider last April, the provider implemented a voluntary 'geo-block' to prevent users with UK IP addresses from accessing the forum. However, subsequent monitoring suggested that the block was ineffective or not consistently maintained, with the site still accessible from the UK, including via a 'mirror' domain. Ofcom considers there are reasonable grounds to believe the provider has breached the OSA by failing to carry out an adequate illegal content risk assessment or implement proportionate measures to prevent access toillegal content, and because it lacks effective systems for rapid removal of such content. Ofcom also noted that the platform’s terms of service did not clearly set out protections against illegal content, contrary to statutory requirements. This highlights the limits of simple IP‑based blocking, which can often be bypassed using VPNs or alternative domains if platforms do not deploy more robust technical controls. The provider now has 10 working days to respond to the provisional decision, following which Ofcom may impose fines and/or seek a court order requiring UK internet service providers to block access to the site at a network level.

IPSO find the Daily Telegraph did not breach IPSO Code over claim of "Islamist savagery"

IPSO has found that The Daily Telegraph did not breach Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors' Code in relation to an article published in August 2025 which contained an interview with a woman convicted in relation to a tweet she posted after the Southport attack. The article repeated the woman's assertion that the attacks were "Islamist savagery". The complainant claimed this description was inaccurate and misleading as it could not be objectively verified, that the fact that the attacker was in possession of an Al Qaeda manual did not render the attacks "Islamist savagery" and that the description was not clearly labelled as opinion contrary to Clause 1(iv) which requires clear distinction between comment, conjecture, and fact. IPSO dismissed the complaint, finding that the article was a feature piece which clearly recounted the subjective experience of the author during his interview and made clear that the description was the author's belief, thereby sufficiently distinguishing it from an objective claim of fact. Furthermore, the fact copies of an Al Qaeda manual had been found at the attacker's home was a suitable basis for the author's opinion.

Government launches consultation to protect UK children's digital wellbeing

On 2 March, the UK Government launched "the world's most ambitious" consultation on social media. The consultation seeks to explore measures to keep children safe online across social media, AI chatbots and gaming platforms. Key issues being consulted on include whether there should be a minimum age for social media, whether age verification enforcement should be strengthened and whether children should be able to use AI chatbots without restriction. A parallel academic panel will also assess the expanding evidence base arising from the experiences of other countries. For example, Australia recently banned under-16s from using major social media services through legislation which requires platforms to implement extensive age verification methods to prevent under-16s from accessing their services or face fines of up to £25m for serious or repeated breaches. Two months in, recent media reporting suggests the ban is not watertight. The consultation closes on 26 May 2026.

Quote of the fortnight

"Our courts have, once again, laid bare a deeply troubling pattern: covert and unlawful surveillance of journalists, coupled with a reckless disregard for press freedom by both police forces and the security service… No press can remain truly free while secretly monitored by the very power it is meant to hold accountable."

Patrick Corrigan, Northern Ireland Director of Amnesty International, 26 February 2026

Court of Appeal considers burden of proof in penalty appeals

Thu, 05 Mar 2026 10:00:00 Z

In HMRC v Sintra Global Inc and another [2025] EWCA Civ 1661, the Court of Appeal decided that taxpayers, not HMRC, must prove they are not liable to the underlying tax when challenging penalties.

The Work Couch: Non-financial misconduct, regulation and the law (Part 1): What’s on the horizon for 2026?

Wed, 04 Mar 2026 16:14:00 Z

Later this year, extensive regulatory and legislative reforms will transform how employers tackle bullying, harassment and other toxic behaviour at work.

Tax Bites - March 2026

Wed, 04 Mar 2026 15:06:00 Z

News

HMRC publishes lists of partner jurisdictions and reportable jurisdictions for the Cryptoasset Reporting Framework

HMRC has revised its International Exchange of Information Manual confirming the partner and reportable jurisdictions relevant to the implementation of the OECD’s Cryptoasset Reporting Framework (CARF) in the UK.

The CARF regime has applied since 1 January 2026. It requires UK reporting cryptoasset service providers (RCASPs) to carry out customer due diligence in relation to specified cryptoasset transactions and to submit prescribed information to HMRC.

HMRC will then automatically exchange information about customers resident in a 'reporting jurisdiction' with that jurisdiction. If the RCASP has a closer nexus with a 'partner jurisdiction' than the UK, it only needs to report to the tax authority of that partner jurisdiction.

IEIM8000710 provides a list of partner jurisdictions for the 2026 reporting year and IEIM8000720 provides a list of the reporting jurisdictions for that year.

HMRC updates its guidance to help agents prepare for the launch of "Making Tax Digital for Income Tax" in April 2026

HMRC has updated its guidance for agents to help them prepare for the launch of "Making Tax Digital for Income Tax" in April 2026.

The guidance explains that, from April 2026, landlords and sole traders with an annual turnover of over £50,000 will need to use HMRC-recognised software to keep digital records and submit quarterly updates of income and expenses.

You can read HMRC's guidance here.

HMRC publishes the latest edition of its bi-annual Trusts and Estates Newsletter

HMRC has published the latest edition of its Trusts and Estates Newsletter, providing updates and guidance on inheritance tax and trusts.

The newsletter covers a range of technical and administrative points, including inheritance tax reporting (with specific reference to cryptoassets), Automatic Exchange of Information obligations, changes affecting Employee Ownership Trusts and capital gains tax, and practical service updates from HMRC.

You can read HMRC's newsletter here.

HMRC publishes Loan Charge operational activity briefing paper following the recent review of the Loan Charge

HMRC has published a briefing paper explaining its operational activity following the recent review of the Loan Charge carried out by Ray McCann.

The note sets out HMRC’s approach to implementing the government’s response to the Loan Charge review announced in Budget 2025, including the operational steps it is taking for taxpayers who used disguised remuneration tax avoidance arrangements and how the new settlement opportunity will be rolled out.

You can read HMRC’s briefing paper here.

Case reports

Upper Tribunal dismisses HMRC's appeal and confirms no general principle of reciprocal disclosure

In HMRC v Ducas Ltd [2025] UKUT 362 (TCC), the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed HMRC's appeal against certain case management directions issued by the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) and confirmed that there is no general rule that extended disclosure must apply equally to both sides in a tax dispute.

Although the UT’s decision may not be surprising given the high threshold for interfering with case-management decisions of the FTT it is nevertheless significant in confirming that there is no general principle of reciprocity in the disclosure regime before the FTT.

The UT's decision also serves as a reminder that disclosure applications must be determined on the specific facts and circumstances of the case. HMRC had based its disclosure application almost exclusively on the basis of reciprocity. It had not advanced a broader, fact-specific argument for why extended disclosure from the taxpayer was necessary. If it had done so, it might have been more successful.

You can read our commentary on the decision here.

Upper Tribunal considers 'wholly and exclusively' test in the context of SDLT and ATED

In Investment and Securities Trust Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKUT 00331 (TCC), the UT considered the different 'wholly and exclusively' tests which apply to Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) and Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings (ATED). The UT held that a company holding a property option for redevelopment and resale qualified for ATED relief but not relief from the 15% higher rate of SDLT upon acquisition, as the property was not held exclusively for a qualifying trade purpose at that time.

This decision highlights an important distinction between acquisition purpose (for SDLT) and holding purpose (for ATED). It confirms that non-commercial, or shareholder-driven motives at the point of acquisition, can defeat SDLT relief even where the underlying land is intended for development.

By contrast, the UT’s approach to ATED recognises that purposes may change over time and that relief can become available once any non-qualifying acquisition purpose has fallen away. The decision therefore reinforces the need for a temporal and fact-sensitive analysis when advising on ATED liability.

The decision will be of particular interest to property developers using options or other non-standard acquisition structures, especially where connected parties are involved. While such arrangements may be commercially expedient, they may prevent SDLT relief if they serve mixed purposes at acquisition.

You can read our commentary on the decision here.

Court of Appeal confirms that expenses paid by an umbrella company were taxable

In Mainpay Ltd v HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 1290, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that travel and subsistence expenses paid by an umbrella company to its employees were taxable because there were no single, overarching, employment contracts between the two parties.

The Court of Appeal also confirmed that for HMRC to benefit from the 6 year extended time limit for making a discovery assessment based on a taxpayer's 'careless' conduct, it must establish a causal link between the taxpayer's carelessness and the loss of tax.

This case illustrates the high level of care that must be taken by advisors and their clients to ensure that they adopt the correct approach when seeking to make payments to employees tax-free. Professional advisors should always give careful consideration to whether they have the necessary expertise to provide specialist tax advice.

You can read our commentary on the decision here.

And finally …

Adam Craggs and Liam McKay have published an article in Tax Journal focussing on the key developments in the contentious tax arena during 2025. In particular, the tightening of procedural frameworks in tax litigation, clarifying case law on issues such as late and burden-of-proof appeals, and HMRC’s intensified focus on avoidance and criminal compliance activity that is likely to shape the disputes landscape in 2026.

You can read the article here.

Spotlight on Private Wealth - March 2026

Wed, 04 Mar 2026 09:35:00 Z

This update is designed to keep you on top of developments in the private wealth world. In this edition, we explore a broad range of topics including whether the exchange of WhatsApp messages could satisfy the requirements of the Law of Property Act 1925, HMRC's "non-dom" nudge campaign and answer questions around the impact of the Autumn Budget on personal finances and more.

We hope you find this update helpful and interesting. As always, if you would like to find out more about the issues covered or discuss anything else, please do get in touch.

The big question

Can you transfer property by WhatsApp?

What's new?

Llama drama: charity gifts and changing legal structures
Court rejects claim by estranged daughter
HMRC's "non-dom" nudge campaign
Important cryptoassets developments

RPC asks

What do you do if beneficiaries do not engage?
When can you remove a trustee?
What does the 2025 Autumn Budget mean for your personal finances?

And finally in the art world…

The conclusions of Art Basel and UBS's Survey of Global Collecting

See document below. Or view it in full screen here.

Mexico - From Cartel Retaliation to Policy Response: Navigating Coverage After Violent Rampage

Tue, 03 Mar 2026 12:11:00 Z

Members of the Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generación (CJNG) went on a violent rampage after the Mexican army killed cartel boss Nemesio “El Mencho” Oseguera, setting fire to cars, malls, and convenience stores, and blocking roads by throwing spikes and nails onto the tarmac.

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 27 February 2026

Fri, 27 Feb 2026 14:06:00 Z

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Headline Development

Seven influencers sentenced for unlawful financial promotions

Seven social media influencers have been sentenced at Southwark Crown Court for promoting an unauthorised foreign exchange trading scheme.

Biggs Chris, Jamie Clayton, Lauren Goodger, Rebecca Gormley, Yazmin Oukhellou, Scott Timlin and Eva Zapico each pleaded guilty to one count of communicating unauthorised financial promotions.

The court imposed the following penalties:

Lauren Goodger was fined £3,750 and ordered to pay costs of £5,778.18.
Biggs Chris was fined £600 and ordered to pay £1,000 in costs.
Jamie Clayton was fined £820 and ordered to pay £1,000 in costs.
Rebecca Gormley received a conditional discharge and was ordered to pay £2,866.42 in costs.
Yazmin Oukhellou was fined £974 and ordered to pay £1,000 in costs.
Scott Timlin was fined £938 and ordered to pay £1,000 in costs.
Eva Zapico received an absolute discharge and was ordered to pay £1,770.44 in costs.

The FCA said the individuals had promoted the scheme to a combined social media following of around 4.5 million people.

Steve Smart, executive director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA, said the regulator would continue to take action against those who unlawfully promote financial products and would work with responsible influencers to improve standards.

To read more, please click here.

Auditors

What next for audit and regulatory reform in 2026?

The Government may have scrapped the Audit Reform and Corporate Governance Bill (the Bill), but that does not mean reform has fallen away altogether. Sophie Wales, ICAEW’s Director of Regulatory Policy, sets out what is still expected.

One of the headline measures in the Bill was the creation of the Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority (the ARGA) to replace the Financial Reporting Council. With the Bill withdrawn, ARGA will not now be established. That said, the government has indicated it still plans to put the FRC on a statutory footing. Wales makes clear that it is not yet obvious what that will involve in practice, or what it will mean for ICAEW in its role as an audit regulator and for its firms and members.

There is also uncertainty around other parts of audit reform. This includes insolvency regulation. At present, insolvency is regulated on an individual basis. There have been proposals to move to firm-based regulation, in line with other areas. The scrapping of the Bill means those changes are likely to be delayed, although Wales suggests they could still happen at some point.

Anti-money laundering supervision is another area facing change. Under current proposals, professional bodies would no longer act as AML supervisors, with responsibility transferring to the Financial Conduct Authority. Wales says this is a significant development and confirms that ICAEW is engaging with Government to understand what it means and how members would be supported through any transition.

On tax, the government has decided not to establish a new independent regulator for the profession and will not require tax advisers to belong to a professional body. Instead, advisers will need to register with HMRC. A tougher penalty regime is also expected, including stricter consequences for advisers who intentionally facilitate a tax loss, potentially extending to paying part of a client’s underpaid tax.

Local audit reform is also in train. A new Local Audit Office is expected to be set up in the autumn. As part of the revised system, ICAEW will act as the new External Registration Body overseeing local audit work. Wales notes that firms not currently active in this area may want to consider whether it is something to expand into.

Wales stresses that there are no immediate actions required from firms. However, she says it is important to stay informed so firms understand how these developments may affect them going forward.

To read more, please click here.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

FCA updates examples of good and bad practice for smaller firms’ Consumer Duty board reports

On 24 February 2026, the FCA updated its webpage setting out examples of good and bad practice in Consumer Duty board reports. The update is intended to provide guidance on how smaller firms can meet its requirements.

Firms within scope of the Consumer Duty must provide an annual report for their governing body setting out the results of their monitoring of customer outcomes and any actions required as a result of that monitoring.

Following its 2024 review of board reports, the FCA said it recognised that smaller firms face different challenges. It has therefore set out suggestions on how smaller firms might meet the requirements and indicated that it is open to considering more targeted work where that would be beneficial.

The updated guidance covers four areas:

On governance, the FCA acknowledges that smaller firms may lack dedicated compliance and audit functions. It suggests that firms could benefit from appointing a knowledgeable “critical friend” to provide impartial feedback on their approach to Consumer Duty. This could include informal benchmarking, identifying practical improvements and supporting forward-looking activities such as horizon scanning.
On monitoring and outcomes, firms are encouraged, where proportionate, to draw insights from external data sources, including the Financial Ombudsman Service and relevant trade bodies.
In relation to actions taken to comply with Consumer Duty obligations, the FCA notes that smaller firms may find external experts, including trade bodies, helpful in advising on effective actions. Firms could also build the gathering of customer feedback into their interactions.
On future business strategy, the FCA makes clear that although smaller firms may encounter fewer customers with different specific needs, they are still expected to learn from transactions with different groups of customers to ensure they deliver good outcomes in the future.

Separately, in CP25/37 the FCA proposed piloting a sector-specific, directory-style guide for the credit broking sector, setting out examples of good and poor practice. It is currently analysing feedback and developing more detailed options to test with stakeholders. It will continue to engage with its Smaller Business Practitioner Panel and other smaller firm stakeholders.

The FCA has also published a new webpage providing information about the Consumer Duty, including information on the outcomes it wants to see.

To read more, please click here.

FCA intends to launch review of AI use by the Insurance Industry

On 24 February 2026, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) stated its intention to launch an investigation into the use of artificial intelligence (AI) by insurers.

The investigation forms the latest step in the strategy outlined in the FCA's Regulatory Priorities Document for the insurance sector. Previously, the FCA had warned insurers about the risks of reduced transparency with the automation of underwriting decisions.

There are concerns that personal risk factors are being automated into underwriting algorithms and that this will unfairly prejudice certain consumer groups. In 2022, the FCA noted that there was a particular risk of "ethical harm" in protected characteristics such as race being used as factors to calculate the price of insurance cover where underwriting decisions were automated.

The FCA has acknowledged the difficulty with introducing AI safely and responsibly and has pledged to support insurers' use of AI. The regulator has however stressed that insurers "must monitor outcomes for consumers closely".

To read more, please click here.

FCA consults on data sharing requirements for firms in the credit and mortgage markets

On Wednesday the FCA opened a consultation on its approach to implementing remedies following its credit information market study (CIMS) in December 2023.

The proposals include a mandatory reporting requirement for firms in the credit and mortgage markets and connected obligations to create a regulatory framework for how credit information is shared and used across these markets.

Consultation paper (CP26/7) sets out new Handbook rules to improve the coverage and quality of credit information. It focuses on:

Remedy 2A: Mandatory data sharing with designated consumer credit reference agencies (DCCRAs). The FCA is proposing new mandatory reporting requirements for firms undertaking certain activities to share consumer credit information with DCCRAs, including related obligations concerning the use of consumer credit information.
Remedy 2D: Requirements for firms on improving the accuracy of information shared, including processes for dealing with error correction/disputes and reporting satisfied County Court Judgments (CCJs).

To access the consultation (which closed on 1 May 2026) please click here.

FCA announces Regulatory Priorities reports

On 24 February 2026, the FCA announced that it will be publishing regulatory priorities reports (the Reports), setting out the FCA's specific key priorities for each sector. The FCA states that the Reports will replace portfolio letters, and that they have been shaped by feedback from firms, trade bodies, and other stakeholders.

By replacing the portfolio letters, the FCA is aiming to provide a clearer, more consistent way of communicating its sector-specific priorities, and to help firms understand what it expects and where to focus. This will be in terms of helping firms better understand what's expected, strengthening compliance, supporting innovation, and ultimately delivering improved outcomes for consumers. Where there are market events and other identified risks, the FCA has said that it will respond.

The FCA states that firms will need to identify which priorities and recommendations apply to them, and whether they have business lines which could be included in other Reports.

This new approach was tested with pilot for insurance firms, and in March 2026, reports will be published for the following sectors:

Consumer investment
Pensions
Retail banking and mortgages
Consumer finance
Wholesale buy-side
Wholesale markets
Payments

To read the FCA's announcement, please click here.

To read the FCA's accompanying blog, please click here.

FCA's Enforcement Watch reveals regulator's approach to naming and shaming firms

The FCA has published its first Enforcement Watch newsletter which provides insight into the watchdog's enforcement activity and the circumstances in which it will 'name and shame' firms under investigation.

The focus of the newsletter is the FCA's "publicity policy in action", with the FCA confirming its approach to the 'exceptional circumstances' test in its publicity policy. In brief, the FCA will only name a firm or individual subject to an enforcement investigation if it is desirable to:

Maintain public confidence in the UK financial system or the market.
Protect consumers or investors.
Prevent widespread malpractice.
Help the investigation itself. For example, by bringing forward witnesses.
Maintain the smooth operation of the market.

The newsletter confirms:

When we open a case, we will always consider whether to announce and regularly revisit this through the course of the investigation. In deciding whether to make an announcement, we consider the potential prejudice that we believe may be caused to any persons who are, or are likely to be, a subject of the investigation.

This is reflected in the FCA's approach to enforcement, based on the newsletter which confirms that 6 of the 23 enforcement operations opened between 3 June and 31 December 2025 involved investigations into individuals which have not been publicised because "the bar for announcing an investigation into an individual is high". The FCA has also opened 12 operations into authorised firms but named only one as a firm under investigation – The Claims Protection Agency Ltd (TCPA) – on the basis it met the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test because of the FCA's concerns about harm in the motor finance area, with TCPA said to have mislead and unfairly promoted motor finance complaints. Readers may recall that TCPA brought an unsuccessful judicial review application challenging the FCA's decision to announce the investigation.

The FCA has also confirmed 3 investigations into listed issuers following an announcement by the firm under investigation (these were John Wood Group plc, Drax Group plc, and WH Smith plc).

The fact that only 1 of the 23 enforcement operations has been found to have met the 'exceptional circumstances' threshold would suggest that the FCA will be applying the test properly, and any decision to name a firm will not have been taken lightly.

Click here to read the Enforcement Watch 1.

Independent Football Regulator and FCA Memorandum of Understanding

On 24 February 2025, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Independent Football Regulator (IFR) signed a memorandum of understanding (Memorandum). The Memorandum establishes a framework for how the two organisations will share information and cooperation where there is an overlap between football governance and financial regulation.

The Memorandum sets out the legal basis for the sharing of information between the two organisations, and how requests for information should be made.

The hope is that structured collaboration between the FCA and IDR will provide clarity on which organisation is to lead on specific issues, thereby reducing the risk of regulatory gaps and duplication.

The Memorandum will be subject to an annual review.

To read more, please click here.

With thanks to this week's contributors: James Parsons, Alison Thomas, Daniel Goh, Heather Buttifant, Ben Simmonds, Kerone Thomas, Rebekah Bayliss

If you have any queries please do get in contact with a member of the team below, or your usual RPC contact.

The Week That Was - 27 February 2026

Fri, 27 Feb 2026 13:46:00 Z

GRAHAM appointed to build forensics facility

GRAHAM has secured a £69.7m appointment to deliver a new forensic facility for the Department of Justice in Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland. The scheme, known as Project Atlas, will provide 10,400 sq. meters of new office and laboratory space for Forensic Science Northern Ireland. Work will involve the construction of a three-story building alongside ancillary buildings. GRAHAM out-performed four other bidders for the contract and Hamilton Architects have now been appointed as project architect. Work is planned to start at the end of the 2025/26 financial year, following an initial six-month detailed design period. Commenting on the development, Northern Ireland justice minister Noami long said "[Project Atlas] will ensure that all FSNI staff have the opportunity to work in modern, fit for purpose office and laboratory accommodation that will enable the continued delivery of a valued service for the criminal justice system."

The full article can be accessed here and here [Requires Subscription].

13,000 construction apprenticeship opportunities created

The UK government has launched a major initiative to tackle construction skills shortages through its school rebuilding and refurbishment programme, creating 13,000 apprenticeship and T Level placement opportunities. Construction companies on school projects must support training, with 90% of roles based within 30 miles of the site to benefit local communities and help meet the target of two-thirds of young people in education, employment, or training by 2028. Backed by nearly £300 million for colleges, a new network of Construction Technical Excellence Colleges and almost £20 billion for school rebuilding to 2034-35, the strategy is underpinned by faster apprenticeship approvals and longer, eight-year contracts, giving industry greater certainty to invest in skills and innovation.

The full article can be read here.

CJC interim report generally seeks to maintain the status quo for AI use in legal proceedings

On 17 February 2026, the Civil Justice Council released an interim report and consultation process concerning the use of AI when preparing court documents.

A critical proposal of the interim report is that parties must confirm that AI has not been used to generate the content of trial witness statements. It is also proposed that expert statements should include a declaration indicating if AI has been used and if so, in what way and the specific tools relied upon. No changes are proposed for statements of case, skeleton arguments, and disclosure where a legal representative takes professional responsibility for their content. A final report is expected to be released following the close of the consultation process on 14 April 2026.

You can read the interim report here and participate in the consultation process here.

A timely reminder on the grounds for extending service of the claim form

Lloyds Developments Ltd (in administration) v Accor SA [2026] EWHC 232 (TCC) (Lloyds Developments) concerned a successful challenge by the Defendant of a without-notice application made to the Court extending the six-month time frame afforded to the Claimant to serve the Claim Form. The Court ultimately rescinded the extension of time sought by the Claimant to serve the Claim Form in France because the Claimant had not acted with due expedition to serve the Claim Form and when making the application to extend time, did not provide full and accurate disclosure of the effect such an extension may have on a limitations defence which could be pursued by the Defendant.

The Court found that the Claim Form had been served outside the limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act 1980 such that the Defendant was entitled to a declaration that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the claim.

Read the full decision here.

Bouygues challenges DfE over lost place on £15.4bn framework

Bouygues Construction is challenging the UK Department for Education (DfE) after losing its place on a £15.4bn six-year construction framework. The contractor missed out on one of 10 places to build and repair schools, colleges and universities in the south and east of England, with each project worth more than £12m. Bouygues has lodged a claim with the High Court, which alleges “multiple manifest errors” in the evaluation process, including factual misunderstandings, inconsistent marking, unjustified score reductions at moderation, lack of transparency and unequal treatment compared with competitors. The DfE told Bouygues its application was out of time, but the contractor refutes this. Bouygues seeks to have the award decision set aside, for its bid to be reassessed or the framework expanded to 11 places, and claims damages for loss of profit, bid costs and interest.

For further reading, please click here.

Galliford Try wins 333m Clarion homes job in Chester

Galliford Try has won a £32.8m design-and-build contract to deliver 126 homes in Chester for Clarion Housing. The contract, valued at £27.3m excluding VAT, covers the design and construction of the residential units plus associated external works, utilities and drainage. Clarion Housing Property Development Services, acting as contracting authority, followed a competitive, flexible, procedure under the Procurement Act 2023. Two tenders were received and assessed at final stage, with Winvic Construction being the unsuccessful tenderer. The decision was made on 29 October 2025, with assessment summaries issued the same day to the tenderers. The standstill period is due to end on 27 February 2026, and the earliest contract signature is set for 3 March 2026. The contract is scheduled to run from 3 March 2026 to 29 February 2028. The project forms part of the wider £120m City Place regeneration scheme, led by Muse Developments, a subsidiary of Morgan Sindall.

For further reading, please click here.

With thanks to Aleksander Polaszek, Ryan Loney and Carita Hui

If you have any queries please do get in contact with a member of the team below, or your usual RPC contact.

Generative AI EU Market Survey – key takeaways from EIOPA's report

Fri, 27 Feb 2026 13:30:00 Z

Not long after the publication of a UK Treasury Committee report into AI in financial services (see our previous update here), EIOPA (the European Supervisory Authority responsible for insurance sector oversight) has published the results of its survey into the use of generative AI (GenAI) which looks at outlook, use cases and risk management.

Sports Ticker #146 - Man City’s Revolut-ionary partnership and RPC's IFR Guide Launch - a speed read of commercial updates from the sports world

Thu, 26 Feb 2026 15:55:00 Z

As always, if there are any issues on which you’d like more information (or if you have any questions or feedback), please do let us know or get in touch with your usual contact at RPC.

Bank-to-Back Champions: Revolut to sponsor Manchester City
Manchester City has announced fintech brand Revolut as its latest shirt sponsor, in a multi-year arrangement that builds on an existing deal with Manchester City Women. The deal will see Revolut’s branding on the back of the men’s team shirts in domestic cup matches, and on women’s team kits in WSL and cup fixtures. Revolut will also integrate its payment tools into the club’s financial infrastructure, with plans to implement Revolut Pay (and its associated rewards scheme, RevPoints) across customer facing transactions. The partnership adds to an ever-growing portfolio of high value sports partnerships for Revolut, including the NBA, the Audi F1 team, and French rugby giants Toulouse. Revolut’s Chief Marketing Officer, Antoine Nel, stated that Revolut aims to integrate “into the heart of fan experiences at the club, ensuring City fans enjoy the same fast, seamless and rewarding interaction with their football club as they do with their finances”. Will the partnership pay off for the payment pioneers? Stay tuned.

Paddock Politics: teams escalate engine loophole dispute
F1 pre-season testing is under way, and as with any new engine regulations, teams are starting to see where competitors have tested the limits. As readers may be aware, the 2026 rulebook limits F1 engine compression ratios (i.e. the amount fuel can be squeezed before combustion) to 16:1. Higher compression allows fuel to reach greater temperatures before ignition, generating more power. The dispute centres on how the ratio is measured. It is currently only tested on cold engines, and reports suggest Mercedes has achieved an 18:1 ratio at full operating temperature. Such gains could be worth several tenths of a second per lap – a significant advantage in F1. Rival manufacturers Ferrari, Honda, and Audi have urged the FIA to consider the case carefully and close any loopholes, with Red Bull team principal Laurent Mekies calling for “clarity”. A rule change before the Bahrain season opener appears likely, after the FIA confirmed a proposal to measure compression ratios at both ambient and operating temperatures, potentially affecting Mercedes-powered teams including reigning Constructors’ Champions McLaren.

Regulatory Reckoning: Unlicensed betting backers face the final whistle
The Department of Culture, Media and Sport has launched a consultation that could see unlicensed gambling operators banned from sponsoring British sports teams. Currently, operators serving UK-based consumers must be licensed by the Gambling Commission. The Commission ensures that operators provide adequate consumer protections, including financial vulnerability checks. The Premier League has already resolved to remove all gambling operators from front-of-shirt sponsorship at the end of this season. However, it did not exclude gambling operators (licensed or unlicensed) from other shirt placements or adverts in stadiums. As of March 2025, the total gross gambling yield in the UK was £16.8 billion, and the industry is projected to reach a global valuation of almost $1.1 trillion by 2035. At the consultation launch, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said, “fans deserve to know the sites they’re using are properly regulated”, and that “it’s not right” that unlicensed companies can use large British sports teams to promote their operations.

GFA targets boxing trade union turning point
The Global Fighters' Association (GFA) has announced plans to attempt to create a trade union for professional boxers. If successful, the GFA would be a breakthrough for the profession, with no existing organisation of its kind. Previous attempts include one by former world champion Barry McGuigan, who attempted to launch a trade union, with only 5% of boxers at the time able to secure their futures with boxing alone. However, one of the key difficulties the union faced at the time was convincing boxers to sacrifice a portion of their earnings. To resolve this, the GFA is opting for a novel approach to funding, seeking support from promoters and fans. The GFA has appealed to promoters to add a small booking fee for the union to their ticket sales. With the contributions, the GFA seeks to look after fighters not only during their years in the ring, but also once they hang up their gloves.

Football's Future Framework: RPC unveils IFR Guide
RPC has launched its Independent Football Regulator Guide this week, designed to keep clubs informed on all things IFR. The guide, which discusses impact of the Football Governance Act 2025, both now and in the future. The guide includes a timeline, detailing when to prepare for key milestones, an overview of the IFR’s powers, and guidance on how to challenge its decisions. The launch is timely, following the IFR’s announcement that it has finalised its board lineup – a key step before further statutory powers are activated. IFR Chair David Kogan has stated that 2026 will be a “big year for the regulator” as it prepares to roll out its licensing system. Clubs are already showing willingness to proactively engage with the new regime. This month, League Two side Chesterfield FC offered to become a “pilot club” for the Regulator, seeking to get “governance, financial controls and processes in line with the regulator’s requirements at the earliest opportunity”. Be sure to take a look at the Guide for practical tips and key updates – if you bookmark the link, it will automatically be updated as and when changes or developments are added! https://rpc.foleon.com/ifr-guide/home/

Extra time...

...and finally, controversy erupted on the ice at the 2026 Winter Olympic curling competition, as Canada's Marc Kennedy became involved in a heated altercation with Sweden's Oskar Eriksson during Canada's 8-6 win. Kennedy was accused of double-touching his stones after release, which the Swedes alleged should have led to the stone being removed from play. Kennedy vehemently denied the allegation, but footage later circulated of him engaging in the prohibited conduct. The consequent backlash caused the authority to amend the rules, allowing teams to request reviews where they suspect rule violations. Canada went on to win gold in a dramatic men's final against Team GB (who also received a warning earlier in the competition after World Curling stepped in with extra officials to monitor deliveries). The final was viewed by a peak audience of 5.5 million viewers, part of a record breaking 83 million streams of the 2026 Games via the BBC.

Lawyers Covered - February 2026

Thu, 26 Feb 2026 13:21:00 Z

Mazur Monday

The Court of Appeal hearing of the appeal in Mazur was set to begin in at 2pm on Monday 23 February 2026, and the court took the unusual step of locking down the live feed of the hearing.

Rather than broadcasting the appeal on its YouTube channel in the usual way, the court ordered on the Friday before the hearing that only those with written permission from the court could view the proceedings. Applicants were required to confirm that they would be geographically located within the jurisdiction of England and Wales whilst watching, and provide reasons why they want to watch the proceedings – and explain why it would be in the interests of justice to do so.

The measures, which were made of the Court of Appeal's own volition, were explained by the court as necessary to manage the great public interest, including interest from media representatives and members of the public.

Meanwhile, CILEX, which is intervening in the proceedings, has shared its skeleton argument with the Law Gazette, who reported that CILEX intends to argue that Parliament never intended the Legal Services Act to alter the settled position that solicitors could conduct litigation through unauthorised but supervised staff. The Law Society and the SRA, who are both opposing the appeal, will make their submissions on Wednesday afternoon, with the Legal Services Board and Julia Mazur also making submissions before CILEX responds on Thursday afternoon.

Court rejects prolific fare dodger’s bid to derail prosecutions using Mazur argument

The uncertainty caused by the decision in Mazur continues to swirl as our Court systems starts to see the decision being deployed in an attempt to strike out claims before they have really started.

Prolific fare dodger, Charles Brohiri, sought to argue that 39 of his 113 offences should be dismissed in full as they had been commenced by 'lay prosecutors' in contradiction of the decision of Mazur, which held that the conduct of litigation is a reserved legal activity. A lay prosecutor is someone who does not hold a formal law degree or legal qualification but initiates or presents criminal cases.

The Judge ruled that Mazur had no relevance in this case as a lay prosecutor could commence proceedings as an exempt person under the Legal Services Act 2007, here, because they were an employee of Govia. The Judge also ruled that it was clearly not the intention of parliament to nullify this type of prosecution and that, in any event, the Court had granted rights of audience through practice and conventions for those individuals.

Whilst the judgment handed down is currently awaiting appeal, it is expected (and hoped) that as the decision is considered further by the Courts and Judges, clarity will be provided on the legal position for firms and individuals alike.

Ministry of Justice's proposal to fund justice system from interest on solicitor's client accounts

The Government is consulting on a proposed 'Interest on Lawyers' Client Account Scheme' (the Scheme), through which it says the legal sector would contribute to ensuring the long-term sustainability of the justice system.

The Scheme, which is said to be similar to models used in several other overseas jurisdictions, would apply to all regulated legal services providers and would require providers to remit to government 75% (but potentially up to 100%) of the total interest generated on pooled client accounts, and 50% of interest generated on individual client accounts.

Under the Scheme:

Client money is deposited in an account meeting the Scheme's core requirements, including paying a rate of interest comparable to other interest-bearing accounts offered.
Interest is generated daily and credited to the account periodically.
A proportion of that interest is transferred to the Scheme administrator periodically.
Interest remaining is left in the account to be managed as usual by the provider, subject to rules on interest set by regulators.

Opening the consultation, Lord Chancellor David Lamy said that 'law firms thrive when the system is strong, so it follows that they should contribute to strengthening justice'. The consultation refers to other jurisdictions with similar schemes as examples, such an Australian scheme that funds the regulation of the profession and provides grants. However, the government's proposals would fund the MoJ's central account but would not allocate funds to specific projects.

There are concerns that many firms are dependent on client account interest and would fail without this income. A Solicitors Regulation Authority consultation on consumer protection found that 5-10% of UK law firms would experience 'financial failure or serious financial consequences' without the income from client account interest if they do not raise fees. The majority will be smaller high street firms which makes the possible consequence of fees rising detrimental to access to justice.

Further criticism has highlighted potential loopholes that firms could pursue, such as negotiating better conditions with their banks (such as lower interest on borrowings) in return for not earning interest on their client accounts.

The consultation seeks information from legal services providers as to how they currently treat client account interest, and views on what impact that the Scheme may have. The closing date for responses is 9 February 2026.

"No win, you could still incur some charges, and if you do win, there will be fees, disbursements and possibly more that you will need to pay for"

This description is not quite as 'catchy' as the well-known 'no win, no fee' reference that is made to conditional fee agreements. However, this may be more akin to the transparency that the government is calling for in respect of these fee agreements.

The Justice Minister is calling on the SRA and Financial Conduct Authority for tighter regulations on conditional fee agreements. Their aim is to avoid consumers being exposed to potentially unexpected fees as a result of poorly explained agreements.

Both regulators are alive to the issues and are already taking steps to improve the position for consumers. On 28 January 2026, the SRA issued a warning notice in respect of "'no win, no fee' and other fee arrangements in high-volume consumer claims". The SRA say that this is in "response to evidence of widespread poor practice in the sector, which is putting the public at significant risk". The warning notice reiterates the potential enforcement action that may be taken against firms if there is a failure to adhere to the relevant principles. We can expect to see the SRA apply a firm approach when investigating and dealing with issues that now arise. Firms would be wise to take heed of this warning and ensure that they fully comply with their obligations when entering into these agreements. Transparency for the consumer is key!

Could you be liable for AI-use (or failing to use AI)?

The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT) has published a consultation on its draft Legal Statement on Liability for AI Harms under private law in England and Wales.

In the Legal Statement, AI is defined as "a technology that is autonomous", given that there is no one universal, or legal, definition.

The Statement emphasises that AI has no legal personality and liability must be attached to legal persons in the private law of England and Wales i.e. the laws of contract, tort and statutory product liability.

Professionals including lawyers, accountants, architects and clinicians who owe contractual and tortious duties to their clients to exercise reasonable care and skill, must be cautious when using AI in the course of their work to avoid liability.

Breaches of these professional duties may occur if a professional fails to conduct proper due diligence on AI systems, or uses a tool without a sufficient high-level understanding of the tool's operations and limitations. Professionals must ensure transparency with clients in respect of significant AI use, and not mishandle confidential or privileged information, for example, by inputting sensitive information into an AI chat tool that is not secure. A lack of human oversight over the outputs of AI systems generally, and failure to 'fact-check' AI-generated content, particularly in the context of high-stakes decisions (for example in clinical, litigation and transactional settings), is likely to constitute a breach of professional duties. A client relying on an AI-generated statement shared by a professional could amount to negligent misrepresentation, if the statement is in fact false and the client suffers some detriment as a result.

Alternatively, failing to use AI, if appropriate, in circumstances where it is increasingly becoming standard practice could also be negligent.

The Statement makes clear that professionals should ensure appropriate AI use, rather than avoiding its use entirely. Firms should familiarise themselves with the statement to ensure that they understand their exposure to liability for AI-related harms.

SRA reveals its plans to shape up following LSB sanction

The SRA has published an implementation plan to respond to the binding directions made by the LSB to the Law Society. The Legal Services Act 2007 gives the LSB powers to sanction a regulator that it is concerned is failing to meet the required standard, including by issuing binding directions or, in extreme cases, by intervening into or ordering the cancellation of its approval as a regulator. The LSB exercised these powers in May 2025, issuing binding directions requiring the SRA to improve the way it identifies and responds to risk. The LSB's actions arose from an independent report it commissioned, which led it to conclude that the SRA's conduct has had, or is likely to have, an adverse impact on its regulatory objectives.

The SRA's response confirms that it will review the current regulatory rules relating to governance, risk management, authorisation, client money protection, authorisation, client money protection, the oversight of firm sales, mergers and acquisitions, and pre-intervention process. The SRA intends to make improvements to record keeping, training and guidance, consumer impact assessments, periodic reviews, and data and market intelligence.

The SRA implementation plan will likely have a big impact on firms with changes expected to the regulations regarding:

How the SRA deals with firms with financial instability.
How the SRA controls and checks the way firms handle client money.
The circumstances when firms must notify the SRA of a significant change to their profile due to sales, mergers and acquisitions.
The circumstances in which individuals can hold more than one role in a firm e.g. compliance officer, MLCO, owner etc.

The SRA will submit an application to the LSB for any proposed changes to the regulations by the end of May 2026. It is unclear, at present, the precise changes the SRA intends to make but firms should expect changes to the rules on individuals' roles in law firms (with potential changes to individuals who currently hold those roles), the reporting of firms' finances (including client accounts) and, the rules on sales, mergers and acquisitions. The proposed changes are likely to lead to increased SRA scrutiny of firms, including individuals with significant control, particularly in relation to operational and financial decisions about how the firm is run, with a view to protecting consumers and the public from any potential resulting harm. It is important firms stay informed of the proposed changes to ensure firms comply with their regulatory duties.

The SRA's full implementation plan can be found here.

To disclose or not to disclose – where do firms stand on instant messages?

In the current day, more and more lawyers are communicating with their clients via instant messaging software such as WhatsApp. But should those messages be disclosed to the Court within the matter file?

The Court has considered whether such messages could be disclosable in the case of MacInnes & another v DWF Law LLP [2025] EWHC 3252 (SCCO). The case concerns a costs assessment in an arbitration matter in which the Defendant was ordered to provide a 'complete digital copy' of their file. The Claimant alleged that the Defendant had failed to comply with the order by failing to disclose a series of WhatsApp messages. The Defendant refuted this, claiming WhatsApp and MS Teams messages did not form part of the file, were not saved to the file and so were not disclosable.

The Judge held that where a firm decides to use WhatsApp in place of communication via a letter, call or email, they should have a means of recording and evidencing that correspondence. The Judge noted that, on that basis, the messages could form part of a required disclosure. The Judge decided that the key was whether the firm charged for the work. In this case, as the Defendant had recorded the messages as fee earning time, the messages should have been disclosed, and they were found in breach of the order.

It is important that firms which conduct business through messaging services like WhatsApp have robust policies and procedures, and where fees are being charged to the client for that time, those messages must be saved to their file in order to avoid opening themselves up to litigation or regulatory risks.

Independent Investigation into the Law Society of Singapore for allegations of workplace issues

The Law Society of Singapore (LSOS) has commissioned an independent investigation into its workplace culture and governance following allegations of a myriad of internal workplace issues which surfaced in an online Reddit post in September last year, and which are reported to have precipitated the departure of close to one-third of its 70-strong workforce over the course of 2025.

Established as a statutory body under the Legal Profession Act in 1967, LSOS occupies a critical position within Singapore's legal ecosystem, performing a dual representative and regulatory function. At its core, and consistent with the role performed by most bar associations around the world, LSOS supports and represents its approximately 6,400 members – comprising locally qualified advocates and solicitors, as well as foreign qualified lawyers – through professional development and training, advocacy on issues impacting the interests of legal professionals and the provision of practical resources / mentorship programmes.

Concurrently, LSOS also performs an important outward-facing regulatory role directed at maintaining public confidence in the legal profession, including by investigating allegations of misconduct, enforcing professional standards and, where necessary, initiating disciplinary proceedings against contravening individuals and firms.

Against this backdrop, it is perhaps slightly ironic that the body tasked with monitoring behaviour and enforcing standards across the legal profession in Singapore has itself become the subject of widespread public scrutiny and criticism following the online post, which attracted significant attention due to its scathing allegations concerning LSOS's workplace culture and governance, and which specifically raised concerns regarding:

The poor treatment of staff, including allegations of bullying, burnout, and inadequate grievance processes to appropriately investigate claims of sexual harassment;
Governance and leadership oversight, including decision-making transparency and accountability within senior management; and
Financial controls and expenditure oversight, particularly in relation to overseas travel and approval thresholds.

Late last year, the audit committee of LSOS reportedly commissioned local Singaporean law firm TSMP Law Corporation to conduct an official probe into the veracity of the allegations. While no official report has been submitted by TSMP as of early 2026, we expect it to only be a matter of time before details of the findings hit the public domain, spurred by the Ministry of Law's recent comments that it looks forward to a full and thorough investigation being carried out 'as expeditiously as possible.'

With thanks to additional contributors: Sally Lord and Aimee Talbot

If there are any issues on which you'd like more information (or if you have any questions or feedback), please do let us know or get in touch with your usual contact at RPC.

Purchase of an apartment and storage unit was a mixed-use acquisition for SDLT purposes

Thu, 26 Feb 2026 10:00:00 Z

In Raj Sehgal and another v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1439 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) held that a storage unit acquired together with a luxury apartment were separate land transactions and the mixed/non-residential rates of SDLT applied to the purchase.

Appointed Representatives: Treasury proposes a new regulatory framework and extension of FOS' jurisdiction

Wed, 25 Feb 2026 15:31:00 Z

On 12 February 2026, HM Treasury opened a consultation setting out its proposals for reforming the Appointed Representative (AR) regime (the Proposals).

Should the Treasury proceed with implementing the Proposals, firms will require a new FCA permission to appoint ARs if they do not already have them. There will also be an extension of FOS' jurisdiction to deal with complaints against ARs for acts and omissions which fall outside the regulated activities for which the principal has accepted responsibility.

VAT update February 2026

Wed, 25 Feb 2026 08:18:00 Z

News

HMRC updates its Guidance on VAT and private school fees

HMRC has updated its Guidance on charging and reclaiming VAT on goods and services related to private school fees. The update provides some clarity on the example given of parents contracting and paying therapists directly and the example of a school supplying education and therapy as separate fees.

HMRC's Guidance can be viewed here.

HMRC updates VAT Notice 703 on zero-rating goods exported from the UK

HMRC has updated its Guidance on VAT on goods exported from the UK (VAT Notice 703). HMRC explain in its updated Guidance how and when you can apply zero-rated VAT to exported goods. The update addresses the latest force of law and customs processes, including the removal of outdated customs terminology and guidance.

HMRC's Guidance can be viewed here.

HMRC revises its internal manual: VAT Government and Public Services

HMRC has updated its internal manual: VAT Government and Public Bodies, in relation to NHS capital building projects. The manual sets out the established process and HMRC's requirements when a taxpayer applies for Contracted Out Services VAT recovery.

HMRC's updated manual can be viewed here.

Case reports

FTT allows input VAT recovery where invoice defects were minor and HMRC’s refusal to exercise discretion was unreasonable

In Athena Luxe Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1507 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) considered whether Athena Luxe Ltd (Athena) was entitled to recover input VAT on purchases from Harrods and Louis Vuitton. HMRC had reduced Athena's repayment claims on the basis that the invoices were not valid under Regulation 14, VAT Regulations 1995 (VAT Regulations).

HMRC refused recovery on the grounds that the Harrods invoices did not contain a sufficient description of the goods and the Louis Vuitton invoices were addressed to employees, rather than to Athena.

The key issues before the FTT were whether the Harrods documents satisfied Regulation 14(1)(g), VAT Regulations, and whether, in relation to the Louis Vuitton invoices, HMRC had unreasonably refused to exercise its discretion, under Regulation 29, VAT Regulations, to accept alternative evidence.

The FTT held that the Harrods invoices, read together with the corresponding till receipts, contained a description sufficient to identify the goods supplied and were therefore valid invoices for the purposes of Regulation 14(1)(g). In relation to the Louis Vuitton invoices, although they were not compliant, in the view of the FTT, HMRC had acted unreasonably in refusing to exercise its discretion under Regulation 29, particularly given that supplies were not disputed, payment by the business was evidenced, and there was no basis for concluding there had been a “systematic failure” to obtain valid invoices.

The FTT allowed Althena's appeal.

The decision can be viewed here.

Why it matters

This decision provides helpful guidance on the evidence businesses are required to submit to HMRC when claiming input tax.

The decision also confirms that HMRC’s discretion under Regulation 29, VAT Regulations, must be exercised rationally and consistently. Minor invoice defects will not automatically justify denial of input tax where the underlying supplies and payment are clearly evidenced.

FTT holds that personalised biography service was a zero-rated supply of books, not standard-rated ghost-writing services

In Story Terrace Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1554 (TC), the FTT considered whether Story Terrace Ltd (Story Terrace) was entitled to zero-rate its supplies of personalised biography books under Item 1, Group 3, Schedule 8, Value Added Tax Act 1994 (VATA 1994).

HMRC assessed VAT on the basis that the supplies were standard-rated, arguing that Story Terrace was predominantly supplying ghost-writing services, rather than books.

The key issue before the FTT was whether Story Terrace’s overall supply, viewed from the perspective of the typical consumer, was properly characterised as a supply of books (zero-rated) or as a supply of ghost-writing services (standard-rated).

The FTT held that the final product clearly met the definition of a book and that the supply was a single composite supply. From the perspective of the typical consumer, the predominant element was the provision of a finished physical book. The ghost-writing and editorial work formed part of the process leading to that outcome. The FTT considered the contractual documentation and concluded that the provision of a book was the predominant element of the supply. The FTT also cautioned against artificially dissecting the supply into separate service elements.

The FTT allowed Story Terrace's appeal.

The decision can be viewed here.

Why it matters

This decision provides useful guidance on applying the predominance test to bespoke creative products. It confirms that a highly personalised, and service-intensive process, can still amount to a zero-rated supply of goods where, viewed objectively, the typical consumer is acquiring a product that, properly characterised, satisfies the legal test for a zero-rated product. The case is likely to be relevant to other hybrid publishing, design and creative service, models.

UT clarifies scope of “disability” for VAT zero-rating in hair replacement case

In Mark Glenn Ltd v HMRC [2026] UKUT 34 (TCC), the Upper Tribunal (UT) considered whether Mark Glenn Ltd (MGL) was entitled to zero-rate supplies of its Kinsey system, a hair replacement treatment for women with severe hair loss, under Item 3, Group 12, Schedule 8, VATA 1994.

HMRC assessed VAT on the basis that the supplies were standard-rated, arguing that severe female hair loss was not a “disability” and that the supply was not a service of adapting goods.

The key issues before the UT were whether: (i) severe female hair loss constituted a disability for VAT purposes; and (ii) the Kinsey system fell within Item 3, as a supply of services of adapting goods to suit a disabled person’s condition.

The UT held that the FTT had erred in law by failing adequately to explain why female baldness was not a disability. Remaking the decision, the UT concluded that severe hair loss in women can constitute a disability, taking into account the real-world social and cultural impact of severe hair loss.

The UT further held that, although the overall supply was a single supply of services, it involved adapting goods (the hairpiece and fibre strands) to suit the person’s condition. The supplies therefore fell within Item 3 and were zero-rated.

The UT allowed MGL’s appeal.

The decision can be viewed here.

Why it matters

This decision is significant in the context of the scope of “disability” and Item 3 zero-rating. It confirms that disability can be assessed by reference to social context and real-world impact, and that a composite service can qualify as a service of adapting goods.

Customs and Excise quarterly update – February 2026

Tue, 24 Feb 2026 09:25:00 Z

Welcome to the February 2026 edition of RPC's Customs and excise quarterly update.

"It's my property and I've got the WhatsApp messages to prove it"

Tue, 24 Feb 2026 08:30:00 Z

Judgment was handed down recently in a High Court case that considered whether an exchange of WhatsApp messages could satisfy the requirements of the Law of Property Act 1925.

Cyber_Bytes - Issue 79

Mon, 23 Feb 2026 12:09:00 Z

RPC Cyber app: Breach counsel at your fingertips

As cyber-attacks and follow-on litigation continue to be a board-level issue for organisations worldwide, the RPC Cyber_ App provides a one-stop-shop resource for cyber breach assistance and pre-breach preparedness. As well as information about RPC's cyber-related expertise, the app also contains guidance on prevention against common incidents and access to our ongoing cyber market insights.

RPC Cyber_ can be downloaded for free from the Apple Store or Google Play Store.

Information Commissioner Backs Cyber Security and Resilience Bill: Calls for Clear Secondary Legislation, Proactive Oversight and Adequate Resourcing

On 23 December 2025, the Information Commissioner issued his response to the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, expressing broad support for the reforms to bolster the UK’s cyber defences. The Bill significantly broadens its remit beyond operators of essential services and relevant digital service providers to include relevant managed service providers and designated critical suppliers, reflecting the interconnected nature of modern digital supply chains.

For certain key areas of infrastructure, the Bill signals a shift from a reactive approach to a proactive, risk‑based oversight, backed by enhanced powers: wider information‑gathering, strengthened information‑sharing gateways with safeguards across regulators and government, new regulatory enforcement powers, and an expanded cost‑recovery framework to fund day‑to‑day supervision, inspections and enforcement.

At the same time, the Commissioner underscores that key operational details will be set through secondary legislation, including thresholds for what constitutes a “significant impact” for incident reporting, baseline security and resilience requirements, criteria and duties for “critical suppliers”, the application of penalties, and further enhancements to information‑gathering to support risk prioritisation.

The Week That Was - 20 February 2026

Fri, 20 Feb 2026 14:03:00 Z

Cross-party Education Committee publishes report on RAAC crisis

The cross-party Education Committee published its report last week about reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC), which emerged as a major issue in 2023. The Committee found that despite the government making significant progress in removing and remediating RAAC, the experience has affected pupils' learning and well-being. Where RAAC remains an ongoing problem, the Committee said temporary solutions cannot substitute for permanent fixes.

School leaders told the Committee that identifying RAAC created disruption and uncertainty for schools, with schools having to rely on disruptive temporary solutions such as marquees or modular buildings. The Committee highlighted that many school buildings have exceeded their design life. According to the National Audit Office, 38% of schools were beyond their estimated design life including 10,000 built before 1940. The Committee recognised that more action is required, particularly on the information held about school buildings. It was recommended that all responsible bodies should carry out a structured survey and risk assessment of higher-risk buildings every three to five years.

The Committee has called for the government to publish its promised strategy without delay.

Read the full article here.

Joint venture member not a "Party" to the contract and cannot bring adjudication in own name (TCC)

The TCC has refused to enforce a £23.9m adjudication decision in favour of Darchem Engineering Ltd, finding that Darchem, as one entity within a joint venture, was not a “Party” to the NEC subcontract and therefore had no standing to adjudicate in its own name.

The subcontract (for Hinkley Point C) was between two joint venturers': BYLOR (Bouygues/Laing O’Rourke) and EDEL (Darchem/Framatome). Although all four entities appeared in the Agreement and were “ogether known as the Parties”, the conditions of subcontract defined “Parties” as “the Contractor and the Subcontractor”. References throughout to “either Party”, “both Parties” and “the other Party” reinforced that there were only two parties in law.

“Acting jointly and severally” and the joint venture clause did not give one entity unilateral entitlement to act on behalf of the joint venture. The court noted that a contrary interpretation risked “chaos”, with multiple joint venture members able to pursue parallel adjudications on the same issue.

Read the full article here [may require subscription].

Government publishes UK Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism policy summary and consultation on draft regulations

HM Treasury has published a policy summary and launched a consultation on 10 February 2026 regarding three sets of draft regulations for the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), legislated for in the Finance (No 2) Bill 2026, due to commence on 1 January 2027.

The policy summary explains the CBAM’s scope, how liabilities are calculated and how the regime will be administered. The draft regulations, which are to come into effect alongside the CBAM, are:

Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Administrative Provisions) Regulations 2026, which contains details regarding the information required for registration, returns, reimbursement, weight calculations and record-keeping.
Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Calculation of CBAM Rate and Determination of Carbon Price Relief) Regulations 2026, which details the steps to calculate the CBAM rate, information on the carbon price relief (claiming, verifying and calculating) and related records.
Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Transitory Provision) Regulations 2026, which modifies dates for payments, registration, accounting periods and penalties during the transition phase which is 1 January 2027–30 June 2028.

Draft notices, which will have force of law, have also been published. The consultation closes on 24 March 2026, with further draft secondary legislation expected in spring 2026.

Read the full article here [may require subscription].

Building Safety Regulator (BSR) gateway three delays trigger fears of bottleneck

According to data revealed in a Freedom of Information request, dozens of higher-risk building (HRB) schemes have been stuck for months at the gateway three approval stage with the BSR.

Under the post-Grenfell building safety regime, gateway three is the final approval required before a completed HRB (either 18m or at least seven storeys tall) can be occupied. The BSR has a statutory requirement to reach a decision on gateway three applications within eight weeks, though data shows that out of 158 gateway three applications submitted last year, 55 took more than three months to receive a decision.

Whilst to date the focus on HRB delays have centred on gateway two, under which projects must demonstrate full compliance with building regulations at the design stage, concerns are now mounting over gateway three. The regulator commented that it "continue[s] to work proactively with applicants to get the buildings to a state where they can be occupied”.

Read the full article here.

Bristol Airport mass transit build envisaged within five years

Construction of a mass transit system between Bristol's city centre and airport could begin within five years, according to a report from the West of England Combined Authority (WECA), which notes that Bristol Airport is the country's only regional airport without a fixed mass transit link.

Helen Godwin, mayor of the West of England, unveiled the early plans as part of WECA’s Transport Vision. Whilst the exact type of transport system has yet to be decided, the WECA has suggested a light railway or electric tram system are suitable options.

The WECA report adds that the combined authority has funding to invest in mass transit and is working to develop a 15-year plan for all its economic growth zones, but “achieving this will require our region to make a unified and compelling case to [central] government for further investment”.

Read the full article here.

Graham wins £286m student accommodation job

Graham has secured a £286m contract to redevelop Manchester Metropolitan University’s Cambridge Halls student accommodation. The joint venture scheme between Manchester Metropolitan University and Unite Students, which won planning approval in August 2025, will deliver 2,302 student bedrooms across two new towers of 30 and 24 storeys. The 0.8ha site will replace the 771 existing rooms built in 1998.

Of the 2,302 rooms, 1,941 will be allocated to Manchester Metropolitan University, with the remainder let by Unite Students. The accommodation is designed to achieve a BREEAM Excellent rating, with the construction to be delivered in two phases, the southern block in 2029 and the northern in 2030. Demolition is already under way, with the main construction due to commence later this year.

Read the full article here.

With thanks to Jessica Hill, Victoria Sessions and Austin O'Neill

Take 10 - 20 February 2026

Fri, 20 Feb 2026 13:46:00 Z

Neidle seeks first-ever SLAPP strike‑out under new ECCTA powers

Former Clifford Chance partner and tax commentator Dan Neidle has asked the High Court to strike out an £8 million libel and malicious falsehood claim brought by barrister Setu Kamal, relying on the new SLAPP provisions introduced by s.194 and 195 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA). The claim concerns an online article published by Tax Policy Associates (a non-profit founded by Neidle and which is also listed as a co-defendant) about an alleged tax avoidance scheme operated by Arka Wealth, for which the claimant was described as Arka Wealth's legal adviser. The Defendants have alternatively applied to strike out the claim under the more familiar provisions of CPR 3.4(2)(a)-(c), and sought summary judgment of the libel claim relying on the honest opinion defence.

The application, heard on 10 February with judgment reserved, is the first time the High Court has been asked to apply the new strike‑out power under CPR 3.4(2)(d), which allows the court to strike out a statement of case where it appears the claim meets the definition of a SLAPP under s.195 ECCTA and the claimant has failed to show that it is more likely than not the claim would succeed at trial. As readers will be aware, the limited scope of the s.195 ECCTA definition means this is only available where the freedom of expression being restrained relates to economic crime.

The Defendants' application included evidence on why they suspected economic crime may have occurred (being the alleged failure to prevent the facilitation of UK tax evasion offences), and why the article complained of would facilitate the investigation of economic crime. The Defendants also relied on, among other things, the Claimant's attempts to have the article de-listed from search engines, regulatory complaints made over the article, an unsuccessful injunction application made without notice prior to the proceedings, and the Claimant's request for publication of a statement declaring the Defendants' belief that the Claimant was "the leading barrister in the field of taxation in the country" as a remedy in the letter before action.

The Claimant argued that the Defendants were "disproportionately raising additional points to peripheral matters such as the Claimant's conduct" and said that his claim "is not intended to cause harassment, alarm or distress, expense or any other harm or inconvenience beyond that ordinarily encountered" in litigation. We will no doubt cover the judgment in a future Take 10 edition, once handed down.

UK anti-SLAPP legislation parked

In related SLAPPs news, Justice Minister Sarah Sackman's bid to crackdown on SLAPPs through new legislation has reportedly been excluded from the Labour party's package of reforms in an upcoming civil justice and courts bill. The Times has suggested the omission is due to the fear of criticism by some lawyers. The Ministry of Justice has said that anti-SLAPP measures may still be incorporated through different mechanisms. The news comes after an open letter signed by 127 editors, journalists, writers, and lawyers was sent to the Prime Minister on 28 January calling for universal anti-SLAPP provisions to be included in the May 2026 King's Speech (reported in our previous Take 10 issue here). A further 39 individuals have since added their names meaning the total signatories stand at 166 as of last Friday.

New landmark defamation legislation in Ireland

Meanwhile in Ireland last week, the Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024 was passed by both houses of the Irish Parliament. When it comes into force, the legislation will amend the Irish Defamation Act 2009 and make Irish defamation law more reflective of principles in the Defamation Act 2013. Some key new provisions include the abolition of trials by jury in High Court defamation actions and the introduction of a serious harm threshold for corporate defamation claims, where actual or likely serious financial loss must now be proved. Importantly, Part 7 of the Bill contains various safeguards against defamation proceedings being used as SLAPPs, which are far more expansive than current provisions in England and Wales. For example, the court must act "expeditiously" when determining applications to grant the defendant security for costs or strike out a claim for being manifestly unfounded [34D – 34E]. The defendant may subsequently also make an application for a court declaration that the claim or part of the claim amounts to a SLAPP which the court will then consider when making awards for costs and damages to the defendant for any injury, loss or damage suffered as a result of defending the claim [34F – 34H]. Furthermore, where a court finds a claim to be a SLAPP, the court shall direct that any written judgment or order of the court related to the finding be published on the Courts Service website for public knowledge [34I]. The Bill is now due to be signed into law.

In tandem, the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration Jim O'Callaghan also announced the publication of the General Scheme of the Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Bill. The draft legislation is intended to apply to civil and commercial proceedings other than defamation proceedings, mirroring the provisions in Part 7 of the Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024, and is designed to give effect to the requirements of the EU's Anti-SLAPP Directive.

Judgement reserved on limitation test claims in Duke of Sussex and Ors V MGN Limited

A ten-day trial of preliminary issue on limitation in five test claims in the long-running Mirror Newspaper Hacking Litigation concluded on 10 February 2026. The trial follows Mr Justice Fancourt's judgment in Duke of Sussex and Ors v MGN Limited [2023] EWHC 3217(Ch) which held that two claims were time-barred on limitation grounds. Following a wave of claimants discontinuing their claims in 2024, the remaining claimants allege that they can be distinguished from the Sussex judgment on the basis that, due to specific facts, they were not 'triggered' to investigate their prospective claims against MGN more than six years before the issue of their respective claims and, alternatively, could not have discovered they had worthwhile claims before that date. MGN contends that all five test claims could with reasonable diligence have discovered the relevant facts required to bring their claims in time. Judgment was reserved, with the outcome of the remaining claims dependent on or likely to be impacted by the Court's findings on s. 32(1)(b) Limitation Act 1980. RPC acts for MGN Limited.

Interim injunction refused despite alleged blackmail and defamatory website

On 9 February 2026, Deputy High Court Judge Aidan Eardley KC refused a Claimant’s application for an interim injunction against two named individuals and three persons unknown. The claim alleged libel, malicious falsehood and harassment arising out of a defamatory website (which the Claimant argued was operated by the named First and Second Defendants) and allegedly threatening messages. The Claimant sought an injunction to prohibit the publication of private or defamatory material and the making financial demands and threats, and removal of the website. The Second Defendant, who was the only Defendant present and/or represented, denied any involvement in the website or the communications.

The Judge accepted that the Claimant was likely to establish at trial that the First and Second Defendants were responsible for the website and messages (though made no finding of fact on this). However, the application failed for several reasons. The Claimant did not satisfy s.12(3) Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) i.e. that it is likely that publication should not be allowed, as she had failed to identify any alleged serious harm or financial losses suffered to support the libel and malicious falsehood claims. The Second Defendant also indicated at the hearing that he would defend the statement made on the website as true if necessary. The Judge commented that the rule in Bonnard v Perryman may therefore be a further obstacle to a libel injunction being granted and referred to previous authority that there may be a "blackmail exception" to this rule. However he did not ultimately express a view on this given the failure to satisfy s.12(3) HRA. The Judge also found that the Claimant's delay of one year between discovering the website and seeking relief to be inconsistent with the urgency required for an interim injunction, and that most of the damage that might have been avoided by the prompt obtaining of an injunction is now likely to have already occurred (and so could only be compensated for with a monetary award).

Meaning determined in Belafonte v News Group Newspapers

On 11 February, Mrs Justice Collins Rice gave judgment on the meaning of an article published by The Sun in June 2024 titled: "Mel B's ex-husband Stephen Belafonte faces being questioned by UK police over harassment claims made by her". The Claimant denies the allegations in the article.

The Claimant argued the article conveyed Chase level 1 meanings that (a) he was guilty of harassment in the US and (b) he had cynically exploited a visit to England with their daughter to further harass Ms Brown which would cause the ordinary reader to infer a history of harassing and intimidatory behaviour therefore satisfying Chase level 1 meaning guilt is imputed. The Defendant admitted the article made factual allegations about the Claimant which were defamatory at common law, but advocated for lesser meanings. Namely, a Chase level 3 meaning that there were grounds to investigate whether the Claimant beat and abused his ex-wife during their marriage, and Chase level 2 and 3 meanings that there were grounds to suspect that the Claimant had flown a drone over his ex-wife's home and sent a process server to her home, and grounds to investigate whether the conduct amounted to harassment.

Collins Rice J noted that the ordinary reasonable reader of celebrity gossip must be allowed "a certain amount of loose thinking" as they are being entertained "rather than challenged to a fine analysis of the factual evidence or a balanced assessment of the probabilities" [29]. Collins Rice J found that the reference to a current restraining order against a background of historic marital violence allegations led the Judge to find a Chase level one meaning that "the Claimant is guilty of having harassed Ms Brown in the USA".

The Judge found a Chase level 2 meaning that there were grounds to suspect that the Claimant, on a subsequent visit to the UK had (a) caused a drone to be flown over Ms Brown's home and (b) caused a process server to visit her unnecessarily, and accordingly there were grounds to suspect he had harassed her in the UK. In reaching the Chase level 2 finding, Collins Rice J had regard to the details about these incidents being reported from a source with no reason to doubt they happened, but without any connection made between the drone and the Claimant other than Ms Brown's generic fears about the Claimant. The ordinary reasonable reader also would not necessarily recognise a choice made by the Claimant or his lawyers as to the mode of service as being unnecessary given their unfamiliarity with the rules of service.

MoJ to replace Courtsdesk after it was ordered to delete its archives

The Government is developing a new system for sharing court information with journalists after Courtsdesk was instructed to delete its archives for allegedly breaching data protection rules. Courtsdesk has been widely used by over 1,500 journalists since its launch in 2020. Courtsdesk has said its service aimed at improving open justice. According to Courtsdesk's analysis, 1.6 million criminal hearings and two thirds of all courts' routine cases took place without any advanced notice to the press.

Justice Minister Sarah Sackman told MPs that Courtsdesk had shared “private, personal, legally sensitive information”, including addresses and dates of birth, with a third-party AI company in breach of its agreement with HMCTS. Sackman said the new service will maintain existing access while placing information on a “more secure, licensed and regulatorily secure footing”. The minister stressed that public and journalistic access to court listings “does not change”, but that stronger guardrails are needed to prevent a “wild west” of data‑sharing with AI firms. A replacement licensing model is expected to be launched next month.

Government pledges new measures to keep children safe online

This week, the UK government has vowed to take "immediate action" to tackle online safety for children with a range of new measures to lay the groundwork for "further, faster action" and "close loopholes". The measures include a proposed amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill to require all AI chatbot providers currently outside the scope of the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA) to comply with the illegal content duties in the OSA. New powers are also to be included in the forthcoming Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill to "lay the foundation" for swift action off the back of its upcoming consultation on children's digital wellbeing. As reported in Take 10 previously (see here), the consultation is assessing the "full range of risks" to children in the online world, and will consider whether to ban social media for under-16s, implement phone curfews and restrict "potentially addictive design features" such as "streaks" and "infinite scrolling". It will also consider options to age restrict or limit children's use of VPNs where this undermines safety protections. The Government intends to introduce new primary legislation tackling the issues that emerge from the consultation "within months rather than waiting for years". It has also pledged to ensure that data is preserved following a child's death before it can be deleted, except where online activity is clearly not relevant to the death.

Trump v BBC: Judge refuses BBC's bid to pause discovery

A U.S. federal judge has refused the BBC’s application to stay discovery in President Donald Trump’s $10 billion defamation claim, meaning the case will now move into full merits‑based disclosure. A two‑week trial has also been listed, beginning 15 February 2027 in Miami. The BBC sought to stay discovery pending determination of its forthcoming motion to dismiss to claim on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim. The motion to dismiss has not yet been filed with the court.

District Judge Roy Altman refused the stay on two principal grounds. First, he held that the application was premature. While the BBC had set out the position it intended to take in the motion to dismiss, and Trump had responded, the Judge concluded that he could not say with certainty that the motion was either “clearly meritorious” or that it would dispose of the case entirely. This "preliminary peek" at the merits was an essential requirement when considering whether to pause discovery.

Second, he held that the BBC had not sufficiently shown that it would suffer specific prejudice if discovery proceeded. The Court rejected the BBC’s argument that disclosure would be unduly burdensome, describing its predictions about wide‑ranging document requests as speculative. Judge Altman emphasised that cross‑border discovery, privilege issues and data‑privacy concerns are routinely managed through existing procedures, and that any particularised disputes can be addressed by the assigned magistrate judge under the Court’s detailed discovery protocols.

EU issues guidelines to safeguard journalism on major digital platforms

The European Commission has issued guidelines on how Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) should implement the media services providers declaration system in accordance with Article 18 European Media Freedom Act (EMFA). Under Article 18(1) EMFA, VLOPs must notify media providers before removing journalistic content, explain the reasons for doing so, and allow media service providers 24 hours to respond. To access these protections, media organisations must submit a declaration confirming they meet key criteria, including editorial independence, regulatory oversight, and human review of AI‑generated content.

The guidelines explain how this declaration system should work in practice, including minimum general features. VLOPs must provide a prominent, easy‑to‑use interface, in the form of a standardised questionnaire, available in all relevant EU languages, and capable of covering all of the accounts operated by that media organisation on the platform in one submission. VLOPs should make the declarations they receive publicly accessible and platforms must authenticate submissions to prevent misuse. VLOPs are also encouraged to actively promote the availability of the declaration functionality, which can be via their terms of service.

The Commission also sets out how VLOPs should handle declarations, including when they may reject or invalidate them, and emphasises that decisions must be based solely on the Article 18 criteria, not on the provider’s content. Where there is reasonable doubt about a provider’s regulatory status, VLOPs should consult the relevant national regulator or recognised self‑regulatory body. Civil society organisations, including fact‑checkers, may flag concerns about potential abuse.

For media organisations, the guidelines provide greater clarity on how to secure Article 18 protections, and for platforms, they set clear expectations on transparency, process and accountability in moderation decisions affecting professional journalism.

Admin Court upholds judicial reviews on free speech grounds

The Administrative Court has held that The Police Federation of England and Wales acted unlawfully in suspending and restricting the roles of two elected chairs because, among other reasons, it failed to properly consider their Article 10 ECHR freedom of expression rights.

The Claimants had been disciplined and barred from re-election for eight months over separate comments they made on television and/or social media concerning their views on racism and policing. The two judicial review claims were heard together given the overlapping legal issues to be determined. The court recognised that both Claimants' Article 10 rights were engaged, as they were expressing their views on matters of public interest and doing so as democratically elected office holders. The court stressed that elected representatives must be able to speak freely on such issues without fear of reprisal. Accordingly, the Defendant's decisions in imposing and maintaining sanctions on their freedom of speech were unlawful as they did not take into account the Claimants' Article 10 rights or provide a proportionate justification for restricting these rights. The court also ruled that any restrictions on the media and social-media engagement of elected officials should be proscribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim and be justified as necessary and proportionate in a democratic society.

Quote of the fortnight

"...Article 10 protects speech that may "shock and offend" and that protection is particularly important where the speech is political - expression of opinion on matters of public and political interest. That approach accords with the text of Article 10, which permits restrictions only where "prescribed by law" and "necessary in a democratic society"…"

Mr Justice Obi at para 73 of Prior & Anor v The Police Federation of England and Wales.

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 20 February 2026

Fri, 20 Feb 2026 11:53:00 Z

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Our latest edition of the Financial Ombudsman Newsletter is out now and can be found here.

Headline development

FCA CEO signals move towards outcomes-based regulation

FCA chief executive Nikhil Rathi has described a shift in the regulator’s approach, with less emphasis on introducing new rules and more focus on using the Consumer Duty and supervisory tools to address market issues.

Speaking on the Fairer Finance podcast, Rathi said that not every problem can be resolved quickly through major interventions, additional rules, bans or guidance. He explained that the FCA is moving further towards an outcomes-based model, which he suggested could mean fewer new rules over time, with the Consumer Duty doing much of the work.

Rathi also discussed the FCA’s approach to enforcement and transparency. He noted that HM Treasury has previously expressed concerns about how clearly the regulator communicates its actions towards firms, and said the FCA is seeking to improve the way it provides updates through its enforcement communications.

His comments came in response to questions about the FCA’s use of Voluntary Requirements, which allow the regulator to secure changes from firms without a public enforcement outcome.

Rathi also suggested that issues around cross subsidies and distributional fairness in products such as credit cards and premium finance are not matters for the FCA to determine, indicating that these questions sit more appropriately with government and HM Treasury. He added that where certain products become more expensive for parts of society, that is ultimately a matter of social policy rather than something a regulator can directly resolve.

To read more, please click here.

Accountants

Statutory demands linked to disguised remuneration arrangements

RPC has recently supported a number of clients who previously participated in arrangements involving Curzon Capital Limited. These structures involved payments being made through a trust and described as “loans”.

HMRC treats these payments as disguised remuneration, meaning income tax and National Insurance contributions may be payable. Many individuals have already reached settlement with HMRC on that basis.

Some former participants have since been contacted by a company claiming that the alleged loan debt has been assigned to it by the original trustees. Initially, the company sought payment in return for extending the loan period. More recently, individuals have received statutory demands seeking repayment of the alleged loans. HMRC has issued guidance for taxpayers who receive this type of correspondence.

A statutory demand is a serious legal document and must be dealt with within strict time limits. Failure to respond promptly can lead to significant consequences, including the risk of bankruptcy proceedings.

Anyone who has been involved in disguised remuneration or similar arrangements and has received contact from an unfamiliar company, or has been served with a statutory demand, should seek specialist legal advice immediately. In many cases, statutory demands can be challenged, but it is important that recipients take action and do not ignore them.

To read more, click here.

Investment platforms contacted by HMRC over unreported dividend income

HMRC has requested information pertaining to dividend income from investment platforms, in a drive to close what HMRC refers to as the "tax gap" – being the difference between what tax HMRC is collecting and what it should be collecting.

HMRC is able to request this information under existing legislation, and whilst its focus had previously been on asking banks to report dividend income, that focus has now shifted to investment platforms.

Senior technical advisory manager of the Association of Chartered Accountants, Yogesh Dhanak, commented that there are many individuals who do their own tax returns and unwittingly under-report dividend income, or do not even realise they need to report it at all. Dhanak noted that the issue has been exacerbated following the recent decrease in the allowance from £2,000 to £500.

Dhanak further commented that, where an individual is found by HMRC to have under-reported dividend income, HMRC may send them a 'nudge letter' requesting that they resolve the issue, and that if this is done in a reasonable time, there will be no penalties.

Dhanak's comments also indicated that reporting dividend income may not always be straightforward, with there being nuances in terms of record keeping for accumulation funds and income funds. Dhanak went on to say that it would not be surprising to find some advisers may also have been getting this wrong.

To read more, please click here.

Auditors

FRC announces consultation on temporary tule change for Chinese-registered entities

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) announced on 16 February a new consultation for a temporary rule change which would allow auditors of Chinese-registered entities to use Chinese Standards on Auditing for UK listing purposes.

The consultation was announced in response to a request from the government to ease barriers which might discourage Chinese-registered entities from using the UK as a listing venue. The proposed change is limited in scope and time, and would only be in place until some other legislative salutation can be implemented.

To read the consultation paper, click here.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

FOS issues fresh warning against APP and employment scams

In a warning to consumers regarding scams, FOS confirmed that it received over 31,000 complaints in 2025 about scams, 20,000 of which involved payments from consumers authorised to scammers.

FOS noted that authorised push payment (APP) scams and employment scams in particular were prevalent, reminding consumers that online opportunities to earn money that seem too good to be true often are exactly that. Consumers are urged to listen to their banks when given fraud warnings and thoroughly research investment and employment opportunities to avoid becoming victims.

To read FOS' warning, click here.

Upper Tribunal upholds FCA decision to ban adviser and DFM for recklessly exposing pension holders to unsuitable investments

On 18 February 2026, the Upper Tribunal upheld the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) decision to ban both Stephen Joseph Burdett and James Paul Goodchild from working in regulated financial services.

The FCA had banned them for recklessly exposing pension holders to unsuitable investments. Burdett had switched 232 personal pension funds worth over £10 million into unsuitable high-risk investment portfolios that had been created and managed by Goodchild. Burdett had also allowed these customers to receive reports indicating that their money was being placed in low or medium risk portfolios. To date the Financial Services Compensation Scheme has paid out over £1.4m to victims.

The Tribunal had highlighted that the actions of these two showed "little regard for the interests of [his] clients" and that "as an experienced and qualified investment manager, Goodchild must have known the risk of putting pension holders of varying risk appetites into a high risk project."

To read more, please click here.

Case law updates

Court of Appeal finds expenses paid by an umbrella company were taxable

In Mainpay Ltd v HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 1290, the Court of Appeal (CoA) confirmed that HMRC was entitled to recover PAYE on travel and subsistence payments that had been made free of income tax.

The case involved Mainpay Ltd (Mainpay) which was an umbrella company, and which employed and supplied temporary workers to agency companies. The issue for the CoA to consider was whether reimbursements for travel and subsistence expenses made by Mainpay under s338 Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, were deductible for income tax and national insurance.

Mainpay's argument was that workers were employed under a single overarching continuous contract of employment, with each separate assignment being a temporary workplace. To the contrary, HMRC considered that each work assignment was a separate employment at a permanent workplace and therefore the travel and subsistence expenses were not deductible for income tax and national insurance purposes.

Mainpay's appeals to the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal were unsuccessful, and so it appealed to the CoA. The CoA's conclusion was that there was no single overarching employment but rather successive employments, on the basis that there was intermittent employment, with no employment in the gaps between assignments and therefore, no single overarching employment. On that basis, the CoA determined that PAYE on the travel and subsistence payments was recoverable by HMRC.

The CoA further determined that Mainpay had acted carelessly by failing to take appropriate advice, as it had relied on assurances by lawyers as opposed to tax specialists. The CoA confirmed the approach adopted by the First-tier Tribunal – which was that a causal test should be applied – and on that basis, concluded that the loss of tax had arisen directly as a result of Mainpay's failure to take reasonable care. For the loss of tax determined to have been brought about carelessly, the 6-year time limit therefore applied.

To read further from RPC's blog, please click here.

With thanks to this week's contributors: James Parsons, Alison Thomas, Daniel Goh, Heather Buttifant, Ben Simmonds, Kerone Thomas, Rebekah Bayliss

Arbitration first: High Court stays parallel court claims and declines anti arbitration relief

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 10:34:00 Z

In Orange Transgroup Ltd and IT Way v Shein Distribution UK Ltd [2025] EWHC 2966 (KB), the High Court refused to grant the Claimants' application for an interim anti-arbitration injunction. Mr Justice Dexter Dias instead granted the Defendant's application for a stay in relation to the High Court claims filed by the Claimant, pending an imminent hearing before an arbitrator to determine the validity of an arbitration agreement.

Court of Appeal finds expenses paid by an umbrella company were taxable

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 10:00:00 Z

In Mainpay Ltd v HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 1290, the Court of Appeal found that travel and subsistence expenses paid by an umbrella company to its employees were taxable.

Keeping systems in check: pensions administrator liable for errors in automated system

Wed, 18 Feb 2026 14:34:00 Z

The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) has recently determined that pensions administrators can be held liable for errors made by an automated system. The recent decision (CAS-90501-T3V1) following a complaint by Mrs K against her employer (the NHS) and the pensions administrator (the NHS Business Servies Authority (NHS BSA)), saw TPO find that NHS BSA were liable for inaccurate pensions estimates provided to Mrs K by her employer, who had utilised the NHS BSA's automated system to prepare the estimate.

Sports Ticker #145 - The $14 billion sports streaming battle and Leicester’s PSR points sanction - a speed read of commercial news from the sports world

Tue, 17 Feb 2026 14:58:00 Z

As always, if there are any issues on which you’d like more information (or if you have any questions or feedback), please do let us know or get in touch with your usual contact at RPC.

Prime Time: Streamers set to record $14 billion sports spend in 2026
Streaming platforms are predicted to spend a record $14.2 billion acquiring global sports rights in 2026, a staggering $1.7 billion increase from last year. London-based insights firm Ampere Analysis has forecast that Amazon Prime Video is set to top the spending charts, with an estimated $3.8 billion investment into sports streaming rights this year – around 27% of the total sports streaming spend. The total takes into account Prime’s new 11-year, $1.8 billion per season NBA deal, as well as its existing US rights to NFL’s Thursday Night Football programming and UEFA Champions League rights in the UK. DAZN, the category’s biggest spender since 2018, is predicted to account for 22% of 2026’s sports rights spend. Ampere highlighted the “growing importance” of live sports as part of streaming companies’ portfolios, previously predicting that global spending on sports media rights could be worth more than $78 billion by 2030, with growth across European, American and Asian markets. The surge highlights how live sport has rapidly emerged as one of the most powerful and valuable currencies in the race for online audiences.

Financial foul: Foxes face six-point deduction for PSR breach
EFL Championship club, Leicester City, has been docked six points after an independent disciplinary commission found the club to be in breach of the EFL Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR). The commission found that in the three-year reporting period, ending in the 2023/24 season, Leicester exceeded the permitted loss threshold, overspending by £20.8 million. The club was also found to have failed to submit required financial information on time. The case was referred to the commission by the Premier League following Leicester’s relegation. The points deduction has been applied by the EFL with immediate effect, with the commission finding that this would be “the only effective sanction”. In 2024, Leicester avoided a points deduction after successfully appealing a PSR decision related to losses during the three-year period ending in the 2022/23 season (see Sports Ticker #112 for more). In a statement, Leicester expressed its “disappointment” with the outcome, as well as an intention to “consider the options available”. The ruling highlights the continued focus on financial regulation within English football, as leagues seek to enforce sustainability rules while clubs balance competitive ambition with fiscal control.

Ready, Set, Go-ogle: Google Cloud becomes Formula E Principal Partner Google Cloud has secured a multi-year partnership with the ABB FIA Formula E World Championship, marking a significant push to embed artificial intelligence across the series’ operations. As part of the deal, Google Cloud will become Formula E’s “Principal Partner” and “Principal AI Partner.” Through the collaboration, Formula E plans to offer viewers richer real-time performance insights, designed to boost engagement as audience viewing habits continue to evolve. Beyond the fan experience, the collaboration will also aim to deliver meaningful sustainability gains. Formula E and Google have previously collaborated as part of the 2025 “Mountain Recharge” project, which used Google’s AI Studio and Gemini to test the boundaries of regenerative braking technology. Advanced AI modelling reduces the need to transport race equipment and conduct on-site reconnaissance, helping cut carbon emissions across the championship. As Google Cloud takes its place on Formula E’s starting grid, the partnership underlines just how central computing power has become in modern motorsport.

Causing a ruck-us: rugby draws record crowd for Scottish women’s sport
The upcoming Scotland v England fixture in the 2026 Guinness Women's Six Nations is set to attract the largest ever crowd for a standalone women's sporting event in Scotland. So far, more than 19,000 tickets have been sold for the match, which is due to take place on 18 April 2026 at Scottish Gas Murrayfield. Ticket sales have already exceeded previous records by over 11,000, validating Scottish Rugby’s decision to host the match in the main Murrayfield bowl – the first time the women’s national team has played a ticketed international match at the site. Scotland captain, Rachel Malcolm, thanked fans for the “huge show of support” and highlighted the sense of responsibility to inspire future generations. The unprecedented supporter demand marks the ever-growing momentum behind women's rugby. Scottish minister for Sport, Maree Todd, praised the “phenomenal progress” of women's rugby, hailing the achievement as a landmark moment for the sport in Scotland.

Grand Slam Track’s $41 million deficit drives Chapter 11 filing
Grand Slam Track (GST), the professional track league launched by former Olympic champion sprinter Michael Johnson, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The filing revealed total debts of almost $41 million owed to 340 creditors and only $831,000 in assets, all classified as personal property. GST generated just $1.8 million in revenue last year, leaving many promised payments to star athletes undistributed, including significant sums reportedly owed to Olympic Champions Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone and Gabby Thomas. Johnson is also listed in the bankruptcy filing as being owed more than $2.4 million, having previously put $2.25 million into the business in May 2025 to help GST’s third event in Philadelphia go ahead. As covered in Sports Ticker #138, the league secured emergency funding in October 2025, with the hopes of the competition returning this year. A GST spokesperson has said that the filing reflects the personal commitment of founders, who “continue to work every day towards enabling the continued operation of the league”.

Extra time...

…and finally, a little over an hour and a half after beginning his 508-metre ascent, Alex Honnold reached the top of Taiwan’s Taipei 101 with nothing but a bag of chalk, a pair of climbing shoes and the trepid encapsulation of several million live viewers to aid him. The free solo climb, which saw Honnold navigate Taipei 101’s seemingly endless façade without any safety gear, was broadcast live globally on Netflix’s Skyscraper Live, drawing more than six million viewers. Once considered a niche pastime, climbing has quickly evolved into a global phenomenon, fuelled by Olympic exposure, post-pandemic fitness trends and a wave of high-profile documentaries (including Honnold’s own, Free Solo). The spectacle marked the next step in a rapidly growing global interest in climbing, with the sport's governing body, World Climbing, operating with a €6 million budget, anticipated to rise to €15 million in coming years. With soaring interest comes soaring profit. It’s no surprise then, that the sport has attracted the attention of heavyweight brands such as Netflix who hope, like Honnold, that the only way is up.

General Liability newsletter – February 2026

Tue, 17 Feb 2026 10:52:00 Z

Welcome to the latest edition of our general liability newsletter. In this edition we look at a Defendants obligations following invalid service of the Claim Form, rules on withdrawing accepted part 36 offers, the effectiveness of the Fixed Recoverable Costs regime and the Court of Appeal decision in Jayden James Smithstone v Tranmoor Primary School [2026] EWCA Civ 13.

FRC issues guidance for actuaries to deal with Virgin Media issues

Mon, 16 Feb 2026 13:55:00 Z

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has issued practical, non-prescriptive guidance to actuaries tasked with reviewing historic pension scheme alterations impacted by the decision in Virgin Media Ltd v NTL Pension Trustees II Ltd & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 843.

Updated FRC guidance increases expectations on directors

Mon, 16 Feb 2026 11:09:21 Z

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has issued updated guidance on the application of the strategic report requirements introduced into The Companies Act 2006 by 'The Companies Act 2006 (Strategic Report and Directors' Report) Regulations 2013' (the Guidance). The strategic report provides information for shareholders to assist with assessing how the directors have performed their duty to promote the success of the company. The Guidance places increased requirements on directors and sets out how directors' performance of their duty to promote the success of their company is to be assessed.

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 13 February 2026

Fri, 13 Feb 2026 11:22:00 Z

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Our latest edition of the Financial Ombudsman Newsletter is out now and can be found here.

Headline development

Authorised Representatives to be brought within the scope of FOS

A consultation paper released by the Treasury on 12 February (the Paper) has proposed bringing appointed representatives (ARs) into the scope of FOS' jurisdiction.

Under the Senior Managers and Certification Regime, all complaints about ARs are currently heard by the principal firm due to ARs not being directly authorised. The proposed changes in the Paper state that FOS would initially investigate a complaint in its usual manner (by investigating the principal firm), but if FOS determines that a principal firm "cannot be held responsible for its AR's acts or omissions, the FOS will be able to directly consider the complaint against the AR itself."

In circumstances where complaint against an AR is upheld, it is proposed that FOS be able to direct any appropriate redress measure to the AR.

These proposed changes will likely bring further regulatory responsibility for ARs, whose principles will also need to obtain authorisation from the FCA to use ARs. There will also be questions around what this is likely to mean for professional indemnity insurance – for example in circumstances where an AR's capital is insufficient to address its compensation liabilities.

To read the Paper, please click here.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

FCA issues civil proceedings against HTX Exchange over illegal UK crypto promotions

On 10 February 2026, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced that it had issued civil proceedings against HUOBI GLOBAL S.A. (HTX Exchange) (HTX). The FCA has alleged that HTX promoted crypto-asset services to UK consumers without authorisation or approval under section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA).

The FCA had previously warned HTX, along with other firms, that it was in breach of the financial promotion rules under FSMA Section 21. However, the FCA received no substantive response.

HTX claims that it was aware of the rules and had stopped targeting UK customers prior to the FCA's warning. However, their website remained accessible to UK consumers, and an FCA employee was able to purchase crypto-assets and carry out a crypto-asset futures trade from the UK.

This claim represents the first enforcement action that the FCA has brought against a crypto-asset firm for illegally marketing products to UK consumers. It marks an escalation in the FCA's approach to prioritising financial crime and the reference to other firms being given a warning in the Particulars of Claim served on HTX suggests that we may see further similar claims being brought

To read more, please click here.

FCA ramps up financial influencer enforcement actions

A Freedom of Information (FOI) request revealed a 174% increase in enforcement actions against financial influencers in 2025 – increasing from 27 in 2024 to 74 in 2025. In prior years, the FCA more commonly relied on warning alerts and interviews under caution, rather than formal legal action.

2025 saw regulators across the globe joining forces to protect social media users. However, the UK still trails some countries, with Canada recording 277 actions.

The FOI request was submitted by Brokerchooser whose head broker, Adam Nasli commented that: "Regulation does not eliminate market risk or even the risk of fraud, but it significantly reduces the likelihood of bad actors holding on to traders' money, and the emergence of misleading structures and uneven playing fields."

Nasli also emphasised the importance of transparency and that AI-driven tools are able to play a meaningful role.

To read more, please click here.

FCA issues policy statement on Buy Now Pay Later regulation

The FCA has published a policy statement on its approach to the regulation of deferred payment credit (DPC) (AKA buy-now-pay-later).

Interest-free credit products repayable in 12 or fewer instalments in 12 months or less are currently exempt from regulation but will be regulated from 15 July 2026 (via the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities etc) (Amendment) Order 2025 (SI 2025/859)). DPC agreements taken out before 15 July 2026 (Regulation Day) will remain unregulated.

The statement follows calls for greater clarity on expectations in some areas in response to the FCA's consultation in July 2025 (CP25/23). Most of the existing rules in the Consumer Credit Sourcebook (CONC) and FCA Handbook requirements (including the Consumer Duty) will apply to DPC.

As a result of DPC becoming regulated, the FCA has said consumers will benefit from:

Clear information: Consumers will get clear, upfront details about their agreement, including when payments will be due, amounts, and what happens if they miss a payment. There are new rules for DPC lenders to provide product information to a borrower before they enter a DPC agreement. The FCA will make sure consumers are given ‘key product information’ that is most important to their decision making.

Affordability checks: Lenders must carry out proportionate checks to make sure customers can afford to repay what they borrow before offering DPC. The FCA will apply its existing creditworthiness rules to DPC lending, including to agreements of less than £50 to ensure DPC firms ensure borrowers can afford to repay.

Support when needed: Lenders will need to offer support to customers in financial difficulty. The FCA will introduce new guidance to remind firms of their obligations under the Duty’s consumer understanding and consumer support outcomes. There will also be new rules requiring firms to provide information to DPC borrowers who have missed a repayment, and to give notice to the customer before taking certain action. The FCA will require DPC lenders to provide information about free debt advice in certain circumstances.

Complaints and compensation: consumers will be able to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

DPC will be treated as consumer credit agreements which will require firms to be authorised by the FCA by Regulation Day. There will be a temporary permissions regime for firms meeting certain criteria and firms will then have six months from Regulation Day to apply for full authorisation. The CA will publish further directions on this in due course.

To read the FCA's press release click here.

Emerging risks

FCA publish review into the impact of AI in retail financial services

On 20 January 2026, the Treasury Committee published a report into the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in financial services. This report, whilst outlining the risks that AI poses on financial services, was largely critical of the FCA for the speed at which the regulator was responding to the emerging risk of AI.

The Treasury Committee highlighted that in the FCA adopting a 'wait and see' approach with the implementation of AI, consumers were at risk of inaccurate, opaque and damaging outcomes, all of which negatively affect the market and profession. Following the Treasury Committee report, the FCA have launched a consultation looking at how AI will reshape retail financial services, including how AI will impact firms and markets as well as the future regulatory approach.

The FCA review, which is due to close on 24 February 2026, is seeking views from across the financial services market before reporting further and setting out recommendations.

To read RPC's blog on the Treasury Committee report and the FCA's consolation, please click here.

To read the FCA's consolation, please click here.

Relevant case law updates

Capita PLC lose strike out application of £4m claim

The High Court in Spurgeon and Others v Capital PLC [2026] EWHC 241 (KB), dismissed Capita's application to strike out a claim on the basis that the Claimants' representatives abused the court process by incorrectly pleading the Claimants' loss as emotional harm and torment. The Court, whilst confirming the pleadings should be re-worded to avoid certain words or phrases which were unclear and could lead to misinterpretation, ultimately decided that striking out the entire claim would be disproportionate.

The claim stems from a cyberattack against Capita in 2023 which saw the sensitive personal data of millions of people stolen by cyber criminals. Following the data breach, those individuals whose data was stolen, sought compensation for the emotional harm suffered.

In October 2025, the Information Commissioner's Office handed Capita PLC an £8m penalty and fined Capita Pension Solutions Ltd £6m for failing ensure that customers' personal data was securely processed during the attack. Despite Capita handling a significant volume of pension plans across the UK, it was found to lack the appropriate technical and organisational measures to respond to the cyber attack and protect their customers' private information.

The Judgment serves as a reminder of how seriously the Court takes the welfare of data breach victims and the victims rights to seek compensation.

To read the Judgment, please click here.

Upper Tribunal dismisses HMRC appeal on extended disclosure in tax dispute

In a judgment on 23 October 2025, the Upper Tribunal ruled against HMRC's appeal against certain case management directions and confirmed that there is no general rule that extended disclosure must apply equally to both sides in a tax dispute.

In first instance case, HMRC alleged that Ducas Ltd (Ducas) facilitated the evasion of more than £171m in national insurance contributions, and that Ducas had supplied its customers with fraudulent documents that demonstrated that both income tax and national insurance contributions had been properly deducted and paid.

In the case management hearing, the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) directed HMRC to provide a wider form of extended disclosure, beyond the standard disclosure rules under the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2009. HMRC was required to provide, not only the documents it would rely on, but also any material in its possession that either supported Ducas' case or undermined its own. This stood in contrast to the standard disclosure ordered of Ducas.

The difference in disclosure orders was due to the significant imbalance in the parties' access to potentially relevant material, and the burden of proving fraud falling on HRMC.

HMRC sought to appeal the FTT's disclosure directions on the basis that fairness demanded reciprocal disclosure obligations.

The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal and emphasised that disclosure orders must be party-specific and issue-specific, rather than imposed equally without regard to a matter's factual matrix.

The decision highlights the high threshold for interfering with case management decisions and serves as a stark reminder that disclosure applications must be determined on the specific facts and circumstances of the case. HMRC may have been more successful if it had advanced fact-specific arguments for Ducas' extended disclosure, rather than arguments of fairness and rationality.

To read more, please click here.

Court of Appeal shifts the landscape of substitution of parties after expiry of limitation

In a judgment handed down on 6 February 2026, the rules concerning the substitution of parties after limitation expires dramatically shifted. The two appeals heard together (both of which involved the same law firm defendant), Adcamp LLP v Office Properties PL Ltd and BDB Pitmans LLP v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, concerned underlying claims for professional negligence against a firm of solicitors. The firm alleged to have carried out the negligent work was Pittmans LLP, but that firm had since undergone a merger, with the result that Pittmans LLP no longer existed and the successor entity was BDB Pittmans LLP (BDBP).

In both cases, the claimants were aware that BDBP had not carried out the work complained of but named them in the proceedings in any event because, they alleged, BDBP had acquired the liabilities of Pittmans LLP. Further to BDBP's application for summary judgment, both Claimants cross-applied to substitute the correct party in the proceedings. There are generally two categories of cases for substitution after limitation. The first is where the claimant names the incorrect party believing that they are, in fact, the responsible party; the second are cases where the claimant names the successor entity in the mistaken belief that that entity has become responsible for the acts of the correct entity.

These cases concern the second type of substitution, and the test for allowing this substitution is whether the claim, after substitution, was the same claim as the one previously pursued. Non-binding judicial opinion which had been followed by courts until this judgment, found that the fact that the two claims concerned would differ in that the identity of the defendant would change did not fall afoul of the test and substitution could be allowed. The Court of Appeal has now affirmed the test but held, for the first time, that a change in identity of the defendant party is inherently not the same claim and so substitution cannot be permitted. The impact of this is that applications for substitutions which fall into this second category will not be allowed.

The Court of Appeal has now granted permission for the Claimants in these cases to appeal this judgment, so it remains to be seen whether this new rule will remain in place. The problem of wrong entities being named is a common one in the field of professional negligence, so this will be a case to keep a close eye on.

To read more, click here.

With thanks to this week's contributors: James Parsons, Alison Thomas, Daniel Goh, Heather Buttifant, Ben Simmonds, Kerone Thomas, Rebekah Bayliss

The Week That Was - 13 February 2026

Fri, 13 Feb 2026 10:34:00 Z

Liverpool Street Station Development given go-ahead

The redevelopment of London’s Liverpool Street Station has received planning approval, clearing the way for a mixed-use scheme above the Grade II listed station after officers accepted there would be heritage harm but that the scale of commercial development was required to deliver the station improvements. The project includes more than 88,000 square metres of office space along with new concourses, lifts, escalators and step-free routes, alongside new ticket gates and entrances.

Officers said the commercial development proposed above the station was directly linked to funding the works and without the over-station development, station upgrades could not be delivered without public funding. The planning application attracted significant opposition during consultation, however officers concluded that the public and economic benefits of delivering a futureproofed transport hub outweighed the identified heritage harm. Approval is subject to a Section 106 agreement; highway works under Section 278 and confirmation that the application is not called in by the secretary of state.

Read the full article here.

Teenage demolition worker's death results in contractor jailed

A self-employed contractor has been jailed for 12 months following the death of a 19-year-old worker after a fall during demolition works in Staines-upon-Thames, Surrey.

The man fell through an opening while removing tiles from a garage roof on 16 August 2023 and died from head injuries several weeks later. A Health and Safety Executive ("HSE") investigation found the contractor had failed to implement basic fall‑prevention measures, with work carried out directly from the roof without scaffolding or protective systems.

Further serious failings were identified, including unsafe mini-digger use, lack of site security for the public, and no asbestos assessment; concrete sheets being broken and removed by hand were later found to be made from asbestos cement, exposing workers and the homeowner’s family to risk. The individual has pleaded guilty to breaching section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. HSE stressed that even small contractors on domestic projects have legal duties.

Read the full article here.

Kier wins £35m contract for Bristol Temple Meads

Bristol Temple Quarter LLP has appointed Kier to act as the main contractor, under an open procedure, on the development which makes up part of the Bristol Temple Quarter regeneration programme.

Bristol Temple Quarter LLP is a joint venture between Bristol City Council, Homes England and the West of England Combined Authority. While not part of the joint venture, Network Rail, will be acting as a delivery partner to aid in the operational integrity and station infrastructure.

The development is one of the largest regeneration schemes in Europe involves seven-storey multi-storey car park, a three-storey cycle pavilion, a new walkway and southern entrance into Temple Meads station and a fully segregated pedestrian footway and two-way cycleway with a new bus stop and walking facilities.

Read the full article here.

Fire safety 'shortfalls' at Hinkley Point C trigger enforcement action

Inspectors from the Office for Nuclear Regulation ("ONR") have identified “significant” fire safety shortfalls at the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station site in Somerset.

Following an investigation, it was discovered that combustible waste was found on an emergency stairwell - while not blocking an exit, it was determined this could impede access during a fire. The site also lacked an adequate fire risk assessment and had insufficient escape routes for the number of workers on site.

Hinkley Point C said it is working with its contractors to improve upon safety. The ONR stressed that fire safety is a legal requirement and warned it will act where standards fall short.

Read the full article here.

Esh wins £2.25m to upgrade sheltered homes with Thirteen Group

Esh Construction has secured a £2.25m contract to refurbish Beechfield Court, a 65-apartment sheltered accommodation scheme in Middlesbrough, working with Thirteen Group under its Capital Investment Framework.

The project will upgrade essential building services and modernise communal areas, including a public café and hair salon. Works comprise extensive heating improvements (replacement of communal and in-flat pipework and a full boiler room upgrade), electrical enhancements to support new warden-call and door-entry systems, and wider access control upgrades. Residents will benefit from full communal redecoration using fire-safe coatings, new carpet and vinyl flooring, and replacement of smoke ventilation windows.

Thirteen Group engaged closely with residents to ensure the refurbishment meets current and future needs, aligning with its homes standard to provide warm, energy-efficient accommodation. This scheme seeks to build on previous collaborative projects between Esh and Thirteen in Middlesbrough and Hartlepool.

Read the full article here.

Skanska UK has won a £273m contract to redevelop One Appold Street

One Appold Street, a 1980s building, will be structurally refurbished, with most of the existing concrete and steel frame being retained. This refurbishment will include the addition of six new storeys, creating a 14 storey, office led scheme with about 33,400 sq. m office space and 4,460 sq. m for leisure and hospitality. The project also includes a new building front to align with other surrounding Broadgate structures.

The client, Broadgate, a joint venture between British Land and GIC, has appointed Piercy Company as architect and Skanska Rashleigh Weatherfoil to deliver ME services.

The scheme targets NABERS 5–5.5* and BREEAM Outstanding, with circularity and embodied carbon reduction central to the design. Construction works have already started, with completion expected in Q1 2029.

Read the full article here.

With thanks to Kelly Smith, Oliver Clarke and Emma Donovan

If you have any queries please do get in contact with a member of the team below, or your usual RPC contact.

Statutory demands relating to disguised remuneration schemes

Thu, 12 Feb 2026 15:03:00 Z

We have recently successfully assisted several clients who had previously utilised arrangements involving Curzon Capital Limited. The arrangements involved payments being routed through a trust and received as “loans”.

Tribunal dismisses HMRC's appeal and confirms no general principle of reciprocal disclosure

Thu, 12 Feb 2026 10:00:00 Z

This article provides an overview of key developments in contentious tax in 2025.

The Work Couch: April 2026 employment law changes: Actions to take NOW!

Thu, 12 Feb 2026 07:59:00 Z

Welcome to The Work Couch, the podcast where we discuss all things employment. Continuing our deep dive into the Employment Rights Act 2025, this week we discuss the imminent wave of employment law reforms coming into effect in April 2026 - and the key actions to take now.

ML Covered - February 2026

Tue, 10 Feb 2026 10:45:00 Z

Government scraps Audit Reform Bill

On 20 January 2026, the Government announced that they were scrapping the Audit and Corporate Governance Reform Bill. The decision was revealed by the Department for Business and Trade in an announcement about investment in UK tech sectors and their next steps in cutting red tape.

The Bill had been intended as landmark legislation to enhance the accountability of directors for incorrect financial reporting. It would have overhauled the regulation of audit and corporate reporting and created a new definition of public interest entity. At the opening of Parliament in 2024, King Charles III stated that it is "important that all directors in the UK’s most significant companies face consequences if they neglect their duties in respect of financial reporting, so the bill will allow for this.”

The draft legislation would have replaced the Financial Reporting Council with a new regulator, namely the Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority. The new regulator would have had a wider remit as well as greater investigatory and enforcement powers. Directors can only be held accountable for making incorrect financial statements if they are members of an accountancy body. The Bill would have given the new regulator statutory powers to investigate concerns over the accuracy of financial reporting and sanction directors for neglect or breaches of their duties.

The Department for Business and Trade has confirmed that instead of the Audit Reform Bill, they are pressing ahead with modernising corporate reporting to reduce unnecessary burdens.

Key Takeaways

The Audit Reform Bill, had it been introduced, would have significantly reinforced the duty on directors to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence. However, even without the introduction of the Bill, directors remain under intense regulatory, and reputational pressure to raise standards in respect to audits, with expectations with regard to documentation and governance being likely to continue to rise. Directors should therefore be mindful of their obligations in respect of audits and corporate governance.

To read more, please click here.

Insolvency Service publishes its 2025 insolvency statistics

On 20 January 2026, the Insolvency Service has published its Company Insolvency Statistics for December 2025, providing a picture for insolvencies for the entirety of the 2025 calendar year.

In 2025, there were 23,938 registered company insolvencies. These comprised 18,525 creditors’ voluntary liquidations, 3,730 compulsory liquidations, 1,495 administrations, 186 company voluntary arrangements and two receivership appointments.

The total number of company insolvencies in 2025 was similar to 2024 numbers, and 5% lower than in 2023, which saw the highest annual number since 1993. However, the 2025 corporate insolvencies are still roughly 70% higher than the total number of company insolvencies in 2021. Although the overall 2025 insolvency numbers are largely similar to those of the previous year, the total number of insolvencies in December 2025 were 10% lower than in November 2025 and 13% lower than December 2024.

Looking at industries that were most affected, 17% of the total company insolvencies in 2025 were in the construction sector. Wholesale and retail trade, specifically the repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles represented 16% of recorded insolvencies. Companies providing accommodation and food services represented 14% of all recorded company insolvencies.

Key Takeaways

The number of corporate insolvencies reached a 30 year high in 2023 and has remained high across 2024 and 2025. The high-level of company insolvencies places continued focus on the role of directors in managing the potentially competing interests of their duties owed to the company and the company's creditors, particularly as there are a growing number of claims being brought against former directors of insolvent companies. Where a company is insolvent or bordering on insolvency, but is not faced with an inevitable insolvent liquidation or administration, Directors need to be mindful of their fiduciary duty to act in the company’s interests and to reflect the fact that both shareholders and creditors have an interest in the company’s affairs.

To read more, please click here.

Single sex case updates

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers, which held that ‘sex’ for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (EQA) means biological sex, the employment law community has been watching to see how tribunals apply that reasoning in practice. We summarise three decisions and highlight key takeaways.

Kelly v Leonardo UK Ltd ETS/8001497/24

Ms Kelly brought claims of direct sex discrimination, indirect sex discrimination and harassment related to sex against her employer, challenging a policy that access to toilet facilities was based on asserted gender identity rather than biological sex.

She submitted a formal grievance, stating that employees wanted access to single‑sex toilets and that, for women, allowing transgender employees to use female toilets raised safety and dignity concerns. The grievance was not upheld, the employer taking the view that it could not refuse access to toilets on the grounds of affirmed gender.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all of Ms Kelly's claims. In doing so they considered the application of the Supreme Court's decision to the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 (WHSW), which require separate toilet facilities for women and men. The tribunal found that this duty did not require the employer to define men or women by biology or by a gender affirmed approach, and that providing a sufficient number of toilets was enough to comply.

Sandie Peggie v Fife Health Board and another

Mrs Peggie brought claims of direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, harassment (including sexual) and victimisation against her employer and Dr Upton (a transgender woman), arising from Dr Upton's use of a female designated changing area at work.

Decision

The tribunal upheld Mrs Peggie’s harassment claim against her employer, finding that it had:

not revoked Dr Upton’s permission to use the changing room on a temporary basis to avoid encounters between the two individuals whilst a solution was found.
taken an unreasonable amount of time to investigate the allegations.
informed Mrs Peggie that she was not allowed to discuss the case.

In making the decision, the tribunal had specific regard to the Supreme Court case in that it concluded that the decision does not make it unlawful for a trans female to be given permission to use a female changing room at work, but that having a protected characteristic of gender reassignment did not mean that permission to use that space was itself actually lawful.

The original permission to allow Dr Upton to use the space was lawful, however, once a complaint had been made by Mrs Peggie it became unlawful and should have been revoked until a solution was found.

Hutchinson and others v County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust

The Trust operated a policy allowing transitioning employees to use changing rooms that aligned with the gender they identified with. A trans woman followed the policy and used the female changing rooms. Ms Hutchinson, and additional female employees who also used the changing rooms, raised concerns about the Trust's policy. However, the Trust refused to amend its policies. The female employees brought claims for discrimination.

Decision

The tribunal confirmed that a trans woman was deemed to be a biological man following the Supreme Court's decision. As a result, the Trust's policy of allowing a biological male trans woman, notwithstanding the objections of female members of staff, amounted to harassment. Additionally, the Trust's policy also amounted to indirect sex discrimination, which the Trust could not objectively justify.

What this means for employers and insurers

Employers must take care when it comes to making decisions about how single sex spaces are used and must properly and promptly investigate any complaints made by employees, regardless of whether they in principle disagree with the employee's point of view. This continues to be a developing area in the law following the Supreme Court's decision which will likely result in more cases being tested in the tribunals.

Government drops independent review of Pensions Ombudsman

The Government has recently abandoned its plans to carry out a review into the Pensions Ombudsman (POS), despite concerns raised by MPs relating to the Atomic Energy Agency Technology ("AEAT") pension scandal.

In a letter published by the Work and Pensions Committee on 14 January 2026, Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions, Pat McFadden, said the Department will not be taking forward the independent review, which was initiated by the previous administration.

The decision reverses a 2023 commitment to examine the POS's time‑limitation rules, which can bar redress for complaints more than 15 years old. This is a constraint which has drawn criticism where loss only emerges long after the events in question and creates "gaps in the routes of appeal".

In June 2023, the Public Accounts Committee reported that thousands of former AEAT employees had lost out financially following the company's privatisation in 1996. About 90% of its 4,000 staff moved from a government‑backed Civil Service pension to a new private scheme. When AEA Technology collapsed in 2012, those members were transferred into the Pension Protection Fund (PPF), and under the PPF’s rules at the time, pension benefits built up before 1997 did not receive annual inflation increases.

McFadden acknowledged concerns about appeal routes for pension complaints, saying the AEAT issues had been addressed, and that future problems are best dealt with as they arise. This will be welcome news for pensions professionals; the limitation rules allow pensions professionals to draw a line under past issues and move on, without the constant threat of historic issues emerging. Any widespread changes made following an examination of the time-limitation rules could open the floodgates for historic issues.

Pension Ombudsman: Recovery of Overpayments

In the case of CAS-89142-L1R8, the Pensions Ombudsman (POS) gave its determination concerning a trustee's decision to recover a winding-up lump sum that was paid after the member's death, in a situation where the lump sum had already been spent in good faith on funeral expenses.

In December 2020, the trustee offered the member the option to exchange his accrued benefits for a one-off winding-up lump sum before completing a buyout, with the intention of eventually winding up the scheme. The member accepted the offer and was informed that his final monthly pension payment would be made in April 2021, and the lump sum would be made in May 2021.

However, unbeknownst to the trustee, the member had died in March 2021, with the payments being scheduled to be made thereafter, in April and May 2021.

After the payments had been made, and the trustee became aware of the member's death, they wrote to the deceased's family seeking to recover the overpayment. The member's son challenged this recovery, arguing that the lump sum payment was an irrevocable offer and formed part of a contractual agreement with the scheme.

The Ombudsman ultimately dismissed the complaint and held that legislative provisions governing payment of winding-up lump sums did not permit payment of such a sum after a member's death. Reference was made to s166(1) of the Finance Act 2004, which states that a winding-up lump sum under "the lump sum rule" could only be paid to an active, deferred, or pensioner member. As such, this entitlement ceased upon the member's death.

The Ombudsman held that, as the complainant had no valid defence against recovery of the overpayment, the trustee was entitled to recover it from the deceased member's estate. This was in spite of the fact that the lump sum had already been spent in good faith on funeral expenses, as the Ombudsman found there was no financial detriment given these expenses would have been settled by the estate in any event.

The Pensions Regulator considers revised collective defined contribution code

The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has released a consultation for the revised collective defined contribution (CDC) code.

CDC Schemes (introduced in 2021 by the Pension Schemes Act 2021) allow for both the employer and employee to pay into a collective fund. The CDC scheme then pays its members an income for life. Currently CDC schemes are only available for single employers, but the government intends to allow for multi-employer CDCs from July 2026.

The revised code sets out TPR's expectations for multi-employer CDC schemes and how it intends to use its powers to support the changes.

No changes to auto-enrolment thresholds

The DWP has completed its annual statutory review of the automatic-enrolment thresholds and has concluded that the thresholds for 2026/27 will be maintained at their 2025/26 levels. That is:

The automatic enrolment earnings trigger will remain at £10,000.
The lower earnings limit of the qualifying earnings band will remain at £6,240.
The upper earnings limit of the qualifying earnings band will remain at £50,270.

This is despite the ongoing concerns regarding pensions inadequacy and under saving for retirement, however, this remains the focus of the Pensions Commission which is exploring the long-term questions of adequacy.

Bancassurance in Hong Kong: A Practical Framework

Mon, 09 Feb 2026 08:12:00 Z

"Bancassurance" – a collaboration between banks and insurers for the distribution of insurance products – remains a powerful growth lever in Hong Kong, China.

The Week That Was - 6 February 2026

Fri, 06 Feb 2026 15:46:00 Z

VINCI To Construct New Southport Event Centre

Sefton Council has appointed VINCI Building as preferred contractor for the new Marine Lake Events Centre in Southport.

VINCI Building will work with Sefton Council under a Pre-Contract Services Agreement to progress the development, with a view to signing a main contract and commencing main construction works later this year.

Read more in Construction Enquirer here.

Plan For National Wealth Fund To Promote £100BN In Spending For Infrastructure And Supply Chain

The UK's National Wealth Fund has published a five-year plan for £100bn of investment into UK companies, infrastructure, and supply chains. Government figures indicate the programme is intended to create or support 200,000 jobs and will aim to save 500 million tonnes of CO2e emissions by 2050.

Ten sectors were identified by the National Wealth Fund as critical investment opportunities. Critical construction sectors include Steel, Power Grid and Energy Storage. The National Wealth Fund has stated that along with its own investment of £19.4bn in public/private projects, it will work with private enterprise to develop a total investment of £100bn to address market weaknesses and to accelerate high-impact projects.

Read more at the New Civil Engineer here.

The Building Safety Regulator and the transition to a single construction regulator

On 27 January 2026, the Building Safety Regulator ("BSR"), formerly part of the Health and Safety Executive, became a standalone executive non departmental public body sponsored by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The BSR was established in 2021, following the Grenfell Tower tragedy and empowered by the Building Safety Act 2022.

The BSR will focus on putting residents at the centre of building safety, regulating higher risk buildings, improving competence across the built environment, and driving culture change to support the delivery of more, safe homes and the remediation of unsafe ones. The move is underpinned by an “operational reset” in BSR’s building control role for higher risk buildings and the introduction of an Innovation Unit and efficiency measures aimed at improving operational delivery.

This move represents the first major step toward the creation of a single construction regulator, a key recommendation of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

For further reading, please click here.

Building Safety Regulator preparing to reject legacy Gateway 2 cases

The Gateway Regime, introduced by the Building Safety Act 2022, refers to a specific set of processes and regulations that apply to Higher Risk Buildings. No construction work can start until Gateway 2 approval is received form the Building Safety Regulator ("BSR").

The BSR has confirmed that it is now reviewing its final 29 legacy schemes, and is prepared to reject applications that cannot be resolved within the next 2 months. The BSR notes that the gaps on some projects remains too wide to close, meaning developers will be forced to submit fresh applications. While approval rates for legacy matters remains high, at 87%, the BSR noted that dealing with these matters continues to drain disproportionate resources.

For further reading, please click here.

High Tech Construction Ltd v WLP Trading and Marketing Ltd [2026] EWHC 152 (TCC)

The case concerns High Tech Construction Ltd’s ("HTC") application to summarily enforce an adjudicator’s decision awarding about £2.14m for works at 162 Willesden Lane, a residential development owned by WLP Trading Marketing Ltd ("WLP"). HTC said there was a JCT Design and Build Sub Contract allegedly signed on 26 January 2023 (the “January JCT Contract”), under which the adjudicator was validly appointed via RICS. WLP denied that any JCT based contract was ever concluded and argued that HTC was relying on a document fraudulently deployed for funding/payment purposes. WLP’s argued that that there were instead (i) an orally/WhatsApp agreed “Enabling Works Contract” for demolition and enabling works, and (ii) a later single lump sum agreement in respect of reinforced concrete frame works. The scope of works to be completed under these arrangements was significantly narrower than the scope included in the January JCT Contract (which was reflected in the reduced contract sum).

The judge reviewed the competing narratives and material that had not been before the adjudicator. He held there was a “real prospect of success” that WLP would establish at trial that the January JCT Contract did not exist as a binding agreement and that HTC’s reliance on it was fraudulent. The judge found this case fell on the “existential” side of the line: there was a real prospect that the adjudicator had not “sufficiently secured the identification of the contractual terms necessary to the proper performance of his adjudication task”. On that basis HTC’s summary judgment application to enforce the award was refused.

A copy of the judgment can be accessed here.

With thanks to Charlie Underwood, Ryan Loney and Zack Gould-Wilson

RPC strengthens its international arbitration capability as Ankit Goyal joins the Singapore office as Head of the India Desk

Fri, 06 Feb 2026 15:26:00 Z

International law firm RPC has appointed Ankit Goyal as a Partner in its Singapore office, where it operates joint law venture RPC Premier Law, further strengthening its disputes capability across Asia, accelerating the expansion of its international arbitration practice, as well as the development of its India Desk.

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 6 February 2026

Fri, 06 Feb 2026 12:22:00 Z

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Our latest edition of the Financial Ombudsman Newsletter is out now and can be found here.

Headline development

Order creating new regulated activity of providing targeted support published

Legislation amending the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 (SI 2001/544) (RAO), creating a new regulated activity of targeted support, was published on 30 January 2026. This is the result of the FCA and HM Treasury Advice Guidance Boundary Review.

The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Providing Targeted Support) (Amendment) Order 2026 (SI 2026/74) provides that a person will not be undertaking the existing regulated activity of advising on investments, when providing targeted support.

The next key date is 23 February 2026, which is the date from which the FCA will be able to make rules and grant Part 4A permissions relating to the new activity. After that, the Order will come into force on 6 April 2026.

Further legislative changes are intended by HM Treasury and will ensure alignment between advising on investments in relevant secondary legislation and the regulation of targeted support.

To read the FCA's near final rules on targeted support, please click here.

To read the Order, please click here.

Financial institutions

FCA and PSR set out priorities for delivering the National Payments Vision

In a speech at the Payments Regulation and Innovation Summit 2026, FCA executive director David Geale set out the role of the FCA and the Payment Systems Regulator in delivering the National Payments Vision.

Geale said the priority is a payments system that “works for everyone”, recognising that different people and businesses will rely on different payment methods at different moments in life. While cash and banking hubs remain important, he stressed that the wider objective is to ensure that a range of payment options can co-exist and operate alongside one another, including cards, digital wallets, open banking, Faster Payments and newer developments such as stablecoin and tokenised deposits.

He emphasised that the role of regulators is not "to pick winners”, but to make sure the system as a whole is trusted, coherent and future-proof, whatever form a payment takes. He noted the scale of UK payments activity, highlighting that payment systems moved £107 trillion in 2023, equivalent to around 44 times GDP.

Geale confirmed that the FCA and PSR are working closely with the Bank of England and HM Treasury through the Payments Vision Delivery Committee, with a coordinated approach intended to maximise collective impact. Current work includes publication of the Payments Forward Plan, setting out a sequence of initiatives across retail and wholesale payments, as well as milestones for modernising payments regulation and aspects of digital assets.

He also addressed commentary around consolidation of the PSR and FCA, stressing that this is “an evolution, not a revolution”. He said the two organisations have been working “hand-in-glove” for years on the issues that matter most in payments, with shared objectives around competition, innovation and consumer protection, and with the PSR retaining its wider focus on service-users, including merchants and payment services.

The speech highlighted recent developments including the APP fraud reimbursement scheme, under which 88% of money lost to APP scams has been reimbursed, returning £112m to victims. Claim volumes are down and firms are resolving most claims within five days.

Geale also pointed to the FCA’s work to support innovation at pace, including the launch of an AI Supercharged Sandbox and a stablecoin-specific cohort within the Regulatory Sandbox. He noted that the FCA has published its consultation paper on crypto regulation and will set out the final rules and framework in early summer.

Looking ahead, Geale said the National Payments Vision is about ensuring the UK’s payments infrastructure can cope with scale, complexity and change, preserving what works today while building the next generation, and maintaining resilience and interoperability both domestically and internationally.

To read more, please click here.

Pensions

Deputy Pensions Ombudsman dismisses complaint regarding due diligence on a defined benefit transfer

The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman (DPO) in the case of Mr S (CAS-54901-V6R7) (25 November 2025), dismissed a complaint regarding the transfer of a pension out of a defined benefit scheme (DB) into another scheme which later failed.

In 2014, Mr S engaged an Independent Financial Advisor (IFA) to assist with transferring his DB pension out of the scheme. At the time of the request, the DB Trustee provided Mr S with a leaflet which outlined the risks of pension fraud. Mr S signed a declaration to confirm that he received, read and understood this leaflet. Prior to the transfer and throughout 2014, the DB Trustee requested various documents and undertook several information gathering steps before proceeding with the transfer. In particular, the DB Trustee confirmed the IFA was regulated by the FCA, the receiving scheme was registered with the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) and sought confirmations from Mr S directly. The pension transfer completed in April 2015, but unfortunately the scheme failed in January 2018

Mr S sought to bring a complaint against the DB Trustee for the alleged failure to conduct adequate due diligence on the receiving scheme which resulted in the loss of Mr S' entire pension. It was the DB Trustee's position that adequate due diligence was undertaken at the time of the transfer within the context of Mr S being over the age of 55 (for the purposes of pension liberation), The Pension Regulator's guidance was followed regarding a fraud warning being provided, and Mr S was not receiving advice from the DB Trustee as he had engaged an IFA.

The DPO agreed with the DB Trustee and decided that the DB Trustee did not owe a duty of care to Mr S to carry out further due diligence checks on the receiving scheme as Mr S' request to transfer out was made pursuant to the Pensions Act 1993. Mr S was therefore limited to the FCSC's compensation cap of £50,000, against a loss of £151,638.46, in respect of the IFA advice only.

To read the decision, please click here.

Pensions Ombudsman finds administrator liable for errors caused by automated system

The DPO also recently decided the case of Mrs K (CAS-90501-T3V1) (25 November 2025), in which the pensions administrator, the NHS Business Services Authority (NHS BSA) was found liable for maladministration as a result of incorrect pensions estimates provided to Mrs K which had been generated by MHS BSA's automated system.

Mrs K was a member of the NHS Pensions Scheme. She sought various estimates of her pension benefits if she were to retire early between 2018 and 2020. Her employer provided these, via their access to NHS BSA's automated system, and the estimates provided between 2018 and up through May 2020 were correct. Mrs K was provided an estimate in October 2020 which was more than double the figures she'd last been provided.

She queried the apparent error with her employer, who (incorrectly) stated the estimate was correct and issued a second incorrect estimate in November 2020 which aligned with the October 2020 estimate. Mrs K subsequently gave notice of her retirement and retired in March 2020, which she stated was in reliance on the incorrect October and November 2020 estimates.

Mrs K's complaint sought compensation for both financial loss and distress and inconvenience caused by the errors. The NHS BSA asserted that the estimates could not reasonably be relied up to make retirement decisions, as disclaimers were included with the estimates, and that, in any event, Mrs K had not suffered financial loss as a result of the errors because the evidence she provided related to pre-existing debts and she had the opportunity to reverse her retirement decision without any negative consequences but did not attempt to do so. NHS BSA also defended the errors, noting that Mrs K employer had provided them and had not passed her query following the October 2020 estimate to NHS BSA.

DPO partly upheld Mrs K's complaint, finding that as the employer was an authorised user of NHS BSA's automated system, they were essentially NHS BSA's representatives and so NHS BSA was ultimately responsible for the erroneous estimates. DPO award Mrs k £1,000 on account of distress and inconvenience as a result.

However, DPO found that Mrs K had not suffered a financial loss as a result of the errors, agreeing with NHS BSA that the estimates should not have been relied upon to make the decision to retire, Mrs K could have reversed her retirement decision, and the losses complained of related to pre-existing debts, and so were not caused by the retirement decision in any event.

To read the decision, click here.

FOS developments

FOS sees lowest complaint volumes in two years

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has reported its lowest quarterly case volumes in two years, with 47,300 new complaints recorded between October and December 2025. That’s down from 68,400 during the same period the year before.

FOS said volumes are now broadly in line with 2023/24 levels, and noted that more people are bringing complaints directly, rather than using professional representatives. Case numbers have remained steady over recent months, with 46,300 received in Q2 2025/26. The figures appear to reflect both internal reforms and external factors, including the FCA’s pause on complaint handling in motor finance commission cases.

The drop in volumes comes alongside changes FOS has introduced, including charging professional representatives to submit complaints. FOS says that’s helping to cut back speculative or poorly evidenced claims and improve overall quality. So far this financial year, the percentage of complaints withdrawn or abandoned by representatives has fallen to 19%, compared with more than a third last year. There’s also been a steep decline in irresponsible lending complaints – down to 4,800 this quarter from 13,200 in the same period last year.

Interim chief ombudsman James Dipple-Johnstone said the focus is on strengthening the service and maintaining trust in how complaints are resolved. Whilst volumes have dropped, many see this as a result of structural changes rather than a fall in consumer willingness to raise concerns. There are fewer mass-submitted complaints and fewer claims brought by professional representatives, but complaints about core financial products remain steady.

FOS appears focused on handling complaints about core products with more consistency and efficiency. The figures point to a change in how the system is operating, rather than a drop in underlying demand.

To read more, please click here.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

FCA Confirms No APR and Commission Cap for Premium Value Finance Market

On 3 February 2026, the FCA released the final report for its Premium Finance Market Study (the Report).

The Report confirmed that the FCA would not impose a cap on APR fees or restrict commissions on the premium finance market. Instead, the FCA proposed to use fair value assessments to ensure customers protection rather than implement new rules.

This decision comes as a disappointment to consumer lobbyists who felt the decision was in contradiction with the FCA's previous description of premium finance arrangements as "a tax on the poor".

Whilst premium finance is used by c. 23 million customers, the FCA has acknowledged that such arrangements are more likely to be used by poorer buyers who are unable to pay the annual cost of a premium up front. These consumers can face interest charges as high as 38% if they choose to pay their annual premiums in instalments.

The FCA has responded to criticism by asserting that "more significant interventions – for example forcing companies to offer 0% APR [may] reduce the availability of premium finance, which would negatively affect vulnerable customers who would otherwise struggle to pay for insurance."

The FCA has promised to "act further" in order to enforce fair value requirements.

To read the FCA's announcement, please click here.

FCA and SRA issue warning to claims firms over excessive exit charges

The FCA and the SRA have joined forces in warning claims management companies (CMCs) and law firms handling motor finance commission claims about improper practices, with a sharp focus on excessive exit and termination fees.

The warning follows prior FCA scrutiny of two FCA-regulated CMCs which led to the CMCs agreeing to amend their termination fees and protecting approximately 70,000 consumers from excessive charges as a result.

Any termination or 'exit' fee should be reasonable and reflect only work actually done and must be clearly stated before services start.

To read more, please click here.

Relevant case law updates

Upper Tribunal Releases Ruling on FCA Financial Penalties on Bank

The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) was asked to rule on a decision notice by the FCA that imposed financial penalties of £10m against Banque Havilland SA (the "Bank"), £352,000 against Edmund Rowland, a Board director and CEO of the Bank's UK Branch, and £14,200 against Vlafimir Bolelyy, Mr. Rowland's personal assistant, for breaching Principle 1 (Failing to act with integrity).

The decision notice related to the production of a document in 2017 which the FCA asserted demonstrated an intention by the Bank to manipulate the market and put pressure on the Qatari currency in order to break the peg between the Watari Riyal and the US dollar. The document was created due to an instruction from Mubadala, a United Arab Emirates (UAE) sovereign wealth fund, who wanted advice on how to protect the UAE's Qatari asset values during the Qatar diplomatic blockade.

The Bank argued that the alleged conduct did not breach Principle 1 on the basis that the conduct did not form part of the Bank's business, was not attributable to the Bank and did not amount to regulated or ancillary activities. Mr Rowland and Mr Bolelyy put forward similar arguments.

In relation to Mr Rowland and Mr Bolelyy, the Tribunal applied the approach for vicarious liability as a guide to determine the Bank's business for Principle 1 purposes, their roles' authorised functions and whether there was sufficient connection between their roles and the wrongful conduct.

The financial penalties were upheld against Mr Rowland as he was (i) acting in the course of employment as document preparation fell within their contractual roles, (ii) used Bank time and resources, and (iii) intended to benefit the Bank's interests.

Interestingly, the Tribunal was willing to look past Mr Bolelyy's position and examine the actions that he took. Given that his actions extended beyond that of a personal assistant into strategy research and analysis, it was accepted that his conduct was sufficient to warrant the financial penalties imposed.

To read the full decision, please click here.

With thanks to this week's contributors: James Parsons, Alison Thomas, Daniel Goh, Heather Buttifant, Ben Simmonds, Kerone Thomas, Rebekah Bayliss

AI in financial services – regulators' response 'too slow' and impact on retail arrangements subject to new review

Fri, 06 Feb 2026 08:31:00 Z

In yet another busy month relating to AI in financial services, January saw the publication of a Treasury Committee report which is critical of the speed of financial regulators' response to AI related risks, as well as the launch of a new FCA review (the 'Mills Review') into the impact of AI in retail financial services.

Upper Tribunal considers 'wholly and exclusively' test in the context of SDLT and ATED

Thu, 05 Feb 2026 10:00:00 Z

In Investment and Securities Trust Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKUT 00331 (TCC), the Upper Tribunal denied SDLT relief, holding an option held by a property development company was not acquired 'wholly and exclusively' for property development purposes, but allowed the taxpayer’s appeal in relation to ATED relief.

Taxing Matters: HMRC's approach to supply chain fraud, with Joshua Carey of Devereux Chambers

Thu, 05 Feb 2026 09:32:00 Z

In this episode of RPC’s Taxing Matters podcast, Michelle Sloane, Partner in our Tax, Investigations and Financial Crime team, is joined by Joshua Carey of Devereux Chambers to explore HMRC’s increasingly robust approach to supply chain fraud, and what this means in practice for businesses.

Tax Bites - February 2026

Wed, 04 Feb 2026 10:00:00 Z

News

HMRC updates its International Manual to reflect changes introduced in the Finance Bill 2026

HMRC has updated its International Manual to reflect changes introduced in the Finance Bill 2026.

For example, HMRC has added a new section (INTM414000) to provide guidance on transfer pricing reform. It clarifies when HMRC will consider issuing a transfer pricing notice and provides examples of the application of the anti-avoidance provision which was implemented to tackle arrangements where the main purpose (or one of the main purposes) is to prevent the participation condition.

HMRC has also published revised guidance for non-residents trading in the UK (INTM261030).

OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework agrees Pillar Two package

The 147 jurisdictions in the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting have agreed a global minimum tax package setting out a plan for the operation of Pillar Two in a digitalised and globalised economy.

The package, often referred to as the “side-by-side” framework, introduces targeted simplifications and safe harbours to support co-existence between the global minimum tax and domestic minimum tax regimes, and to facilitate implementation.

The UK has confirmed that the measures will apply from 1 January 2026 and be legislated in a future Finance Bill.

The OECD's press release can be viewed here.

HMRC consults on CIS simplifications

HMRC has published a consultation and draft legislation proposing administrative simplifications to the Construction Industry Scheme (CIS).

The proposals include reinstating nil CIS returns (subject to notification requirements) and excluding payments to local authorities and certain public bodies from the CIS. The consultation closed on 3 February 2026, with the regulations expected to come into force on 6 April 2026.

The consultation can be viewed here and the draft legislation here.

HMRC targets cryptoassets in IHT reporting

HMRC has issued letters to agents who submit IHT400 returns, reminding them that it considers cryptoassets to be property for inheritance tax purposes and that they must be declared where relevant.

Agents are asked to confirm whether estates hold cryptoassets, to report them in Box 76 of the IHT400 with supporting detail in the Additional information section, and to amend prior returns using a Corrective Account, where necessary. The letters refer to HMRC’s Cryptoassets Manual and IHT Manual, and note that unprompted disclosures may still be available in appropriate cases.

HMRC's template letter can be viewed here.

Case reports

Share buy-back satisfied 'trade benefit' test and was taxable as a capital gain rather than a distribution

In Boulting v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1272 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) allowed the taxpayer’s appeal, finding that the purchase of shares met the 'trade benefit' test in section 1033, Corporation Tax Act 2010 and was therefore taxable as a capital gain and not as a distribution.

This decision confirms that the 'trade benefit' test in section 1033, requires a purposive enquiry focused on the company’s commercial objectives, rather than on valuation issues, or the seller’s personal motivation.

The FTT has demonstrated in this decision that where a share buy-back is part of a genuine and commercially necessary exit to resolve management dysfunction, it is prepared to recognise a trade benefit even if the business appears profitable at the time, or if valuation is imperfect.

The decision also strengthens the position of family companies and owner-managed businesses undertaking purchase of own share transactions for succession or governance reasons, especially where management conflict threatens commercial performance.

You can read our commentary on the decision here.

Tribunal confirms MDR relief in SDLT appeal

In Michelle Jacqueline Berrell & Anor v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1067 (TC), the FTT allowed the taxpayers' appeal and confirmed their claim for Multiple Dwellings Relief (MDR).

This decision confirms that the test for 'dwelling', under Schedule 6B, Finance Act 2003, is fact-specific and multi-factorial. Shared access or utilities will not automatically disqualify a unit from being a 'dwelling'. The FTT's willingness to envisage realistic occupancy terms, including shared common areas and garden access restrictions, provides a more nuanced approach than a rigid 'fully self-contained' test.

For property purchasers considering MDR when acquiring a property with an annexe (or sub-unit), this case highlights the importance of establishing as many self-contained features as possible at completion, such as: independent entrance, bathroom, kitchen capability, heating, and stop-tap/fuse box. Equally, it demonstrates that some shared elements, such as driveway, utility meters and garden access, will not necessarily prevent MDR if, overall, the sub-unit is suitable for separate occupation and privacy/security can be managed under realistic terms.

The decision also serves as a reminder that planning permission wording, for example, labelling an annexe as 'ancillary' and marketing a property as a single dwelling, whilst factors to be taken into consideration, are not determinative.

You can read our commentary on the decision here.

Tribunal orders HMRC to disclose documents to taxpayers in offshore trust case

In Evans & Ors v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1112 (TC), the FTT allowed the taxpayers' disclosure application in part, ordering HMRC to provide most of the documents sought by the taxpayers (other than in relation to confidential correspondence between HMRC and foreign tax authorities).

In appeals before the FTT, the standard disclosure position is that a party only has to disclose documents they intend to rely upon. However, this decision illustrates that, in appropriate circumstances, the FTT will order HMRC to disclose relevant documents to appellant taxpayers, even where HMRC does not intend to rely on those documents and/or they are prejudicial to HMRC's case.

The issue of disclosure is topical at the moment, and another notable recent case is United Wholesale Grocers Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1066 (TC), in which the FTT allowed the appellant taxpayer's application for specific disclosure, requiring HMRC to disclose documents concerning supply chains and related matters, mirroring the higher standard of disclosure provided for in the High Court under the Civil Procedure Rules.

The judge's comments in Evans on his use of AI in producing his decision are also worthy of note (see [42]-[49]). There can be little doubt that the use of AI by tax tribunal judges is likely to increase substantially as the technology develops.

You can read our commentary on the decision here.

And finally …

Adam Craggs and Liam McKay published an article in Tax Journal commenting on the key developments in the contentious tax arena in 2025. In particular, the article focuses on the procedural frameworks in tax litigation, case law on issues such as late appeals and the burden of proof, and HMRC’s intensified focus on avoidance and criminal compliance activity that is likely to shape the disputes landscape in 2026.

You can read the article here.

Sports Ticker #144 - Football Money League leaders and prediction market parlays - a speed read of commercial updates from the sports world

Mon, 02 Feb 2026 15:16:00 Z

As always, if there are any issues on which you’d like more information (or if you have any questions or feedback), please do let us know or get in touch with your usual contact at RPC.

English Women’s football hits £21 million money milestone
Two English women’s teams have surpassed £20 million in annual revenue for the first time as confirmed in Deloitte’s Football Money League, highlighting the rapid growth of the women’s game. Champions League winners Arsenal lead the rankings with £21.5 million, narrowly ahead of current WSL Champions Chelsea on £21.3 million. Commercial income was the primary growth driver, accounting for 72% of revenue across the top 15 clubs. Deloitte noted that several major women’s football markets – including the US – were excluded due to a lack of available data. Meanwhile, Real Madrid topped the men’s list with €1.161 billion in revenue, recording a 23% increase in commercial revenue. In another English first, Liverpool became the highest-earning English men’s club, placing fifth overall with €836 million in revenue. There were no English sides in the men’s top four, underscoring the widening spread of financial power across Europe’s elite clubs.

NBA Eyes Europe Expansion Plan
NBA commissioner Adam Silver is exploring the creation of ‘NBA Europe’, potentially launching as early as 2027. The proposed league could feature up to 16 teams, including franchises in London and Manchester. Plans involve a mix of new and existing basketball teams, and football clubs with or without basketball operations. Silver referenced discussions with major football clubs in a bid to “tap into” European football culture in the new league's creation. EuroLeague, currently Europe's biggest basketball competition, includes powerhouse teams such as Real Madrid and Barcelona, with the latter indicating intentions to renew its EuroLeague license for another 10 years. EuroLeague CEO Paulius Motiejunas voiced confidence the league's future, commenting, “having a theory is one – and making it work is two…. We’ve been here for 26 years. We know how Europe functions.” Silver reiterated the NBA’s commitment, focusing on learning from football clubs’ experience to grow basketball and the live-sports entertainment ecosystem across the continent.

Dual Départs: UK gears up for Historic Tour de France double
Organisers have revealed historic plans for the 2027 Tour de France and Tour de France Femmes to both begin in the United Kingdom. Plans for dual Grand Départs in July 2027 will mark the first time both races start in the same country outside of France. The men’s race will begin in Edinburgh on 2 July, heading south through Liverpool, with the final stage finishing in Cardiff across challenging climbs. The women’s Tour will launch on 30 July from Leeds, proceed to Manchester, and conclude with a London stage. Simon Morton, director of UK Sport, stated that the route aims to “reach, unite and inspire people right across the country”. Organisers and local leaders have highlighted opportunities to inspire greater participation in cycling and deliver lasting social and economic benefits. The last British Grand Départ, 12 years ago, attracted around 3.5 million spectators and generated approximately £128 million in economic benefits for host cities.

YouTube to stream record-setting San Francisco boxing spectacle
Global sports marketing company iVisit Boxing (iVB) is gearing up to stage what could become the most attended boxing event in history. San Francisco’s Civic Center Plaza will be transformed into an open-air arena for the event, happening on 11 July. The current attendance record of 135,132 was set at a 1941 bout between Tony Zale and Billy Pryor in Milwaukee. iVB CEO Ed Pereira revealed that the majority of tickets would be free, saying the event “belongs to its fans, its fighters and its communities.” Unified heavyweight champion Oleksandr Usyk and Deontay Wilder have been linked to the event, though there is no agreement in place. The London-based company has plans for 24 boxing cards over the next year. The first show will be revealed next month at a Las Vegas press conference. Boxing fans will be able to watch on YouTube, which has agreed a deal with iVB to stream the series, billed as “iconic.”

High stakes: prediction markets chase parlays to boost betting
Kalshi and Polymarket, two of the world's fastest-growing prediction market providers, are striving to accumulate enough liquidity to offer multi-leg sports betting to their users. Known as “parlays” in the US, or “accumulators” in the UK, these multi-leg bets offer greater payouts if a series of predictions come true. Prediction markets have traditionally provided participants with the opportunity to bet on binary outcomes – such as the result of a football match. Prices and odds are determined by how other users are betting. However, parlays will require prediction markets to offer liquidity pools for each bet, whereas conventional sports betting groups have previously been able to offer bundled preset odds cheaply. As covered in Sports Ticker #140, Kalshi reportedly handled $1 billion in weekly sports volume at the end of 2025. Parlays will provide the opportunity to entice customers from traditional gambling sites, in an attempt to further disrupt the $14bn US sports gambling industry.

Extra time...

…and finally, automobile pioneer Ford has announced its return to F1 from next season, following a 22-year absence from the sport. Once F1 juggernauts, having won 176 races and 10 World Constructors’ Championships, the seasoned brand is targeting a triumphant homecoming through an engineering partnership with Red Bull Racing. While full details remain under wraps, the pair are expected to collaborate on the development of next generation hybrid power units for both Oracle Red Bull Racing and Scuderia AlphaTauri cars from 2026 until at least 2030. The partnership aligns with incoming hybrid power regulations, requiring units three times larger than those currently in use. Described by Red Bull’s chief engineer as “the biggest shift in regulations the sport has ever seen”, next season promises to be a spectacle fans can’t a Ford to miss.

Adverse possession – what's been happening?

Mon, 02 Feb 2026 13:58:00 Z

In the past 12 months, there have been two adverse possession ("AP") cases in the Court of Appeal; and one, almost two, in the Supreme Court.

Banking and Financial Markets Litigation Update - Winter 2025/2026

Mon, 02 Feb 2026 12:04:00 Z

This review is brought to you by RPC's market-leading Banking and Financial Market Disputes practice, part of RPC's wider Financial Services sector offering.

High Court warns that non genuine PIPs could breach the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence

Mon, 02 Feb 2026 10:40:00 Z

A Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), sometimes referred to as a performance action plan, is often used by employers to identify an employee’s performance deficiencies and opportunities for improvement within their role.

The Week That Was - 30 January 2026

Fri, 30 Jan 2026 16:01:00 Z

Paragon Group Ltd v FK Facades Ltd - The TCC confirms that assignees of a construction contract can refer disputes against the original contracting party to adjudication

Paragon Group Ltd (Paragon) as assignee of the employer's rights under a JCT Minor Works Building Contract, 2016 edition (the Contract), terminated the Contract in April 2024 and claimed liquidated damages for delay from the Contractor (and original contracting party), FK Facades Ltd (FK). FK disputed the claim.

Paragon referred the dispute to adjudication and FK raised several jurisdictional challenges including its argument that only the original parties to the contract could refer disputes to statutory adjudication. The adjudicator considered that he did have jurisdiction, awarded Paragon £80,500 and decided that FK should pay the Adjudicator's fees. FK refused to pay and Paragon issued enforcement proceedings.

The TCC granted summary judgment enforcing the Adjudicator's decision. Interpreting the meaning of a "party" to a construction contract, the judge held that both the statutory adjudication framework and the Contract itself contemplated that a "party", for adjudication purposes, could include a legal assignee.

In reaching its judgment, the TCC acknowledged that "there is no direct authority on the point" and that the issue is "not entirely straightforward". This case provides welcome authority on the issue.

You can read the full judgment here.

'James Bond' builder fined for threatening HSE inspectors

Site manager David Robert Lane has been ordered to pay more than £10,500 after threatening Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspectors at a cottage refurbishment in Rugeley, Staffordshire.

Passing inspectors witnessed unsafe practices, including two workers accessing a roof from an excavator bucket, and approached the workers on site. Lane intervened, rebuffing the inspectors' attempts to inspect the site and refused to identify himself beyond “James Bond”. Lane claimed to be the property owner with unpaid relatives and friends on site and issued threats of violence which prompted the inspectors to withdraw.

A week later, the inspectors returned with officers from Staffordshire Police. Lane again denied their right to inspect, instructed workers not to engage, and continued to obstruct. He was prosecuted under two counts of section 33(1)(h) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 for obstruction and, after failing to attend Birmingham Magistrates’ Court twice, was found guilty after being tried in absence on 9 January 2026. The court fined him £3,000, with £6,450 costs and a £1,200 victim surcharge.

HSE inspector Gareth Langston reiterated that "HSE inspectors have an important job to do, in safeguarding the health, safety and welfare of people at work. This includes investigating incidents and securing justice for innocent workers and the families that are tragically left behind."

Read the full article here.

HS2 Health and Safety concerns

After the occurrence of five RIDDOR (Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations) incidents, it was identified that HS2 bosses had previously flagged health and safety concerns in a board meeting just months before a serious incident halted work on the line's London tunnels, following the release of board meeting minutes. By June, a consistent number of lost‑time incidents persisted, and further interventions were under consideration.

In September, there was a near miss at Green Park Way in West London when a beam struck a crane basket during gantry crane dismantling. This led to a pause of Skanska Costain Strabag JV works for a review of procedures and leadership. Works were stated to be restarting in phases, and HS2 later confirming all sites reopened without impact on the overall schedule.

In March, the board removed accident frequency rate from KPI metrics, retaining it as management information. HS2 says safety is the top priority, adopting zero tolerance and using the Health and Safety Performance Index (including injury frequency weighting) to better target improvements across the supply chain.

Read the full article here.

£60m Mental Health Hospital construction has been delayed

Construction of the £60m Combe Valley Hospital in Bexhill has been delayed, with subcontractor insolvency and exceptional rainfall, cited as the cause. Completion is now expected in September, with opening in December 2026, rather than early 2025.

The 5,200 sqm facility will provide adult and older people’s inpatient mental health services, replacing Eastbourne District General Hospital’s provision.

The hospital will be comprised of 54 beds across three 18-bed wards, each with individual bedrooms and ensuite bathrooms, plus outpatient and training facilities, designed to create a modern, therapeutic environment.

Read the full article here.

CLC Material Supply Chain Group warns of declines across construction industry

The Construction Leadership Council’s (CLC) Material Supply Chain Group (the Group) has reported that the UK's construction market urgently requires "targeted stimulus measures” due to the sector facing continued weak market conditions, noting the difficulty of a prospects of a recovery in 2026 looking bleak.

Concrete volumes have fallen by 39% in London in the last two years, and are down 28% nationally over the last four years. Concrete volumes are a key indicator of sector activity and, notwithstanding this sharp fall, suppliers are noting that supply often exceeds demand with there being no material shortages.

The Group states how the sharp fall in new orders, contributing to the sector's poor performance, is caused by economic volatility, low consumer confidence, delayed investment activity and client caution.

Read the full article here.

With thanks to Tess Turner, Oliver Clarke and Emma Donovan

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 30 January 2026

Fri, 30 Jan 2026 15:11:00 Z

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Our latest edition of the Financial Ombudsman Newsletter is out now and can be found here.

Headline development

Guidance issued by the FRC on dealing with historic amendments to pension rules

On 23 January 2026, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) issued guidance relating to the provision of retrospective confirmation to validate historic changes to pension scheme rules.

The guidance addresses industry-wide concerns following the High Court's judgment in Virgin Media v NTL Pension Trustees. The High Court ruled that, where it could not be evidenced that the required statutory actuarial confirmation under section 37 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 had been obtained, amendments to a pension scheme could be considered void.

The judgment has raised significant concerns due to the possibility that many schemes may be unable to evidence compliance for historic amendments, leaving them exposed to higher liabilities than expected.

The FRC's guidance seeks to provide actuaries with practical advice on "how to work proportionately when reviewing historic scheme changes". The guidance is aimed towards strengthening both industry and consumer confidence that pension schemes have complied with their legal obligations.

To read more, please click here.

Tax practitioners

HMRC increases focus on second home transactions

HMRC is increasingly scrutinising second home transactions, with Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) investigations increasing by 88% in the 2024/25 financial year.

Figures published by Lubbock Fine show that investigations increased from 1,617 in 2023/24 to 3,035 in 2025. The rise has been linked in part to the increase in the additional SDLT rate on second homes from 3% to 5% in October 2024, which may have incentivised misreporting of transactions. The firm’s director, Graham Caddock, also pointed to the public scrutiny surrounding Angela Rayner’s reported SDLT issues as a likely factor in the uptick in HMRC’s activity.

HMRC investigations have identified buyers attempting to avoid the SDLT second home surcharge through wrongly claiming that they were replacing their main residence, or by transferring their property into a trust or to a partner.

Investigators have also found attempted avoidance of the surcharge through buyers incorrectly claiming that a property includes commercial use. Caddock warned that this position is only valid in specific situations. HMRC is expected to challenge such claims where the commercial use appears incidental or contrived.

To read more, please click here.

Regulated developments for FCA regulated entities

FCA encourages caution following introduction of Public Offers and Admissions to Trading Regulation 2024

On 19 January 2026, the FCA's Public Offers and Admissions to Trading Regulations 2024came into force. The new rules make it easier for companies to raise capital in the UK and reduce costs when admitting securities to UK public markets. Whilst the new rules aim to boost growth and encourage investment, the FCA has urged consumers to exercise caution when considering high risk high reward investments, such as mini bonds and loan notes.

The FCA has emphasised that investment such as these are generally only suitable for experienced investors, who understand the risk and are able to financially withstand potential losses. The FCA has urged investors to exercise caution, to do their own research, and to only engage with regulated firms which afford consumers greater protections.

To read the policy statement, please click here.

To read the FCA's caution for consumers, please click here.

FCA sets out proposals on the application of the FCA Handbook to cryptoasset firms

The FCA has published a second consultation paper (CP26/4) setting out its proposals as to how the FCA Handbook will apply to regulated cryptoasset activities. This follows HM Treasury's presentation of the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) Regulations 2025 in December 2025 – the legislation will bring certain cryptoasset activities within the FCA's regulatory remit and require firms and individuals conducting regulated cryptoasset activities to apply for authorisation before carrying such activities by way of business in the UK.

Authorised firms will need to comply with the FCA Handbook, and this has required the regulator to consider and consult on how its rules should apply to cryptoasset firms. In particular, the FCA has considered how the Consumer Duty (the Duty) should be applied to cryptoasset firms. In response to part one of its proposals in September 2025 (CP25/25) 80% of respondents supported applying the Duty alongside sector-specific guidance.

In respect of the application of the Duty, the FCA proposes:

To apply the Duty (Principle 12 and PRIN 2A) to cryptoasset firms in the same way as it applies generally to all FSMA-authorised firms (including payments firms).
To apply the duty to all activities carried out in relation to UK-issued qualifying stablecoins, including activities relating to public offers and admissions to trading.
Not to apply the Product Intervention and Product Governance sourcebook (PROD) to cryptoasset firms, on the basis the Duty will provide the appropriate level of protection for retail consumers.
Not to apply the Duty to trading between participants of a UK qualifying cryptoasset trading platform (QCATP).

CP26/4 also sets out the FCA's proposals on:

Conduct standards – how the Conduct of Business sourcebook (COBs) should apply to cryptoassets. 80% of respondents to the first consultation paper agreed with the approach of applying the relevant COBs provisions to cryptoasset firms. The FCA intends to extend the Handbook Glossary definition of "designated investment business" (DIB) to include the future cryptoasset regulated activities. Notable COBs rules the FCA intends to apply to cryptoasset firms are the communication / financial promotion rules under COBs 4, distance communication rules under COBs 5, and appropriateness rules under COBs 10.
Restrictions on use of credit to purchase cryptoassets – notably the FCA does not intend to restrict firms from accepting credit card payments.
Its approach to redress and safeguarding, training and competence, and regulatory reporting.

The deadline for responses to the proposals is 12 March 2026.

To read the FCA's consultation paper, please click here.

FCA launches review into long-term AI impact on retail financial services

On 27 January the FCA announced that it was launching a review into the long-term impact AI is likely to have on the retail financial sector, including consumers and regulators. The FCA is seeking input from firms, consumer groups, academics and politicians, among others, and the deadline to give feedback on the review is 24 February 2026.

Sheldon Mills, Executive Director of the FCA, said in his introduction to the Review published on the FCA website: "I want to explore a range of plausible futures and offer clear recommendations to ensure the FCA remains prepared, adaptive and able to support a thriving, innovative UK financial services sector."

In terms of the themes addressed by the Review, the FCA explained that there are four primary themes, which are interrelated:

How AI could evolve in the future, including the development of more autonomous and agentic systems.
How these developments could affect markets and firms, including changes to competition and market structure and UK competitiveness.
The impact on consumers, including how consumers will be influenced by AI but also influence financial markets through new expectations.
How financial regulators may need to evolve to continue ensuring that retail financial markets work well.

To read the full announcement and find out how you can provide feedback on the Review, please click here.

FCA calls on the insurance industry to help close the protection gap

The FCA has published interim findings from its pure protection market review and is now inviting feedback from the insurance industry and stakeholders on how to help close the protection gap.

According to the FCA's interim analysis, many consumers are unaware of their protection needs and approximately 58% of adults in the UK do not hold a pure protection product, even though many could benefit from it.

The FCA is, amongst other things, seeking views on ways in which the market and regulators can help improve awareness and how the process for switching products can be improved.

The FCA requests feedback on its interim findings by 31 March 2026 with a final report, setting out final findings, expected in Q3 2026.

To read more, please click here.

With thanks to this week's contributors: James Parsons, Alison Thomas, Daniel Goh, Heather Buttifant, Ben Simmonds, Kerone Thomas, Rebekah Bayliss

International arbitration

Fri, 30 Jan 2026 14:26:00 Z

Key Developments in 2025 and what to look out for in 2026 in the world of international arbitration.

Tracking crypto-asset tax rules in 2026 and beyond

Thu, 29 Jan 2026 10:00:00 Z

This article provides an overview of key developments in the taxation of crypto-assets.

PLC QTRLY - Q4 2025

Thu, 29 Jan 2026 08:49:00 Z

Prospectus regime: new rules take effect and FCA guidance

On 19 January 2026 the new Public Offers and Admission to Trading regime came into effect, replacing the EU-derived UK Prospectus Regulation (see PLC QTRLY Q3 2025 and details of the key changes in our summary here). On 17 October 2025, the FCA published Primary Market Bulletin 58 (PMB 58), which addressed implementation of the new rules, including the changes to the FCA's systems and processes to ensure a smooth transition to the new regime.

Feedback on the consultations in PMB 58 was considered in Primary Market Bulletin 61, which confirms finalisation of 7 procedural notes and 39 technical notes and deletion of 7 guidance notes in its Knowledge Base with effect from 19 January 2026.

New listings to be exempted from stamp duty reserve tax for initial period

On 4 December 2025, the government introduced the Finance Bill 2026, which will bring into effect the exemption from stamp duty reserve tax (SDRT) for newly listed securities which was announced in the government's 2025 Autumn Budget (by inserting a new section 89C into the Finance Act 1986).

Transfers of securities in a publicly traded company in the UK currently attract SDRT at a rate of 0.5% of the transfer price. Securities on growth markets such as AIM are exempt, but the full rate of SDRT applies to transfers of securities traded on other markets.

Once the new provisions take effect, no SDRT will be payable on transfers of securities in a listed company whose shares are admitted to trading on a UK regulated market during the first three years after the company is first listed, except where any of following exclusions apply:

Listed company mergers: the listing is connected to arrangements by which a listed company takes control of another listed company.
New holding company: the listing is connected to arrangements by which the company takes control of another company and, immediately before those arrangements, the other company is listed and controlled by the person or persons who, at the time of the new listing, control the company.
Change of control: there is a change of control of the company between the date of the listing and the relevant transfer, or the agreement to transfer forms part of arrangements changing control in the company.

London Stock Exchange sets out changes to AIM following consultation

The London Stock Exchange (LSE) has published a feedback statement following its April 2025 discussion paper on the future of AIM (see PLC QTRLY Q2 2025), summarising responses to the discussion paper and setting out its plans for the future development of AIM.

The responses to the discussion paper demonstrated strong support for AIM and its unique position between the private markets and the Main Market.

The feedback statement highlights the need to "evolve and strengthen" AIM in order to maintain that unique position in the context of recent reforms to the UK listing regime and the launch of the Private Securities Market for private companies.

To that end, the LSE plans to change the AIM Rules, and to accept or consider derogation requests to reflect the changes pending rule redrafts, to:

Permit dual class share structures that meet current Main Market requirements for AIM companies.
Modify AIM Rule 13 requirements for director remuneration where nominated advisers are satisfied with contractual protections.
Introduce flexibility for reverse takeover classifications under AIM Rule 14 and remove automatic trading suspensions for certain reverse takeovers.
Increase the AIM Rule 12 (significant transactions) threshold from 10% to 25%.
Permit incorporation by reference for historical financial information and use of UK GAAP (FRS 102) rather than IFRS.
Dispense with Admission Document requirements for second lines of securities.

The LSE plans to consult on comprehensive AIM Rule changes and new technical guidance for nominated advisers in the first half of 2026 and to advance proposals to digitise and re-evaluate AIM Admission Documents.

T+1 settlement: HM publishes policy note and draft regulations

HM Treasury has published a policy note on mandating T+1 settlement in the UK, together with draft Central Securities Depositaries (Amendment) (Intended Settlement Date) Regulations 2026.

The draft regulations set out how the government intends to deliver T+1 settlement as the standard settlement period in the UK from 11 October 2027 by amending the intended settlement date in Article 5(2) of the UK Central Securities Depositories Regulation.

The deadline for technical comments on the draft regulations is 27 February 2026, with the final regulations due to be laid before Parliament before 11 October 2027.

Pre-Emption Group report on use of updated Statement of Principles

On 9 December 2025, the Pre-Emption Group published its third report monitoring the use of its Statement of Principles on the disapplication of pre-emption rights for UK listed companies since it was revised in 2022 to increase the level of disapplication authority that companies can request routinely to 20% (see PLC QTRLY Q4 2022).

The report examined adoption of the revised Statement of Principles by FTSE 350 companies for AGMs held between 1 August 2024 and 31 July 2025 and indicates that more companies are taking advantage of the updated guidance and that investor support remains strong. In particular:

77.6% of FTSE 350 companies with AGMs during the relevant period sought enhanced disapplication authority as permitted under the revised Statement of Principles (up from 67.1% in 2023/2024 and 55.7% in 2022/2023).
60.8% requested authority for a specified capital investment, in addition to authority for general corporate purposes (slightly down from 64.1% in 2023/2024).
99.1% of companies had all disapplication resolutions passed, with an average of only 5.1% votes against.

FCA guidance on delayed disclosure of inside information

On 23 October 2025, the FCA published Primary Market Bulletin 59 (PMB 59), which covers its review of delayed disclosure of inside information (DDII) notifications under UK MAR.

Article 17.4 of UK MAR permits an issuer to delay the disclosure of inside information if immediate disclosure would be likely to prejudice the issuer’s legitimate interests, delaying disclosure is not likely to mislead the public, and the confidentiality of the inside information can be ensured. If an issuer delays disclosure of inside information, they are required to inform the FCA of that delay immediately after the inside information is disclosed to the public.

Since the FCA's last review in 2020, the FCA found a 39% decrease in the average number of DDII notifications submitted per day, as well as a decrease in the number of issuers making DDII notifications. Average delays in disclosure increased by 7 days to 35.2 days, although the average delay in disclosing “unscheduled financial information” decreased by 6 days.

The FCA expressed concern that the significant and unexpected decrease in DDII notifications may indicate falling levels of compliance with Article 17.4 and reminded issuers to of their obligation under Listing Principle 1 to take reasonable steps to establish and maintain adequate procedures, systems and controls to enable them to comply with their obligations, including their disclosure obligations under Article 17.4. This includes the requirement to inform the FCA immediately after disclosure to the public.that disclosure of the inside information was delayed.

PMB 59 also includes comments on the obligations of listed companies that are planning to acquire cryptoassets for the purpose of long-term value appreciation as part of their broader treasury management strategy, a reminder of key changes to the submission of disclosures to the National Storage Mechanism that took effect on 3 November 2025 and details of a consultation on proposals to support changes introduced by the Short Selling Regulations 2025.

Updated guidance on remuneration

FRC guidance on non-executive director remuneration

On 5 November 2025, the FRC published updated guidance on the remuneration of non-executive directors as part of its regular updates to the guidance supporting the UK Corporate Governance Code 2024.

The revised guidance:

Recognises that companies may encourage non-executive directors to build personal shareholdings to foster alignment with shareholders and reinforce long-term commitment, whilst emphasising that any approach must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each company.
Makes clear that, in line with the Code, boards have flexibility to pay non-executive directors a portion of their fees in shares, provided they maintain transparency about their rationale and approach.
Emphasises the importance of preserving independence, noting that performance-related remuneration remains inappropriate for independent non-executive directors.

Investment Association annual letter to remuneration committee chairs

On 12 November 2025, the Investment Association published its annual letter to remuneration committee chairs, reconfirming the flexible approach to executive remuneration outlined in its 2024 Principles of Remuneration and identifying areas where implementation of the Principles by companies could be improved. These include:

Company specific rationales and explanations: Companies should explain why their remuneration proposals are suitable for the individual company's strategy and unique circumstances and avoid generic language referring to "competitiveness against peers" or the need to "attract and retain talent".
Use of benchmarking and peer comparisons for remuneration increases: Any benchmarking exercise should be robust and well-explained and should be discussed with investors at an early stage. Increases in remuneration should not be justified by reference to benchmarking alone, as it can lead to a ratchet effect in the market, and companies should demonstrate how any increase in quantum will lead to a strong link between pay and performance.
Introduction of hybrid schemes: Hybrid long-term incentive structures which combine features of performance share plans and restricted share plans are expected to be used only for companies with a significant US footprint or need to compete for global talent. Remuneration committees should consult early with investors if considering the implementation of a hybrid scheme.
Bonus deferral and shareholding requirements: Companies may reduce the proportion of annual bonuses deferred into shares once shareholding guidelines have been met, but should not completely remove deferral mechanisms since they are useful for allowing the operation of malus and clawback provisions.
Changes to in-flight awards and use of discretion: Companies should avoid retesting, waiving or making retrospective changes to performance or vesting conditions. If discretion is used to make changes in exceptional circumstances, these should be clearly justified as providing a strong link between pay and performance and should be subject to early consultation with and support from shareholders.
Improving the consultation process: Companies should consult shareholders before the AGM season in relation to any material changes.

The letter also reflects the approach to non-executive director remuneration taken in the FRC's updated guidance, stating that shareholders encourage independent non-executive directors to align their interests with those of shareholders by owning shares in the company and that a portion of the director fee could be paid in shares purchased at the market rate but supporting the UK Corporate Governance Code position that performance-related pay is inappropriate for independent non-executive directors.

Updates on corporate reporting

FRC annual review of corporate governance reporting

On 13 November 2025, the FRC published its annual review of corporate governance reporting, analysing reporting trends and practices against the 2018 UK Corporate Governance Code across a sample of 100 UK-listed companies. This will be the last review against the 2018 Code, with annual reports going forwards reviewed against the updated 2024 Code which applies to all financial years starting on or after 1 January 2025.

The review found that companies departing from Code provisions are increasingly providing clear, meaningful and context-specific explanations for their departures and noted that the Code's flexibility to "comply or explain" remains a fundamental strength, allowing businesses to tailor their governance arrangements while maintaining transparency and confidence. 25 of the 100 companies reviewed departed from at least one Code provision, with the most common departures relating to audit committee composition, chair independence and tenure.

The review also:

Stressed the need for greater focus on ensuring that annual reports are as concise as possible, with companies encouraged to assess the volume and relevance of their disclosures and eliminate boilerplate language, repetitive content and generic statements.
Examined preparations for the implementation of the new Provision 29 of the 2024 Code on risk management and internal controls, which will apply for financial years starting on or after 1 January 2026. More than half of the companies reviewed mentioned the new provision and examples of good reporting in this area are included in the review.
Found that 66% of companies reviewed highlighted board-level oversight of cyber risks, with 85% of companies including cybersecurity as a principal risk and a further 12% outlining it within their operational principal risks.

FRC thematic review of corporate reporting by smaller listed companies

On 19 November 2025, the FRC published a thematic review of reporting by the UK's smaller listed companies, which analysed the reports of 20 companies either listed outside the FTSE 350 on the Main Market or on AIM, focusing on the four key areas of revenue, cash flow statements, impairment of non-financial assets and financial instruments.

The review sets out the factors in relation to these key areas which might lead the FRC to open an enquiry with a company, highlights the characteristics the FRC observes in good quality reporting and contrasts this with less informative disclosures, aiming to help smaller listed companies to identify and address key areas of ambiguity and omission in financial statements.

QCA report on adoption and implementation of its Corporate Governance Code

On 9 December 2025, the Quoted Companies Alliance (QCA) published a report on the adoption and implementation of the QCA Corporate Governance Code by companies listed on AIM or the AQSE Growth Market or in the Equity Shares (Transition) listing category at the time of the review in September 2025.

Key findings included:

92% of AIM companies (and 97% of UK AIM companies) adopted the QCA Code, with 26% having adopted the latest 2023 Code and the remainder still applying the 2018 version. Most say that they will be implementing the new 2023 Code in their 2025 annual report in line with requirements.
73% of AQSE companies and 53% of Equity Shares (Transition) companies adopted the QCA Code.
Of the AIM companies adopting the QCA Code, 20% do not apply it in full (rising to 23% of those that adopted the 2023 version).
Over a third of AQSE companies adopting the QCA Code do not apply it in full.
The proportion of AIM companies taking advantage of the QCA Code's flexibility to "apply or explain" has increased from 1 in 10 in 2023 to around 1 in 5 in 2025.

Updates to 2026 proxy voting guidelines

ISS

On 25 November 2025, Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) published its Benchmark Policy Updates for 2026, which will apply to shareholder meetings held on or after 1 February 2026.

Key updates to the UK proxy voting guidelines include:

Definition of in-person shareholder meetings: A new definition has been included to address recent restrictive practices by some companies which could diminish shareholder participation or restrict opportunities for engagement with the board.
Relationship agreements: The requirement for companies to maintain written and legally binding relationship agreements with controlling shareholders has been removed in line with recent changes to the UK Listing Rules.
Change of control: Policy language has been updated to reflect the removal of change of control guidance from the Investment Association's Principles of Remuneration.
Good leaver disclosure: An explicit expectation has been added for companies to provide a rationale and justification for the treatment of departing directors classified as "good leavers", aligning with UK market best practice and investor expectations regarding transparency of exit arrangements.
Related party transactions: Policy language has been updated to acknowledge the removal in the UK Listing Rules of the requirement for shareholder approval of most related party transactions, while retaining case-by-case evaluation criteria for any transactions that remain subject to shareholder approval.

Glass Lewis

On 4 December 2025, Glass Lewis published its 2026 UK Benchmark Policy Guidelines, which apply to shareholder meetings from 1 January 2026.

Key updates include:

Committee size: Shareholders are recommended to vote against, rather than abstain from voting on, the re-election of the audit and/or remuneration committee chair where the committee is too small.
Gender diversity: In the absence of any mitigating circumstances, shareholders are recommended to vote against the re-election of the nomination committee chair where a FTSE 350 board does not comprise at least 40% gender diverse directors.
AIM board independence: AIM companies' boards should be at least half independent and include a minimum of two independent non-executive directors. The guidelines recommend voting against one or more of the non-independent directors if this threshold is not satisfied.
Performance-related pay: A description of Glass Lewis' new proprietary pay-for-performance model has been added, but recommendations on the remuneration report and policy proposals will continue to result from a holistic assessment of the company's remuneration structure, disclosure and practices as a whole, as well as other relevant external factors.

If you would like to discuss any of these issues or any other public company matters, please contact Connor Cahalane, James Channo or Karen Hendy.

CAT Collective Proceedings – Winter 2025/6 Update

Thu, 29 Jan 2026 08:46:00 Z

Since our last update in the Summer of 2025 (see here), there have been a significant number of important developments in the UK’s competition collective proceedings regime before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). A number of key trends and themes run through this update.

First, while the rapid pace of newly issued claims has slowed, new collective claims continue to be filed and announced, with technology‑related claims featuring prominently.

Second, the CAT is exercising robust case management powers in an effort to control the length and cost of collective claims, including ordering joint or coordinated management of overlapping claims, and setting new procedural rules to expert evidence.

Third, the regime is attracting wider scrutiny and suggestions for change from multiple quarters. Given the regime’s relative youth - introduced just over a decade ago, with the first certification in 2021 and the first trial in 2024 - early lessons are likely to be an important ingredient in evaluating any potential reforms.

Fourth, the UK's collective action regime continues to mature, with the first two substantive trial judgments now handed down. The distribution of damages remains a key area for development, and experience in the Kent case is expected to provide further guidance over the coming year.

In this short update, we comment on these trends, identify other recent key developments, and highlight some events to look out for in the coming months.

Insurance Covered: The role of the actuary (With Harriet Hughes)

Wed, 28 Jan 2026 14:57:00 Z

In this episode, Peter Mansfield speaks with Harriet Hughes, an actuary with extensive experience in the insurance industry.

The Work Couch: The Employment Rights Act: A new era for family-friendly rights

Wed, 28 Jan 2026 12:19:00 Z

Welcome to The Work Couch, the podcast series where we explore how your business can navigate today's tricky people challenges and respond to key developments in the ever-evolving world of employment law.

VAT update January 2026

Wed, 28 Jan 2026 09:30:00 Z

News

HMRC has published a Brief confirming that the supply of temporary medical staff is exempt from VAT and that affected businesses may submit rebate claims for overpaid VAT, subject to the usual statutory limits and conditions.

HMRC's Brief can be viewed here.

HMRC is targeting VAT agents with a history of late VAT returns, as part of a wider compliance and agent-standards initiative aimed at improving timely filing and reducing error and fraud within the VAT system.

HMRC's pro-forma letter can be viewed here.

HMRC has published a Policy paper confirming that, from 2 January 2026, private hire vehicle and taxi operators are excluded from the VAT Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme, meaning VAT must be accounted for on the full value of fares rather than the margin.

HMRC's Policy paper can be viewed here.

Case reports

Littlewoods Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1602 (TC)

In this case the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) had to consider whether Littlewoods Ltd (Littlewoods) was entitled to recover input tax on costs incurred in producing product-specific photographs used in its catalogues and online retail business.

Littlewoods operates an online retail business selling consumer goods. Customers are also offered a range of flexible payment options, including interest-bearing credit and insurance, which are exempt supplies for VAT purposes. HMRC denied recovery on the basis that the photography costs were linked to both taxable supplies and exempt finance, arguing that it should therefore be treated as residual input tax for partial exemption purposes. Littlewoods appealed to the FTT.

The key issue for the FTT to determine was whether the photography costs were directly and immediately linked solely to Littlewoods’ taxable retail supplies, or were they also linked to exempt supplies of credit and insurance.

The FTT applied the 'direct and immediate link' test, undertaking a multi-factorial and objective assessment of the costs by examining their nature and tracing how they were deployed in order to determine which supplies they were directly connected with.

The FTT found that the primary function of the photographs was to accurately display products to customers who could not see them in person, serving as a virtual substitute for a physical shop display. In addition, the FTT concluded that the costs of producing the photographs did not have a direct and immediate link to the exempt supplies of credit or insurance. Therefore, although the business model relied heavily on offering flexible payment options, it was insufficient to establish a direct link between the photography costs and exempt finance supplies.

Accordingly, the FTT allowed Littlewoods’ appeal, ruling that the photography costs were attributable exclusively to taxable retail supplies.

The decision can be viewed here.

Why it matters

This decision confirms that product-specific imagery can be fully attributable to taxable supplies, even if finance and insurance products are offered alongside the retail proposition.

The decision also demonstrates how VAT rules can apply in a partial exemption scenario and highlights the importance of a detailed factual analysis as retail models which, on their face, appear similar, can be subject to different VAT positions.

Hotel La Tour Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKSC 46

In this case the Supreme Court considered whether Hotel La Tour Ltd (HLT) was entitled to recover input VAT in respect of professional fees incurred in connection with the sale of shares in Hotel La Tour Birmingham Ltd (HLTB), HLT's wholly owned subsidiary.

HLT was a holding company which provided management services to HLTB, a company operating a luxury hotel in Birmingham. In order to fund the development of a new hotel in Milton Keynes, HLT sold its shares in HLTB and incurred professional fees (including corporate finance, legal and tax advice) amounting to £382,900 plus £76,823 VAT. HLT claimed recovery of the input VAT on the basis that the costs were linked to its overall taxable hotel business rather than to the share sale itself. HMRC denied recovery, contending that the costs were directly and immediately linked to an exempt share disposal. HLT appealed.

The key issue for determination in the appeal was whether the professional fees were directly and immediately linked to the exempt share sale, in which case the input VAT was irrecoverable or to HLT’s general taxable business, in which case the VAT would be deductible (in full or in part).

The FTT allowed HLT’s appeal, holding that the share sale was a fundraising transaction and that the professional fees were linked to HLT’s overall taxable business. The Upper Tribunal upheld that decision and HMRC appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed HMRC’s appeal, concluding that the fees were directly and immediately linked to the exempt share sale. HLT appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court dismissed HLT’s appeal. The Court rejected HLT’s submission that the direct and immediate link test is modified where a share sale is undertaken to raise funds for taxable activities. It reaffirmed that existing CJEU authority remains good law and that the motive of raising finance does not affect the identification of the relevant output transaction for VAT purposes. On the facts, the Supreme Court concluded that the professional costs were incurred as part of the process of disposing of HLTB and were therefore attributable to that exempt transaction, rather than to HLT’s wider hotel operations. The associated input VAT was accordingly irrecoverable.

The judgment can be viewed here.

Why it matters

The Supreme Court has confirmed a strict application of the direct and immediate link test in cases involving exempt share disposals. Where professional fees are incurred to carry out an exempt transaction, input VAT will be irrecoverable, even if the proceeds are used entirely to fund taxable activities.

This decision will also have wider importance for taxpayers involved in future corporate restructurings, group reorganisations and exits, where professional fees are incurred on share disposals.

East Midlands Waste Management Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1603 (TC)

In this case the FTT considered whether East Midlands Waste Management Ltd (EMWM) should be permitted to bring three VAT appeals out of time, comprising two penalty appeals and one appeal against a VAT assessment.

The appeals related to two penalties issued under Schedule 24, Finance Act 2007 (Penalty 1 of £229,872 and Penalty 2 of £39,845) and a VAT assessment of £265,958. HMRC objected to the appeal of the two penalties but did not oppose the VAT assessment appeal. The FTT was therefore required to decide whether to exercise its statutory discretion to admit the late appeals.

The key issue for determination by the FTT was whether, applying the approach in William Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC) (Martland), now confirmed by the Court of Appeal in HMRC v Medpro Healthcare Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 14 (Medpro) (judgment handed down on 19 January 2026), the FTT should grant permission for the appeals to proceed despite significant delays beyond the 30-day statutory time limit. Penalty 1 was appealed 273 days late and Penalty 2 was appealed 228 days late. The appeal against the VAT assessment was only 10 days late. In determining the appeal, the FTT applied the three-stage approach provided in Martland, which requires consideration of:

(1) the length of the delay;
(2) the reasons for the delay; and
(3) an evaluation of all the circumstances.

The FTT accepted that there was a period during which EMWM had a reasonable excuse for the delay, which was due to a change of advisers during a complex and ongoing HMRC investigation, combined with difficulties in obtaining complete records from the former adviser. However, the FTT found that the reasonable excuse did not extend indefinitely and that there were periods of unjustified delay, particularly after HMRC had rejected the late review requests.

Notwithstanding this, in all the circumstances, the FTT held that it would be disproportionate to deny EMWM the opportunity to challenge the penalties. The FTT concluded that, taking into account all relevant facts, HMRC could not have been in any real doubt as to the likelihood that EMWM would challenge the penalties. The penalty appeals were therefore admitted out of time. The appeal against the VAT assessment was also admitted.

The decision can be viewed here.

Why it matters

This case is significant in demonstrating how the tax tribunals are likely to approach applications for late appeals post-Martland and Medpro. Further clarification has also recently been provided by the Court of Appeal in Medpro.

Although statutory deadlines should be adhered to where possible in order to avoid the uncertainty of late appeal applications to the FTT, this decision shows that the FTT may admit a late appeal where fairness and proportionality justifies so doing. Transitions between professional advisors and level of engagement with HMRC can be relevant factors for the FTT to consider.

Lawyers Covered - January 2026

Tue, 27 Jan 2026 11:58:00 Z

Finally, stability after PACCAR?

On 17 December 2025, the government announced its long awaited plans for legislation to remove the barriers created by the PACCAR, the Supreme Court decision which concluded litigation funding agreement are legally classed as damage based agreements (see our 2023 update here). This meant that such an agreement could only be valid if it satisfied certain rules and that they were banned from certain group claims.

Although action was previously confirmed by the government, this was delayed during the general election.

In a statement, the Minister of State for Justice, Sarah Sackman KC MP, said

"I would like to inform the House that this government intends to take action to mitigate the impact of the 2023 Supreme Court judgment in PACCAR and implement proportionate regulation of third-party litigation funding agreements (LFAs).

Third-party litigation funding plays a vital role in ensuring access to justice. It enables people to bring complex claims against better-resourced organisations, which they could not otherwise afford. Sir Alan Bates, for instance, has spoken openly about how without such funding he could not have brought his claim against the Post Office. The Supreme Court judgment in PACCAR introduced significant uncertainty about whether LFAs remain valid and the regulatory regime that applies to them. This uncertainty could be preventing significant numbers of claimants from accessing justice."

The Minister also confirmed that, the government intends to accept the CJC's two primary recommendations, legislating that Litigation funding agreements are not damages based agreements and then will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.

Whilst no time frame has been given, the government has indicted it will take place 'when parliamentary time allows' meaning we will need to watch this space for further developments.

Court of Appeal considers scope of duty in buyer-funded developments case

On 5 January 2026, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Afan Valley Ltd v Lupton Fawcett LLP [2026] EWCA Civ 2 (the “Judgment”). The case concerned allegedly negligent advice by lawyers in connection with the regulatory implications of certain proposed buyer-funded property development schemes (the “Schemes”). Some twenty-two Schemes, and £68,000,000 of investor monies, were involved.

The judgment will be of interest to professionals and insurers as an example of the application of the scope of duty test, as refined by the Supreme Court in Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton [2021] UKSC 20 (“MBS”).

Read our analysis of the decision here

Is your compliance officer compliant?

The Solicitors Regulation Authority’s announced a thematic review of compliance officers (COLPs and COFAs) that shines a light on regulatory exposure for law firms and their leaders. Visiting 25 firms and interviewing 36 role-holders, the SRA examined how firms choose compliance officers, whether they understand and meet their obligations and the key risks they face.

Overall, the SRA found that competition for appointments can be rare, as well as turnover in the positions being low, yet only one COLP could outline all their core responsibilities. In addition, only half of officers had confirmed they had read the SRA’s reporting and notification guidance and 19% had read its enforcement strategy. More than half reported stress, and fewer than half felt their role was acknowledged by their firm.

Whilst it was acknowledged that most firms do have manuals, training, file reviews and audits, the SRA emphasises that Codes of Conduct require COLPs and COFAs to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance (including prompt reporting) and that compliance duties are firm-wide and cannot be delegated. What was highlighted is that many firms have weak systems and poor reporting discipline.

What happens next? The SRA has confirmed it will be promoting the review’s lessons and will use the findings to advance its Consumer Protection Review and comply with Legal Services Board directions. Firms can learn from the Review and ensure their compliance officers fully understand what their role entails and its risks, as well as those risks being acknowledged by the firm. Firms must also maintain adequate reporting processes to ensure compliance.

Dodgy disclosure but not quite dishonesty…

The recent Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) decision in the case of Solicitors Regulation Authority v Nasar Hussain (Case No. 12688-2024) offers important lessons for practitioners involved in personal injury litigation and professional regulation. The case arose from Mr Hussain’s personal injury claim, which the trial judge dismissed on the basis of Mr Hussain's “fundamental dishonesty”. However, the SDT ultimately concluded that Mr Hussain’s conduct, while falling short of the standards expected of solicitors, did not amount to dishonesty.

Read our article here for further analysis.

Fixed Recoverable Costs extension not fit for purpose?

Well, the Law Society appears to think so. In a press release on 12 January 2026, it confirmed that the extension to the Fixed Recoverable Costs (FRC) regime 'has not provided the costs certainty it promised'. One of the major concerns cited was the impact of the extension on vulnerable parties, which the Law Society considers needs a full assessment.

This statement was published in response to the government's FRC Interim Implementation Stocktake, which called for views on the extension of the regime, which it indicated would feed into a subsequent full review of the whole regime. That call for evidence closed on 6 January 2026.

The Civil Procedure Rules Committee, along with the Ministry of Justice, have confirmed they will be reviewing the FRC regime later this year. We will keep you updated with its progress.

High-Volume Claims: Regulatory Reform

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has published updated guidance on its regulation of high-volume consumer claims, which it deems a sector increasingly central to access to justice, yet fraught with risks for both consumers and legal practitioners. This note sets out the SRA’s actions to address systemic shortcomings, particularly around consumer protection, transparency, and the financial stability of firms that operate in this space.

This consultation follows the thematic review published in August 2025 (see our September issue for more information) and the discussion paper that called for feedback between 19 September and 14 November 2025.

In response, the Legal Services Consumer Panel (LSCP) stated that it broadly supports the SRA’s direction but urges more robust, evidence-based reforms. Its key recommendations include:

Prohibiting standalone use of “no win, no fee” and mandating standardised risk warnings.
Adopting FCA-style vulnerability guidance within SRA regulations.
Implementing a permanent, proactive compliance regime, including mystery shopping and data-led targeting.
Developing a specialised code of conduct for high-volume claims firms.

What could this mean?

Lawyers may face a stricter obligation to ensure that clients fully understand the costs, risks, and funding arrangements associated with high-volume claims. There could be the introduction of a mandatory, consumer-tested Key Facts Document and interactive onboarding checklists, which would mean that mere disclosure is insufficient. It will be incumbent on lawyers to be proactive in ensuring they have documented that clients have genuinely understood the terms before proceeding.
Any enhanced financial oversight will require firms to routinely report on third-party funding arrangements and demonstrate financial stability. Firms will need to ensure their policies and processes are up to date and comply with any new requirements. This may include providing clear information to clients about deductions, insurance premiums, as well as the liability for costs, especially in the event of withdrawal or firm failure.

Overall, the high-volume claims practice area is looking at a more rigorous regulatory environment, which prioritises transparency and robust client communication.

Hong Kong – "Legal professional privilege is a fundamental right which the courts will jealously protect"

"Legal professional privilege is a fundamental right which the courts will jealously protect" is how the High Court judgment in Lee v Song [2025] HKCFI 5895 (3 December 2025) begins when summarising the principles that underpin legal professional privilege ("LPP").

The case concerned the plaintiff's application for disclosure of documents in support of contempt proceedings against the defendant. The disputed documents included confidential communications between the defendant and her previous lawyers. While the onus of establishing LPP is on the party claiming it (in this case the defendant), as the judgment notes (at paragraph 35), this is not an "onerous burden". In the absence of any iniquitous purpose regarding the disputed documents, the court had little difficulty in dismissing the plaintiff's application.

The judgment is a very strong endorsement of the common law principles that underpin LPP. In an increasingly challenging business and regulatory environment, the judgment is important because it confirms that LPP is a fundamental and absolute right. Therefore, once a document or communication is privileged that protection cannot be undone by balancing any competing policy in favour of disclosure. There is no comparison or "balance" to be had between the protection afforded by LPP and the interest in disclosure. As the judgment states in applying Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal precedent (which, in turn, applies leading English case law):

"31. LPP does not involve any balancing of interests. It is absolute and is based not merely upon the general right to privacy but also upon the right of access to justice: Secretary for Justice v Florence Tsang (2014) 17 HKCFAR 739 at §§27-29 (per Ribeiro PJ)."

That "access to justice" is underpinned by the administration of justice and the right of every person and legal entity to confidential legal advice.

Dodgy disclosure but not quite dishonesty

Tue, 27 Jan 2026 11:50:00 Z

Take 10 - 23 January 2026

Fri, 23 Jan 2026 15:39:00 Z

Court refuses to silence negative customer reviews

In a win for consumer experience transparency, Deputy High Court Judge Guy Vassall-Adams KC refused applications for interim injunctions brought by CF&L Limited and iSpy Group. The claimants had sought to remove critical Trustpilot and Google reviews posted by Kieran Fraser, an unhappy customer, who disputed a cancelled water cooler contract. The claimants argued libel, harassment, and misuse of private information in relation to the reviews and communications sent by Mr Fraser and his associated companies.

In applying the longstanding principle in Bonnard v Perryman, the court found the Defendant's truth and honest opinion defences were not "bound to fail" and as such an interim libel injunction was not awarded. The court further stressed the public interest in consumer reviews and maintaining transparency.

The Court also held that the corporate entities could not prove, and did not plead, serious financial loss pursuant to section 1(2) of the Defamation Act 2013.

The claimants' attempt to obtain an injunction on the basis of harassment also failed. The Court found that rude emails, a single phone call, and a brief reference to health issues was "not even close" to constituting oppressive and unacceptable behaviour required to make out a claim in harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Finally, an injunction on the basis misuse of private information was also refused. The health condition information mentioned in one of the contentious reviews did not name the afflicted individual and was promptly amended during the hearing. The court therefore rejected the Claimants' argument that there was a real risk of repetition.

EctHR rules Slovenian court restricted magazine's freedom of expression

On 13 January 2026, the European Court of Human right (ECtHR) ruled that Slovenia's Constitutional Court unlawfully restricted a magazine publisher's freedom of expression by upholding a civil claim in favour of a politician (in the case of Mladina D.D. Ljubljana v Slovenia (No. 2)). The case concerned a satirical magazine that published a provocative picture caption likening the politician to Joseph Goebbels by placing a family photograph of the Nazi officer next to a photograph of the politician and his own family including his young children.

The ECtHR identified several flaws when assessing the Slovenian court's reasoning including: failing to consider the images in a wider political context of commentary and satire especially where the publication was clearly a political parody aimed at readers who would recognise its exaggerated and humorous tone; the fact that the comparison was not made in a vacuum as the politician had previously involved his children in political events which mirrors Goebbels' own political tactics; the disproportionate weight given to the emotional effect of the images; incorrectly relying on alleged harm to the politician's wife and children even though they were not party to the proceedings and had been compensated separately; and the difference in impact between print media and broadcast media with the former having less of an immediate and powerful impact on readers.

Balancing the competing rights, the ECtHR concluded that any harm to the politician's reputation was minor and did not outweigh the public interest in robust political expression. The interference with the publisher's Article 10 rights was unjustified.

SDT conviction against Nadhim Zahawi's lawyer is overturned

In Hurst v Solicitors Regulation Authority, the High Court overturned a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) decision that had fined Osborne Clarke partner Ashley Hurst £50,000 for an email sent on behalf of former chancellor Nadhim Zahawi to tax campaigner Dan Neidle. The SDT had found that the email, marked “confidential and without prejudice”, was improperly deployed to deter publication rather than to pursue settlement.

In overturning the decision, Mrs Justice Collins Rice held the SDT had failed to consider whether Hurst was arguably entitled to label the email confidential or without-prejudice. Mrs Justice Collins Rice found that the tribunal’s reasoning was flawed and insufficiently rigorous, particularly given the seriousness of findings of lack of integrity and bad faith, and raised particular concerns with the 'vehemence and disparagement' with which the SDT expressed its conclusions.

Harassment by publication injunction granted

Mrs Justice Steyn’s judgment in Optosafe Ltd & Ors v Robertson (Rev1) [2026] EWHC 12 (KB) is a relatively unusual instance of an injunction being granted for harassment by publication.

The defendant, a former senior employee of the First Claimant, engaged in a sustained campaign of hostile online activity, primarily through LinkedIn. His posts included caricatures, allegations of “highly illegal fraud”, contained vulgar assertions and personalised attacks on senior figures within the claimant companies, and were largely abusive. As in all harassment by publication cases, the Claimants faced a high bar to overcome the Defendant's Article 10 rights of freedom of expression. In most instances, the Court is cautious to avoid adversely affecting a defendant's Article 10 rights and circumventing the safeguards of defamation cases. However, the court concluded this was an exceptional case where an injunction was justified.

Steyn J found the 80 posts over a five month period amounted to a deliberate and oppressive course of conduct, rejecting the defendant’s attempts to characterise the posts as benign, instead finding that they were aggressive, threatening, and designed to cause distress and anxiety.

Harassment convictions for targeting a journalist coincide with new national safety measures

Three members of the Lighthouse group were convicted at Stratford Magistrates' Court for harassing BBC journalist Catrin Nye, following the broadcaster’s 'A Very British Cult' investigation. The men repeatedly appeared outside Nye’s home, after hiring a private investigator to locate her address, and delivered items including a Bible and letters while filming themselves. Although their earlier protests outside the BBC were lawful, the judge found the visits to her home were “intimidatory” and “retaliatory”, crossing the line into criminal harassment.

Convictions of this kind remain notably rare, despite journalists increasingly reporting threats, doorstep intimidation, and online abuse.

Just months earlier, the Government and NPCC announced that every UK police force now has a dedicated Journalist Safety Liaison Officer (JSLO). These officers act as single points of contact for reporters facing threats, ensuring incidents are recorded consistently and that forces understand the specific risks journalists face, particularly when reporting on protests, extremist groups, or sensitive investigations.

For media organisations and publishers, the developments point in two directions. First, the Lighthouse convictions demonstrate that targeted harassment of journalists, especially at their homes, will attract criminal sanctions. Second, the JSLO network signals a shift towards more structured, proactive policing of threats against reporters, which may lead to more consistent charging decisions and improved protection for staff and freelancers. This builds on the guidance commissioned by the DCMS and produced by the Media Lawyers' Association for journalists on 'Combatting Online Harassment and Abuse'

High Court grants anonymity and interim non disclosure order against hacker of infidelity website

Mr Justice Sheldon has granted wide‑ranging interim relief in HCE v UEH & Anor [2026] EWHC 33 (KB), a case arising from an alleged hack of a dating platform aimed at facilitating discreet extra‑marital affairs. The judgment is a reminder of the Court’s willingness to intervene swiftly where confidential user data is at risk of exposure, an issue of growing relevance for media organisations, platforms, and any client handling sensitive personal information.

The First Defendant, a self‑declared internet hacker, admitted accessing and exfiltrating a substantial volume of user data without authorisation. The Court found it “strongly arguable” that the Defendants’ conduct amounted to a breach of confidence, noting that the dataset included highly sensitive information such as names, sexual preferences, private messages, and photographs. Sheldon J also held that the Defendant’s correspondence, referring to potential ICO fines unless the matter was “resolved amicably”, gave rise to an arguable inference of blackmail.

The Court granted an interim non‑disclosure order, including delivery up or destruction of the data, finding that damages would be inadequate given the sensitivity and commercial value of the information. Importantly, Sheldon J rejected arguments that Article 10 was engaged, as the Defendant had not indicated any intention to publish the material.

Anonymity was granted to both parties to protect users’ Article 8 rights, given the risk that naming the Claimant could indirectly reveal members’ identities through credit‑card descriptors.

This judgment emphasises the importance of rapid action following a data breach, the availability of urgent relief in the Media and Communications List, and the Court’s readiness to protect confidential digital information from misuse or leverage.

"Boob God" surgeon loses battle against former patient over interim injunction

Ofcom After suffering from serious post-operative complications including sepsis and necrosis, Katy Morgan made criticisms of her plastic surgeon (Dr Riccardo Frati) on social media, which the doctor argued breached a Non-Disclosure Agreement. In exchange for a full refund, the NDA prohibited Ms Morgan from publicly criticising the surgeon or providing information about him to regulatory bodies such as the General Medical Council. Ms Morgan argued that she had no memory of signing the NDA, that she was heavily medicated at the time it was signed, and that she was not given an opportunity to seek legal counsel. At a hearing in 2023, Dr Frati obtained an interim injunction against Ms Morgan following which Ms Morgan teamed up with the Free Speech Union to lift the injunction. At a hearing last week at the Manchester Civil Justice Centre, the injunction was overturned after the court ruled there were "compelling" arguments that the NDA may be unlawful and was rather the product of an imbalance of power, a situation further highlighted by the fact that Ms Morgan was legally unrepresented unlike Dr Frati. The court also emphasised the importance of the public interest in allowing patients to speak about their medical treatment experience especially where allegations of harm and professional misconduct are concerned. The court ordered Dr Frati to pay costs and a hearing scheduled for 9 February 2026 will determine whether the alleged breach of the NDA will proceed to trial.

The decision confirms NDAs cannot lawfully prevent individuals from reporting concerns to regulators and shield healthcare professionals from public/regulatory scrutiny, nor can they be used to suppress legitimate criticism where consent is arguably vitiated by incapacity, lack of legal advice or undue influence.

IPSO launches public consultation to review press regulation

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) has launched its most recent consultation to review its press regulations. The consultation takes place every 3 years and looks at ways to improve the Editors' Code of Practice, the framework for press regulation subscribed to by the majority of newspapers, magazines and news websites in the UK. The Code covers issues such as accuracy, harassment, privacy, and treatment of confidential sources.

The Editors' Code of Practice Committee has invited feedback from journalists, editors and the general public on how the Code can be improved to strengthen press regulation and improve journalistic standards. Submissions can be made via email to codereview2026@gmail.com on or before 10 April 2026. Submissions are generally published on the Committee's website along with the name of the author, although anonymity and confidentiality for submissions can be requested.

Ofcom weighs blocking X over Grok 'nudification' concerns

The regulatory spotlight has intensified on X after reports that its AI chatbot, Grok, could be used to generate intimate deepfake images by digitally undressing individuals without their consent. Ofcom has confirmed that it is “urgently” assessing whether X is complying with its duties under the Online Safety Act, with the Technology Secretary, Liz Kendall, signalling that she would support the regulator if it chose to block access to the platform in the UK. Kendall described the creation of such imagery as “despicable and abhorrent” and emphasised that platforms must take “swift action” to prevent the misuse of generative AI tools.

X has since restricted Grok’s image‑generation to prevent it from editing photos of real people to remove clothing. Elon Musk has publicly criticised the UK government’s stance, suggesting that officials “want any excuse for censorship” and questioning why other AI platforms have not faced similar scrutiny. Critics of the government’s approach argue that blocking X would raise significant free‑speech concerns and could set a precedent for disproportionate regulatory intervention.

Indonesia has already blocked access to Grok entirely, citing the “serious violation of human rights, dignity, and security” posed by non‑consensual sexual deepfakes.

The Online Safety Act’s enforcement powers, including service‑blocking and fines of up to 10% of global turnover, are no longer purely theoretical. Platforms deploying generative tools should expect heightened scrutiny, faster regulatory timetables, and increased risk where intimate imagery or user safety is concerned, particularly to users under 18.

UK considers banning under-16s from social media

The UK government announced on 19 January 2026 that it would be launching a consultation to consider whether it should follow in the footsteps of Australia, the first country in the world to ban social media for under-16s which it did in December 2025.

The consultation focuses more widely on the impact of social media use by children, and how regulating access to the internet could promote online safety and protect the wellbeing of young people. Aside from an outright ban, other measures to be considered include restrictions on addictive features such as 'infinite scrolling', better age checks, and the power for educational regulator Ofsted to check phone policies are being properly policed when carrying out school inspections.

Technology secretary Liz Kendall has made clear that the consultation aims to build on the measures already introduced by the Online Safety Act, and that the Act "[was] never meant to be the end point". The consultation invites views from parents, young people, and the general public.

The reception to the announcement has been divided, with some commentators pleased to see tougher action being taken to protect children from harm online, whilst others have expressed concerns that vulnerable children who may struggle to socialise in school need access to social media to find a community. Some have also raised concerns that a ban on social media may instead drive children to other areas of the internet, which could be less regulated and more harmful than the large social media platforms. The government expects to respond to the consultation in summer 2026.

You can read our previous Take 10 article about the Australian ban here.

Quote of the fortnight

"In general terms, it is much easier to defend a libel claim on the basis of honest opinion than it is to defend a claim with truth. There is a strong public interest in people being able to criticise the services of companies in consumer reviews. Put simply, there are good reasons why it is hard for companies to injunct consumers who leave bad reviews."

Deputy High Court Judge Guy Vassall-Adams KC at paragraph 31 in CF&L Limited & Anor v Fraser & Ors [2025]

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 23 January 2026

Fri, 23 Jan 2026 12:06:00 Z

Our latest edition of the Financial Ombudsman Newsletter is out now and can be found here.

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Headline development

Supreme Court allows appeal in 'half-secret' commissions case

In March 2025, amid the uncertainty of the motor finance commission cases last year, the case of Expert Tooling and Automation Ltd v Engie Power Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 292 (Expert Tooling) was decided by the Court of Appeal. The case concerned "half secret" commissions paid to a broker on energy contracts.

The Court of Appeal had previously found against Expert Tooling, deciding that Engie should be primarily liable to them as an accessory to the broker's breach of fiduciary duty on the basis that the commission was "half secret," and Engie was not liable to Expert Tooling in equity because the Court of Appeal made no finding of dishonesty. Expert Tooling then obtained permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, specifically querying whether the Court of Appeal was right to make a distinction between "fully secret" and "half secret" commission cases.

However, the Supreme Court decision in Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd [2025] UKSC 33 held that there was no distinction between "fully secret" and "half secret" cases, such that only full and complete disclosure of all material facts could allow a party to escape accessory liability, both in equity and at common law.

Given the Hopcraft judgment, both parties in Expert Tooling agreed that Expert Tooling's appeal should be allowed, and the Supreme Court confirmed the decision this week.

To read more on the background of Expert Tooling, read our previous blog here. For more details on the Supreme Court's decision, click here.

Auditors

Labour announces Audit Reform Bill is scrapped

On Tuesday 20 January, Labour announced that the Audit Reform and Corporate Governance Bill was no longer on its agenda.

The proposed reforms, which have been pursued inconsistently by Governments since 2018, would have seen the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), replaced by a new regulator, the Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority (ARGA), which would have had expanded powers beyond those currently held by the FRC.

The Government explained the change in policy by stating that it took the decision in order to avoid costs to firms, and explained that instead of pursuing the reforms, it would instead continue with plans to allow virtual annual general meetings, streamline corporate reporting, and open a consultation aimed at increasing the efficiency of competition investigations.

To read more, click here.

ICAEW responds to scrapping of audit reform bill

On 20 January 2026, ICAEW commented on the Government’s decision to scrap the audit and corporate governance reform bill.

Alan Vallance, Chief Executive of ICAEW, expressed disappointment at the announcement, noting that it comes eight years after the collapse of Carillion and follows several earlier reform delays. He highlighted that the Government had previously acknowledged the role of audit reform in strengthening investor confidence and supporting economic growth.

Vallance noted that, despite the bill being dropped, audit quality and governance have significantly improved since 2018, driven by changes within the profession.

He emphasised the importance of giving the FRC the necessary powers to act effectively as regulator, and confirmed ICAEW will continue working with the Government, the FRC and firms to ensure those powers are in place.

To read more, please click here.

FRC publishes statement on priorities for 2026

The Chief Executive of the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), Richard Moriarty, has published a statement setting out the FRC's priorities for 2026.

The FRC stated its intention to continue pursuing the five priorities (previously set out in a letter to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade) for supporting economic growth in the UK, through strengthening investor confidence through high quality audits and transparent reporting. The five priorities are as follows:

Underpinning investor confidence in the UK plc.
Reducing unnecessary burdens on business while maintaining high standards.
Developing deep insight into the markets the FRC oversees so its regulation is based on evidence and expertise.
Identifying future trends and innovations to support the health of the markets the FRC oversees; and
Supporting the skills and resilience of the professions the FRC regulates.

Moriarty reflected on the fact that the FRC had changed significantly over the last 10 years but acknowledged that there is a continuing need to evolve, whilst also welcoming the Government's renewed commitment to putting the FRC on a statutory footing.

The statement emphasised the FRC's commitment to reducing administrative burdens – noting that the updated Stewardship Code could result in reduced reporting by 30%, and that guidance associated with the UK Corporate Governance Code has been reduced by 20%.

Moriarty confirmed the FRC's aim to continue working closely with stakeholders to progress the Future of Audit Supervision Strategy and End-to-End Enforcement Review, with a view to developing a system-focussed and more proportionate approach.

As for small and medium-sized enterprises, the FRC committed to publishing guidance which will aim to assist auditors produce work scaled appropriately to the complexity of smaller businesses, and to ensure a consistent, proportionate approach is taken.

Morarity closed the statement by referring to AI, noting that through the recently launched Innovation and Improvement Hub, the FRC will continue to work with companies to reduce the length of annual reports, and to explore how AI might shape the future of audit.

To read the FRC's statement, please click here.

Insolvency practitioners

Insolvency Service releases monthly insolvency statistics for December 2025

December 2025 saw opposing insolvency trends in the UK, with business failures continuing to ease while personal insolvencies remain high.

The statistics show that 1,671 companies entered administration in December 2025 –13% lower than in December 2024. In contrast, individual insolvencies remained high – 13,453 personal insolvencies were registered in December 2025 (higher than in November 2025), a figure bolstered by a backlog of individual voluntary arrangements (IVAs) being processed late following the introduction of a new case management system.

Taking the year as a whole, personal insolvencies climbed to 126,240 cases – 7% higher than 2024 and the highest annual total since 2010. This is of course reflective of the ongoing financial pressures on households, even as the corporate sector shows some resilience. Economic factors such as the cost-of-living crisis and rising debt levels have all contributed to shape the data.

To read more, please click here.

Brokers

BIBA calls for new Financial Services Bill in 2026 manifesto

The British Insurance Brokers’ Association (BIBA) has launched its 2026 Manifesto – titled 'Economic Resilience' – with a call for the Government to introduce a new Financial Services Bill in early 2026 as its number one ask.

BIBA insists a new bill is required to carry out the proposals they are working on with the Treasury including cross-cutting reforms, the simplification of the senior managers and certification regime, a review of the remit and operation of the Financial Ombudsman Service changes, and shortening statutory authorisation periods.

The manifesto calls for:

The introduction of a new Financial Services Bill in early 2026 by the Government.
For the FCA to continue the momentum on simplifying the insurance rules in early 2026 to further reduce the frictional cost of regulation).
Further simplification of the FCA rulebook and reporting requirements and to minimise ad-hoc data requests from the FCA.
The promotion of cyber insurance as a key pillar of building cyber resilience.
For there to be no increase in Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) over the course of this Parliament, while creating an IPT carve out for cyber insurance to encourage uptake.
For the industry to work together with the Government to reduce flood risk and secure long term, sustainable flood insurance capacity.
Roll-out of total retail signposting.
The introduction of new fair value product information exchange templates; and
For the review of FOS to ensure its role is that of a simple, impartial dispute resolution service.

BIBA's key commitments for 2026 are:

Promoting the value of insurance brokers by running another 'Ben the Broker' campaign.
Working to expand insurance broker understanding of AI by establishing an AI training school for BIBA members.
Encouraging new entrants into insurance broking by creating a new starting-up in broking guide.
Building a directory of brokers able to advise on, and place, cyber risk and signpost businesses to it.
Progressing BIBA’s schools’ initiative and working with the CII on a talent and skills programme to grow a pipeline of new entrants and returnees to the sector.
Continuing to work with Gracechurch on insurer service.
Dedicating time and resource to achieve social commitments.
Educating SMEs on insurance and the benefits of using an insurance broker by publishing and promoting new guidance.
Supporting members with their own professional indemnity (PI) by delivering a new guide to brokers’ PI risks; and
Supporting leaseholders through the programme of work with MHCLG

To access BIBA's manifesto please click here.

FOS developments

FOS announces new interest rate on compensation awards

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has implemented a new interest rate on compensation awarded by the FOS for cases referred from 1 January 2026.

The default interest rate has been revised to track the Bank of England's base rate plus one percentage point and is calculated as a weighted average typically from when the money was due until redress is paid.

The FOS have provided a calculator to assist businesses in understanding how much interest, using the new rate, may be due.

To read more, please click here.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

FCA issue further final decision on British Steel Pension Scheme advisor

On 19 January 2026, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published the final notice in relation to Mr. Darren Anthony Reynolds and the advice that he had provided to his clients on transfers from the British Steel Pension Scheme (BSPS).

The notice imposed a penalty of £2,037,892 and made an order prohibiting Mr Reynolds from performing any regulated activity.

The prohibition was issued due to Mr Reynolds' conduct as an approved person at Active Wealth which was authorised to advise on investments, pension transfers and arrange investment deals. Mr Reynolds was solely responsible for the management and oversight of Active Wealth's conduct. During his tenure, he had authorised the receipt of prohibited commission payments derived from investments made by Active Wealth's customers, dishonestly advised Active Wealth's customers to invest in inappropriate investments and transfer out of BSPS which was contrary to their best interests, and knowingly allowed two unauthorised persons to provide pensions advice.

The final notice reflects that Mr. Reynolds' appeal of the FCA's initial decision notice to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) was unsuccessful with the Tribunal affirming the FCA's decision.

To read more, please click here.

FCA reviews how smaller mutual life insurers are meeting Consumer Duty standards

On 16 January 2026, the FCA published the results of a multi-firm review into how smaller mutual life insurers are implementing the Consumer Duty and delivering appropriate outcomes for their customers.

The review identified a mix of practices across the sector:

Target Market Statements – while most firms showed a clear focus on understanding their customers, many relied on broad or generic target market descriptions. Some lacked sufficient explanation around when a product might be unsuitable.
Fair value assessments – although value assessments were commonly in place, firms often focused on a single aspect of the product or service. This limited the scope of their analysis and failed to reflect overall product quality.
Fair treatment of with-profit policyholders– some firms showed a good grasp of the outcomes being delivered for with-profits customers. However, many did not clearly link their business strategy to the FCA’s requirements under COBS 20.2.
Financial operating models– all firms emphasised the importance of putting customers first, but approached assessing their own viability differently. In some cases, reviews lacked the depth needed to support meaningful strategic decision-making.

The FCA confirmed it will continue monitoring how firms are responding to the Consumer Duty, particularly in relation to price and value. It also referenced it's 2024 review of larger insurers and signalled further work assessing how firms are tracking and evidencing outcomes.

To read more, please click here.

With thanks to this week's contributors: James Parsons, Alison Thomas, Daniel Goh, Heather Buttifant, Ben Simmonds, Kerone Thomas, Rebekah Bayliss

If you have any queries please do get in contact with a member of the team below, or your usual RPC contact.

The Week That Was - 23 January 2026

Fri, 23 Jan 2026 11:40:00 Z

Providence Building Services Limited v Hexagon Housing Association Limited

The Supreme Court overturns the Court of Appeal's decision on limits on termination for repeated defaults under the JCT Design and Build Contract

Hexagon Housing Association (Employer) and Providence Building Services (Contractor) contracted using JCT Design and Build 2016 (Contract). After a late payment in December 2022 (cured within 28 days) and a second late payment in May 2023, the Contractor served a termination notice. The Court found for the Employer. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. The Employer appealed to the Supreme Court (SC).

The SC considered clause 8.9 (unchanged in JCT 2024). It unanimously allowed the Employer’s appeal, holding there was no right for the Contractor to terminate for two late payments as this would be an extreme outcome, particularly as the first late payment had been cured within the grace period so no right of termination had arisen. Upon proper construction, the SC held that this was not how the Contract should be interpreted. The SC emphasised that standard form contracts interpretation must involve considering the objective intentions shown by the drafting.

You can read more and find the full judgment here.

Legal Battle Over Allies & Morrison’s £200m Wimbledon Expansion Returns to High Court

A major legal dispute over plans to dramatically expand the Wimbledon tennis grounds is returning to the High Court this week, placing the future of the £200m development back under scrutiny. The proposals, drawn up by Allies & Morrison for the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, involve redeveloping the former Wimbledon Park golf course to create dozens of new courts and supporting facilities, significantly increasing the site’s footprint.

The scheme has attracted sustained opposition from local campaigners, who argue that the land is bound by a statutory trust that requires it to remain available for public leisure use. They claim the redevelopment would breach these obligations. The club, however, maintains that the proposals are legally sound and that planning consent was properly granted following extensive assessment.

Although earlier legal challenges were unsuccessful, the case has returned to court following further legal arguments. The outcome could have far-reaching implications, not only for Wimbledon’s long-term plans, but also for how protected public land is treated in future development disputes.

You can read more here [May require subscription] and here.

Westminster Council to Adopt ‘Retrofit-First’ Benchmark Planning Policy

Westminster City Council is set to introduce a strengthened planning policy that prioritises the refurbishment and reuse of existing buildings ahead of demolition and redevelopment. Known as a “retrofit-first” approach, the policy will require developers to demonstrate that retaining and upgrading a structure is not feasible before proposals for demolition are considered acceptable.

The measure forms part of the council’s wider City Plan review and reflects growing concern over the environmental impact of new construction. By encouraging retrofit, the council aims to reduce embodied carbon emissions, limit demolition waste and preserve the architectural fabric of one of the UK’s most densely developed urban areas.

Planning applications will need to include detailed assessments outlining why reuse options have been ruled out. Council leaders argue that the policy will push the development industry to adopt more sustainable practices and make better use of existing building stock, while still allowing new development where clearly justified.

You can read more here [May require subscription] or here.

Mural to inspire construction workers

A mural has been unveiled in Walthamstow, London, to celebrate trade careers and urge more people into the construction industry.

The mural is one of two (the other is in Manchester) and depicts D'ontae Rock (a 22 year old carpentry apprentice), Milton Walcott (HSEQ Manager at Complete Fixing Solutions) and Professor Rose Wells (an engineer and FE Principal and Dean of STEM at University College Birmingham). It is hoped that the murals will attract workers to the construction sector.

With more than 35,000 construction vacancies and more than half unfilled due to a shortage of qualified workers, the government has pledged to increase training and tackle this skills gap. The government measures include a pledge to train 60,000 additional engineers, bricklayers, electricians and joiners by 2029, plus Autumn Budget funding: £725m to support 50,000 apprenticeships, £570m for colleges and £100m via mayors.

You can read more here and here.

New Liverpool–Manchester line anchors revived Northern Powerhouse Rail vision

Rail minister Lord Peter Hendy has declined to set a completion deadline for the revived Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR), noting that rail upgrades “take a very long time”. Lord Hendy said benefits should start to be felt in the 2030s, while reports suggest overall completion is unlikely before 2045. The government plans £1.1bn of spending to 2029, with an overall cap of £45bn set in 2026 prices.

The three stage proposals include a new Liverpool–Manchester line and wider connections from Liverpool to Newcastle. Hendy rejected assumptions of HS2 style overruns, citing progress on the Transpennine Route Upgrade, and confirmed the proposed Birmingham–Manchester line would not reinstate HS2.

Land between the West Midlands and Crewe is being retained to address future capacity, with any route unlikely to be high speed. The Civil Engineering Contractors Association urged ministers to publish a clear delivery timetable to give industry the certainty it needs to invest and mobilise.

More details can be found here [may require Subscription] and here.

ONS: new build starts up 18%; housebuilding recovery gathers pace

ONS figures show new build housing starts rose 18% in the year to September 2025 to 117,980, with 29,620 starts in Q3 2025 (July–September), up 3% year on year. Since 9 July 2024, an estimated 309,600 homes have been completed, taking delivery to just over one fifth of the government’s 1.5 million homes target.

Housing Secretary Steve Reed hailed “green shoots of recovery”, attributing momentum to planning reforms—including the new ‘grey belt’—streamlining and investment in social housing. Industry reaction was cautiously positive: Housebuilder Muse reported a near 15,000 home pipeline and said preparation means schemes can move quickly, while warning challenges remain to reach the scale required. Propertymark welcomed the uplift but stressed that solving the housing crisis depends on building the right homes in the right places, with a mix of tenures, backed by infrastructure, transport and local services. It called for long term planning certainty to bolster fragile confidence across developers, lenders and consumers.

Find out more here and here.

With thanks to Brendan Marrinan, Tarek Elmanharawy and Ella Green

Regulatory Pulse - 23 January 2026

Fri, 23 Jan 2026 09:32:00 Z

The High Court has overturned the high-profile decision to sanction a solicitor for the alleged misuse of the 'without prejudice' label in correspondence. The scathing judgment criticised the Tribunal's judgment as "insufficiently analysed and reasoned, vitiated by misdirection and error of law, and unfair".

FOS Complaints Newsletter - January 2026

Thu, 22 Jan 2026 11:36:00 Z

Download the full PDF including graphs at bottom of page.

FOS complaints data runs from 1 April to 30 March. This newsletter focusses on the second quarter of 2025 covering 1 July to 30 September 2025.

We look at total complaints at FOS but also drill down to specific areas – pensions (SIPPs and pension transfers), investment advice, residential mortgages and complaints against claims management companies.

Trends

The complaints data in this newsletter covers FOS Q2 (July to September) but the developments we have seen for the period July to December 2025 include:

Charges for professional representatives – The number of complaints brought by law firms and claims management companies (CMCs) to the FOS has fallen dramatically since the introduction of a new case fee; professional representatives can now bring 10 complaints before being charged a case fee of £250 (with half of this being refunded if the complaint is upheld).
There has been a notable decrease in Motor Hire Purchase complaints, declining from 24,300 in Q1 2025 to only 4,300 in Q2 2025. This decrease is likely attributable to the Supreme Court's decision on vehicle finance commissions handed down at the start of April 2025 and subsequent announcement of a redress scheme under s.404 of FSMA.
FOS has also set out their strategic priorities for a fairer and improved service. This signals a renewed focus on reform and enhanced service delivery. FOS emphasises its commitment to modernising operations, with a particular drive to streamline case-handling processes and deliver swifter, more consistent decisions. This modernisation effort is underpinned by investment in new technology and a review of internal procedures, aiming to make the service more efficient and accessible. Central to the FOS’ plans is a pledge to improve the experience for both consumers and financial businesses. The organisation is placing greater emphasis on clear communication and transparency, ensuring that its processes are easier to navigate and that parties involved in disputes are kept well informed throughout. FOS also highlights the importance of collaboration, engaging with industry bodies and consumer groups to ensure its approach remains relevant and responsive to the evolving financial landscape. Looking ahead, the FOS' objectives for the next year include adapting to new types of complaints and responding to changing consumer needs. The service reiterates its core commitment to impartiality and fairness, striving to deliver balanced outcomes for all parties. These reforms and forward-looking plans reflect the FOS’ goal to drive positive change within the financial dispute resolution sector, reinforcing its role as a trusted resource for both consumers and businesses.
2026/27 Plans & Budget consultation – The FOS has published its proposals for the next financial year which include (a) increasing case fees and levies; (b) a shift from a free case allowance to a monetary credit value and (c) billing changes and continued redress system reform rollout with the FCA and Treasury. The consultation is open until 21 January 2026.

Total Complaints Data 2018 to 2025

There has been a drop in complaints received by FOS between Q1 2025/2026 and Q2 2025/2026, and if current complaint volumes continue, complaints overall are on course to be significantly lower than in 2024/2025. The latest data set shows that, across all financial products and complaint categories, FOS upheld 33% of all resolved complaints , which is slightly higher than the previous quarter.

The second quarter of 2025/2026 FOS saw:

Total new complaints: 46,300 (down from the 68,029 new complaints made in the first quarter 2025/2026, and significantly less than the 73,692 total new complaints made during the same period in 2024/2025.
Average uphold rate: 33%
The most complained about product was current accounts.

Pensions

SIPPs

In Q2 of 2025/2026, there were 285 new cases (down from 182 new cases in Q1 of 2025/2026) with an average uphold rate of 57.5% (down from 60.9% in Q1 of 2025/2026).

In the same period in of 2024/2025 (Q2) there were 313 new cases with an average uphold rate of 50.9%.

The number of complaints about SIPPs in Q2 of 2025/2026 has dropped slightly from the average of 328.5 per quarter in 2024/2025, however, the average uphold rate has increased from 50.33% per quarter for 2024/2025 to 57.5% for Q2 of 2025/2026).

Occupational Pension Transfers

In Q2 of 2025/2026, there were 93 new cases (down from 78 new cases in Q1 of 2024/2025) with an average uphold of 70% (up from an average uphold rate of 66% in Q1 of 2025/2026).
In the same period of 2024/2025 (Q2) there were 87 new cases with an average uphold rate of 65%.
This category does not necessarily capture all occupational pension transfer complaints as complaints regarding advice to transfer out of defined benefit schemes may fall under the advice complaint category.

Advice Complaints

In Q2 of 2025/2026, there were 178 new cases (down from 194 new cases in Q1 of 2025/2026) with an average uphold of 41.3% (down from 30% in Q1 of 2025/2026).
In the same period of 2024/2025 (Q2) there were 274 new cases with an average uphold rate of 47%.

Residential Mortgages

In Q2 of 2025/2026, there were 1,279 new cases (up from 1,206 new cases in Q1 of 2025/2026) with an average uphold of 42% (significantly higher than the 26% in Q1 of 2025/2026).
In the same period of 2024/2025 (Q2) there were 1,442 new cases with an average uphold rate of 35%.
This category relates to all complaints regarding residential mortgages, including bridging loans, first charge mortgages, help to buy loans and second charge loans. The volume of complaints has remained broadly consistent over the years, with the number of complaints being fairly high.

Claims Management Companies

FOS has not yet published its complaints data relating to Claims Management Companies for Q1 or Q2 of 2025/2026 (possibly because of low complaint volumes).
In Q4 of 2023/2024, there were just 41 new cases with an average uphold rate of less than 30%.
Numbers are relatively low with a sharp year on year decline from over 1,300 total complaints regarding Case Management Companies in 2019/2020 to just 113 in 2024/2025 (there was no data published for Q2 of 2024/2025, again possibly because of low complaint volumes).

Other FOS Developments

A new interest rate now applies to compensation awarded by the FOS for cases referred from 1 January 2026. In brief, the default interest rate has been revised to track the Bank of England's base rate plus one percentage point.

As part of the FOS's plans and budget for 2026-2027, the FOS has opened consultation on a 4.6% increase to the case fee for 2026 (to £680), with the deadline for comments set for 21 January 2026.

Relevant RPC Blogs

Court of Appeal slams brakes on judicial review as Supreme Court accelerates in motor finance saga

FCA and FOS jointly consult on modernising redress system

Download the full PDF including graphs below.

Share buy-back satisfied 'trade benefit' test and was taxable as a capital gain and not a distribution

Thu, 22 Jan 2026 10:00:00 Z

In Boulting v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1272 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal found that a share buy-back satisfied the "trade benefit" test in section 1033 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010.

USA

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:36:00 Z

Written by Scott M. Seaman (Co-Chair of Hinshaw’s Global Insurance Service Practice Group) and Pedro E. Hernandez (Co-Chair of Hinshaw’s Global Insurance Service Practice Group)

Key developments in 2025

Impact Of Trump 2.0

The most impactful development of 2025 relates to the vast departure of the policies under Trump 2.0 from those of the Biden administration. The impact on claim frequency and severity varies by insurance line, but on balance deregulation is expected to result in an overall decrease in enforcement actions by federal agencies. The One, Big, Beautiful Bill – which permanently increases the maximum deduction for certain business property, allows full expensing of domestic research and experimentation expenditures, and makes permanent most of the 2017 tax cuts – generally affords more favourable treatment to insurers and other companies than pre-existing law. Tariffs have injected some uncertainty as well as additional revenues, but many of the concerns expressed by some economists have not materialized to the extent feared so far and economic inflation has declined to under 3%. Credit, trade, and political risks historically have not presented significant losses domestically, but in recent years they are seen as presenting greater risks along with social unrest.

Environmental, Social, and Governmental
Considerations/Sustainability (ESG) Is Down But Not Out

There has been a substantial regulatory rollback of ESG from the “all of government” approach of the Biden administration. Trump 2.0 has adopted a responsible “drill baby drill” approach that is more friendly to fossil fuels in an effort to decrease energy costs and increase supplies needed to quench the energy demands of artificial intelligence data centers. Automobile emissions standards are likely to be reduced and the push for electric vehicles will be decelerated under Trump 2.0 and due to practical considerations such as costs and technological limitations. Even before Trump 2.0, the Biden administration failed to push a final, enforceable climate disclosure rule across the finish line. The U.S. Supreme Court limited somewhat the unbridled authority of administrative agencies during the past couple of terms generally and specifically in the areas of ESG and DEI. ESG backlash became a well-developed resistance movement. The Trump administration – through tabling climate disclosure rules, executive orders, regulatory retraction, and budgetary priorities – has taken much of the bite out of ESG at least for now.

Several states led by California have picked up the ESG baton, but in November the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted an injunction staying the enforcement of California law that requires companies to publish climate risk reports in January 2026 identifying their financial risks associated with climate change and their efforts to mitigate these risks. The court did not stay another law, requiring companies to disclose their Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions by an unspecified date in 2026. Though California is taking the lead, pro-ESG measures and legislation have been enacted in other states including Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Utah, demonstrating that Newton’s Third Law of Motion is bipartisan. Companies must comply with traditional environmental laws and environmental liabilities remain large.

An End To “Illegal” Diversity, Equity, And Inclusion (DEI)

The Biden administration also applied its “all of government” approach to advance its DEI initiatives throughout the U.S. government and sought to impose DEI on private companies and actors. Trump 2.0 has targeted “illegal DEI.” On inauguration day, President Trump issued Executive Order 14151 “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.” The next day, Executive Order 14173 was issued “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a final rule removing regulations issued under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that precluded recipients of federal funding from engaging in disparate impact discrimination based on race, colour, or national origin.

Social Inflation Continues To Rage

Social inflation continues largely unabated, with nuclear and thermonuclear verdicts raining down. Tort costs have increased in recent years at an annual increase of 7.1%, more than twice the inflation rate with nuclear verdicts rising by 52%, thermonuclear verdicts increasing 81%, and defence firm rates up over 12% in the last two years. A 2025 behavioural social inflation study by Swiss Re confirms that juror sentiment has shifted decisively toward plaintiffs, adversely impacting insurers and companies. Support for punitive damages appears strong and punishment has improperly bled into compensatory damage awards.

Insurers and corporate policyholders are being outspent substantially by the plaintiffs’ bar, which has averaged about $1.5 billion a year in advertising and has outmessaged the defence side. Better messaging and addressing damages and counter-anchoring by defendants is essential. Tort reform legislation in states such as Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana has shown early signs of effectiveness. Third-party litigation funding continues to be a driver of social inflation.

Artificial Intelligence

Regulators in New York, Colorado, California, and other states have expanded oversight, emphasizing fairness, accountability, and transparency in the use of AI. California’s Privacy Protection Agency advanced draft rules requiring cybersecurity audits, risk assessments, and governance standards for automated decision-making systems. At the federal level, a proposed 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation was rejected 99-1 by the U.S. Senate, but President Trump signed an Executive Order directing the Attorney General to establish an AI Litigation Task Force to identify and challenge state AI laws inconsistent with national policy of global dominance over AI and to evaluate existing state AI laws that conflict with national policy.

Although much attention has focused on generative AI, agentic AI (systems capable of operating and developing autonomously and independently with little or no human oversight) presents significant risks when integrated into systems through application programming interfaces. Deepfakes are being adapted to foster identity fraud and to bypass security systems.
AI-washing claims and AI-related securities class action litigation are on the rise.

Insurers are including AI exclusions, sub-limits, and endorsements to control AI-related risks in a variety of policy types and also are providing affirmative AI coverages.

Cyber and Cybersecurity

Underlying cyber claim frequency remained stable while severity dropped by 50% year-over-year, reflecting improved incident response, widespread adoption of multi-factor authentication, and the increased use of real-time monitoring tools. A 2025 Cyber Claims Report highlighted that business email compromise and funds transfer fraud accounted for 60% of cyber claims, with ransomware continuing to represent the most costly and disruptive attack type.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires registrants to report material cyber incidents within four business days and to disclose governance practices annually. Most states have breach disclosure laws. Enforcement actions expanded, targeting failures in board-level cyber risk oversight. There has also been an increase in shareholder lawsuits over delayed or incomplete disclosures. Congress has temporarily extended the landmark Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 through the end of January 2026. The future of the law, which provides a critical underpinning for information sharing and collaboration across government and industry, remains in doubt.

In 2025, the number of coverage disputes under cyber-specific policies has increased as courts continue to grapple with “silent cyber” claims under traditional liability, property, and crime/fraud policies.

Privacy Claims

In 2025, state-level activity surged with over 800 consumer privacy bills introduced and new laws enacted in Delaware, Iowa, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Tennessee, Minnesota, and Maryland. At the federal level, the Trump administration has reduced oversight and enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In Illinois, insurers have prevailed in several appellate rulings holding “violation of law” exclusions bar coverage under cyber and general liability policies for biometric privacy clams. There was a wave of consumer privacy cases filed under various enacted state laws such as the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) and in New York under the SHIELD Act. These disputes often targeted policyholders for using website tracking tools and collecting personal information.

PFAS Or So-called Forever Chemicals

PFAS cases pending in courts throughout the U.S. have targeted manufacturers, distributors, and even downstream users of PFAS-containing products. As of November 2025, approximately 19,600 cases were pending in a South Carolina federal court, consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding regarding exposure to firefighting foams. Beyond the MDL cases, states and municipalities have filed lawsuits against chemical manufacturers, seeking compensation for the costs of water treatment, environmental remediation, and public health monitoring. At the state level, over 350 PFAS-related bills were introduced across 39 states, with 17 new regulations adopted in nine states by mid-year and some states banning PFAS in part or in whole.

There have been numerous coverage decisions. Court rulings on pollution exclusions in the context of PFAS claims, like rulings in the context of other environmental claims, have been mixed. More insurers are adding PFAS-specific exclusions to their policies.

COVID-19 Business Interruption Litigation

The COVID-19 business interruption litigation is slowly winding to a close. Approximately 2,400 COVID-19 business interruption coverage cases were filed in the U.S. since the pandemic with no new cases currently being filed. Insurers have achieved overwhelming success in the litigation, prevailing in most motions to dismiss in state and federal trial courts across the country, before every United States Court of Appeal, in most intermediate state appellate court decisions, and before every state supreme court to address the issue, except in Vermont and North Carolina. Insurers prevailed on the grounds that the claims do not involve “direct physical loss or damage” to property as required by the language contained in most U.S. first-party policies and based upon the application of virus and other exclusions.

Drugs, Guns, And Insurrections

Concerns continue about public nuisance claims becoming a super tort. The trend of coverage decisions favouring insurers in the context of opioids continued with coverage for thousands of claims brought by government subdivisions, hospitals, and benefit plans ruled not covered under general liability policies on the grounds that they seek economic loss, rather than “bodily injury” or “property damage” and as not constituting an “occurrence.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a lower court’s ruling that insurers had no duty to defend or indemnify a firearms retailer in “ghost gun” cases on the grounds that the claims did arise from an “occurrence.” In another case, the Second Circuit determined that a New York federal court did not err in finding that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s actions against the American-recognized government of Juan Guaidó constituted an “insurrection” within the meaning of a marine cargo reinsurance policy as the Maduro regime’s actions were violent and constituted an uprising to overthrow the recognized government.

D&O and Securities

SEC enforcement actions reached their lowest level in ten years overall, though insider trading and market manipulation enforcement activities increased. The SEC has focused greater scrutiny on foreign companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges. SEC Chair Paul Atkins has indicated that the agency is prepared to move forward with President Trump’s proposal for changing the mandatory periodic reporting requirements for public companies from quarterly to bi-annually. Efforts to avoid securities class action litigation by adopting bylaws requiring securities law claims to be submitted to arbitration are gaining traction. DExits, the name coined for the corporate movement away from Delaware, have continued the exodus from the state that has been the leading corporate home for U.S. companies. DExists have resulted from the perception that Delaware courts have been less supportive in limiting corporate liability and more inclined to challenge corporate board decisions coupled with efforts by states such as Texas and Nevada to encourage companies to incorporate in their states. To stem the tide of corporate departures, the Delaware legislature enacted numerous changes to the Delaware General Corporation Law. This legislation is subject to pending constitutional challenges.

Numerous important court decisions impacting D&O have been rendered on a full range of issues in 2025. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently adopted the “materiality” test for determining when intra-quarter reporting is required in the context of initial public offerings under the Securities Act of 1933, joining the Second Circuit in applying this test. It rejected the “extreme departure” standard applied by the lower court and long followed in the First Circuit.

Like the issue of number of occurrences under occurrence-based policies, the issue of related claims under claims-made D&O insurance policies is subject to varying decisions that sometimes are difficult to reconcile. The different results may be driven by the facts associated with the claims, the language of the policy definitions of “claims” or provisions regarding “related claims,” the test applied by the court in determining whether the claims are related, and whether the insured or insurer are benefited by the determination. Earlier this year, the Delaware Supreme Court adopted the “meaningful linkage” standard in finding claims to be related. Other courts, such as a federal court in Virginia, ruled that two claims were not related, applying the more restrictive “common nexus” test. A federal court in Montana found claims were related because they were based on the same general business practice and course of conduct.

New York’s high court rejected the application of New York law to disputes between stockholders and companies incorporated in foreign countries. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that coverage for settlement amounts and defence costs incurred in an underlying employee and client poaching lawsuit was barred by California Insurance Code Section 533, which precludes coverage for losses caused by the wilful act of the insured.The Delaware Supreme Court ruled that payment of defence costs by a non-insured did not count towards the insured’s self-insured retention and that the insured’s payment of the self-insured retention was a condition precedent to the insurer’s obligation to cover losses under the policy.In another action, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal against some D&O insurers based on the Prior Acts Exclusion, but remanded the case for further proceedings on the “no action” clause, finding there were various policy provisions, particularly with respect to the advancement and allocation of defence expenses, that potentially could be relevant to the determination of the meaning and application of the “no action” clause.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the bump-up exclusion applied to bar coverage for a $90 million settlement of litigation relating to Towers Watson’s 2016 merger with Willis Group Holdings. Meanwhile, Delaware decisions have refused to apply bump-up exclusions to bar coverage.

The adage that “cash is king,” appears to be fading fast in Delaware. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed a Delaware Superior Court determination that an insured movie theatre’s settlement payment made in the form of its stock valued at $99.3 million qualified as a covered “Loss” under its D&O policy. The court found that “Loss” was not limited to cash payments. It emphasized that, under Delaware law, stock is a form of currency that can be used for a variety of corporate purposes, including settling debts. Decisions such as this may cause insurers to revise policies to prevent or limit the forms or methods of payments that satisfy “Loss” or “exhaustion” requirements. Insureds, on the other hand, may seek endorsements to accommodate cryptocurrency or other forms of payments.

Health Insurance

Health insurance continues to present concerns in terms of scope and costs of coverage, with the Affordable Care Act of 2010 not living up to its name. Premium subsidies were funded during the pandemic but expired at year-end without Congress addressing the issue. 2026 promises to present changes in the health insurance landscape with the political parties sharply divided.

Silica

Silica-related claims and litigation have resurged due to the popularity of engineered stone for kitchen and bath countertops, which contains a higher content of respirable crystalline silica compared to natural stone. Following a $52 million verdict awarded to a stone fabricator by a Los Angeles jury, hundreds of cases were filed in California. Lower courts have been divided on whether silica exclusions bar coverage at the pleading stage.

Weather-Related Claims

Climate change continued to drive insurance instability in 2025, particularly in California, Florida, Texas, and Louisiana, where extreme weather events such as wildfires, hurricanes, and flooding led to rising premiums and large insurer withdrawals and insolvencies. Between 2018 and 2023, insurers cancelled or non-renewed nearly 2 million policies in these states. In response, California regulators began allowing insurers greater flexibility in setting premiums after multiple insurers announced they would stop or limit writing homeowners policies.

A mild 2025 hurricane season in North America resulted in property insurers processing fewer claims in the third quarter of 2025 compared to the third quarter of 2024. The industry is on track to have the lowest claim volume in five years due to a decline in catastrophe claims. Wind and hail perils dominated and Texas maintained its position as the state with the highest claim volume. Individual claim costs and replacement costs increased potentially making the third quarter of 2025 one of the most expensive quarters on record despite the drop in claims volume.

In January 2025, the Palisades Fire and Eaton Fire in Los Angeles destroyed over 16,000 structures and caused industry-wide insured losses of up to an estimated $45 billion. With respect to claims arising out of wildfire losses, a California appellate court decision ruled that minor infiltration of wildfire debris and smoke into a home that does not alter the property in any lasting or persistent manner and that is easily cleaned, is not considered covered property damage within the meaning of the homeowners policy. A federal court decision likened smoke to asbestos while differentiating smoke from viruses for insurance coverage purposes. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit determined that soot damage – like asbestos damage and unlike a virus – is both “directly material, perceptible, or tangible” and “permanent, absent some intervention.”

Tort reform in Florida included steps to address insurer insolvencies and Citizen’s Insurance Company, the state’s insurer of last resort, has retracted in size and has proposed rate cuts for 2026, which may be attributable to the success of tort reform.

Bad Faith and Extra-Contractual Liability

Bad faith claims and extracontractual liability continue to present significant challenges to insurers in the U.S. The use and integration of AI in claims handling presents a burgeoning area for bad faith claims by policyholders. Insurers may also face claims for failing to use AI. Balancing claims handling efficiency and accuracy with the need for individualized claim attention will prove to be important. Accuracy in evaluation and monitoring algorithms will be beneficial to insurers in connection with avoiding bad faith liabilities and with respect to regulatory compliance in the areas of pricing, underwriting, fraud detection, and claims handling.

Tort reform legislation enacted in various states over the past couple of years has provided insurers with opportunities to limit their exposure to bad faith liabilities. In Florida, specious bad faith claims against property insurers have been reduced by requiring an adverse adjudication by a court confirming that the insurer breached the insurance contract followed by a final judgment or decree against the insurer before any extracontractual damages claim may be filed. A bad faith finding is precluded where an insurer tenders the policy limits or the amount demanded within 90 days of receiving notice and supporting evidence. In December 2025, Florida Insurance Commissioner Michael Yaworsky reported that overall litigation is down about 30% since lawmakers approved the property insurance reforms in late 2022 and 2023, though still higher than in other states.

In Louisiana, limits were place on some bad faith claims, a new 60-day “Cure Period Notice” was added for catastrophic loss claims involving immovable property, and “reverse bad faith” provisions impose a requirement on insureds and their representatives to exercise the duty of good faith and fair dealing in submitting coverage claims. Although an independent cause of action is not created, insurers may use this as an affirmative defence that may be considered by a jury when considering whether to impose penalties on the insurer for breaching its duty to the insured.

In 2024, Georgia amended its “Bad Faith Failure-to-Settle” statute, clarifying the structure of time-limited settlement demands: what “material terms” mean, how insurers should respond, and when they can avoid bad faith. Montana now requires that time-limited settlement demand letters reasonably describe the claim, allows 60 days for acceptance by the insurer, and requires claimants to provide reasonable records and information to insurers. California added a statutory framework for time-limited demands.

Numerous decisions have been rendered on bad faith claims in 2025. For example, the Indiana Supreme Court held that an insurer did not breach the duty of good faith and fair dealing when it rejected a time-limited settlement demand by one claimant and filed an interpleader of policy funds naming all claimants. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a bad faith claim where the complaint contained conclusory allegations that the insurer failed to “thoroughly investigate” the property damage and pay the requested amounts without containing specific factual allegations to support the claim. A Pennsylvania court dismissed an action finding an insurer’s litigation conduct can be evidence of bad faith only where “the insurer is intentionally avoiding its obligation under a policy or is undermining the truth-finding process and where the conduct involves the insurer in its capacity as an insurance company, not as a legal adversary.” A California court dismissed a bad faith claim alleging the insurer failed to conduct a reasonable investigation by not contacting any of the insured’s major customers to discuss projected sales when determining the amount of covered business income loss. The court determined the insurer’s reliance on a forensic accounting expert’s opinion provided the insurer with a reasonable basis for its determinations of the amount of loss. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment awarded to an insurer on a bad faith claim for failure to settle within policy limits due to the claimants’ failure to provide medical records in response to 10 requests from the insurer. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment for an insurer holding the insurer did not act in bad faith in its handling of an auto accident claim with multiple claimants as a matter of Florida law. A two-week delay in reviewing the police report was not bad faith. Further, the insurer was entitled to conduct a reasonable evaluation before making a settlement offer in view of conflicting opinions on liability. By withholding distribution of the policy limits until a global settlement conference, the insurer acted in its policyholder’s best interests by minimizing the magnitude of possible excess judgments against the policyholder.

What to look out for in 2026

International and state regulation will continue to impose compliance burdens on insurers and policyholders in ESG, DEI, and other areas. California’s climate risk disclosure law, enacted in 2025, will take effect in 2026 absent a further injunction, mandating that large companies report climate-related financial risks. Insurers will continue to track third-party funding bills, including one requiring disclosure of litigation funding in federal court cases and another precluding litigation funding by foreign entities that are currently before the House judiciary committee.

Cybersecurity and AI will continue to provide an overriding backdrop for insurers and policyholders. All the claim types discussed above are expected to be subject to additional rulings in 2026, particularly in areas of cyber-specific policies, AI, and PFAS. Emerging claims areas include IT outages, Glyphosate-related claims (Roundup), formaldehyde (chemical hair straighteners), and processed food claims.

A host of new data privacy laws are scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026, including the Indiana Consumer Data Protection Act, the Kentucky Consumer Data Protection Act, and the Rhode Island Data Transparency and Privacy Protection Act. The right to cure periods under the existing Delaware and Oregon privacy acts are scheduled to expire on January 1, 2026. The revised California CCPA regulations become effective January 1, 2026, along with the California Delete Act regulations.

Warranty and Indemnity

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:36:00 Z

Written by Matthew Wood

Key developments in 2025

We predicted last year that W&I insurers would continue to see an uptick in claims activity in 2025, driven by the dealmaking boom in the latter stages of the Covid-19 pandemic and by growing sophistication in the use of the product. That prediction has been borne out, with many carriers seeing a significant increase in notifications. Most frequently implicated have been financial statements and tax warranties, with the former in particular driving claim severity, due in part to the potential for multiplied losses.

Our prediction of increased deal volumes in 2025 was rather less "on the money", with continuing geopolitical and economic headwinds causing many purchasers to keep their powder dry. Tariffs, stubbornly high interest rates, and capital allocation challenges (in the age of AI) have all played a part.

In the short term, the downward pressure on transaction volumes has driven a highly competitive market and increasingly flexible coverage (e.g. enhancements such as non-disclosure of due diligence reports and data rooms, always most prevalent in the US, becoming increasingly common globally). But when viewed through a wider lens, the W&I market is mature, well-capitalised, and in a prime position to benefit as the transaction cycle turns (see below).

As far as legal developments are concerned, following the Finsbury Food and Project Angel Bidco judgments in favour of W&I insurers in 2023 (the latter upheld on appeal in 2024, as covered in last year's update), we are not aware that any W&I insurance claims went to trial in the English courts in 2025. The overwhelming majority of valid claims have continued to be resolved commercially, with litigation rare. This is a clear sign that W&I insurance works and is increasingly well embedded in deal flows, for corporate as well as financial buyers.

What to look out for in 2026

Whilst geopolitical uncertainty makes predictions challenging, it would not be surprising if the market trends described above (i.e. muted transaction volume, coupled with high notification volume) were to flatten out in 2026.

In key jurisdictions, inflation has continued to fall and interest rates are on a downward path, which could provide fresh impetus for M&A markets. Meanwhile, policies issued during the pandemic "M&A rush" in 2021 and early 2022 will largely have expired, insofar as general warranties are concerned. With 2023 and 2024 having been quieter years for dealmaking (and where the lion's share of notifications are made within two years of completion), a stabilisation of notification volume is possible, although we would not bet against W&I claims teams remaining busy.

Our analysis last year highlighted the rapid adoption of generative AI tools and their likely impact on the M&A market and the W&I insurance market. We expect those trends to continue to develop. Many companies acquired in 2026 will have implemented AI tools formally (and some will be AI-centric and valued as such), but the possibility of unauthorised use of public AI tools (and associated risks, including data protection and "hallucination" risks) must also be reckoned with. Those areas will require careful diligence. On the other hand, guided deployment of large language models may streamline the underwriting process itself.

Property and business interruption

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:35:00 Z

Written by Catherine Percy and Lori McConnachie

Key developments in 2025

Sky UK Ltd and Another v Riverstone Managing Agency Ltd & Others [2024] EWCA Civ 1567

The case concerned claims by Sky UK Limited and Mace Limited under a Contractors All Risk Policy for water damage to the flat timber roof of Sky's global headquarters, caused by rain ingress during the policy period.

The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance Judge’s interpretation of “damage” as any physical change impairing value or usefulness, to its owner or operator, rejecting insurers’ argument that only damage requiring immediate repair counted.

The Court of Appeal ruled that insurers were liable not only for damage occurring within the policy period, but also for the cost of remedying subsequent foreseeable deterioration and development damage resulting from insured events, subject to principles of mitigation and remoteness, overturning the Commercial Court's decision on this issue.

Investigation costs were also recoverable if reasonably incurred to determine remediation needs, regardless of whether damage was actually found.

On aggregation and the meaning of "any one event", only a single deductible applied, as the failure to install a temporary roof was a single event causing the damage.

The claimants were entitled to a monetary judgment, not just a declaration, even if their respective claims overlapped. The Supreme Court refused permission for further appeal.

The judgment clarifies the scope of policy coverage for construction projects and provides guidance on key property insurance principles, particularly regarding consequential damage and investigation costs. It confirms that insurers may be liable for post-policy deterioration if it is a foreseeable consequence of insured damage.

The decision acts as a reminder that where insurers wish to depart from normal property insurance principles, exclusions, policy limits and deductibles need to be clearly worded.

Covid-19 BI insurance claims: key UK judgments and insurer considerations

Recent UK court decisions have provided important guidance for insurers on the scope of cover, application of limits and aggregation in Covid-19-related BI claims.

The Court of Appeal in Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE & Ors v Bath Racecourse Company Ltd & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 153 clarified that, under composite policies, the “any one loss” limit applies to each insured separately, unless the policy expressly provides for aggregation.

On the treatment of furlough payments, the Court of Appeal endorsed the approach in Stonegate, holding that payments received under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme may be deducted from BI claims as a saving under the policy’s Savings Clause. This issue is subject to further appeal before the Supreme Court.

The subsequent decision of the Commercial Court in Bath Racecourse Company Ltd & Ors v Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE & Others [2025] EWHC 1870 (Comm) considered the issue of how the "any one loss" limit of indemnity operated at a more practical level, having regard to the way in which the respective Government, BHA and GBGB measures affected the multiple facilities/premises (racecourses/hotels/golf courses) owned or operated by each claimant/insured entity in the group.

The judgment clarified that separate loss calculations—and thus separate policy limits—should be applied for each relevant measure or action, and for each facility (racecourse, golf course, hotel) affected. The Commercial Court rejected the insurers’ argument for aggregation across all facilities, instead favouring a “per premises” approach. The Court also found that a new loss is triggered only by a material increase in restrictions, not by mere renewal or reduction.

For insurers, these rulings highlight the need for precise policy drafting, particularly regarding aggregation, limits, and the handling of government support payments. Insurers should review and update policy wordings to ensure intended outcomes and mitigate exposure in future pandemic or interruption scenarios.

What to expect in 2026

Tariffs

The impact of tariffs is set to exacerbate the ongoing issue of claims inflation, further increasing overall claim spend for insurers and causing disruption to policyholders.

Inflation in replacement costs

Tariffs are expected to increase the costs on imports including machinery and construction materials whilst import controls are likely to cause additional delays to supply chains. As a result, Insurers can expect to see higher rebuild costs and longer repair times for claims arising from events such as fires, storms or floods. Ongoing claims inflation adds to the problematic issue of underinsurance for policyholders whilst Insurers will need to consider the impact on existing and future claims reserves.

BI loss amplification

Any delays in the supply chain result in delays to a business's ability to trade after an insured event. Longer lead in times for imported components / machinery and materials result in extended timelines for repairs and increased interruption to business. Tariff related delays are likely to increase the financial losses suffered by policyholders whilst Insurers can expect to see higher claims.

Deductibles and policy retentions

The increasing costs of claims will add pressure on Insurers to pass the costs on to businesses and / consumers both by way of higher premiums and deductibles to maintain profitability.

Fraud

According to the ABI, fraudulent insurance claims continue to exceed £1.1bn in 2024, an increase of 2% from the previous year. Although motor claims remains a key exposure area for insurers, there has also been a marked increase in fraudulent commercial property insurance claims. Exaggerated losses remain the most common, accounting for £466m worth of claims fraud, an increase of 10% on 2023.

The insurance industry invests at least £200 million per year to identify fraud investing in advanced technology and data analytics to identify suspicious patterns and behaviour. Collaboration between various stakeholders (brokers, underwriters, claims) and data sharing across the industry are all important for effective fraud prevention. Combatting insurance fraud will remain an important strategic focus for the industry.

Technology

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:35:00 Z

Written by Sophie Hudson

Key developments in 2025

The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 ("DUAA") received Royal Assent on 19 June 2025. It marks the most significant overhaul of the UK’s data protection landscape since Brexit. The DUAA introduces targeted amendments to the Data Protection Act 2018, the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003. The focus is to streamline compliance and enable more agile data use for businesses.

A key change is the creation of “recognised legitimate interests”. This is an expanded lawful basis for processing personal data that removes the need to balance individuals' interests against the legitimate interests of the processor for specified activities such as direct marketing and intragroup administration. For insurers, this is expected to simplify routine data flows and reduce friction in claims handling and underwriting operations.

The DUAA also tightens controls around automated decision-making and requires organisations to demonstrate meaningful involvement in decisions where individuals’ rights are affected. This is particularly important for claims teams deploying AI or automated triage tools, as it clarifies when and how those technologies can be used.

For international data transfers, the DUAA introduces a new “data protection test” to replace the previous adequacy assessment. Firms must now ensure that data protection standards in third countries are “not materially lower” than those in the UK. This will likely require a review of cross-border claims and data-sharing arrangements.

Other notable updates include:

Enhanced complaint-handling procedures;
Stricter requirements for responding to data subject access requests;
New powers for the Secretary of State to expand or clarify what counts as special category data.

The DUAA will be introduced in phases starting August 2025, with full implementation expected by mid-2026.

What to look out for in 2026

EU's approach to AI regulation

The European Union Artificial Intelligence Act ("EU AI Act") represents the world’s first comprehensive legal framework governing the development and use of AI across sectors.

General-purpose AI (“GPAI”) models with systemic risk have been subject to initial requirements since August 2025. From August 2026, The EU AI Act’s full suite of obligations for high-risk AI systems (“HRAI”) will come into force. The legislation establishes a structured approach for identifying, managing and reporting “serious incidents” involving AI.

Any use of AI, whether for claims triage, fraud detection or underwriting automation, must be carefully assessed to determine whether it qualifies as high-risk. Providers of HRAI systems will be subject to strict incident notification requirements: serious incidents must be reported to national authorities within defined timeframes. For example, for the most severe of cases, a notification must be made within two days.

Meanwhile, developers of GPAI models that present systemic risk will be required to monitor and report incidents “without undue delay.” This must be made to both the EU AI Office and the relevant national regulators. These obligations will operate under a forthcoming Code of Practice, which has yet to be finalised.

However, The EU Digital Simplification Package ("Omnibus"), published on 19 November 2025 is likely to result in a relaxing of certain requirements originally set out in the EU AI Act in the longer term. Its aim is to reduce the cost and complexity of regulatory compliance for digital service providers, offering a competitive advantage to businesses. For instance, the definition of "personal data" under GDPR would be amended. Full adoption of the Omnibus is currently expected by mid-2027.

UK's approach to AI regulation

In contrast, the UK Government's approach remains pro-innovation. Following its 2024 consultation, it confirmed that it would not rush into legislation, opting instead to shape future policy through continued industry engagement and alignment with international developments, such as the EU AI Act.

While this means the UK currently faces fewer prescriptive rules, organisations must still keep pace with emerging best practices, regulatory expectations and potential future reforms. The UK’s flexible stance offers operational agility, but firms should avoid complacency. Cross-border operations and client expectations will increasingly be influenced by the stricter EU framework.

Staying ahead will require proactive risk management, regular policy reviews, and close collaboration between legal, compliance, and operational teams.

Middle East and Africa

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:35:00 Z

Written by Jack McAlone

Key developments in 2025

Middle East

During 2025, countries across the Middle East have continued to build – and announce further - ambitious infrastructure projects, aimed at diversifying their economies away from fossil fuel production, and to enable sustainable economic growth. Examples include the expansion of existing cities and the construction of new ones, new transport projects, and renewable energy.

The boom in construction has resulted in a continued demand for a broad spectrum of insurance cover – including construction and operational/ property all risks cover, as well as liability cover for contractors working on the various projects. This potential for growth has been reflected in several MGAs entering the region in 2025.

At the same time, insurers have shown some caution owing to recent natural catastrophe losses in 2024. In its recent market update, the broker, Aon, described property lines in the region as "challenging", and noted the introduction of new sub-limits for NatCat losses. The complexity and scale of some of the projects being undertaken will also increase the potential for substantial claims.

Africa

2025 saw continued growth in the mining sector in Africa, with continued global demand for commodities including copper, cobalt, lithium, platinum group metals, and gold, driven by their uses in products such as electronics and batteries. That demand, combined with Africa's rich supply of natural minerals, has led to the construction of several new mining facilities beginning in 2025 (for example, the Kuvimba Lithium Project in Zimbabwe) and the expansion of existing mines. Meanwhile, the DRC and Mali governments have made agreements with mining companies for the construction of new refining facilities, to benefit economically from more stages of the supply chain being undertaken domestically.

The ongoing growth of mining in the region presents opportunities for insurers to write new business. WTW reported in late 2025 that competition among insurers for business in the sector was fierce, leading to a softening of the market and more flexibility in the terms offered.

Various countries across Africa have also experienced a volatile political climate and civil unrest, creating risks which are changeable and difficult to price in, potentially increasing demand for political violence cover. Further, as the mining industry in Africa continues to grow, a tendency towards "resource nationalism" has been observed, which - depending on the measures taken – could increase commodity prices and, in turn, the quantum of any business interruption claims.

What to look out for in 2026

Middle East

In recent years, there has been significant growth in the construction of data centres, owing to growing demand for cloud computing services and AI. The Middle East has been identified as an area where data centre capacity is projected to grow considerably, with PwC estimating that capacity in the region will triple over the next five years, owing to factors such as a growing population; lower land costs; tax incentives in certain countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia); access to capital; and low power costs. Improved cooling technology has improved the viability of situating data centres within the region's hot, dry climate.

The growth in this area will induce greater demand for construction and operational cover for data centres in the region. While this might present an opportunity for carriers to write business in a growth area, there are also certain risks from an underwriting perspective. Data centres are extremely complex projects, often comprising not just large amounts of advanced computing equipment but also their own power supply (e.g. gas turbines), increasing the potential for costly property damage claims. Furthermore, lead times for replacement components (e.g. data centre-grade memory, transformers) have increased drastically, prolonging outages/ project delays. As data centres use new forms of technology with an uncertain loss record, this will also present challenges regarding pricing.

Africa

In 2026, we anticipate that the risks posed by extreme weather in the region – and the development and take-up of insurance to manage those risks – will remain an important theme. Parametric insurance has been identified by governments and international organisations (e.g. the UNDP) as a potentially effective tool to build resilience to extreme weather in the region.

We expect that parametric insurance will continue to grow in Africa during 2026. In 2025, the South African government announced its intention to look into using parametric insurance to guard against the risk of extreme weather to municipal property, following heavy (and, in a number of cases, uninsured) losses during the floods of 2022. Furthermore, the African Risk Capacity – which enables governments in Africa to obtain parametric cover against natural disasters - has set itself the ambition of protecting 700 million people in Africa by 2034, and we expect that it will continue seeking to expand by seeking further investment from overseas and improved risk modelling.

Should the prevalence of parametric cover continue to grow in the region, this may create demand for reinsurance in the London market and elsewhere. Furthermore, in addition to supporting traditional farming activities, parametric insurance may also play a role in supporting the growth of other areas including solar power – which is seen by many to be of increasing importance given increasing electricity demands in the region and the unreliability of existing infrastructure.

Netherlands

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:34:00 Z

Written by Marit van der Pool and Eunice Blokland

Key developments in 2025

PFAS
Last year, we already mentioned the PFAS developments in the Netherlands. This year, PFAS litigation has intensified. A collective action brought by eleven interest groups against the State alleges a breach of duty of care for failing to protect the residents from PFAS contamination. The case was heard on 2 December 2025 and a ruling is expected in February 2026.

The court’s 2023 ruling of liability in the case brought by municipalities against Chemours remains an important precedent for future claims against industrial polluters. These developments reflect a broader trend in which PFAS is being compared to asbestos regarding its legal consequences, whilst the European Commission continues to work on a potential EU-level ban on PFAS.

AI
Globally, AI is impacting the way we work significantly. This phenomenon will logically also have a significant impact on insurance claims and insurance coverage.

Silent AI has developed into a point of attention within the Dutch insurance market. As companies increasingly rely on AI-driven support tools, debate has intensified over whether errors made by AI tools as quasi-professional agents qualify as professional wrongful acts or not. We see similar discussions under product liability insurance.

The AI Act, which has been in force since 2024, has also begun to influence the assessment of civil duties of care. Failure to comply with its requirements is expected to be treated as strong evidence of unlawful conduct in civil proceedings.

We have also seen insurers adding specialized GenAI coverage under their cyber policies, making an early shift towards explicit AI insurance.

Product liability
Product liability changes in 2025 were dominated by the entry into force of the new EU Product Liability Directive (2024/2853), which significantly expands both the scope of products and the range of potentially liable parties. Software, AI systems and associated digital services now fall within the definition of a product, while importers, authorised representatives and fulfilment service providers may also face liability. The broadened concept of recoverable damage and eased evidentiary rules have raised concerns among insurers, who anticipate increased claims exposure and are revising policy wordings accordingly.

Class Actions
The WODC (a Scientific Research and Data Center of the Ministry of Justice) has evaluated the Dutch Collective Settlement of Mass Claims Act (WAMCA), noting 95 collective actions since 2020 with none fully resolved. The report identified lengthy admissibility phases and funding issues, recommending procedural improvements and a clear funding framework.

Notably, the Vattenfal case was the first WAMCA case to reach substantive assessment, whilst the Mercedes Dieselgate action was declared admissible on appeal. These developments have fueled a growing claim culture in the Netherlands under the WAMCA framework.

Rotterdam Scale, relevant for personal injury claims

2025 saw the official introduction of the 'Rotterdamse Schaal' (Rotterdam Scale), a standardized framework for assessing immaterial damages in personal injury cases in the Netherlands. This scale, developed by a legal research team from the Erasmus University Rotterdam, provides a structured approach to quantifying non-material damages, such as pain and suffering. The aim is to bring greater predictability and transparency to claims handling. As the use of the Rotterdam Schaal leads to higher amounts of compensation, this will have consequences for the amount of damages awarded. Although not legally binding, courts and practitioners increasingly reference the Rotterdam Scale. The Dutch Judiciary is currently discussing the use of the Rotterdam Scale and is expected to publish a guideline soon.

Unregulated advocates
Key issues in 2025 revealed growing concerns about claims by unregulated advocates in personal injury matters. Issues such as double billing, misleading advertising and insufficient expertise were increasingly reported, with up to a quarter of cases handled by unregulated advocates.

Sector organizations urged the introduction of statutory quality standards, including amendments to article 6:96 Dutch Civil Code (this is the article that specifies what types of costs can be claimed as damages), whilst a WODC study concluded that broader regulation is necessary. Parliamentary debates show support for mandatory accreditation and professional protection, although concrete legislative steps remain pending.

Regulatory trends
Regulatory developments were marked by increased supervisory attention from The Dutch Bank (DNB) and the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM), including closer scrutiny of governance frameworks, digital resilience under DORA and the use of AI systems. At EU level, the key changes concern the revision of the Solvency II Directive, the central supervisory framework for European insurers, and the introduction of the Insurance Recovery and Resolution Directive setting new recovery and resolution rules. These reforms will shape the EU’s oversight of insurers in the coming years.

What to look out for in 2026

PFAS

PFAS is projected to become an even bigger source of liability in 2026, especially as European regulations are expected to broaden PFAS restrictions under the REACH regulation (the Regulation of Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals). At national level, a standalone PFAS ban remains under political consideration, but preparations for stricter standards on emissions, soil, and drinking water are being developed.

As lawsuits begin to target not only manufacturers but also distributors and processors, insurers are likely to respond by adding specific PFAS exclusions, sublimits, or significantly raising premiums. Together, these developments suggest that 2026 will be a crucial year when tighter regulations and increased legal claims come together.

(Silent) AI
Looking ahead to 2026, AI-related claims are expected to increase significantly, pressuring insurers to clarify the scope of AI coverage. The revised Product Liability Directive and AI Act will create strict liability for software and AI systems, likely to raise claim volumes. Silent AI exposure continues due to outdated policies, but insurers are expected to introduce explicit AI-clauses in 2026 to prevent unintended coverage.

Heightened exposure is expected in mobility, healthcare and HR, where AI systems and bias may trigger liability or discrimination claims. Litigation funders are also likely to engage more actively, partly due to developments of the WAMCA in the Netherlands.

Product liability
By 9 December 2026, EU countries must implement the new Product Liability Directive. The broadened scope covering software, AI systems and associated digital services is expected to drive an increase in claims, including WAMCA cases in the Netherlands. Insurers are likely to introduce AI- and digital-product clauses to manage silent exposures, while companies face heightened compliance and contract management demands. Litigation funders are also expected to become more active, particularly in the tech and medical sectors.

Unregulated advocates

Ongoing concerns about unregulated advocates are set to drive significant policy attention in 2026. Lawmakers are considering changes to article 6:96 DCC (see above) that would tie remuneration to the expertise of advocates, a change expected to lower insurers’ expenses.

Political debate on introducing a licensing system or protected professional title is gaining momentum, with a government response expected soon to help guide future supervision and enforcement. Insurers are expected to tighten cost assessments, refine policy wording and promote the use of accredited representatives.

Regulatory trends

Regulatory priorities in 2026 will center on enhanced supervision by the AFM and DNB, including data-driven and risk-based oversight and further implementation of DORA. At EU level, 2026 will serve as a transition year for the Solvency II revision and the IRRD, requiring updates to governance and recovery planning. Insurers are advised to prepare for upcoming financial-markets legislation and rising expectations on ESG, AI and operational resilience.

Class Actions

Key policy actions are expected in 2026, including the government’s response to the WODC evaluation of the WAMCA and potential legislative measures to streamline procedures and improve funding transparency. Collective claims are likely to increase, particularly in the areas of ESG, AI and consumer protection, with litigation funders playing a growing role. Insurers should anticipate higher exposure under directors’ liability and professional policies and may need to revise policy terms whilst closely monitoring funding and opt-out risks.

Pensions

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:34:00 Z

Written by Alison Thomas

Key developments in 2025

As predicted in last year's review, the Pensions Scheme Bill (the Bill) signalled some major changes coming for the sector. The Bill had its first reading in Parliament in June 2025 and a list of over 200 government amendments was published on 1 September 2025. Among the amendments was a framework for a legislative override for the ruling in Virgin Media v NTL Pensions Trustees II Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 843 (Virgin Media) which sent shockwaves through the industry in 2024.

Impacted schemes will need to meet certain criteria set out in the draft legislation to take advantage of the remedy provided in it (essentially, retroactive actuarial approval). While most of the criteria are likely to be relatively easy to meet, particular attention should be paid to carve-outs for schemes where trustees have already taken 'positive action' whereby they have treated the amendment as void or where the validity of any amendment has already been adjudicated or remains at issue in legal proceedings begun prior to 5 June 2025. There are still lingering questions about how these carve-outs are to be implemented in practice (such as the scope of the term 'legal proceedings'), and so we will have to wait and see if any further guidance is issued to assist insurance and pension professionals in assessing their risks relating s37 issues going forward. The Virgin Meida remedies are set to come into force 2 months after the Bill receives royal assent.

What to look out for in 2026

Looking ahead, the Bill is set to bring more changes in 2026 and beyond. The Bill sets out new frameworks for guided retirement, consolidation of small inactive pension pots, transferring DB surpluses back to employers, Value for Money (VFM) assessments, and expansion of the Pension Ombudsman's (TPO) powers. Of particular interest to trustees, administrators, and insurers alike will be the amendment making TPO a 'competent court' for the purposes of enforcing equitable recoupment decisions from TPO. This will allow trustees to directly enforce TPO decisions to recoup overpayments, when previously, trustees would have to incur the time and costs of obtaining a county court order in. The TPO power expansion is set to come into force 2 months after the Bill receives royal assent, while other changes are set to come into force gradually through 2030.

Cybersecurity is sure to be a hot topic for pensions next year, particularly with the final pensions dashboards integration deadlines looming. Earlier this year, the ICO levied a £14 million fine against Capita (a frequent third-party contractor for pension schemes) for data breaches which included breaches concerning pensions data. This makes it clear that pension professionals must take data security seriously and ensure the proper controls are in place. The pensions dashboard implementation is sure to magnify any pre-existing problems in schemes' data security processes and present fresh risks, as schemes must ensure their member data is accurate, accessible and yet secure to comply with the Pensions Dashboard Regulations. Deadlines for integration already passed for the biggest schemes and master trusts earlier this year, and the timetable for integration continues into June 2026.

Political risk and trade credit

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:34:00 Z

Key developments in 2025

Following a record election year in 2024 there has been a focus on the consequent geopolitical impact moving through 2025, and there has certainly been enough to keep risk analysts interested.

At the forefront of the European mind is the continued fallout from the Russo-Ukrainian war. Any unresolved sanctions positions will continue to cause insurers problems, but it has also developed the potential to change the landscape of asset seizure. EU leaders continue to debate whether to use €210bn to provide Ukraine with a loan to fund its defence. This has, consequently, resulted in Russia's central bank filing a lawsuit in Moscow to seek damages from Euroclear. The outcome of this dispute and the decisions taken may set a precedent (legal or otherwise) for asset seizure as a weapon in geopolitics moving forward. It is also worth noting that the EU's decision will be influenced by, but does not require, US involvement.

On the topic of US foreign policy (and although only just slipping into 2026), following a steady increase of presence in the Caribbean, Operation Absolute Resolve surprised the world on 3 January. US forces conducted strikes on Venezuela with around 150 aircraft and captured the President Nicolás Maduro in under four hours. President Trump has been clear in his intentions to "run" the country until a "safe, proper and judicious transition". Insurers will be keeping a keen eye on the nature of this arrangement. If the intention is for US business to move in and utilise Venezuela's rich set of resources, then underwriters familiar with the historic Chávez rule confiscation issues will be cautious.

The impact of the US operation will also be felt more widely. It is possible the US will be emboldened by its successful operation – tempting further action. Notably, dialogue with Columbia and Greenland became even more tense in the immediate aftermath of the operation. There is also a possibility that this behaviour will provide justification for other states considering foreign action and we discuss this further in the next section.

Outside of US military action, there has been a continued increase in US tariffs which have, consequently, forced trading blocs to adapt so as not to invoke the ire of the United States. The European Union, for example, is implementing steel trade rules to target supply from China. This remains a difficulty for traders and their respective insurers alike as they try to predict reliable and insurable trade flows.

If we look outside the typically Western sphere of influence, then this year has seen continued instability in several regions (and we refer to our Political Violence section for more details on armed conflicts). The West Africa, Central Africa, and Sahel regions have been termed a 'Coup Belt' and, whilst insurers have been prudent to avoid the area, losses have arisen. Looking further south, Tanzania's political situation has become openly fractious with a crackdown on protests and an internet blackout. This increased authoritarianism demonstrates a potential risk for foreign investors who will be cautious about vulnerability of any assets under such a government.

What to look out for in 2026

The global instabilities already mentioned above will not, unfortunately, disappear and we expect developments to be of continued interest to underwriters. We had purposefully not mentioned the China-Taiwan dimension because its ultimate relevance is in looking forward. There will likely be heightened tensions, activity in the South China sea (exercises and blockades), and all the consequent political wrangling as a result. This is primarily because 2026 sits as the year before the centenary of the People's Liberation Army in 2027, and sits alongside former US Admiral Philip Davidson's prediction of 2027 as a window in which China may develop sufficient capabilities to invade Taiwan.

It could be said that the US action in Venezuela will have provided a precedent for an invasion or, at the very least, increased grey zone activity. On the alternative, a display of US military power could act as a deterrent particularly where US national security policy has softened as regards Russia but hardened as regards China. In any event, whilst an invasion of Taiwan is of a different nature to the US operation in Venezuela – the resulting dynamic between the two nations will be a topic of interest for insurers into 2026.

As regards credit insurance, the First Brands collapse is being said to have exposed hidden risks and lack of transparency in the burgeoning private credit market. For insurers the fraud allegations in the collapse would likely impact coverage but the more pertinent issue is whether this signals underlying risks on any insured private credit books. In particular, to what extent have due diligence practices been followed in accordance with policy requirements? For more details from a less insurer and more industry perspective - please see RPC's article on the collapse.

In addition to private credit, we expect two hot topics will be at the forefront of the minds of insurers with vested interests. Primarily, there is a significant amount of credit which has been injected into AI companies, and this has raised sentiments that a market "bubble" exists. Given the volume of investment to date then, if this is true, the potential downturn would be significant for insurers to the extent any values have reached their books. In addition, commodity markets (and particularly in respect of gold) have been volatile this year and the ramifications of this will seep into next year. Insurers will be keen to obtain some clarity on the value of any assets which are the subject of an insured trade, or otherwise.

Finally, insurers will be keeping a keen eye on public finances. OECD countries persist in exhibiting high debt levels - and bond yields are creeping ever higher. Countries such as France already have very little fiscal headroom and pushing taxes any higher may run the risk of preventing growth. All of this will likely force risk premiums on sovereign debt ever higher across the world because, as the risk of a fiscal accident increases, the overall cost of borrowing increases.

Political violence and terrorism

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:34:00 Z

Key developments in 2025

The climate of war, civil or otherwise, across the globe has continued with the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) calculating active armed conflicts worldwide, and their average duration, to remain amongst the highest in decades. Insurers continued to address notifications from the Russo-Ukrainian War, Sudan, the Israel-Palestine conflict, and Myanmar. The situation between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda has continued to inflame, and Ugandan troops are also increasing involvement for their vested interest against the M23 rebels. In more recent news Thailand and Cambodia have re-engaged in border clashes at the end of this year in breach of a US brokered truce between the two nations.

The impact of US involvement has remained important for insurers in these conflicts as its geopolitical stance could not only dictate the length of a conflict, but also any consequent sanctions. This is made difficult by the fact that, at times, any attempt to predict the US stance has been difficult and this has made risk analysis problematic for insurers.

To this point, just before going to print on this publication, the US were involved in a military operation of their own. Operation Absolute Resolve was undertaken in Venezuela with numerous locations (reportedly including military bases, La Guaira Port and Higuerote Airport) hit by airstrikes. The full nature of the damage caused by these strikes is yet to be seen but, given this development, insurers will be concerned about any further activity emboldened by this operation. President Trump has already made suggestive comments as regards Columbia and Greenland - who will be concerned about protection of their assets from an emboldened US.

We also predicted in last year's annual review that domestic political violence, terrorism, and wider active assailant incidents could be of increasing concern. This may not have resulted in any publicly reported insurance losses but there have, unfortunately, been examples of this trend continuing to increase pressure on PV and active assailant books. On 10 September, the American political activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated. In the United Kingdom, there was an attack on a synagogue during Yom Kippur as well as multiple arrests at Palestine Action protests (now designated a terror group following the vandalization at RAF Brize Norton). Even in the process of writing this review, a shooting at Bondi Beach in Australia was reported.

Finally, and starting on December 28th, riots in Iran have escalated from electronics vendors going on strike to school and office closures, deaths, and over 100 arrested for protests. The situation is made ever more tense by the emboldened President Trump's comments that, if the regime oversteps, the US is "ready to go".

What to look out for in 2026

Given the developments of this year, we unfortunately do not anticipate an improvement in global conflicts for the following. The focus on the US position will also remain, but with growing unpredictability comes an increased lack of reliance. There is a growing sentiment that US political impact may diminish (alongside its 'soft power') as nations looks elsewhere for support to prevent conflicts. The US itself may even be a source of further conflict moving into 2026. We have mentioned Greenland but the Americas in general will be live to the US sphere of influence following Operation Absolute Resolve.

Looking forward also to technological advances, there are a couple of developments which will give insurers cause for concern – even if not yet straying into traditional PV coverage. We start with drone technology which has been greatly accelerated by the Russo-Ukrainian war and may be the source of losses outside Ukraine moving forward. There have been several reported incidents where drones are being used outside of active conflict and causing disruption to key infrastructure. Brussels airport was forced to close in November and, most recently, Lithuania declared a state of emergency following a series of incursions from neighbouring Belarus

Separately, as the demand and reliance on AI technologies grow then the need for data centres, with physical vulnerabilities, will also grow. These assets are likely to be considered high value and critical infrastructure worth protecting. In a similar manner to undersea cables, these centres could become a target for malign state actors. Accordingly, PV coverage may be required, and we anticipate difficulties may arise as the lines between PV, cyber, and typical property insurance will need to be drawn.

Procedure, damages and costs

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:34:00 Z

Written by Aimee Talbot

Key developments in 2025

The drive to control the costs of litigation continued in 2025 with the introduction of three new costs budgeting light pilot schemes, catchily titled PD51ZG1, PD51ZG2 and PD51ZG3, which capture certain Part 7 multi-track claims issued on or after 6 April 2025. Each scheme has detailed criteria, but they mainly target sub-£10m claims in the Business & Property Courts; claims worth less than £1m in Leeds, Bristol or the Central London County Court; and Manchester and Birmingham QOCS claims.

As the pilot schemes are in their infancy, there is not yet any reported case law, so it is too early to tell whether the pilot schemes achieve the right balance between judicial scrutiny of the costs of litigation and minimising the costs of the budgeting process itself. We may see some judgments in 2026 under the pilot schemes but it may take longer for issues to surface as we still await the expected satellite litigation arising from the extension of fixed recoverable costs in 2023.

On the topic of reducing the costs of litigation, artificial intelligence is lauded as capable of doing just that, although it of course comes with well publicised risks, including the risk of hallucinating case citations. The first judgment dealing substantially with this issue was handed down in April this year, when Mr Justice Johnson in R (on the application of Frederick Ayinde) v The London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1040 (Admin) gave judgment in two referrals that had been made under the court's inherent jurisdiction to regulate its own procedures and enforce the duties owed to it by lawyers.

In both cases, fictional citations had been put before the court – one by a pupil barrister and one by a solicitor. In the latter case, the court commented: "Putting before the court supposed “authorities” which do not in fact exist, or which are not authority for the propositions relied upon is prima facie only explicable as either a conscious attempt to mislead or an unacceptable failure to exercise reasonable diligence to verify the material relied upon." Read our detailed analysis of the decision here. The use, or misuse, of AI continues to feature in litigation, especially by litigants in person, and we expect this trend to continue into 2026 and beyond.

What to look out for in 2026

From 1 January 2026, a new two-year pilot scheme improving access to court documents by non-parties comes into force in the Commercial Court, London Circuit Commercial Court and Financial List. Under the scheme, various categories of documents referred to at public hearings must be uploaded to the Court's electronic file, which will make them available to download by non-parties. This is in line with the common law rule that documents read out in open court lose confidentiality; however, it will make access to such documents easier, and this easy access is likely to encourage non-parties to seek such documents more frequently than under the current regime. As such, Insurers may want to consider whether to include arbitration clauses in policy wordings, and whether to propose arbitration, or another confidential form of ADR in sensitive disputes, particularly those relating to policy coverage.

In addition to specified documents, such as witness statements and experts' reports, judges can designate any document deemed "critical to the understanding of the hearing" as a public domain document. The parties can also agree that a document become a public domain document. The scheme is likely to bring with it increased costs incurred in dispute "Filing Modification Orders" as well as increased media scrutiny on positions taken, or statements made, by parties, witnesses and experts. However, concern over confidentiality may drive earlier settlements. Read our detailed analysis of the pilot scheme here.

We may also see adjustments to the fixed recoverable costs regime in 2026, as the Ministry of Justice published a consultation on 31 October 2025 seeking input to enable them to carry out their planned "stocktake" exercise. The consultation closes on 5 January 2026 and is likely to spark interest across sectors as parties continue to grapple with the ambiguous complexity band criteria in the intermediate track, amongst other issues.

Product liability and recall

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:34:00 Z

Written by Andrew Martin

Key developments in 2025

As we predicted, 2025 has been the year of development for product regulation in the UK. This is a welcome advancement, particularly after the years of seemingly stagnant progress following the Office for Product Safety & Standards (OPSS) call for evidence published in 2021, and the ensuing Product Safety Review that took place in 2023.

The major development was the passing of the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 (the Act), in July of this year. Whilst we predicted secondary legislation coming out in Autumn, we have not yet seen any new regulations under the Act. As we explained in our review last year, this Act allows the UK to adopt EU standards on product safety, whilst maintaining flexibility to deviate from EU regulations when it is in the interests of UK businesses and/or consumers.

The act has a number of aims, all of which culminate in reducing and/or mitigating the risks presented by products to health, safety, domestic animals, property, and the environment. Certain products are excluded from regulation under this act, including food fertilisers, plants and animal-by-products, miliary equipment and most medicines and medical devices. The act also contains provisions in respect of data sharing and cost recovery as well as making provision for emergency situations.

Shortly following the enactment of the Act and in support of it, the OPSS published updated guidance on Product Safety. This guidance sets out the current product safety landscape, how the government intends to use its powers under the Act, as well as signposting key documents for policy makers.

Whilst no new regulations have emerged, what has occurred, is that on 30 July 2025, the Law Commission announced its review of the UK's product liability regime, as set out in the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The Law Commission confirmed that it has been nearly 40 years since the UK's product liability regime was introduced and, given the significant developments that have taken place in respect of digital products and emerging technology, this regime is now outdated.

What to look out for in 2026

The Law Commission has confirmed that whilst substantive work on its review commenced in September 2025, it will have a formal public consultation of its proposals, which is due to take place in the second half of 2026. An initial scoping questionnaire has been published on their website to gather the information needed to inform their proposals, inviting stakeholders to provide their initial views. The questionnaire identifies potential reforms and what works well under the current regime and asks stakeholders to identify any concerns regarding the suggested reforms.

As well as the consultation, we are still expecting secondary legislation following on from the Act, with a specific focus on lithium-ion batteries and online marketplaces. As we indicated last year, lithium-ion batteries are a concern given the rise in injuries caused by defective products. In 2024 the British Safety Council confirmed that lithium-ion batteries are responsible for an estimated, 201 fires a year, with Aviva stating at the start of 2025, that 54% of businesses have experienced an incident linked to lithium-ion batteries. The Department for Business and Trade produced guidance on producing safe lithium-ion batteries in December 2024, citing at least 10 fatalities caused by fires started in e-bikes or scooters powered by them.

We await to see whether the outcome of this is that the UK will seek to follow in the footsteps of the EU's Product Liability Directive (the PLD), as well as how the insurance market will respond, given the potential for increased exposure under the PLD and the Act.

Latin America

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:33:00 Z

Written by Alex Almaguer (Head of Latin America, Partner), Chris Burt (Senior Associate) and Martín Jiménez (Associate)

Key developments in 2025

The Latin American insurance market experienced a challenging and dynamic 2025. This was fuelled by consistent growth, an expansion in digital distribution, and increasing product sophistication, alongside regulatory volatility and a notable rise in the frequency of complex loss events.

The year was further defined by geopolitical shocks, particularly stemming from shifts in US trade policies. Given their heavy reliance on exports, many Latin American nations remained susceptible to supply chain disruptions and inflationary pressures. This translated into higher claims costs due to rising repair and replacement expenses.

Furthermore, we noted a visible influx of new participants in the region. The use of Managing General Agents (MGAs) to provide capacity or facilitate the assumption of risks by foreign regional reinsurers continues to gain traction. This trend is expected to drive demand for Delegated Underwriting Authority Enterprises (DUAEs) with specialised expertise in the Latin American market.

The region was also defined by significant legislative shifts, most notably the entry into force of the new Brazilian Insurance Contract Act (Law No. 15.040/2024) in December 2025. This Act introduces a modern legal framework that replaces the provisions of the Brazilian Civil Code, bringing substantial changes for all market participants, including reinsurers.

The new Brazilian Insurance Act adopts a pro-policyholder approach across all insurance lines, including large commercial risks. Furthermore, it imposes stricter response deadlines and limits insurers' ability to request additional information. The law also restricts the capacity to designate foreign law and jurisdiction for local disputes (see RPC's analysis here).

What to look out for in 2026

As we enter 2026, the Latin American reinsurance market is navigating a strategic "softening" phase within the broader hard market cycle. This shift is characterised by a significant influx of global capacity and a heightened risk appetite from new market entrants. While 2025 was defined by geopolitical trade shocks, 2026 is poised to prioritise underwriting innovation and technological maturity.

Market participants should closely monitor the diverging economic trajectories of the region's leading economies. While Brazil and Argentina show signs of business stabilisation and growth, Mexico faces a more complex outlook driven by ongoing trade tensions and fiscal reforms. Specifically, recent modifications to VAT rules may escalate premiums and claims costs for personal lines; furthermore, commercial lines may be adjusted as insurers seek to offset potential premium losses.

The insurance market should maintain a close watch on the shifting political landscape between the US and Venezuela. A potential regime change could lead to the lifting of sanctions and the reopening of the Venezuelan oil market, home to the world's largest proven reserves.

Key themes for the year will include the rising dominance of Managing General Agents (MGAs), the integration of predictive AI, and the implementation of new regulatory frameworks such as the new Brazilian Insurance Act.

We expect an increase in cyber risks as it is one of the fastest-growing claims areas globally, and Latin America is no exception. The market, while smaller and less mature than in the US and Europe, is experiencing the fastest growth in cyber insurance premiums.

Political Risk and Violence remains a primary concern. Political instability in specific jurisdictions, exacerbated by social inequality, elevates the risk of severe claims arising from civil unrest, strikes, riots, and looting. Underwriters must remain vigilant as these localised events can lead to significant aggregate losses across commercial portfolios.

Finally, in 2026, the Latin American market will also witness a sharp rise in Special Risks, particularly concerning the theft of high-value assets. Driven by a surge in organised crime and the escalating global value of commodities, losses involving gold bars, luxury watches, and fine art have become a primary concern for regional underwriters. As gold prices remain volatile and illicit mining persists in the Andean region, the ability to distinguish between legal and smuggled assets has become as much a matter of compliance as it is of risk management, leading to a higher demand for more "forensic" underwriting and specialised loss adjusters.

Legal practices

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:33:00 Z

Written by Georgia Durham

Key developments in 2025

In 2025 the rapid adoption of AI by lawyers has led to notable risks particularly in the submission of non-existent legal citations in court documents. Two cases - Ayinde and Al-Haroun - highlighted the dangers of relying on AI-generated research without proper verification. In each case the court reported the lawyers involved to their regulator. More recently in Ndaryiyumvire v Birmingham City University a firm was penalised with a wasted costs order after submitting fictitious authorities resulting in the claim being struck out. These events underline the risk of regulatory action, wasted costs orders, and potential claims against lawyers and their insurers.

Meanwhile, the number of high-volume low-value consumer claims has increased significantly. In Vanquis Bank v TMS Legal a lender claimed that TMS caused it loss by unlawful means through breaching its duties to its clients (who had borrowed from the lender) by pursuing thousands of meritless claims which were submitted recklessly and indiscriminately. The lender argued that TMS' aim was to enrich itself through carrying out minimal work and submitting claims without assessing whether they were properly arguable in the hope that some would be successful and it would achieve a fee. The lender's economic loss was a virtually certain consequence of that business model and TMS knew that to be the case even though its aim was not to cause the lender economic loss. The court refused TMS' application to strike the case out. The unusual circumstances highlight the widening risk for insurers as lawyers develop new business models.

High volume consumer claims businesses often rely on unqualified staff to carry out the work at a low cost. This approach has been called into question by the recent Mazur decision where the court considered what constitutes the conduct of litigation and whether it was unlawful for unqualified employees to undertake certain activities even under the supervision of a qualified person.

Only those who are authorised (including SRA-regulated solicitors) or exempt (such as litigants in person) are entitled to conduct litigation under the Legal Services Act 2007. The judge concluded that employees can support authorised solicitors conducting litigation but are not entitled to conduct the litigation themselves either under the supervision of an authorised individual or by virtue of the firm's authorisation. The question of whether a person is conducting litigation is one of fact and degree in every case and the substance of what they were doing must prevail over form.

The judgment has prompted concerns about the validity of litigation steps taken by unqualified staff, leading to costs challenges and the risk of professional claims if clients are adversely affected.

What to look out for in 2026

CILEX has been granted permission to appeal the Mazur decision any many firms will hope to receive clarity from the Court of Appeal next year.

The SRA is prioritising higher professional standards to restore confidence in legal services. This has been prompted by misconduct cases such as the Post Office Horizon scandal. It plans to strengthen continuing competence requirements between November 2025 and October 2026 with a consultation anticipated soon. It is also aiming to improve the quality and timeliness of its investigations.

Separately, HM Treasury announced that AML supervision for law firms will transfer to the FCA with a consultation in November 2025 and the transition expected after 2026. This shift to a rules-based regime may increase compliance and investigation risks for law firms and may prompt some to seek enhanced investigations cost cover from insurers.

Life sciences

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:33:00 Z

Written by Florence Page

Key developments in 2025

This summer the UK Government published its plans for the healthcare sector and the Life Sciences industry in two policy papers: the 10 Year Health Plan for England^{^[1]}; and the Life Sciences Sector Plan^{^[2]}. The development and early adoption of new treatments and technologies is crucial for the success of both policies.

New technology is already being increasingly deployed in the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mental health conditions, through the use of digital mental health technologies (DMHTs). DMHTs are "digital and software products that support mental health and wellbeing". Examples include online apps or websites accessed via computers, mobile phones, or virtual reality headsets. Where these technologies qualify as software as a medical device (SaMD) they must comply with the applicable regulatory regime.

Earlier this year, the UK regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), published regulatory guidance specific to DMHTs: Digital Mental Health Technology – Regulation for Safe and Effective Products^{^[3]}. Aimed at helping developers and manufacturers of DMHTs to comply with UK medical device regulations, it includes important clarifications on:

When a DMHT qualifies and therefore falls to be regulated as SaMD, along with the relevant device classification rules.
The application of the regulatory regime to more complex DMHT systems which include different components or modules, only some of which qualify as SaMD.

In the UK, failure to comply with the relevant medical device regulations has serious consequences, including investigation and enforcement action by the MHRA as well as financial and/or criminal penalties. No doubt this guidance will be welcomed by manufacturers and developers (and their insurers) attempting to navigate what can be exceptionally complicated regulatory terrain.

What to look out for in 2026

We predict that insurers in the Life Sciences sector will see increasing interest and activity around the opportunities presented by quantum technologies.

Using principles of quantum mechanics, quantum computing has the potential to surpass the capabilities of conventional supercomputers. The transformational possibilities afforded by this technology in the healthcare sector have been, and continue to be, the subject of much scientific research. In 2023, the then UK Government published its National Quantum Strategy which set out a 10-Year vision to develop the quantum industry. Earlier this year, the UK's National Quantum Computing Centre (NQCC) published an insights paper "The convergence of healthcare and pharmaceuticals with quantum computing: A new frontier in medicine".[4] The NQCC paper cites the rapid growth of the global market for quantum computing in healthcare and highlights the impact that it could have on the healthcare sector, particularly in driving breakthroughs in key areas such as: drug discovery, genomics and personalised medicine. It may also herald a new era for "historically under-served" areas of clinical research, such as rare diseases and women's health, where datasets are more limited.

In its report, the NQCC identifies "policy and regulatory preparedness" as one of the key steps to advancing quantum computing in healthcare and pharmaceuticals. It calls for pro innovation: proactive and internationally collaborative regulation combined with the development of ethical guidelines specific to quantum technology, and additional data protections.

If the current UK government adopts the recommendations in the NQCC report, those companies already making moves in the UK quantum healthcare market. and their insurers (without whom such technologies may never reach the market), are likely to have a real opportunity to shape the future of this dynamic industry.

[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6888a0996478525675738f3a/fit-for-the-future-10-year-health-plan-for-england-executive-summary.pdf

[2]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/688c90a8e8ba9507fc1b090c/Life_Sciences_Sector_Plan.pdf

[3] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6866572fadfe29730ea3a9d5/MHRA_guidance_on_DMHT_-_Device_characterisation_regulatory_qualification_and_classification.pdf

[4] https://www.nqcc.ac.uk/

Marine

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:33:00 Z

Written by William Jones

Key developments in 2025

Sanctions (and attempts to evade them) remained a central theme in 2025. There has been a sharp rise in ‘flag-hopping’ – the repeat re-registering of vessels under different flags. While some flag changes may have legitimate operational drivers, frequent reflagging could be an indication of something more nefarious (e.g., the concealment of sanctioned cargo) and can raise enforcement risks.

Lloyds List report that of the vessels that were subject to sanction this year, over 70% had been reflagged, more than 20% had reflagged twice, and 7% had reflagged three times or more. The scale of these "shadow fleets" is worth noting, with Al Jazeera estimating that around 20% of global oil tanker capacity is held by shadow vessels.

For marine insurers, the risk environment is increasingly complex, particularly when flag changes or designations occur mid‑policy. Frequent reflagging without legitimate reason, combined with opaque ownership and control, has the potential to fundamentally alter the risk originally underwritten.

Sanction risk aside, flag hopping raises additional and indirect risks in the context of insurance claims. Certain registries may provide weaker oversight such that minimal crewing or maintenance standards are tolerated, thus increasing the risk of claims. When those claims do arise, the less desirable flags are likely to undertake inadequate investigations and/or prejudice insurers' position by hindering loss mitigation efforts with delays, limited technical expertise, and inadequate documentation.

In these politically turbulent times, it is imperative that insurers take protective steps, at placement, to mitigate the risks associated with flag-hopping. From a due-diligence perspective, these steps might include the vetting of the declared flag (e.g. its PSC list status/ implementation of key IMO instruments etc), the owner/ charterer, and the vessel (e.g. detention history, class recommendations, trading pattern etc.). As concerns wording protections, insurers may wish to include – for example – warranties or condition precedents requiring insurer consent for flag-change, a "class maintained" warranty, and a robust sanctions clause.

What to look out for in 2026

During 2026 we expect to see a continued focus on the risks posed by the maritime transportation of lithium-ion batteries – including those used in Electric Vehicles ("EVs"). In addition to being a potential catalyst for fire/ explosion themselves, lithium-ion batteries can also aggravate existing fires, making them harder to manage.

An example of this was the loss of the car-carrier Morning Midas - the cargo of which included ~750 EVs. Whilst the cause of the loss has not been definitively identified, it is noteworthy that the fire burned for 21 days before the vessel ultimately sank. The incidence of fires on carriers is, obviously, not a new phenomenon – but the severity of the EV fires (and the challenges of tackling those fires) is significant.

Whilst regulators have sought to tackle the risks posed by EVs through more stringent requirements concerning cargo identification, packaging, and inspection, the marine insurance market will also need to mitigate its own management of and exposure to this peril.

The various tools available to underwriters might include strict exclusions, exclusions referable to compliance with manufacturers' guidelines/ warranties, conditions precedent concerning cargo inspection and documentation, broader obligations concerning the carrier's safety measures/ fire-detection systems, and higher deductibles for lithium-ion battery cargo.

What is clear, however, is that with an increasing number of EVs subject to maritime transportation, and the severity of the potential losses at sea, we anticipate that lithium-ion batteries will remain front-of-mind for marine/ marine cargo underwriters during 2026 (and beyond).

Media

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:33:00 Z

Written by Lydia Robinson

Key developments in 2025

In 2025 the practical effect of the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA) began to bite after two of Ofcom's key Codes of Practice came into force, which sought to clarify the obligations introduced by the OSA two years earlier.

The first of which was Ofcom's Codes of Practice on Illegal Content issued on 24 February 2025. This built on the requirement under Ofcom's 2024 Risk Assessment Guidance for platforms to complete their illegal content risk assessments (i.e. an assessment of the risk of users encountering illegal content on their platform) by 16 March 2025. Platforms had until 17 March 2025 to take measures to tackle illegal harms as identified in these risk assessments in accordance with Ofcom's recommendations, which represented the first deadlines for platforms to comply with under the OSA.

The second of the key codes was published on 4 July 2025, being the Protection of Children Codes of Practice. Platforms likely to be accessed by children were required to implement effective measures to protect child users from harmful content by 25 July 2025. Of these measures, Ofcom placed particular focus on the requirement for platforms which pose a risk of child users accessing "primary priority content" (i.e. pornographic content) to implement "highly effective age assurance" (e.g. facial age estimation and ID matching). Ofcom's focus on this requirement has been evident in its ongoing enforcement programme, including recent fines as large as £1 million for failures to comply, which we expect to continue in 2026.

Alongside enforcement priorities, Ofcom's key focuses for 2026 appear to be (a) publishing guidance on the additional safety measures to be introduced which were subject to consultation earlier this year and (b) considering whether the types of content which Ofcom deems harmful to children should be expanded, with updates expected in Autumn 2026.

What to look out for in 2026

After wavering political attention in 2024 to tackling Strategic Litigation against Public Participation (SLAPPs), on 30 June 2025 measures were finally introduced by sections 194 – 195 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA). The provisions permit a court to strike out claims which are (a) deemed to be a SLAPP (i.e. abusive actions intended to curtail public‑interest speech in respect of alleged economic crimes where the claimant's behaviour is intended to cause harassment, alarm, distress or expense "beyond that ordinarily encountered in the course of properly conducted litigation") and (b) where the claimant has failed to show that it is more likely than not that their claim would succeed at trial. We haven't yet seen this provision deployed in court but expect 2026 may be the year we get clarity on how this mechanism is applied in practice.

Given the provisions in the ECCTA are limited to matters concerning alleged economic crime, it remains to be seen whether 2026 is the year the reach of the current legal framework is extended to include matters concerning public interest more generally. This would likely come in the form of the current SLAPPs private members bill (the Bill). The Bill has been subject to slow progress, being introduced to the House of Commons in January 2025 and only reaching the second reading stage in December. This version of the Bill is the second draft to make its way through Parliament after its predecessor failed to make it through the Parliamentary washup in 2024. It is hoped that 2026 brings greater progress in this respect.

Medical malpractice

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:33:00 Z

Written by Gabrielle Dyer Patrick

Key developments in 2025

The Anaesthesia and Physician Associates Order 2024 has now come into force, moving Anaesthesia Associates (AAs) and Physician Associates (PAs) from unregulated practice to full statutory regulation under the GMC. This shift aligns their oversight with that of doctors, introducing nationally defined standards for education, registration and fitness to practise; strengthening both patient safety and professional accountability.

With full GMC regulation, AAs and PAs now carry individual liability for clinical errors rather than liability resting solely with supervising doctors. Medical Malpractice insurers should therefore reassess exposure and pricing, as clearer accountability both expands the market for individual cover and changes how risk will be allocated in claims.

The case of Bartolomucci v Circle Health Group Limited [2025] concerned whether a private hospital could be contractually liable for the medical services of self-employed consultants working under practising privileges in connection with private surgery. The decision confirmed the previously held position that private hospitals offering "all-inclusive" treatment packages do not automatically assume liability for negligence in these circumstances. The court emphasised that liability remains with the consultant unless the hospital's contract expressly extends responsibility to them.

The terms and conditions that a patient signs when undergoing treatment in the private sector therefore remain crucial, as unclear wording could unintentionally shift liability on to healthcare entities and their insurers. Insurers indemnifying both healthcare entities and individual practitioners will therefore wish to be satisfied that appropriate contracts for treatment are in place and ensure adequate limits to allow for the possibility of high-value malpractice claims.

What to look out for in 2026

Political and financial scrutiny of clinical negligence costs is expected to intensify in 2026, and despite missed deadlines, fixed recoverable costs (FRCs) remain the most likely direction of reform for low-value claims.

The government had aimed to introduce FRCs for cases up to £25,000 in April 2024, arguing that claimant legal costs are disproportionately high and often more than twice the damages awarded. In 2023-2024 alone, claimant firms received approximately £536 million in costs; nearly a fifth of all damages paid. Such figures continue to fuel public concern about how much money is ending up in the pockets of patient lawyers rather than reaching injured patients.

The delay in implementation of FRCs is most likely due to the significant stakeholder opposition that has been voiced to date. The claimant sector argues that a fixed-costs system could undermine access to justice, particularly where low-value claims involve complex medical evidence or affect vulnerable patients.

If implemented, FRCs will cap the legal fees that can be claimed in lower-value medical malpractice cases, so costs should become more predictable. However, behavioural changes in claimant solicitors should be anticipated. If profitability on these cases reduces, some are likely to respond by suggesting that claims are worth more than they first appear. Insurers should therefore be alert to attempts to inflate claims to move them outside fixed bands.

There is also growing debate about how future care is valued, including whether injured patients should recover the costs of funding future private treatment and care while still being able to choose to rely on publicly funded support having received their damages. While any change to care/treatment-cost rules is likely to move more slowly than the FRC reforms, it signals that scrutiny of overall clinical negligence spending continues to expand, and public interest in the cost of medical malpractice is likely to continue.

Financial institutions

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:32:00 Z

Written by David Healey

Key developments in 2025

Motor finance claims continue to be a major issue for UK banks. In August, the Supreme Court ruled in Johnson v FirstRand that motor dealers do not owe a fiduciary duty to customers, limiting the banks' overall exposure to potential claims. However, the Supreme Court allowed Mr Johnson's claim to proceed on the basis that his relationship with the lender was "unfair" under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 because he was charged an excessive commission relative to the total amount of his loan and not informed of the commercial tie between the motor dealer and the lender. This has left an avenue of redress open to many similarly situated consumers including those to whom inadequate disclosure of discretionary commission arrangements were made. In October, the FCA published its Consultation Paper setting out its proposed industry-wide redress scheme to address liabilities for consumers treated "unfairly" between 2007 and 2024. The redress scheme proposed by the FCA has been met with strong criticism from banks on the basis that the methodology used to calculate redress payments is too generous and will result in redress to consumers who have suffered no real loss.

The collapse of two US companies (First Brands and Tricolor) has raised questions about the volatility and lack of regulation of the private credit market, where companies obtain loans from non-bank financial institutions. Industry leaders, including the governor of the Bank of England and the head of JPMorgan Chase, have expressed concern that those bankruptcies could be a signal of wider problems in the financial system.

What to look out for in 2026

In the motor finance space, the FCA is set to publish its final rules for its proposed redress scheme in early 2026, with banks required to begin making redress payments later in the year. The full exposure to the sector will become clearer once the FCA's final rules are published, but is anticipated by the FCA presently to be in the region of £11 billion (including the costs of implementing any redress scheme).

The private credit (or 'shadow banking') sector has grown by 50% in the past four years, and regulated banks have also invested in or lent to private credit firms. There is growing concern that an economic downturn (for example, a sharp correction in the value of AI stocks, as some are predicting) might have ripple effects across the banking sector given traditional banks' exposure to private credit firms and their comparatively weak and less regulated lending standards.

The increased use of AI by financial institutions is another issue to look out for in 2026. According to Lloyds, half of financial institutions plan to increase their AI investment in the next 12 months. Whilst the use of AI will no doubt bring benefits, it may also create challenges including the risk of regulatory and oversight failings. AI is also increasingly used by fraudsters to target banks and their customers, and instances of Authorised Push Payment (APP) fraud (where someone is tricked into transferring money to a fraudster) continue to rise.

General liability

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:32:00 Z

Written by Will McGregor

Key developments in 2025

Animals Act 1971

Few decisions in the past year can be said to have had more of a wide-ranging effect on personal injury litigation than Boyd v Hughes [2025] EWHC 435 (KB), the latest in a long line of decisions regarding the interpretation of the Animals Act 1971. Much maligned by commentators for its ambiguous wording, Section 2(2) of the Act imposes strict liability for foreseeable injuries caused by unrestrained animals. Mr Justice Cotter rejected the Claimant's claim, and key to his conclusion was that the actions of the horse in question could not lead to the expectation that a rider would fall off; the fall was a 'mere possibility', which case law had already established was insufficient to establish liability. Whilst providing useful clarification on the applicability of the Act in certain scenarios, the case has implications on various other substantive and procedural issues relevant to practitioners in the field, as set out in our article.

Secondary Victims

With 2024 seeing the Supreme Court's long-awaited decision in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC 1, it is not surprising we have recently seen a number of decisions on the law surrounding Secondary Victims. Most notably, in Young v Downey [2025] EWCA Civ 177 the Claimant brought a secondary victim claim arising from the killing of her father in the 1982 Hyde Park explosion. Her claim was rejected at first instance on the basis that, due to being 4 years old at the time, she could not have appreciated her father had been, or might have been, involved in the explosion. The Court of Appeal found that Mr Justice Spencer had introduced an additional requirement to the principles established in the landmark case of Alcock. The Judge had, in effect, gone too far and the decision was overturned, allowing the Claimant to recover damages for her psychiatric injuries.

What to look out for in 2026

Litigation Funding

The disruption to the third-party litigation funding market, precipitated by the Supreme Court's seminal decision in PACCAR [2023] UKSC 28, continues to affect the industry, casting doubt on the enforceability of various Litigation Funding Agreements ('LFAs').

The Civil Justice Council ('CJC') published its final report in June 2025, with the key recommendations including a reversal of PACCAR, and the introduction of more appropriate and proportionate regulation, all with the overriding aim of improving access to justice.

In December, the Ministry of Justice confirmedit will be taking legislative action to address PACCAR. LFAs will no longer be classed as Damages Based Agreements, making it much easier for Claimants to secure funding in class-action lawsuits against powerful, well-resourced organisations. All eyes are now on the Government, with 2026 likely to be the year that we see much-needed reform in this area.

Fixed Recoverable Costs & the Intermediate Track

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee has launched an interim stocktake of the extended Fixed Recoverable Costs (FRC) regime and the intermediate track, which continues to bed in following its introduction in 2023. The evidence-gathering exercise closed on 5 January 2026, and is intended to assess how the 2023 reforms are operating in practice and whether any short-term amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules are required.

The stocktake addresses key issues including allocation to the intermediate track and the operation of complexity bands, to settlement under Part 36 and the treatment of costs exceptions. Its findings will inform a full post-implementation review of the FRC regime, due to commence later in 2026. While radical change is unlikely, we can expect continued refinement that may influence allocation decisions, settlement strategy and overall cost certainty.

Health and safety

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:32:00 Z

Written by Sally Lord

Key developments in 2025

AI and predictive analytics are increasingly being used to shift workplace health and safety from a reactive incident management approach to proactive risk prevention by turning real-time operational data into early warnings.

Applications include predictive maintenance (flagging equipment faults or service intervals), wearables that identify fatigue and unsafe behaviours, and the integration of environmental data (e.g., weather) to adjust controls. HSE data continues to identify falls from height as a leading cause of fatal injury, and technologies that reduce exposure, through better equipment maintenance and earlier risk detection, may help mitigate this.

However, the benefits must be evidenced, and the risks managed. Consideration should be given to the issues surrounding privacy and proportionality in wearable monitoring, including potential algorithmic bias, reliability issues and false positives, as well as the danger of over-reliance on any automated alerts. Where the risk assessment shows a clear safety benefit, it can be used with appropriate safeguards and clear boundaries to ward against performance micro-management.

Another key development for 2025 is the Sentencing Council’s clarification of the guidance for sentencing very large organisations (VLOs). The guidance confirms there is no fixed turnover or profit threshold that makes an organisation “very large”, and that for VLOs the appropriate sentence cannot be derived by simply applying the starting points and ranges for large organisations. Whilst Courts have already been increasing starting points for fines where a Defendant is considered to be a VLO, the clarification from the Sentencing Council makes clear the need for fines to be proportionate to the means of the Defendant which is considered to mean that VLO's a likely to be exposed to higher fines.

When setting sentences, the courts should consider: (i) the seriousness of the offence, including culpability and harm; (ii) relevant aggravating and mitigating factors; (iii) the purposes of sentencing, including punishment and deterrence; and (iv) the offending organisation’s financial position. Fines must be sufficiently substantial to punish and be effective in impressing the need for regulatory compliance on the management and shareholders.

What to look out for in 2026

Increased focus on mental health

As we set out in last year's Annual Insurance Review, whilst there has been a reduction in work-related ill health across Great Britain, non-fatal injuries in the workplace have increased. The latest HSE figures show that 1.9 million workers experienced work related stress in 2024/25. Of those reported, 964,000 workers reported that stress, depression or anxiety was worsened by their work environment. The need to improve mental health support in the work place is therefore clear.

Employers are being encouraged to take action to ensure their workforce is adequately supported and using health surveillance to assist in mitigating the risks of workplace ill health, including active health promotion and better workplace practices. The Health and Safety Executive has updated its work related stress resources page and is encouraging businesses to use it to work out the best ways for them to prevent ill health in their workplace.

The HSE's commitment is in line with the Government's 10 Year Health Plan, published in July 2025, which includes a number of initiative to improve mental health services including expanding the mental health workforce and a shift in the focus from dealing with sickness to early intervention and prevention.

Intellectual property

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:32:00 Z

Written by Joshy Thomas and Ciara Cullen

Key developments in 2025

The way generative AI models are trained using data sets comprised of IP works scraped from publicly available websites, and liability for AI generated outputs have continued to receive significant attention this year providing for a degree of uncertainty for both AI developers and IP rights holders.

Content creators such as news providers, musicians, authors and visual content agencies allege that their work is being unlawfully used to train AI models. The High Court judgment in the Getty Images (US) Inc v Stability AI Ltd case, the most prominent case making these kinds of allegations in the UK, was handed down in November 2025. The court's findings left many questions unanswered. A primary copyright claim – whether training an AI model on copyright works, without consent, infringes copyright in the UK – was dropped during the trial on territorial grounds. The secondary infringement copyright claim, concerning the importation of the AI model into the UK, failed on the basis that the AI image generator model (as opposed the data it was trained on) did not store copyright works and was therefore not an infringing copy of any of Getty's works. Getty Images has been granted permission to appeal this finding. The trade mark infringement claim was successful, but highly fact based. Some AI model outputs, from earlier models, were found to contain the Getty's watermark, infringing Getty's registered trade mark. Later models largely filtered out these watermarks and so this is a finding less likely to be replicated as filtering technology improves.

A similar case in Germany was decided differently, and as cases in this area are likely to be highly fact and evidence based, it is likely to remain fertile ground for disputes.

What to look out for in 2026

UK policy on copyright and AI, and more generally AI regulation is expected to be a key area of interest and focus. This has been a pressing issue since 2022 when the UK IPO signalled its intention to introduce a new copyright and database exception that would allow text and data mining (TDM) for any purpose including commercial use. The proposal was unpopular with the creative industries and was subsequently withdrawn pending an assessment of the implications for key stakeholders. A working group of key stakeholders tried and failed to agree on an effective voluntary code of conduct to resolve the main issues of labelling and metadata for the outputs of generative AI, transparency of inputs, and licensing and permissions.

In 2025, it was widely anticipated that these issues would involve formal government intervention to move forward. However, despite another year of intense lobbying by the creative industries, it is now thought that an AI Bill may remain elusive, with the government focusing instead on boosting the capabilities of key regulators such as Ofcom, the CMA and the ICO and using existing regulation such as data protection, competition, equality legislation, and online safety.

The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, which came into force this year, does not set out a copyright and AI regime, however it requires the government, by March 2026, to publish an economic impact assessment considering each of the policy options described in the Copyright and AI consultation and publish a report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems.

Uncertainty and fluidity in this area makes it challenging for developers, deployers and users to correctly allocate risk and for insurers to assess liability, worst case damages and claim frequency. Coverage disputes may increase (does AI sit inside existing wording?). In the UK, policy direction is being worked through and is still shifting. In light of this, insurers finding themselves in the role of quasi-enforcers through policy conditions may increasingly look for evidence that policyholders have guardrails such as licensing and provenance checks, human review, logging, external AI supplier controls, and incident playbooks.

International arbitration

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:32:00 Z

Written by Kirtan Prasad and Camila Arias Buritica

Key Developments in 2025

This year The Arbitration Act 2025 came into force; we have detailed the key changes that have come into force below.

Section 39A which recognises the power of arbitrators to summarily dispose claims. This will be of particular assistance in ad-hoc arbitrations or arbitrations under institutional rules that do not provide for such powers. However, the threshold under 39A is high; a party must be shown to have "no real prospect of succe[ss]" in the claim or issue, or in its defence of it.

The scope of jurisdictional challenges under Section 67 have been limited by excluding (i) objections not raised before the tribunal; (ii) evidence not put before the tribunal; and (iii) the rehearing of evidence already heard by the tribunal; curtailing the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Dallah v Pakistan which provided for de novo review.

Section 6A states that, in circumstances where parties have not expressly chosen the governing law of their arbitration agreement, the governing law will be the law of the seat of the arbitration. The effect of this is to reverse the Supreme Court's ruling in Enka v Chubb [2020] UKSC 38 (covered in our 2021 Annual Insurance Review) , which stated that the express choice of the governing law of the contract was presumed to be an implied choice for the governing law of the related arbitration agreement. Given that other jurisdictions may apply different presumptions, where there is a split between the law of the seat and the law governing the agreement, parties ought to expressly stipulate the governing law of the arbitration agreement.

The Act also (i) imposes an on-going duty on arbitrators to disclose any circumstances that may reasonably raise doubts about their impartiality (codifying the decision in Halliburton v Chubb); (ii) expressly recognises emergency arbitrators and their ability to issue peremptory orders, which are enforceable by the court, where a party fails to comply with the emergency arbitrator’s order or directions; and (iii) confirms that the court may grant relief in aid of arbitration against non-parties including to preserve evidence or property.

There were also a few interesting cases including:

Spain's application to the Supreme Court to appeal the decision in Spain v London Steam-Ship Owners' Mutual Association Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1536 was refused; ending a dispute over the binding nature of a 2013 arbitral award, and Spain's attempt to enforce a subsequent conflicting judgment issued by the Spanish courts instead upholding the public policy of "finality to litigation". This provides further protection against parties who attempt to re-litigate settled disputes in jurisdictions which are perceived to be 'friendlier' to their case.

The Commercial Court in A Corporation v Firm B [2025] EWHC 1092 (Comm) considered the alleged passing on of confidential information obtained in one arbitration for use in another. In its findings, the Court distinguished between categories of information and considered whether arbitral confidentiality would apply, including information deployed and documents produced for use in arbitration, which are confidential, and the underlying circumstances and the existence of the dispute, which are unlikely to be confidential. This is particularly relevant to disputes that give rise to multiple arbitrations involving similar or connected issues, parties or policies.

What to look out for in 2026

As with other walks of life, AI adoption in arbitration has been keenly watched and hotly debated. Key issues include the preservation of confidentiality and disclosure of the use of AI tools by parties and arbitrators. The Chartered Institute has recently issued guidelines on the use of AI in Arbitration, addressing a number of these issues. Tribunals are beginning to incorporate such guidelines into procedural orders.

Cyber

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:31:00 Z

Written by Elizabeth Zang

Key developments in 2025

A key trend we have witnessed in 2025 has been the rise in cyber incidents which have a significant supply chain impact. According to Cyble, cyber-attacks with supply chain implications have averaged 26 a month since April 2025, twice the rate between early Feb 2024 and March 2025.

Supply chain incidents have been ticking up the agenda for a number of years now but, this year, they have been particularly well-publicised with a number of high-profile incidents including those suffered by M&S, Co-op and Jaguar Land Rover.

Supply chain attacks are highly disruptive, impacting many organisations throughout the supply chain. They can be difficult for organisations to protect against because even if an organisation has adequate security standards and is not subject to a cyber incident directly, they can still be affected by security issues that may exist elsewhere in the supply chain. In this situation, the incident could create potential notification obligations and litigation implications relating to an incident of which the organisation has incomplete knowledge and control.

However, businesses need to rely on outsourced providers for a wide range of company functions, from payroll services housing employees' financial information to CRM systems hosting client data. The key will be balancing the commercial opportunity that comes supply chains against the risks. These risks can to some extent be managed through appropriate due diligence checks, not just on internal security, but also on the security of suppliers. In addition, contractual arrangements should include obligations on the supplier to ensure any sub-suppliers also maintain appropriate technical and organisational security measures. Supply contracts should also contain appropriate obligations to notify and keep updated in the event of breach – good lines of communication from the supplier can be critical in circumstances where an organisation may be required to notify the ICO, their clients and/or affected data subjects.

What to look out for in 2026

In 2026, we expect to see an uptick in data subject litigation claims being brought against organisations following cyber incidents and other data breaches.

Such cases have been recently aided by the Court of Appeal judgment in Farley[1].

In this case, the administrator for the Sussex Police pension scheme sent an annual benefit statement to scheme members. This contained personal data including date of birth, national insurance number, police service, salary details and accrued and forecast pension benefits. More than 750 annual benefit statements were posted to out-of-date residential addresses. Each claimant complained of being caused “anxiety, alarm, distress and embarrassment”. It was argued that the claimants should receive “compensation for moral and/or non-material damage”.

The Court of Appeal concluded that, whilst losses would need to be “well-founded” and based on more than a “purely hypothetical risk”, there is no requirement for distress - a successful claim can be made in respect of “annoyance or irritation caused by fear of third party misuse”. In addition, it concluded that there is no minimum threshold of seriousness for a successful data subject claim under the UK GDPR.

This is potentially significant for the data subject litigation landscape. Since 2021, Lloyd v Google[2] had set the bar for data subject litigation claims under the UK GDPR, appearing to establish that compensation is unavailable unless a minimum level of seriousness had been met. Farley appears to effectively over-rule this and to put in place a potentially lower the bar for a valid claim, which could encourage data subject claimants (and claimant law firms) to become more active.

[1] Michael Farley v Paymaster (1836) Limited trading as Equiniti [2025] EWCA Civ 1117

[2] Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50

D&O

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:31:00 Z

Written by Rebecca D'Silva

Key developments in 2025

Enhanced Regulatory Scrutiny

As foreshadowed in last year's Annual Insurance Review, during 2025 the FCA has demonstrated its intention to increase its scrutiny of workplace culture and non-financial misconduct (NFM) at regulated firms. In July 2025, the FCA published its final policy statement and consultation paper CP25/18 introducing a new rule, COCON 1.1.7R, extending existing rules on NFM from banks (only) to non-banking firms. The FCA has also made clear that firms will be required to report serious substantiated NFM to the FCA.

The rule change means the regulatory focus on NFM will extend to some 37,000 more firms than previously, including insurers, insurance brokers, wealth managers and IFAs, and consumer credit firms. That means more scrutiny on more businesses and the directors and officers who lead them, which in turn may lead to an increase in the volume of regulatory investigations into firms' and individuals' compliance with the rules/their implementation, as a well as increased internal and regulatory investigations into individuals accused of NFM behaviour.

The changes will be in force from 1 September 2026 and will not apply retrospectively. The FCA has chosen this date as it lines up with the conduct rule breach reporting period for most firms.

What to look out for in 2026

Insolvencies

Monthly company insolvency numbers so far in 2025 have been slightly higher than in 2024, but slightly lower than in 2023, which saw a 30-year high annual number of insolvencies. The insolvency rate remains well above the level seen in 2020 and 2021, although it is lower than the peak of 113.1 per 10,000 seen during the 2008-2009 recession.

In general, sustained high insolvency numbers mean that related or consequent claims against directors and officers can be expected to remain prevalent as liquidators focus on the directors' conduct leading up to (or causing) an insolvency. Wrongful trading cases, which have traditionally been difficult to bring successfully, may see renewed interest from insolvency practitioners looking to explore avenues for recovering assets from directors of insolvent companies (and their insurers). Similarly, claims for "trading misfeasance" may become more common where – wrongful trading aside – directors should have entered an insolvency process in order to comply with the requirement that they consider the interests of creditors (as well as shareholders) when exercising their duty to promote the success of the company.

A feature of the potential landscape in respect of such claims against directors and officers is the increasing use of litigation funders and after the event (ATE) insurance. This is allowing liquidators and administrators to bring claims that may otherwise be unaffordable and pursue those claims in a well-resourced and aggressive manner. Insurers may see an increasingly litigious environment emerge following company failures.

Private Credit Risks

A specific element of the potential insolvency "piece" that we anticipate may attract ever more attention is private credit which is an area that has grown substantially in recent times. The collapse during 2025 of First Brands Group and Tricolor Holdings in the USA have highlighted concerns in this regard and given rise (not unexpectedly) to reported civil and criminal investigations in both cases. These failures have firmly placed the spotlight on the potential downsides of private credit (for example, weak lender protections, high leverage and limited transparency), with the concern being that where there is one company with these (private credit related) issues then there may well be others in the globally interconnected financial ecosystem. This is an area that financial and regulatory authorities around the world are looking at presently, including the threat of systemic risk. If there is a deeper problem, or more failures of the types mentioned occur, then one can expect heightened D&O claims as directors and officers are scrutinised and face fall out in the ways we have described above.

Energy and power

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:31:00 Z

Written by Will Jones

Key developments in 2025

As reported recently by WTW, last year saw a softening in the renewable energy insurance market, with increased capacity and competition in the insurance of wind, solar and battery energy storage (BESS).

In addition to lower rates and increased product innovation, the last year has also seen changes to key policy terms and coverages. These include lower deductibles and higher sub-limits (e.g. for hail/ wind), wider named peril sets, more generous defects cover (e.g. LEG3), and shorter DSU waiting periods. A potential consequence of broader covers with lower deductibles is a rise in attritional claims (alongside the pervasive risk of large losses). It remains to be seen whether this trend continues into 2026.

The last year has also seen a further shift towards multi-participant coinsurance arrangements – particularly in the context of projects and assets with novel technologies. The arrangements include the use of the (re)insurance tower structures that have been more traditionally associated with oil and gas assets and projects. These (re)insurance towers will necessitate the adoption, across the market, of effective claims handling protocols.

What to look out for in 2026

We anticipate that 2026 will see a continuation of the claims inflation that we have seen in recent years across all corners of the energy and power market.

In part, the rising cost of claims is a consequence of delays caused by supply chain issues. During 2025 we have seen disruption to supply chains caused by geopolitical factors (such as the Trump administration's adoption of broad tariffs) and product scarcity (for example, the ongoing shortage of turbines in the face data centre demand).

Claims inflation has also been a function of the increased cost of work and materials. The cost of steel, spare parts, yard slots, labour, environmental compliance, salvage rates and geopolitical detours have all seen increases – with corresponding increases to repair costs/ claim quantum.

Claims inflation has a number of potential and negative consequences. The inflation can result in under-reserving, particularly in the context of long running disputes where reserves were put in place at an early stage, or under insurance. The increase can also lead to attachment or allocation disputes with excess reinsurers. Relatedly, this can give rise to issues of late notification of losses.

In the context of offshore energy and marine losses, rising repair costs also have the potential to push more incidents towards the threshold of constructive total loss. This gives rise to complications in circumstances where a CTL is declared some time after the date of loss, including around the validity of any NOAs tendered and/or the extent to which the increased cost or repair was the consequence of delay.

Combatting the rising costs of repair requires adjustment teams to remain realistic about the possibility of claims inflation and/or contingency. It also requires insurers to keep policy limits and sub-limits under close review as each claim progresses.

Canada

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:30:00 Z

Written by Sean McGarry, Partner & Vanessa De Sousa, Associate

Key developments in 2025

2025 was a dynamic year in the world of insurance in Canada. In this chapter, we explore the economic uncertainty, fears of impending recession, and developments in the legal sector that underscored the year Canada had, as well as what is to come in 2026.

Economic Uncertainty and Recession

Canada faced significant financial difficulties in 2025, with experts noting that the country is still at risk of a recession within the next six months. The Bank of Canada’s Market Participants Survey for Q3 of 2025, released in early November, noted that market participants believed there was about a 35% chance that Canada is in a recession or will enter one in the next half-year. However, later that month, Statistics Canada published its Q3 results, noting that Canada narrowly avoided recession in the third quarter of 2025. It stated that Gross Domestic Product (GDP) climbed 0.6% from July to September, following the concerning second quarter results, which saw Canada’s GDP decline by 0.5% between April and June.

Tariffs imposed by foreign governments caused significant strain on Canada’s economy in 2025. According to Budget Canada, new tariffs and shifting trade policies strained supply chains and raised costs for Canadian exporters, with high tariffs and significant trade actions now applying to auto, steel, aluminum, copper and wood. Nonetheless, Canada continued to benefit from favourable access to our largest export market, with 85% of Canada-U.S. trade remaining tariff-free and the average U.S. tariff rate on Canadian goods standing at 5.4%.

Appeal Rulings Appear More Favourable on Notice Issues

The Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) recently issued two important insurance-related decisions, both addressing whether the insured had sufficiently complied with notice requirements in claims-made and reported policies such that relief from forfeiture could be granted. In a claims-made and reported policy, coverage is only triggered if the claim was made and reported during the policy period. In both cases, equitable relief was not available to the plaintiffs due to their specific late reporting. This is a break from the typical Canadian trend of flexible findings to excuse policy breaches.

On March 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an insured’s leave to appeal the decision in Furtado v. Lloyd’s Underwriters, 2024 ONCA 579 (Furtado). In Furtado, the ONCA held that the insured, was not entitled to relief from forfeiture after failing to disclose to his insurer an Ontario Security Commission (OSC) investigation and a subsequent receivership application and enforcement proceeding against the business.

Furtado built on the earlier decision in Kestenberg Siegal Lipkus LLP v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada, 2024 ONCA 607 (Kestenberg), whereby the ONCA held that where a condition precedent to triggering insurance coverage is not met, relief from forfeiture will not be available because this would constitute non-compliance rather than imperfect compliance. In Kestenberg, The Court rejected the insured’s argument that relief from forfeiture is available in all insurance cases unless the breach of condition is both substantial and prejudices the insurer. It also disagreed that a claims-made and reported requirement must be contained in the insuring agreement clause for it to be a condition precedent to coverage. Rather, courts must interpret a policy as a whole and ordinary principles of contractual interpretation apply.

In Furtado, the policy included a suspension clause pausing notice requirements while the insured was legally prohibited by law enforcement or the OSC from making disclosures. When he was informed that new legislation now permitted disclosure to his insurer, the insured waited nearly a year to report a claim to the insurance company, at which time the policy had expired. The delay in giving notice constituted non-compliance with a condition precedent to coverage, for which no relief from forfeiture could be granted.

Backlog in the Canadian Court Systems

As of November 2025, there were 50 judicial vacancies across Canada, in addition to longstanding criticism of whether those openings are even sufficient given recent population growth. This has led to long judicial wait times and concerns with respect to access to justice. Yet, in 2025, the Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling in Canada (Prime Minister) v. Hameed, 2025 FCA 118 overturned a controversial lower court decision requiring judicial vacancies to be filled within a “reasonable time”.

The Federal Court (FC) backlog has been exacerbated by a surge in appeals of immigration decisions, resulting in delays of over a year to obtain final rulings. According to the Canadian Bar Association (CBA), immigration-related filings at the FC have quadrupled since 2020. Despite this, operational funding to expand judicial capacity has not been renewed since 2023. Without funding, the FC is projected to hear approximately 400 fewer immigration cases yearly, thus adding to further backlogs.

Lastly, in 2025, the Government of Canada published its estimated budget for expenditures over the next three years, which would cut over $20 million from support services for administrative tribunals. In response, the CBA created a submission to Finance Canada in August, which highlighted the persistent underfunding for the Courts Administration Service and called for relief for the structural deficit/funding gap of approximately $35 million. The CBA noted that lack of financial backing for court systems strains core operations and, if left unaddressed, risks undermining the ability of the courts to discharge their mandate to interpret the laws enacted by Parliament effectively and independently.

What to look out for in 2026

Rule Reform in Ontario

The Civil Rules Review Working Group published its Phase 2 Consultation Paper on April 1, 2025, which proposed various changes to the way civil legal proceedings are conducted in Ontario. A revised version has been presented to members of the bar with recommendations that are expected to be imminently published by the Ministry of Attorney General, including:

New pre-litigation protocols for specific types of cases, which will mandate the early exchange of information and specific documents, and require parties to make a genuine effort to resolve their disputes before starting court proceedings;
Changes to examinations for discovery, including limiting the scope and time allowed for oral examinations and eliminating them in some instances;
Requiring up-front exchange of all evidence-in-chief once pleadings are completed;
Requiring mandatory case conferences after the exchange of evidence to set dates for a trial and mediation within two years;
Curbing motions practice by using judicial intervention to ensure that motions are addressed in a manner proportionate to the significance of the issues and the impact they have on the substantive dispute; and
Streamlining expert evidence by encouraging joint experts and permitting a single expert per issue.

In theory, these changes will reduce backlogs by streamlining litigation However, the new system has been criticized by the bar for “front loading” litigation costs and prolonging contentious issues. The detailed presentation of a case early in litigation may help early assessments, but also risks the parties missing opportunity to settle given the significant early time investment required.

Given that Ontario is Canada’s largest province, these proposed changes and the associated risks set a strong precedent for the rest of the country. Time will tell if other provinces and territories will follow suit, though at the moment, the proposed changes to the rules of civil procedure make Ontario an outlier amongst other Canadian jurisdictions.

Artificial Intelligence

Advancements in artificial intelligence are making their way into the traditionally conservative legal industry. Rule changes have already required lawyers to make attestations about the veracity of case law and evidence given the advent of AI hallucinations.

AI presents a unique opportunity for firms and claims managers to streamline operations and reduce overall workload.

AI is beginning to be considered as part of the standard of care in particular for large document cases, such as construction disputes, which have become increasingly unwieldly given the large e-discovery burden.

Tools that rely on artificial intelligence also present significant challenges to claim assessments. Self-represented plaintiffs can use it as a tool to create a volume of legal submissions that increase costs on meritless claims. Savvy claims handlers should also be aware of the potential of faked or altered evidence given the prevalence of tools that allow for “deep fakes”.

France

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:30:00 Z

Written by Simon Ndiaye, Sarah Xerri-Hanote & Romain Schulz

Key developments in 2025

We mentioned in previous reviews the issue of coverage for operating losses when there is no physical damage in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the fact that litigation before various courts of first instance and courts of appeal in France left an impression of chaos.

As in 2024, the Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court) continued to render decisions on this matter in 2025. It is no surprise that decisions are still being issued: the litigation concerns various insurance contracts with different wordings and different exclusion clauses. Moreover, the Cour de cassation must still impose its views on the lower courts.

In four decisions (two rendered on 28 May 2025 and two on 18 September 2025), the Cour de cassation interpreted the condition of coverage requiring that access to the premises be prohibited. Lower courts construed this condition strictly as an absolute and general prohibition, but the Supreme Court decided that it is not necessary to demonstrate a total prohibition of access.

Initially, the litigation concerned mainly restaurants, but there are now decisions regarding hotels. According to a decision rendered on 19 June 2025, hotels cannot benefit from coverage because they were not subject to the national prohibition on receiving the public. However, in a decision rendered on 13 March 2025, a hotel owner obtained coverage. The reason is that the hotel was located in an area of a French département in which the Préfet (the State’s local representative) issued an order extending to hotels the prohibition on receiving the public.

On 18 September 2025, the Cour de cassation reminded that the limit of coverage in force at the date of termination of the policy applies to the entire extended reporting period. Consequently, as the extended reporting period is at least five years (and ten years in certain cases), the limit applies once and not five (or ten) times. This is a strict application of the statutory provisions of article L. 124-5 of the French Insurance Code regarding Professional Indemnity Insurance on a claims-made basis, but the reminder was apparently needed.

The Cour de cassation also revisited the enforceability of the nullity of motor insurance contracts. Since the decision rendered on 20 July 2017 in the Fidelidade case by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the nullity of a motor insurance contract is not enforceable against third parties. The French Cour de cassation adopted this solution on 29 August 2019, but had to revisit two points in 2025.

On 23 January 2025, the French Supreme Court decided that the nullity of the policy is not enforceable against an indirect victim. In this case, the indirect victim was also the policyholder who committed the intentional misrepresentation justifying the nullity. Nevertheless, the nullity is not enforceable.

On 26 June 2025, the Cour de cassation decided that although the nullity is not enforceable against the victim, it is enforceable against the insurer of another vehicle involved. Consequently, the insurer whose policy is null has recourse against the other insurer whose policy is valid and can claim reimbursement of all sums paid to the victims.

In previous reviews, we mentioned the monitoring carried out by the ACPR (Autorité de Contrôle Prudentiel et de Résolution, the French insurance supervisory authority) on the remote sale of insurance contracts, particularly by telephone.

An Act of Parliament dated 30 June 2025 amended the French Consumer Code, requiring that the consumer’s consent be obtained beforehand. This will take effect on 11 August 2026 and will apply to all consumers, not only in relation to insurance.

However, since 1 April 2022, the specific regulations governing the sale of insurance by telephone apply where the call has not been solicited, granting time to consider the insurance transaction. This will need to be reconciled with the broader consumer regulations.

What to look out for in 2026: risks

Corporate social responsibility is a risk factor, particularly for liability insurance such as PI or D&O. It represents not only a source of risk but also a means of mitigation.

On 13 November 2025, the Directive on Corporate Sustainability Reporting and the Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence were heavily revised by the European Parliament. The thresholds for application have been increased with respect to both number of employees and turnover, with the consequence that many companies will no longer be subject to the regulation. Several important obligations have been removed. For example, the duty to develop a climate transition plan has been withdrawn. In addition, the mechanism of harmonised civil liability across the European Union has also been removed.

The draft directives must now be discussed among the European Parliament, the European Council and the European Commission, with the aim of adopting a final text by the end of 2025.

Another risk to monitor is PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances), also known as persistent pollutants.

Legal actions against industrial companies are multiplying in France (as well as in other countries, for instance, the decision rendered on 26 June 2025 in Italy by the Corte di Assise di Vicenza). In March 2025, the Paris water company filed a criminal complaint against persons unknown for pollution of water and soil. In July 2025, citizens of Saint-Louis, in Alsace, filed a criminal complaint regarding pollution of the city’s water supply. PFAS have also been detected in the French départements of Ardennes and Meuse at levels never previously recorded (including in the “chemical valley” of the Rhône), leading to another complaint filed in July 2025.

Simon Ndiaye

Managing Partner

+33 1 53 57 50 41

sndiaye@hmn-partners.com

Sarah Xerri-Hanote

Partner

+33 1 53 57 50 20

sxerri-hanote@hmn-partners.com

Romain Schulz

Of Counsel

+33 1 53 57 50 22

rschulz@hmn-partners.com

Class actions and collective redress

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:30:00 Z

Written by Lucy Dyson

Key developments in 2024

The UK group litigation/ class action landscape continues to expand, particularly in an environmental and consumer context. Whilst we still have no US-style "opt-out" class action regime for civil claims (opt-out class actions are only viable in respect of competition law infringements), the available mechanisms for seeking redress on behalf of multiple claimants, continue to be tested.

To re-cap, in England & Wales, there are essentially four mechanisms for bringing "group claims", the suitability of which depends on the legal issues, the volume of claimants and amount (and type) of damages at stake. These include: 1) group litigation orders (GLOs) where claimants must "opt-in" and be listed on the claim form; 2) groups of individual claims managed together (as in Mariana-v-BHP); 3) representative actions where claimants and/or defendants have the "same interest in a claim"; and 4) opt-in and opt-out collective actions for infringement of competition law.

GLOs continue to be the main legal mechanism for civil group claims in England & Wales, whereby claims are managed together provided claimants can satisfy the "common or related issues of fact or law" threshold. In recent years, claims have been brought in relation to the Post Office Horizon scandal, the contaminated blood products scandal, the metal on hips litigation and the VW Nox Emissions Group Litigation. In December 2024, the Court of Appeal in Alame and others -v- Shell¹ provided useful guidance on how claims involving multiple claimants should be managed. The claimants seek damages allegedly arising from multiple and repeated pollution events and although Shell argued that they should be managed as "global claims" when assessing causation (i.e. an all or nothing approach that the claims seek one amount which pertains to multiple alleged causes of loss). The court rejected this premise and held that the claims should be assessed by reference to "lead cases". The court further reiterated the importance of access to justice and not placing an overly onerous burden on the claimants in terms of evidence.

However, an ongoing challenge to bringing GLOs is the "opt-in" requirement which is onerous (as opposed to automatically belonging to a certified class) and requires the establishment of a claimant register. This might explain why only 194 GLOs have been made since 2000 (averaging five per year). So what is the best mechanism for mass claims?

On the face of it, a representative action under CPR 19.6 appears akin to a class action, given it permits an individual or entity to bring an action on behalf of others with the same interest, without establishing a claimant register. However, in practice, establishing common legal and factual issues amongst the group of claimants, has proven difficult. There have been various examples of consumer and environmental claims being dismissed for lack of commonality, complexity of individual circumstances and inadequate representation of the proposed group of claimants. Indeed, in Lloyd-v-Google, the Supreme Court confirmed that the circumstances in which representative claims will be allowed to proceed, are narrow (in this instance the claim failed because individual damages under the DPA 1998 would not have been evidenced by reference to wrongful use of data). In Jalla-v-Shell², claims concerning an oil spill in Nigeria was held not to meet the same interest test, given each claimant's circumstances were potentially different, including causation and the types of loss or damage allegedly caused.

In January 2024, the Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the High Court's approval to allow a representative action to proceed in Commission Recovery Ltd v Marks & Clerk LLP & Long Acre Renewals (A firm)³. The claim concerned 'secret-commission' arrangements related to IP services and was the first litigation funded claim filed pursuant to CPR19.8 that has been allowed to proceed. Unfortunately, although trial was listed for January 2025, the claim settled at the end of 2024. We will therefore have to wait for more guidance on the scope of representative actions, including whether damages can be awarded to all class members or if claimants would have to bring individual claims for quantum purposes.

Data protection group claims continue dominate the group litigation stage. In 2024, it was announced that online dating platform, Grindr, are facing a group action (totalling 15,000+ claimants) on behalf of platform users who allege their data was used in breach of data protection laws and sold to third parties without consent, including sensitive data such as HIV status. It will be interesting to see if this action proceeds as a representative action or a GLO.

In the context of mass claims, 2024 also saw the commencement of the much anticipated "mega trial" in Municipio de Mariana -v- BHP concerning the Fundão dam collapse in Brazil in 2015, which is due to conclude in early 2025. The case is being heard as a group of individual claims (notwithstanding over 700,000 claimants seek damages in excess of £36bn). The claim was brought as a collection of individual claims (individuals and companies) and is being litigated before the English courts. This was despite a USD31bn settlement being negotiated between BHP and co-defendant, Vale, with the Brazilian government in order to compensate communities and remediate the damage caused to the local environment. It stands out on its own due to sheer size and for also bringing issues arising from another jurisdiction against an UK parent company.

Collective actions for infringement of competition law (introduced in 2015) remain the only true "opt out" route for class actions. Claims concerning consumer rights, environmental breaches and data protection are becoming more prevalent. December 2024 saw a £2.1bn class action being issued on an 'opt-out' basis against Microsoft in the CAT alleging Microsoft overcharged UK businesses who used rival cloud computing services for its Windows Server software. We also saw the settlement of the long-running Merricks-v-Mastercard opt-out collective action brought in respect of allegedly excessive transactional fees charged to consumers. It has been reported that the litigation funder who backed the case intends to challenge the settlement as premature, given £17bn was originally sought in compensation and the case is rumoured to have settled for in the region of USD200m. It will be interesting to see how this develops.

What to look out for in 2025

We await the outcome of the Mariana-v-BHP case and whether the trial will proceed to conclusion. This case has certainly paved the way for mass litigation in the toxic tort context. The long-awaited Pan-NOx Dieselgate GLO is also due to go to trial in October 2025.

We also await the outcome of the FCA's investigation into motor finance commission arrangements. It has been speculated that this will result in a consumer redress scheme similar to those devised for PPI claims.

Last year we commented on the Supreme Court's decision in PACCAR , which held that Litigation Funding Agreements (LFAs) are Damages-Based Agreements, and consequently unenforceable unless they comply with the DBA Regulations 2023. Unfortunately, there is no further clarity on the position regarding funding arrangements in the wake of PACCAR (and the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill 2024 will now not be pursued). The CJC's Litigation Funding Review is due in November 2025 will provide much needed guidance on the regulation of funding arrangements and their status as DBAs.

¹ [2024] EWCA Civ 1500

² [2020] EWHC 2211 (TCC)

³ [2024] EWCA Civ 9

⁴ R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others [2023] UKSC 28

Explore Annual Insurance Review 2025

Climate risk and biodiversity

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:30:00 Z

Key developments in 2024

2024 closed with the conclusion of COP29 and COP16 conferences. COP29 continued discussions in relation to financing greener energy projects and compensation of developing countries in the Global South for loss and damage as a result of extreme weather events. Although world leaders were able to commit to USD1.3 trillion per year as a new collective quantified goal for climate finance to support developing countries, no deal was concluded in relation to reductions in use of fossil fuels or phasing down. Climate and nature were also less prominent at COP29 than at COP28, leaving it to COP30 to increase momentum and link biodiversity pathways with climate action.

COP16 focused on biodiversity and the implementation and advancement of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (the "GBF"). Countries were expected to submit their national biodiversity strategies and action plans to align with GBF targets by the start of the summit. Disappointingly, by the end of the summit only 22% of parties (44 out of 196) had submitted new biodiversity plans. Countries were able to reach a consensus on a first ever agreement on a new sharing mechanism for genetic resources on plant and animal genetics. Countries were also able to agree to the establishment of a new permanent body for indigenous people, as key stewards in conservation efforts, who will be able to advise at biodiversity COPs.

2024 also saw further developments in relation to plastic pollution, both in terms of evolving regulations and litigation. In April 2024, the UK further implemented a ban on wet wipes containing plastic, adding to the list of banned and restricted plastic products in the UK. However, the end of 2024 saw postponement of both the finalisation of the much-anticipated plastics treaty. Negotiations at INC-5 unfortunately stalled in a blow to efforts to combat plastic pollution and implement global standards for plastic products. 2024 also saw the delay of the EU deforestation directive by one year (it will now come into force on 30 December 2025). In March 2024, the EU passed an "ecocide" law by criminalising actions which are "comparable to ecocide", e.g. by companies which cause harm to the environment deliberately or recklessly¹.

Climate impact cases against various energy companies concerning historic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, continue to progress through the US courts. These claims seek to establish corporate liability for past contribution to climate change. There have still been no findings on the substantive issues with the parties mainly arguing over which forum (state or federal court) should hear the claims. In Europe, there are now three historic emissions cases. In addition to Lliuya-v-RWE² and Asmania -v- Holcim, proceedings have been filed in the Belgian commercial courts in Hugues Falys-v-TotalEnergies. In the claim against Total, a farmer alleges that crop yield has declined due to climate change and seeks various orders for the percentage reduction of Total's GHG emissions and participation in the oil and gas industry at various dates between 2030 and 2050. To date, no historic GHG emissions claim has been filed in the English courts.

This year we also saw the advancement of the case of De Rezende before the Brazilian courts as the first Brazilian tort climate case. The Amazon Task Force, established in 2018 by federal prosecutors, has filed a claim against a Brazilian farmer for the deforestation of 2,488 hectares (equivalent to 4,650 football fields) between 2011 and 2018 in the Amazon for monetary damages totalling USD17million and an injunction for the removal of cattle from the farms.

Biodiversity cases are also gathering pace, including governments being targeted in relation to failure to halt projects which present danger to biodiversity. These lawsuits involve governments, corporations, NGOs or individuals seeking to enforce environmental laws, challenge harmful practices or strategically push for stronger environmental protections. The apparent trade-offs between climate grounded policies or projects and the need to protect biodiversity is exemplified in the Supreme Court case of M.K. Ranjitsinh and Others v. Union of India³. The Indian Supreme Court, dealt with a balance of interests between the conservation of two endangered birds – the Great Indian Bustard and the Lesser Florican, and the undergrounding requirement of overhead transition lines in light of India's commitment to reduce emissions and move away from fossil fuel-based energy sources.

In March 2024, a legal opinion commissioned by the Commonwealth Climate and Law Initiative was published in the UK arguing that UK-based directors must consider nature-based-related-risks establishing perhaps a legal duty to manage nature and biodiversity risks. The case of Bloom et a –v- TotalEnergies before the Criminal Court of Paris is looking at the board of directors and main shareholders of Total for knowingly contributing to climate change via decisions made which caused environmental damage, endangering lives, damaging biodiversity and not addressing a disaster.

As regards insurance coverage, the Supreme Court of Hawaii's decision in Aloha Petroleum Ltd -v-AIG⁴ and others is a very important decision in the context of climate impact litigation and insurers' duty to defend in US proceedings. The court focused on 1) the scope of an "occurrence" under an occurrence-based general liability policy and 2) the definition of "pollutant" in the context of a pollution exclusion. The court held that the consequences of reckless conduct could qualify as an "accident" and therefore falls within the definition of an Occurrence for policy interpretation purposes. This was despite Insurers arguing that the consequences of the use of fossil fuels were known and foreseeable and therefore not "accidental". However, the court also held that GHGs qualify as pollutants and therefore the pollution exclusion applied to exclude coverage. As a result, Insurers were not obligated to defend Aloha.

The application of the pollution exclusion will therefore be crucial when considering climate impact claims. Moreover, it will be interesting to see whether insurers are able to rely on "deliberate acts" arguments in relation to reckless behaviour (particularly if there is no pollution exclusion), and how this might clash with the definition of Occurrence, in circumstances where reckless conduct constitutes an "accident" under local law.

What to look out for in 2025

January 2025 has commenced with unprecedented wildfires in the Los Angeles area of California. As this goes to print, losses arising from the fires are estimated in the region of USD135bn. Although the insurance industry exposure is predicted to be significantly lower (with a large number of carriers having exited home insurance due to previous wildfire losses), insured losses are still projected up to USD30bn. There will no doubt be much discussion and fall-out over the coming months.

In 2025, we are likely to see more climate impact cases brought outside of the USA and more focus on action to prevent loss of biodiversity. We should also see more regulation, in particular the long-awaited plastics treaty.

1. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law and replacing Directives 2008/99/EC and 2009/123/EC
2. Case No. 2 O 285/15 Essen Regional Court

3. 2024 INSC 280

4. Aloha Petroleum Ltd v National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh et al SCCQ-23-0000515

Explore Annual Insurance Review 2025

Construction

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:30:00 Z

Written by Sarah O'Callaghan & Brendan Marrinan

Key developments in 2025

2025 marked a turning point for the property and construction sector, with two major developments reshaping the regulatory and claims landscape. Awaab’s Law, effective from October, raises the bar on landlord accountability in social housing, including setting clear timeframes for making safe emergency hazards, investigating reports of damp and mould, and where a significant risk is identified carrying out works within just seven days of the written report. Landlords must also provide a written summary of findings within 48 hours (and no later than 14 days) and offer suitable alternative accommodation if deadlines cannot be met. The only defence available is “all reasonable endeavours” which will likely be tested in the courts over the next few years. The emphasis for landlords is firmly on reliable systems, clear audit trails and prompt decision making. As the regime is gradually rolled out, it is expected to reach private landlords, widening both the compliance burden and claims exposure. Expect closer scrutiny of older stock and heightened focus on timely remedial action, with regulatory penalties now sitting alongside traditional claims risk.

Separately, the Supreme Court’s judgment in URS Corp Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd provides clarity to developers who step in to remediate dangerous defects, enabling those costs to be recoverable even where no claim has been brought. It also confirmed that section 135 of the Building Safety Act operates retrospectively, bringing historic Defective Premises Act claims back within scope and avoiding “contradictory parallel universes” in which leaseholders could sue, but developers’ onward claims were barred. Finally, developers can both owe and be owed duties under the Defective Premises Act, reflecting how dwellings are typically provided “to the order” of the developer. The upshot is more scope to pursue legacy recovery and contribution actions, and a premium on contemporaneous records, clear rationale for remedial decisions and timely notifications on multi-party projects.

What to look out for in 2026

In 2026, the Building Safety Regulator will transition into an independent executive non departmental public body, with statutory responsibilities moving from the HSE on 27 January. The re-established regulator will operate in its own right, with a board and specialist committees covering building control, industry competence and residents’ views, bringing greater accountability and a clearer focus on delivery. This marks the first step towards a single construction regulator as envisaged post Grenfell.

Operational changes aim to unlock stalled progress at Gateway 2 for higher risk residential schemes. We expect earlier technical dialogue, a priority pathway for well-prepared projects and clearer guidance, backed by extra capacity and funding. The regulator is investing in digital processes and more consistent assessments of organisational competence, moving away from a purely project by project view. Leadership has been refreshed and targets have been set to reduce backlogs during the transition, when HSE support will remain in place through 2026. Consultation on a licensing model for principal contractors on higher risk buildings is anticipated in autumn 2026, and momentum on remediation continues with statutory deadlines in train. The practical takeaway is straightforward: submit complete, high quality applications, evidence organisational capability and competence, and maintain strong internal controls to avoid delays, manage costs and reduce regulatory exposure as the regime beds in.

Brokers

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:29:00 Z

Written by Zak Sutton (Senior Associate) & Dan Lewis (Associate)

Key developments in 2025

The issue of underinsurance continued to be a significant one throughout 2025, with property and business interruption policies at particular risk. Statistics show that the majority of properties in the UK were underinsured in 2025. This is reflected in the consistently high number of claims being brought against brokers which include allegations of negligent advice regarding the adequacy of the level of the cover.

Given the strain that businesses continue to be under, underinsurance could be fatal for many customers. Brokers should be alert to underinsurance and making clients are aware of the consequences of inadequate cover. Brokers will need to ensure that their advice on policies properly explains the basis of cover, any calculations to be undertaken, and how average clauses will affect the level of recovery in the event of underinsurance.

Whilst large retailers experiencing cyber incidents made the headlines this year, research showed that SMEs are increasingly being targeted and are underestimating the risk of a cyber-attack. Brokers must continue to be alive to this very significant area of risk for their customers.

The High Court decision in Watford Community Housing Trust v Arthur J. Gallagher Insurance Brokers Ltd^{^[1]} provided a clear understanding on how 'Other Insurance' clauses should be treated, when multiple policies respond to the same loss. The Court held that each clause cancelled the other out and entitled the policyholder to cover under all available policies, rejecting the submission that the policyholder was only entitled to the maximum indemnity under any one policy. The Court also determined that a customer is entitled to claim from its insurers in any order it chooses. Where a customer has more than one policy for the same risk, brokers will need to ensure they notify all insurers of any potential claim. Brokers should also give careful consideration to, and explanations of, the wording and application of 'Other Insurance' clauses.

What to look out for in 2026

AI and cyber

As with most business areas, AI is now embedded in broking – from risk profiling and pricing, to claims intake. The FCA’s Consumer Duty focus on transparency, fair value and avoiding “ethical harm” will continue requiring brokers to show how AI-driven processes support informed decisions at inception, renewal and claims. Expect closer attention to how AI‑enabled processes incorporate individual customer characteristics and whether advice remains tailored and comprehensible.

Brokers should anticipate higher claim frequency and more complex causation and coverage questions, especially where business interruption follows vendor outages rather than a direct breach. Practically, this means tightening advice and documentation, assessing minimum-security conditions and exclusions in cyber policies, stress-testing sub-limits for business interruption, system failure and ransomware, and evidencing vendor risk discussions. A defensible position is likely to depend on contemporaneous records: how the advice was formed, how any AI outputs were validated, what cyber hygiene and supply‑chain exposures were discussed and how policy terms (including professional services definitions and cyber‑related exclusions within PI policies) were explained. 2026 will reward firms that document their rationale for recommendations, distinguish tool outputs from professional judgement, and clearly explain residual cyber exposures and the limits of cover. Education remains crucial: translating technical threats into tangible financial impacts with sector‑specific examples helps clients understand why cyber is a core operational risk, rather than a niche IT issue.

Cyber risks will keep intensifying, particularly for SMEs, with persistent attacks exploiting third-party/vendor vulnerabilities and supply chains. Reports suggest a 10% year-on-year increase in SME cyber claims, with an average claim of £40,000 and a 300‑day lifecycle – a reminder that business interruption can be the most damaging aspect of a cyber event. Despite this, only 40% of SMEs are said to hold Cyber cover. The opportunity – and the risk – for brokers in 2026 is therefore twofold: closing the protection gap while ensuring robust advice and documentation that withstands regulatory scrutiny.

Broker commissions

Commission transparency will remain under the microscope. The Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd^{^[2]} and the Court of Appeal’s decision in Expert Tooling and Automation Ltd v. Engie Power Ltd ^{^[3]} reinforce that informed consent requires disclosure of all material facts about commissions – not just generic references, that the materiality threshold is "a low one", and the customer’s sophistication is not determinative. When this is coupled with the Consumer Duty’s fair value requirements, brokers should expect more searching questions from clients and insurers on how commission structures relate to customer benefit, and how conflicts are managed.

The FCA’s motor finance commission compensation consultation (with a scheme still targeted for early 2026), signals the regulator’s willingness to intervene where disclosure and value are in doubt. For brokers, the watchword is preparedness. Brokers should ensure commission disclosures are clear, complete and consistently evidenced; be ready to supply amounts and structures to commercial customers on request; review fair value assessments and product governance documentation; and update client-facing materials and staff training so informed consent is demonstrable.

[1] [2025] EWHC 743 (Comm)

[2] [2025] UKSC 33

[3] [2025] EWCA Civ 292

Annual Insurance Review 2026

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:24:00 Z

The Review is structured by reference to international regions and to business lines, allowing you to quickly find the topics most relevant to you. However, reading the Review as a whole allows common themes and cross jurisdiction / sector risks to be identified.

In the introduction to last year's Review we identified AI, extreme weather events, global economic challenges and ESG as some of the areas of common focus. This year, common themes include: issues relating to the private credit (or "shadow banking") market and concerns as to whether an economic downturn might have ripple effects across the wider banking sector; continuing growth in PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) related claims, which are now being compared to asbestosis claims; and, of course, the continued growth in use of AI, being both a claims risk and a considerable underwriting opportunity.

Yet the biggest issue we highlighted in last year's Review was that physical and political conflict arising from state polarisation / isolationism and increasing geopolitical tensions seemed set to continue, if not intensify, in 2025. Sadly, that prediction has very much proved to be true.

The clearest thread running through this year's articles is the underlying impact of increased state self-protectionism and rising geopolitical conflict. The level and duration of armed conflict worldwide remains worryingly high as measured against the previous few decades. Furthermore, assessing whether a given political dispute (whether inter or intra state) will develop into economic or armed conflict has become increasingly unpredictable. Even during the time it has taken to finalise this introduction, whilst the US continues to seek to broker peace in the now nearly 4-year-long war resulting from Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it has itself just forcibly deposed and arrested the president of another state; a state which it says it now intends to run. The US has also seized a Russian flagged oil tanker in European waters, with UK assistance, and continues to press for the "acquisition of" Greenland – seemingly considering doing so by force.

The wildly unpredictable nature of so many of the world's governments (including, and especially, those of the US, Russia and China), and their apparent willingness to flagrantly disregard rules of international law, means that, more than ever, it's impossible to predict what the next 12 months will bring. Only one thing seems certain – we can no longer sensibly predict how states will manage their relationships with each other. This means there is likely to be yet more conflict and considerable volatility in both a geopolitical and economic sense. As a market we should be ready for the existing "rules" (of international law, of trade, of regulation, of…. any kind) to change at the drop of a hat.

Strap in for 2026 – we look forward to joining you on the ride!

Art & specie

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:24:00 Z

Written by Karen Barnard-Taylor

Key developments in 2025

In 2025, art businesses face heightened scrutiny under anti-money laundering (AML) regulations, reflecting global efforts to combat financial crime. Regulatory compliance has continued to evolve since January 2020 when Art Market Participants (AMPs) became subject to obligations under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 and now demands robust due diligence, transparent provenance documentation, and vigilant monitoring for links to sanctioned individuals or entities. From 14 May 2025, high value dealers and AMPs are also legally required to comply with financial sanction reporting obligations in the UK.

In July 2025, HMRC published their latest fines. This shows that the number of fines as well as the scale of penalties is on the rise. Where previously many of the fines resulted out of a failure to register with the HMRC, 2025 has seen fines for wider ranging breaches such as a failure to notify HMRC of a material change, inadequate risk assessments, poor customer due diligence and poor record-keeping.

Provenance and ownership claims are central to both regulatory compliance and insurance underwriting. Insurers increasingly require evidence of clean title and a documented transaction history to assess risk profile. Items with opaque ownership structures, links to high-risk jurisdictions, or histories of illicit transactions may trigger enhanced due diligence requirements or outright refusal of cover. Underwriters will seek assurance that items have not been involved in AML breaches or sanctions violations, as this could compromise insurability and expose insurers to regulatory penalties. Where such issues are identified, insurers may refuse coverage to avoid reputational and legal risk.

The British Art Market Federation has guidance on anti-money laundering for AMPs, which emphasises the importance of and requirements for, policies, controls and procedures, training, CDD, adequate record keeping and risk assessments to mitigate exposure.

What to look out for in 2026

Notwithstanding the increasing focus by regulators into this market, 2026 will continue to see an increase in investment in high value art as it is widely regarded as resilient to inflation. Whilst the most recent report by the Art Basel and UBS Survey of Global Collecting showed a decrease in overall sales, this was predominantly due to economic challenges. However, the report also showed that High Net Worth Individuals allocated 20% of their wealth to art in 2025, which is an increase from 15% in 2024.Unlike financial investments, fine art is less correlated with traditional markets and offers diversification and allows the investor to hedge against economic volatility. Its rising popularity is driven by increased global wealth, expanding interest from younger collectors, and the emergence of art as a status symbol and alternative investment resilient to inflation.

New collectors are reported to be more likely to buy online, which offers benefits such as convenience, choice and transparent pricing. New collectors are discovering artists through digital channels and are sourcing art through social platforms. Buying online makes it difficult to assess detail, and it can be difficult to verify authenticity. An increase in counterfeit claims is in part due to the growth in online purchases. Collectors buying online must take care to ensure that they verify the identity of the seller and obtain a detailed provenance for the work. The rise of digital platforms and technologies will continue to assist, and despite the risks, online purchases will remain an increasingly popular choice.

Asia

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:24:00 Z

Written by Rebecca Wong (Partner) and Macca Anderson-Brown (Associate)

Key Developments in 2025

A challenging macroeconomic environment

From the Trump Administration's protectionist tilt to geopolitical conflicts in major trade corridors such as Europe and the Middle East, Asia has been forced to adjust to a rapidly shifting macroeconomic landscape.

These global pressures translated into a complex storm of softer trade demand, subdued economic growth, persistent inflation and heightened market volatility, all of which created a more difficult operating backdrop for insurers across the region.

Asia's position as a global manufacturing hub meant it felt the effect of supply chain strain more acutely, with disruptions in cross-border production networks feeding directly into corporate balance sheet pressure across key markets. As regional growth softened and financing costs climbed, more Asian businesses struggled with cash flow stress and insolvency risk, a trend that did not go unnoticed by trade credit insurers, many of whom reported rising late payment activity and an uptick in claims across trade exposed sectors.

Taken together, 2025 was a year in which macroeconomic and geopolitical volatility materially shaped insurer behaviour across Asia, influencing pricing, capacity decisions and overall risk appetite.

Increased regulatory enforcement in emerging areas

2025 saw a marked escalation in regulatory enforcement across Asia, with regulators sharpening their focus on key areas such as financial services, cybersecurity, data and privacy, climate and ESG, and general corporate governance. Coverage for regulatory costs and insurable fines continue to feature, particularly across financial lines insurance offerings.

In Hong Kong, the introduction of HKEX's mandatory climate-related disclosures, signalled a decisive shift towards stricter sustainability governance and board-level accountability. Furthermore, the SFC has also ramped up enforcement activity, targeting fund-manager misconduct, instances of the misuse of client assets, and disclosure failures in market communications. The horrific fire on 26 November 2025 at Wang Fuk Court in Tai Po, caused mass casualties and property damage estimated at US$334 million. The incident has shone a spotlight on the Hong Kong construction industry, with experts calling for stricter rules around oversight of building material safety, site management and inspections. The ICAC has since launched an investigation into suspected corruption for the renovation project at the premises and a judge-led committee into the cause of the incident has been announced.

Singapore has followed a similar trajectory, with the PDPC, its regulator responsible for enforcing Singapore's data protection and privacy laws, significantly stepping up enforcement in 2025, issuing a financial penalty against a SaaS provider following a major ransomware related breach and maintaining a firm stance generally on organisations that fail to meet required security and accountability standards under the PDPA. Separately, the MAS has continued to mount a strong display against financial services firms, prioritising enforcement action centred on governance failures, weak AML/CFT controls and deficiencies in technology and operational-risk management.

Lastly, amid the rapid rise of AI-generated content and increasingly sophisticated deepfakes, China has expanded its cybersecurity and data-governance framework by introducing a comprehensive regulatory regime for generative AI. The new rules, which came into effect in September, require AI-generated text, images, audio and video to be clearly labelled as such, and sit alongside existing obligations requiring providers of large scale or publicly facing AI models to file underlying algorithms with the CAC prior to deployment.

As the world evolves, bringing with it new frontiers of risk, regulators across Asia remain as determined and vigilante as ever to ensure adequate protections are in place to safeguard markets.

Climate change and catastrophe insurance

Climate change driven weather events continue to place pressure on the industry.

Asia remains the global epicentre of climate-related catastrophe risk, with an estimated 40% of the world's natural disasters striking the region, yet it continues to suffer from one of the widest protection gaps globally, with an estimated 82.8% of losses remaining uninsured.

This year, property damage as a result of the region's natural catastrophe events remained relatively manageable with an outlier being the 7.7 magnitude earthquake that hit Myanmar in March, the effects of which extended into Thailand. Early assessments placed insured losses in Thailand at around US$1.5B, with around 150,000 claims filed.

What is also becoming clearer is that the role of insurers is no longer confined to absorbing the financial fallout of natural catastrophes; rather, there is now a growing expectation across Asia that insurers will take proactive steps towards bridging the protection gap, both indirectly by integrating ESG frameworks into underwriting to influence real world behaviours (for example, offering more favourable policy terms for buildings with stronger flood defences, renewable-energy infrastructure, or climate resilient construction) and directly, through the development of more accessible catastrophe products such as parametric covers and community-based microinsurance. While microinsurance has historically played a limited role in insurers' portfolios due to low premium volumes and high administrative costs, it is poised for significant growth across Asia as governments and individuals become increasingly cognisant of its role in bridging the protection gap for lower-income demographics, who disproportionately feel the effects of climate related losses.

What to look out for in 2026

Emerging growth in Asia as a whole

Despite facing significant economic headwinds, Asia has emerged as a rare engine of expansion throughout 2025, a trend that is expected to carry into 2026. An indicator of the region's resilience has been the sharp rebound in M&A activity, with deal volume and value rising across key markets despite a challenging macroeconomic backdrop.

Among others, this presents a meaningful opportunity to capitalise on the growing demand for transactional risk solutions. On this, we note that 2025 has already seen a noticeable uptick in W&I placements across Asia, underscoring both the rebound in deal activity across the region but also the growing adoption of W&I insurance as an effective way to transfer risks in transactions.

Insurance for digital asset service providers is also expected to be a growth area, with regulators in the region recognising the significance of its role from a consumer protection standpoint. The Hong Kong SFC, for example, requires licensed virtual asset service platforms to maintain insurance covering client assets held in both hot and cold wallets. This requirement has been subject to industry feedback regarding the difficulties in compliance given, among others, the lack of capacity provided by insurers in the region to cover such risks. The SFC is, therefore, considering modifications to the same – while local capacity for such insurance is gradually increasing.

Rising demand for AI liability insurance

While AI-driven losses may be silently covered under existing policies (for example, professional indemnity and cyber insurance policies), the industry is wising up. We are seeing insurers excluding exposure to such risks under existing policies, with a new focus on developing coverages that respond to the unique risks created by AI adoption such as AI failures / limitations, including hallucinations, biased outputs and autonomous decision-making errors. For example, Munich Re, AXA XL, Armilla AI, Chaucer, and PICC are reportedly developing specialised, standalone AI liability products and/or adding AI-specific endorsements to existing technology, cyber or professional lines policies

Insurance for AI liability is a promising growth area for insurers and indeed, Deloitte has estimated that by 2032, AI liability premiums globally will be upward of USD$4 billion. Underwriting AI liability will no doubt be challenging for insurers given the lack of (if any) tested wordings in the market and the fast pace at which AI (and, therefore, its associated risks and regulations) are evolving.

Going forward, trends in this area are worth monitoring, as regulatory scrutiny intensifies, particularly around responsible AI governance. It is therefore not inconceivable that AI liability insurance could become an expectation, or even a mandated requirement, for businesses operating at scale with AI systems sometime in the future.

Australia

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:24:00 Z

Global Access Annual Review - 2025 - Colin Biggers & Paisley.

Key Developments in 2025

The Australian market faces challenges and emerging risks similar to other jurisdictions. While the overall economy is relatively strong, inflation sensitive sectors such as construction, hospitality, and retail remain vulnerable, as evidenced by record-level insolvencies in the SME space, and the ongoing economic, social and political turbulence on a global scale still casts a shadow on our sunburnt country.

Cyber risk and privacy remain top of mind for companies, their leaders and insurers, with a survey

by CrowdStrike showing the Australia/New Zealand region as the third most targeted globally, with 78% of respondents experiencing at least one ransomware attack in the past year.

There have been changes in cyber law include the mandatory reporting of ransomware payments, and minimum-security standards for smart device security. From 10 December 2025 age-restricted social media platforms must take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under 16s from having accounts.

ASIC continues its focus on failures by companies to have adequate cyber security with prosecutions commenced against FIIG Securities and Fortnum Private Wealth.

There have also been significant developments in Australian privacy law this year, with a statutory tort for a serious intrusion into privacy commencing on 10 June 2025. This adds additional risk for companies and opens up the potential for class actions arising from any breach. The first civil penalty for the breach of privacy saw pathology provider Australian Clinical Labs ordered to pay $5.8m.

In the construction space, New South Wales has substantially unwound reforms enacted in 2004 which displaced joint and several liability. The proportionate liability regime is, in practical terms, at an end for construction professionals marking a return to the routine filing of contribution claims. This outcome increases the costs of managing disputes for builders, subcontractors, and professionals lacking delegation protection.

As to Victoria, the Building and Plumbing Commission has been established, combining the functions of various bodies that had regulated domestic building insurance, practitioner registration and dispute settlement divisions. The enabling legislation contemplates that this body will have certain powers to direct rectification works on buildings from 1 July 2026.

For institutional liability risks, the issues of vicarious liability, non-delegable duties of care, permanent stays in claims where the passage of time means witnesses are unavailable and evidence lost, and decisions to set aside prior deeds of settlement, continue to work their way through the courts and bring an element of uncertainty. While the High Court ruled on the issue of vicarious liability in the case of DP v Bird in late 2024, finding that there was not an employment relationship between the Diocese and the priest in question, the High Court is now considering a second matter in Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle v AA. The outcome is being closely watched, as the change in the interpretation of vicarious liability, together with legislative change foreshadowed in a number of States and Territories in 2026, will have wider implications than just historical abuse claims.

Scrutiny of the accountancy profession continues to increase, with rare regulatory moves now being made against top tier firms, including the notable successful action by the Tax Practitioners Board against PWC's former Australian Managing Partner. ASIC has also stepped up its prosecution of tax promotion scheme advisors.

Australian D&O insurance and class action landscape is in a state of flux, with directors and officers continuing to face increasing levels of risks and regulation.

Corporate regulatory scrutiny and intervention also remains high, with the Australian Securities & Investments Commission and the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission actively pursuing enforcement in the areas of ESG, greenwashing, cyber readiness and in general instances of general wrongdoing across the board.

Shareholder class action filings have slowed substantially due to landmark victories for defendants

and ongoing legal uncertainty. However, this current holding pattern may prove to be temporary

with appeals in Zonia Holdings Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) and Crowley v Worley Ltd (Worley) on foot in the and plaintiffs are actively planning alternative paths to success. Meanwhile, filings in other class action areas - especially consumer and employment claims - are rising sharply, driven by plaintiff and funders shifting focus.

Private credit exposures continue to increase, highlighted by recent failures, industry warnings and

ASIC intervention. These traditional FI and PI risks present real challenges for directors and officers.

What to look out for in 2026

While many of the risks that have been on the agenda in 2025 remain top of mind, risks continuing to emerge further in 2026 including climate reporting, AI and privacy, modern slavery, forever chemicals and workplace matters, to name just a few issues of note.

The second tranche of the changes to Privacy Act is still awaited, which is anticipated to include the removal of small business exemption and employee records exemption. The introduction of requirements for disclosure of automated decision making in privacy policies will become effective on 10 December 2026. The rules for minimum security standards for the "Internet of Things" comes into effect on 4 March 2026.

AI presents both significant opportunities and risks for businesses and insurers. While adoption can drive efficiency, recent incidents highlight the dangers of misaligned AI-generated material, which have resulted in regulatory admonishment and reputational harm. Organisations should ensure that AI outputs meet government, regulatory, and social expectations to avoid professional negligence and potential class actions. Added to these risks is enhanced regulatory scrutiny, particularly where companies overstate their AI preparedness or capability - a practice increasingly referred to as “AI-washing.”

Mandatory climate reporting ramps up in 2026, as the second phase of the roll out makes a larger number of companies eligible. With directors being required to sign off on sustainability reports, this opens up another potential avenue of risk for this cohort and for the professional services firms who assist in the data that goes into the reports where misleading or overstated claims are detected. While ASIC are for now taking a pragmatic and proportional approach, this grace period will expire.

Consumer protection will continue to be a focus for the ACCC. The proceedings against Mercer and Vanguard for greenwashing signal a continued focus on consumer protection, including within financial services, retail, aviation and essential services. These sits alongside the ACCC implementing a new mandatory merger regime from 2026. Crypto regulation has advanced, with ASIC issuing detailed guidance on digital assets and custody obligations, supported by a sector-wide transition period to mid-2026.

The construction industry is facing major legislative and regulatory reforms in NSW and Victoria in 2026. Building Bill 2024, currently before the NSW State Parliament proposes the largest overhaul of building and construction industry regulation in 40 years, by consolidating nine pieces of legislation into one, and implementing better controls and safeguards across a number of areas from licencing to regulatory powers. The Bill is at the final review stage and, to date, has not been introduced to the Parliament of New South Wales.

In Victoria, the Building and Plumbing Commission is consolidating the Victorian Building Authority, Domestic Building Dispute Resolution Victoria and the statutory domestic building insurance scheme, to provide greater a more streamlined service for building practitioners and greater protections for consumers.

Those active in the D&O and class action space is eagerly anticipating appeals and other developments in this space in 2026 which will shape what happens next. In CBA, following the Full Federal Court's part overturning of the trial judge's findings, but denying damages due to failure to prove causation and loss, the High Court will hear the applicant's Special Leave application on 12 February 2026. In Worley, the appeal focused on causation and quantification of loss following the trial court’s dismissal of claims. A decision is expected to clarify whether market-based causation theories will gain traction, which could reshape the viability of future shareholder actions.

With these complex issues on the table, plaintiffs and funders are now considering split trials, separating liability from quantum, to overcome issues associated with establishing loss. This approach has advantages for all parties, including reduction of up-front costs, the ability to test questions of liability and provide a better understanding of exposure once liability has been determined, and has even had support from the bench, with Justice Lee of the Federal Court describing a split trial as maybe "desirable and efficient".

With the stalling of the shareholder class action market, there is the potential for derivative actions to become the new class action. Derivative actions allow shareholders to bring proceedings on behalf of the company for wrongs done to the company itself, rather than seeking compensation for individual shareholder loss, overcoming some of the evidentiary and causation hurdles that are plaguing shareholder class actions. Derivative actions also align with broader governance trends, including heightened regulatory scrutiny of board conduct and ESG compliance. As ASIC and the courts continue to emphasise directors’ duties and corporate governance standards, we expect derivative actions to gain traction - particularly in cases involving systemic governance failures, cyber breaches and climate-related disclosure obligations.

Aviation

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:24:00 Z

Written by Gabriel Boutier-Downey

Key developments in 2025

For many aviation insurers, key developments in 2025 centred on the disputes arising from the retention of aircraft in Russia following the invasion of Ukraine. In June 2025 Mr Justice Butcher delivered his ruling following the trial in actions brought by lessors, including AerCap, DAE, Merx and others, holding the insurers on the Contingent War Risks policy liable for the losses. At the time of writing, the decision of the Court of Appeal on War Risk insurers' application for permission to appeal on certain grounds is awaited, but the Judgment has and will continue to have an impact extending further than the case in which it was delivered. Claims by the worldwide leasing community against the reinsurers on the airlines' policies are scheduled for trial before the English court in October 2026, and disputes continue in Ireland, the United States and elsewhere on similar claims.

Moving away from the Russian claims, in the 2025 AIR we noted that 2024 had seen an increased number of reported incidents of "clear air" turbulence. This trend has continued, with a further increase in incidents in 2025; including an increase in passenger injuries as a result of extreme turbulence. Experts predict turbulence to treble over the next couple of decades.

As evidenced by the commentary on the Political Violence section of this Annual Insurance Review, the global political situation continues to be volatile. President Trump's announcement in November 2025 that airspace around Venezuela should be considered closed led to suspension of flights by various airlines, and the retaliatory suspension of take-off and landing rights by Venezuela. The Gaza conflict, and the hostilities between Israel and Iran, have led to increased airspace closures, with the Houthi missile attack of May 2025 targeting Ben Gurion airport with the stated aim of deterring commercial air traffic to Israel.

Any hit to passenger confidence will be unwelcome to an industry facing possible contraction due to increased environmental concerns. The drive to net zero may push costs – and fares – up, with a consequential impact on passenger numbers.

What to look out for in 2026

The aviation industry faces emerging pressures in a rapidly changing world. In a world increasingly focussed on artificial intelligence it seems likely that aircraft manufacturers and airlines will look to maximise their use of the world's latest tool. Increased reliance on automatic systems and software is not without risk, as evidenced by the recall of 6,000 aircraft following an unprompted altitude change in a Jet Blue flight thought to arise from a flight control malfunction following a solar flare. (Somewhat ironically, the inability of Russian airlines to access software updates, as a result of the Western sanctions, meant that the malfunction, which affected the latest version of the software, did not impact the Airbus aircraft retained in Russia). Monitoring vulnerabilities and keeping on top of updates will be key, but extra measures may be needed to stay ahead of malicious actors. In September 2025 suspected Russian attackers disrupted the navigation system of an aircraft carrying the European Commission President. In the same month the crew of a Spanish aircraft carrying the defence minister reported an attempt to disrupt satellite navigation whilst flying over Kalingrad. Against this backdrop, President Putin's increasing diatribes against the European Union are a cause for concern.

In a topic becoming familiar across this Annual Insurance Review, insurers will need to consider carefully the cover they are offering in light of these increased vulnerabilities. At the same time, the increased natural disruption hitting commercial air travel as a result of turbulence will likely make reliance on using new and emerging technologies essential, to deliver sophisticated monitoring tools to enable pilots to predict and avoid a bumpy ride; insurers may need to consider the safeguards put in place by airlines to minimise the impact of turbulence, given the potential for liability claims in the event of passenger injury.

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 16 January 2026

Fri, 16 Jan 2026 14:55:00 Z

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Headline development

FRC confirms regulatory priorities for 2026

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has confirmed it will continue to pursue the five priorities it set out in January 2025 in furtherance of its core purpose – to serve the public interest and support UK economic growth by upholding high standards of corporate governance, corporate reporting, audit and actuarial work.

The five priorities are to:

Underpin investor confidence in UK plc.
Reduce unnecessary burdens on business while maintaining high standards.
Develop deep insight into the markets it oversees so its regulation is based on evidence and expertise.
Identify future trends and innovations to support the health of the markets it oversees; and
Support the skills and resilience of the professions it regulates.

The FRC considers that this will help establish a regulatory environment that supports growth by strengthening investor confidence through high-quality audits and transparent reporting, allowing companies to access the capital they need to grow.

Specific measures are noted in the FRC's statement – these include:

Supporting the Government's ambition to reduce administrative burdens for business. The FRC notes that it has already reduced guidance associated with the UK Corporate Governance Code by 20 per cent, and the updated Stewardship Code could see reporting reduced by up to 30 per cent. The FRC says it will continue to look for opportunities to remove unnecessary reporting or regulatory burdens.
Working on the Future of Audit Supervision Strategy and End-to-End Enforcement Review. The FRC says it will work closely with stakeholders to develop a more proportionate, system-focused approach as it modernises its audit regulation activity.
Supporting small and medium-sized enterprises by publishing final guidance in the coming months to help auditors deliver work scaled appropriately to the complexity of smaller businesses; and
Exploring how AI might shape the future of audit and working collaboratively with companies to reduce the length of annual reports.

To read the FRC's statement, please click here.

Tax practitioners

HMRC enforces limits of business asset disposal relief

HMRC has confirmed its intention to contact taxpayers who may have exceeded their lifetime limit of £1 million under the business asset disposal relief regime (BADR).

BADR is a capital gains tax relief that can be used to reduce the percentage of capital gains tax that must be paid on the disposal of qualifying business assets. Taxpayers can make a claim for the application of this relief when submitting their self-assessment tax return. If a successful claim is made, the applicable capital gains tax is charged at a reduced rate of 10% for 2024/25. This reduced rate is set to increase to 14% for the 2025/26 tax year and to 18% for the 2026/27 tax year.

Depending on their circumstances, taxpayers who are risk at exceeding their lifetime limit can expect to receive one of two requests from HMRC.

In circumstances where the taxpayer has exceeded the lifetime limit prior to the 2024/25 tax year but has still submitted a claim for BADR, HMRC will request that the taxpayer amend their tax return for the 2024/25 tax year and remove the claim for BADR.

In circumstances where a claimed amount in the 2024/25 tax year has taken a taxpayer over the lifetime limit, the taxpayer will be asked to amend their return so that the total amount of BADR claim will fall within the lifetime limit.

To read more, please click here.

Regulatory developments for accounts

Big Firm and Mid-Tier Firms Pushing FRC to Abandon "Name and Shame" Policy

The UK's leading accounting firms with the blessing of the ICAEW and ACCA have begun to challenge the proportionality of the Financial Report Council's (FRC) long-standing policy of "naming and shaming" firms and companies at the beginning of an investigation.

Currently, the FRC discloses the name of the audit firm, the company involved and the specific financial year under review when it launches an investigation. While individual partners are rarely mentioned specifically, they are easily identifiable via a Companies House search for the relevant audit report. The consequences of being associated with an FRC investigation can have disastrous effects on an individual's career, despite the uncertainty of any actual misconduct at this early stage.

Those lobbying for a change have suggested that a more proportionate approach would be to restrict the public's right to know until a breach has actually been established, save where there is an immediate risk to market stability.

The FRC has introduced more proportionate regulatory tools that include an accelerated investigatory procedure for cooperative firms, and firm-led reviews with regulatory oversight. However, all these measures continue to include a public announcement of a probe which can inflict reputational damage on a firm from the outset and disincentivise active engagement and cooperation with the FRC.

In light of the Financial Conduct Authority's decision to alter their own "name and shame" policies in favour of more business-friendly policies, it will be interesting to see whether the FRC follows suit.

To read more, please click here.

Financial Ombudsman

Financial Ombudsman Releases Decision on Loss of Expectation

The Financial Ombudsman released a decision relating to entitlements where there has been an incorrect benefits quotation.

In March 2020, Mr. H received a retirement quotation from the British Airways Pensions Services Ltd (the Administrator). The quotation featured commutation options that had been calculated by combining his additional voluntary contributions and commuting part of his annual pension. However, a calculation error that failed to apply the relevant reduction for the commutation resulted in the quotation providing an incorrect pension sum and an overstated lifetime allowance charge.

Mr. H was informed of the miscalculation and was told the correct annual pension and LTA charge. In response, he submitted a letter of complaint to the Administrator and sought to receive the original incorrect pension on the basis that the statement received was a legally binding document that he had relied on to make his retirement decision.

The complaint was escalated via the Administrator's internal dispute resolution procedure, and subsequently the Financial Ombudsman.

The Financial Ombudsman acknowledged that Mr H had reasonably relied on the calculations provided by the Administrator. However, it was determined that this did not automatically entitle Mr. H to compensation. Mr. H had not suffered actual financial loss as it was not reasonably foreseeable by the Administrator that Hr. H would rely on the calculations to purchase and renovate a house. Rather, Mr. H had only suffered a loss of expectation. Additionally, the statement received was not legally binding and did not override the Scheme rules.

This decision highlights that individuals will have difficulties establishing an entitlement to an incorrect benefits quotation, beyond what they are entitled to under the scheme rules.

To read more, please click here

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

FSCS publishes 2026 budget update

On 13 January, the FSCS published an update for the 2026 / 27 budget.

The update provided for a reduction of 6% in management expenses compared to 2025 / 26, including a budget of £97m for core costs. The budget also provided for £11m to enhance its revolving credit facility (RCF).

The FSCS has stated that the increase to the RCF would be offset by efficiency savings, and following regulatory developments, the increase would improve funding readiness. Plans are also being worked on by the FSCS, HM Treasury and Bank of England to increase the size of the RCF by . The FSCS states that in the event of firm failures and major defaults, it would help with paying compensation quickly and would protect public funds.

The FCA and PRA are also consulting on an increase to the overall FSCS management expenses levy of £4.4m compared to 2025 / 26 – representing an inflation-only increase. It also provides for a £5m unlevied contingency reserve, which again is unchanged from the current year. The consultation is due to close on 10 February 2026.

To read the FSCS' budget update, please clickhere.

FCA confirms October 2027 start date for cryptoasset regime

The Financial Conduct Authority has confirmed that its regulatory regime for cryptoassets is expected to apply from 25 October 2027, subject to the passage of relevant legislation.

The FCA has published a handbook setting out rules and guidance made under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets). The handbook is divided into a number of sourcebooks covering high-level prudential and business standards, as well as regulatory processes.

The guidance outlines the FCA’s approach to the threshold conditions, the Principles for Businesses, the Consumer Duty and the Senior Managers and Certification Regime. It also sets out its intended approach to authorisation, supervision and enforcement.

Further detail has been provided on how the gateway for firms entering the regime is expected to operate, and on proposed transitional provisions for firms that do not secure authorisation, including arrangements to allow for an orderly wind-down of UK business.

The update follows a number of consultation and discussion papers published in December 2025, which sought feedback on proposals relating to firms involved in cryptoasset activities.

The FCA has said it will continue to publish further consultations over the coming months, setting out proposed rules and guidance ahead of implementation.

To read more, please click here.

With thanks to this week's contributors: James Parsons, Alison Thomas, Daniel Goh, Heather Buttifant, Ben Simmonds, Kerone Thomas, and Rebekah Bayliss

The Week That Was - 16 January 2026

Fri, 16 Jan 2026 14:16:00 Z

Guidance on reinforced concrete buildings with transfer slabs

Concerns were raised by the Government in December 2025 regarding potential structural safety issues impacting reinforced concrete buildings constructed with 'transfer slabs'. Transfer slabs support the load from the columns that sit on top of it, spreading the load to the supporting columns below. The concern relates to punching shear in transfer slabs - where the high concentration of load causes a column to punch through a reinforced concrete transfer slab; and the potential risk that this may result in a collapse in part of the building.

RICS have this month provided guidance in response to FAQs regarding transfer slabs, which can be found here. Further information regarding the Government's previously published guidance on the potential risks from transfer slabs in buildings can be found here.

£1.25m settlement reached in High Court contract dispute

Broadband infrastructure company CityFibre has agreed a £1.25m settlement with the administrators of specialist contractor FEL Group, bringing an end to a High Court dispute shortly before trial.

FEL had claimed £2.4m in unpaid invoices relating to fibre-optic exchange installation works, while CityFibre alleged defective performance and said it was entitled to terminate the contract.

Court documents included allegations that FEL staff had discussed “fudging” electrical tests and potentially misleading CityFibre about worker identities on a Microsoft Teams call between the parties' representatives in November 2021, which FEL strongly denied. Some allegations were later withdrawn, with FEL disputing the existence of any supporting transcript.

The settlement resolves the dispute without findings of liability, and CityFibre declined to comment.

Read the full article here. [may require subscription]

Leeds United secures planning approval for Elland Road expansion

Leeds United has secured planning permission to expand Elland Road, paving the way for construction to begin this summer following approval by Leeds City Council.

The redevelopment will increase the stadium’s capacity from around 38,000 to approximately 53,000. Designed by architect KSS, the scheme will be delivered in phases, allowing the stadium to remain operational during the works. The project includes improvements to spectator facilities while maintaining the character of the existing ground.

Club representatives described the approval as a key milestone supporting the club’s long-term ambitions and the regeneration of the surrounding area.

Read the full article here.

Research suggesting construction industry shrank in November at fastest pace since 2020

Research conducted by the S&P Global concluded that the UK construction industry in November saw the steepest fall in output since May 2020. The likely causation of this statistic is the downturn in infrastructure and housebuilding. The research also concluded that commercial construction faced strong headwinds over concerns regarding possible Budget measures which "pushed clients to defer investment decisions". The research found that employment in the construction sector dropped for the eleventh time in a row reflecting a lack of new projects and higher wages.

The S&P Global research can be accessed here.

Multiplex awarded £250M contract to redevelop 75 London Wall

Construction company, Multiplex, has been awarded a contract for the redevelopment of 75 London Wall which will expand capacity by over 50% and offer over 450,000 net square feet of office space. The contract, valued at over £250 million has been signed on 6 January 2026 with property group Gamuda Berhad and real estate investor Castleforge. Multiplex will provide specialist technical input and construction solutions to support delivery. The project is expected to achieve practical completion in Q1 2028.

Read the full article here.

With thanks to Ellen Ryan, Keira-Anne Dowsell, Aleksander Polaszek, Ella Crawley-Till

Sports Ticker #143 - Djokovic departs from PTPA and GSG’s debt finance drive - a speed read of commercial updates from the sports world

Thu, 15 Jan 2026 15:02:00 Z

As always, if there are any issues on which you’d like more information (or if you have any questions or feedback), please do let us know or get in touch with your usual contact at RPC.

Tie-Breaker: Novak Djokovic departs co-founded players’ union
Grand Slam record holder Novak Djokovic has announced that he has “stepped away completely” from the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA). The world number four co-founded the association with fellow tennis professional Vasek Pospisil in 2020. In a statement shared on X, Djokovic cited concerns over “transparency, governance, and the way [his] voice and image have been represented”. The announcement comes amidst the ongoing legal battle brought by the PTPA against four of the sport’s major governing bodies (ATP Tour, WTA Tour, International Tennis Federation and International Tennis Integrity Agency) over alleged “anti-competitive practices” which are fully denied (see our take in Sports Ticker #124). Djokovic had previously distanced himself from the litigation, stating he did not fully agree with the claims made by the union. “I wish the players and those involved the best as they move forward”, Djokovic concluded, “but for me, this chapter is now closed.”

Fans cry foul over World Cup ticket price surge
Soaring ticket prices for the 2026 World Cup have sparked widespread fan backlash, as prices for the group stage of the tournament reached three times those of Qatar 2022. The cheapest tickets for the final, which will be held in New Jersey, are currently priced at £3,119. Fan groups, including the Football Supporters’ Association, have condemned the prices as “scandalous”. FIFA president Gianni Infantino defended the pricing structure, saying that it is a reflection of the “absolutely crazy” demand, citing 150 million ticket requests in 15 days for only six to seven million available seats. However, FIFA has now introduced a small allocation of “supporter entry tier tickets” priced at £45 for all 104 matches, specifically for fans of qualified teams. The tickets will be distributed through national football associations. Infantino reiterated that revenues generated from ticket sales will go “back to the game all over the world.”

Smart Strides: Team GB aims for athletics AI advantage

Chairman of UK Sport, Nick Webborn, has suggested using AI to boost the success of Great Britain’s Olympic and Paralympic teams. Team GB equalled its tally of 65 medals from London 2012 at the 2024 Paris Olympic Games, but fewer golds meant a seventh-place finish in the medals table, lower than the previous four Games. The Chairman believes AI may provide a competitive edge and encourage greater collaboration across sports. Webborn revealed that UK Sport is already working with sports in order to utilise AI to “compliment coaches and boost athlete performance in areas such as performance analysis, load management, injury prevention, Paralympic classification and talent identification”. AI has also been used to support British athletes, with AI-based social media protection offered last year to combat online abuse. Alongside this technological push, UK Sport has announced plans to invest a record £330 million into the 2028 Los Angeles games.

Global Sport Group eyes next play with €2.7b debt finance plans
CVC Capital Partners is reported to be seeking external investment in its investment vehicle Global Sport Group (GSG), with the investment vehicle launching a €2.7 billion debt raising process. The injection of capital, being overseen by Goldman Sachs, is expected to support the group’s expansion phase, with a new wave of acquisitions planned for 2026. Launched last September, GSG consolidates CVC’s league-level sports assets – including the Women’s Tennis Association, La Liga, Ligue 1, the Six Nations and Premiership Rugby – into a single fund believed to be the largest sports-focused fund in private equity. The move will run alongside discussions related to an imminent equity investment into the fund. Taken together, the transactions are expected to lower funding costs, increase leverage capacity and support further expansion, with a continued focus on acquiring stakes in premium leagues and governing bodies rather than clubs.

Planning reforms move the goal posts on playing fields protection
Proposed planning reforms aimed at increasing the speed of planning decisions, to assist the government in reaching its target for 1.5 million new homes in England by 2029, may put playing fields at risk in England and Wales. Heads of sporting and governing bodies, as well as sports stars such as Jill Scott MBE, Ama Agbeze MBE, and Sir Mo Farah have raised concerns at the proposal to remove Sport England as a statutory consultee on planning applications. Numerous former and current athletes and other stakeholders have signed an open letter urging policy makers to ensure “planning reforms retain a meaningful mechanism to protect playing fields and sports facilities for future generations”. Sport England protected more than 1000 playing fields in the last year as part of its mission to increase physical activity, and its removal – alongside other statutory consultees – is expected to cut more than 3000 consultations annually.

Extra time...

…and finally, The Qatar Airways Premier Padel Tour, ranked as the second-highest competitive tier on the Premier Padel circuit, is headed to London for the first time this summer. Whilst the venue of the six-day event is yet to be announced, sponsors such as Qatar Airways and Sela have been lined-up to deliver world-class entertainment and inspire engagement as padel continues to surge in popularity. The opportunity has been praised by the Lawn Tennis Association as a defining moment for the future of padel that will “help strengthen the sport from grassroots participation to professional players”. With more than 1,000 padel clubs across the UK, 6 of which rank among the world's top 10 revenue-generating clubs, it seems pivotal that London becomes a permanent resident on the Premier Padel tour.

A Review of Contentious Tax in 2025

Thu, 15 Jan 2026 10:00:00 Z

This article provides an overview of key developments in contentious tax in 2025.

The Renters Rights Act: What Property Managers need to know

Thu, 15 Jan 2026 09:37:00 Z

In this article, we provide an update on key dates for the first half of 2026 that Property Managers operating in the private rental sector should be aware of, together with some practical tips to ensure compliance.

Surveyors

Tue, 13 Jan 2026 11:37:00 Z

Written by Rakesh Pandit

Key developments in 2025

The RICS Home Survey Standard which was published in 2019 and came into effect in 2021, sets the benchmark for residential property surveys in the UK. As the housing market and housing-stock evolves, RICS sought to update the Home Survey Standard to meet the modern demands of consumers. On 19 August 2025 a public consultation was launched on the draft 2nd edition of the Home Survey Standard, together with a separate consultation on a potential Home-Surveys Regulatory Scheme.

RICS has undertaken a wide-ranging survey of more than 325 RICS professionals and a consumer survey consisting of over 1,400 homeowners. This extensive feedback has helped inform draft revisions, which are now open for public comment.

Key changes in the 2nd edition include:

Updated guidance on legal and regulatory requirements relevant to home surveys;
Clarification on the home-buyer survey levels to improve transparency;
The option for valuation to be included at any survey level, which extends the scope of surveys beyond condition-based reporting;
New guidance on additional risk dwellings, such as historic buildings, new builds and retrofit homes to address the diverse range of modern housing stock and specific instructions from consumers; and
Recognition of technological developments including the use of drone inspections.

RICS are aiming to publish the 2nd edition, following approval, in Q1 of 2026. The Home-Survey Regulatory Scheme is estimated to come into force, if approved, by the end of 2027.

What to look out for in 2026

Pursuant to Awaab’s Law, which came into force for social housing from 27 October 2025, landlords have an obligation to investigate and fix serious hazards within strict statutory timeframes.

The First Phase of Awaab's law looks to address mould, damp and "Emergency Hazards" which are defined as "an imminent and significant risk of harm" to the health or safety of the tenant. An ‘imminent and significant risk of harm’ is defined as "‘a risk of harm to the occupier’s health or safety that a reasonable social landlord with the relevant knowledge would take steps to make safe within 24 hours". Significant damp or mould must be investigated within 14 days and remedied promptly under the regulations.

The scope of hazards will expand with the Second Phase expected in 2026 to address additional hazards such as fire, electrical, hygiene and excess cold. By 2027, most hazards under Housing Health & Safety Rating System will be covered.

It is expected that the Renters Right Act 2025 will serve to extend Awaab’s Law protections through the application of the Decent Homes Standard for privately rented housing. This means that in time private landlords may also be subject to the same hazard-repair obligations as social landlords.

Combined, these reforms aim to transform rental housing in England ensuring that homes are safe, secure and that tenants have enforceable rights to decent conditions. This will place greater obligations on Surveyors and Property Managers to identify these issues and report on them promptly so as to ensure compliance with the strict statutory time limits.

Financial professionals

Mon, 12 Jan 2026 14:37:00 Z

Written by Faheem Pervez

Key developments in 2025

Last year, we noted that the Government's intention to modernise and reform the FOS was something to look out for in 2025. The proposed reforms started to gather momentum in July, with the publication of a consultation paper on 'modernising the redress system.' This closed on 8 October 2025, and we should see further developments in the new year.

This comes in the wake of concerns that FOS' remit has expanded beyond its intended scope. A key change has been proposed to the 'fair and reasonable' test. In brief, if a firm has complied with the FCA's Rules, the FOS will be required to decide that the firm acted fairly and reasonably. This will hopefully provide a degree of consistency, and the introduction of a 10 year 'long stop' date in which to bring a complaint will also be welcomed. However, this does not provide for any additional oversight of FOS, or any restrictions on its ability to handle complex cases that raise (for example) difficult questions of law or fact.

Whether or not the proposed changes lead to greater 'predictability, certainty and transparency' therefore remains to be seen.

Another area of discussion in the paper was the managing of 'mass redress events', which leads us neatly to the FCA's consultation paper on a motor finance consumer redress scheme under s.404 of FSMA, published in October 2025. The scheme follows the Supreme Court decision in Johnson v First Rand Bank [2025]. This is exactly the kind of mass redress event that the 'modernising redress' proposals are seeking to manage but (whilst the scheme will affect lenders rather than brokers) difficulties with adopting a 'one size fits all' approach to a large volume of transactions is likely to be an issue. In particular, it seems hard to justify (as the paper does) a blanket application of s.32 of the Limitation Act on deliberate concealment, along with the inclusion of various presumptions of unfairness.

What to look out for in 2026

It looks like 2026 will finally see a conclusion to the FCA's Advice / Guidance Boundary Review. This follows the publication of a consultation paper on the introduction of targeted support in June 2025. In brief, this would allow firms to provide suggestions for groups of consumers with common characteristics. This would not constitute personal advice and would not take account of individuals' circumstances. The consultation closed in August 2025 and a policy statement is expected in December 2025. Additionally, a consultation paper on simplified advice (which would allow for straightforward, limited advice based on a specific need) is expected in January 2026.

The FCA's hope is that this will help close the advice gap in circumstances where only 9% of persons in the UK receive regulated advice on pensions and investments. However, it remains to be seen how motivated the market will be to offer such solutions, especially as the FCA envisages that targeted support would generally be delivered at no cost. Risks include the need to ensure that targeted support achieves better outcomes – this is a difficult thing to measure in circumstances where broad suggestions are given to large groups of customers. The Consumer Duty will also apply, meaning (amongst other things) that target markets will still need to be carefully identified. Similarly, there are risks with simplified advice. A specific recommendation may seem suitable based on key information provided but this assessment may change if a full review of the customer's circumstances is undertaken.

We anticipate some pressure on firms to provide these solutions, and attention from the FCA if there are problems with implementation. Firms will need to be conscious of the risks to ensure they're not left facing complaints.

Contingency

Mon, 12 Jan 2026 14:03:00 Z

Written by Naomi Vary

Key developments in 2025

Having appeared to be on the rebound from Covid, the events industry has been beset by cancellations in 2025. By February 2025, 30 UK music festivals of varying sizes had already been cancelled. The core reasons given were financial; a hostile economy has driven up costs and expenses, in circumstances where the squeeze on household finances means that potential attendees cannot afford the resulting increase in ticket price. The need to have contingency plans for bad weather, and to consider security given domestic threats, further put pressure on an already stressed sector. In short, smaller and medium sized events are facing a perfect storm of increased costs and reduced revenue, making it difficult to compete with larger organisations which are better placed to weather both and real and financial storms.

Ongoing debates over freedom of speech and cancel culture are having an inevitable impact on events, ranging from university debates to film shows and art exhibitions. The protests noted in the 2024 Annual Insurance Review have continued; Barclays' sponsorship of the Wimbledon tennis tournament was met with demonstrations by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and protests are planned for the Scottish League Cup final after Barclays signed a sponsorship deal with Hampden Park. Although in the 2024 review we noted that the effect of the protests was largely financial, with sponsors stepping down in the face of protests, the increasingly charged atmosphere may lead to more tangible threats to event security.

Keeping with a recurring theme, the impact of cyber attacks on events is under the spotlight. This year has seen a ransomware attack on Yes24, a South Korean online ticketing platform, which led to numerous cancellations and postponements as a result of booking systems being taken offline. Although traditional contingency policies excluded losses arising from cyber attacks, many insurers are now introducing specialist event cancellation cyber coverage, and regrettably we expect that 2026 may see claims activity on these products.

What to look out for in 2026

At the time of writing, the country is said to be in the grip of a superflu outbreak of a scale that has resurrected discussions on compulsory mask wearing. Those event organisers who have managed to emerge from the Covid pandemic relatively unscathed will no doubt be hoping that this is overstated, but the announcements may dent the confidence of a public for which memories of Covid are still fresh.

Public confidence may be dented further by the increasingly hostile global environment. Fear of violence has led to public New Year's Eve celebrations for 2026 to be cancelled or curtailed in a number of cities, including Paris, Tokyo and Belgrade. A firework display scheduled to take place on Bondi Beach has been cancelled after the recent Hannukah attack. Given the complexity now associated with event cancellations – with "no platforming" and political unrest adding to the staple menu of adverse weather, financial woes and audience apathy - it can be difficult for insurers to assess whether a loss falls within the scope of a traditional contingency policy. The Covid cases have shown that the Courts are keen to adjudicate claims in favour of the policyholder, and the current landscape may lead insurers to review wordings to ensure that all involved are on the same page in relation to cover.

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 9 January 2026

Fri, 09 Jan 2026 13:30:00 Z

Welcome to The Week That Was, a round-up of key events in the financial services sector over the last seven days.

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Headline development

CMC under FCA investigation now named following dismissal of High Court challenge

The FCA is investigating a claims management company (The Claims Protection Agency Limited) (TCPA) regarding its promotion of motor finance claims. The FCA are investigating allegations that TCPA have advertised that consumers could achieve much higher compensation than what has been prescribed under the FCA's motor finance redress scheme. The regulator is also investigating what customers were told about the costs of making a claim and whether they were pressurised to sign up.

The investigation follows a significant period of change for the FCA, as they push to advertise the 'lawyer free' compensation scheme for motor finance customers under s.404 of FSMA. Despite this free scheme, CMCs continue to advertise their services to customers wanting to access the compensation scheme.

TCPA were notified of the FCA's intention to open enforcement proceedings in September 2025. Following the notification, TCPA made a claim for judicial review to challenge FCA's decision to investigate.

The dismissal of the firm's challenge

In October 2025, the High Cout handed down the first part of its judgment following TCPA's challenge of the FCA's decision to publicly name the firm as the subject of an FCA investigation on the basis it was unlawful and unreasonable. The High Court disagreed and dismissed the substantive claim but the first part of the judgment handed down in October anonymised the firm as CIT.

The full judgment could not be released in October as the firm was still in the process of seeking permission to appeal the decision to allow the FCA to publicly name them. Permission to appeal was denied in December 2025 and so the second part of the High Court judgment, revealing the name of the firm alongside other details, was released this week.

The FCA also issued a press release this week concerning the investigation, confirming that while it is not usual to publicly name firms who are being investigated, the FCA is permitted to do so in exceptional circumstances, and that exceptional circumstances existed in this case. TCPA has said on its website that it is taking a ‘short pause’ to update its advertising and sign-up processes.

To read the FCA press release, click here. To read the recent judgment, click here.

Insolvency practitioners

Insolvency Service releases monthly insolvency stats for November 2025

The Insolvency Service (the IS) has published its insolvency statistics for November 2025 in England and Wales. The data reveals corporate and individual insolvencies have declined when compared to the prior month noting that in November there were 1,866 company insolvencies (8% lower than October 2025), and 9,343 individual insolvencies.

Tom Russell, President of R3, explained that whilst the decline may "give a glimmer of hope to struggling businesses", businesses must remain cautious particularly those in hospitality as trade drops-off following the Christmas period.

For individuals, the IS notes that whilst the insolvency rates have declined, there is a backlog of cases yet to be accounted for following the IS' transition to a new case management system and the effects of spending over the festive season are yet to be seen.

Overall, whilst corporate and individual insolvencies have recently declined, insolvency levels remain high when compared to five years ago demonstrating that there is still a long way to go.

To read more, please click here.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

Updated FOS interest rate now linked to Bank of England base rate

From 1 January 2026, a new interest rate applies to compensation payments awarded by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) in cases referred on or after that date.

The update follows a consultation last summer. As a result, the default interest rate used in certain compensation cases has been revised. Instead of using a fixed rate, FOS will now apply a rate based on the Bank of England’s average base rate, plus one percentage point.

The new rate applies where interest is due for the period between the date the consumer suffered the financial loss and the date compensation is paid. FOS confirmed that interest will be calculated as a weighted average over that period. To support firms in estimating what may be owed under this updated approach, FOS has published a calculator.

Where a consumer has lost out due to a firm’s error, FOS can require both compensation and interest to be paid. The aim remains the same: to return the consumer to the position they would have been in had the issue not occurred. There are different types of interest that may be awarded. One applies where a consumer has been ‘deprived’ of money, for example, where an insurance claim was wrongly declined. This is in addition to any award for the actual financial loss.

According to FOS, the change is intended to better reflect economic conditions while maintaining a fair, simple, and proportionate approach. The 8% simple interest rate, which applies where a business fails to pay compensation on time, remains unchanged.

To read more, please click here.

FCA announces changes to the ancillary activities test

Under the ancillary activities exemption (AAE), pursuant to Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, firms are permitted to trade in commodity derivatives and emissions allowances without needing to be authorised as an investment firm by the FCA. For a firm to be eligible for the AAE, it must satisfy the ancillary activities test (AAT).

In July 2025, the FCA published a consultation paper on the AAT with a view to simplifying the procedure for firms to determine whether they are eligible under AAE. Under the proposals, there would be three tests which are separate and independent from one another, and a firm would be able to rely on the AAE if it met the requirements of any of the three tests. Included with that would also be a new annual threshold test, which would exempt firms trading in commodity derivates below £3bn. Two of the existing tests (trading test and capital employed test) were also subject the proposed changes.

The FCA published a policy statement on 19 December 2025, reporting that, overall, there was a positive response to the proposed changes, albeit there were elements of the annual threshold test which raised significant concerns. This prompted the FCA to makes changes to the annual threshold test, to only include cash-settled commodity derivatives but not exchange-traded derivatives.

The existing methodology for the trading and capital employed test is being retained. These tests calculate a firm's relevant trading activity against the group's activities. The thresholds for both tests will be at 50%.

To read the FCA's July 2025 publication, please click here.

To read the FCA's December 2025 publication, please click here.

With thanks to this week's contributors:James Parsons, Alison Thomas, Daniel Goh, Heather Buttifant, Ben Simmonds, Kerone Thomas, and Rebekah Bayliss

The Week That Was - 9 January 2026

Fri, 09 Jan 2026 08:47:00 Z

Government Department saves landmark example of "brutalist" architecture

The School of Art Building at the University of Wolverhampton, also known as the MK Building, has been saved from the wrecking ball after being granted Grade II listed status. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport acted on advice from Historic England after more than 7000 people signed a petition objecting to the University's plan to tear it down.

Deborah Williams of Historic England has said: "The striking Brutalist design, combined with the important social history of the British black art movement mean the building meets the high bar for post-war listing and I'm pleased DCMS agreed with our recommendation to recognise the significance of this distinctive piece of twentieth-century history."

Brutalism is a style of architecture that came to prominence in the post-war reconstruction era, that often uses unpainted concrete or brick and angular geometric shapes.

More on this story here [Requires Subscription] and here.

Building Safety Regulator opens the door for staged G2 applications on all higher risk buildings

The Building Safety Regulator (BSR) has issued new guidance on "staged" Gateway 2 Applications under the Building Safety Act. In guidance published on 18 December, the BSR says it will now accept staged applications for all higher risk buildings (i.e. those which are at least 7 stories or 18m).

Previously, staged applications – separating groundwork and foundations from the structure above ground – were restricted to "complex structures" with multiple towers, public buildings or multiple basement levels. In a staged application, each stage is assessed and approved separately with the result that developers can seek early approval for groundwork and foundations and begin work while above ground designs are finalised and submitted for approval later.

Until now, "non-complex" higher risk buildings had to seek full development approval at Gateway 2 (approval to build) before any work could be started. This meant that projects had to be put on hold because of a bottleneck in the BSR assessing applications at Gateway 2.

Tribunal confirms multiple dwellings relief claim in SDLT appeal

Thu, 08 Jan 2026 10:00:00 Z

In the case of Michelle Jacqueline Berrell & Anor v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1067 (TC)), the First-tier Tribunal allowed the taxpayers' appeal and confirmed their claim for Multiple Dwellings Relief in respect of a house purchased with an annexe, ruling that the property comprised “at least two dwellings”. The decision offers key guidance on how shared spaces, terms of occupation and self-containment are treated for the purposes of Multiple Dwellings Relief.

Court of Appeal considers scope of duty in buyer-funded developments case

Tue, 06 Jan 2026 12:11:00 Z

On 5 January 2026, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Afan Valley Ltd v Lupton Fawcett LLP [2026] EWCA Civ 2 (the “Judgment”). The case concerned allegedly negligent advice by lawyers in connection with the regulatory implications of certain proposed buyer-funded property development schemes (the “Schemes”). Some twenty-two Schemes, and £68,000,000 of investor monies, were involved.

Hong Kong employment law: 2025 review and 2026 outlook

Fri, 02 Jan 2026 11:14:00 Z

2025 at a glance

Mandatory Reference Checking scheme

In July 2025, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority ("HKMA") announced phase two of its Mandatory Reference Checking Scheme, which was implemented in September 2025. The Scheme tackles ‘rolling bad apples’ by enabling banks to share up to seven years of conduct-related references under a common protocol, to inform hiring decisions. Phase one covered senior regulated roles across banking and insurance (find out more here). Phase two extends the Scheme to a far wider group, including employees licensed or registered to carry on securities, insurance or Mandatory Provident Fund regulated activities.

Minimum Wage and Mandatory Provident Fund offsets

In May 2025, Hong Kong’s statutory minimum wage increased by 5.3% to HK$42.10 (from HK$40). The previous adjustment was in 2023 following a four-year freeze.

Also in May 2025, the arrangement permitting employers to offset long service and severance payments against mandatory contributions to the Mandatory Provident Fund was discontinued, following the passage of the Employment and Retirement Schemes Legislation (Offsetting Arrangement) (Amendment) Ordinance in 2022 (find out more here).

Diversity requirements for Hong Kong listed companies

Following amendments to the Hong Kong Stock Exchange's ("HKEX") Corporate Governance Code and related Listing Rules, enhanced diversity requirements took effect on 1 July 2025. HKEX-listed issuers must now (a) ensure their nomination committee includes at least one director of a different gender; (b) adopt and disclose a workforce diversity policy alongside a board diversity policy; and (c) provide separate disclosures of gender ratios for senior management and for the overall workforce, among other measures.

On the horizon for 2026

Minimum Wage Rate

In its Policy Address of 17 September 2025, the Hong Kong Government announced the adoption of a new mechanism, comprising a formula proposed by the Minimum Wage Commission, to implement annual reviews of the statutory minimum wage rate. The first rate determined under this mechanism is expected to take effect on 1 May 2026.

Trade Unions (Amendment) Ordinance 2025

The Trade Unions (Amendment) Ordinance 2025 was gazetted on 4 July 2025 and will commence on 5 January 2026. It aims to safeguard national security and strengthen union regulation through measures including: empowering the Registrar to refuse registration or amalgamation where necessary to protect national security, disqualifying officers or promoters convicted of national security offences, restricting the organisations of which trade unions may be members, regulating the receipt and use of contributions or donations from foreign forces and increasing penalties for non‑compliance.

The gig economy and platform workers

In October 2025, Hong Kong passed a bill to regulate ride‑hailing platforms. Once in force, it will require platforms to hold a dedicated licence and comply with prescribed conditions: drivers must meet eligibility criteria (including age, a clean driving record and completion of mandatory assessments), and vehicles will be capped at 12 years old. The regime is expected to take effect in October 2026 at the earliest.

The Government also announced plans to strengthen platform workers’ rights, with proposals to be set out in legislation following consultation with platform companies, the labour sector, academics and the insurance industry. Work‑injury compensation is expected to be a central focus.

“417 / 468” Rule

On 18 June 2025, Hong Kong’s Legislative Council passed amendments to the Employment Ordinance revising the “continuous contract” threshold. With effect from 18 January 2026, an employee will be regarded as employed under a continuous contract if they have been employed by the same employer for four weeks or more and satisfy either of the following: they work at least 17 hours in each week, or, where any week falls below 17 hours, they reach a total of 68 hours or more across the relevant four‑week period. In the event of a dispute about continuous contract status, the burden of proof rests with the employer. Until the new test takes effect, the existing “418 rule” continues to apply (requiring 18 hours per week for four consecutive weeks for a continuous contract). Continuous contract status determines entitlement to statutory benefits, including paid annual leave, sickness allowance, statutory holiday pay, maternity/paternity leave, and severance and long service payments. Find out more here.

Key takeaways

Employers should consider the following (non-exhaustive) practical steps in preparation:

Mandatory Reference Checking Scheme: Update hiring processes and policies to implement phase two and train HR on interpreting references, documenting decisions consistently and avoiding bias.
Minimum wage and MPF offsets: Plan for annual minimum wage updates, and update payroll and termination processes accordingly.
HKEX diversity obligations: For HKEX‑listed issuers, ensure nomination committees include at least one director of a different gender, adopt and disclose a workforce diversity policy alongside the board diversity policy and establish compliant reporting of gender ratios for senior management and the wider workforce.
Trade union compliance: Update policies, procedures and training to reflect the new trade union requirements.
Gig economy and platform workers: If operating a platform, prepare to obtain the platform licence and comply with prescribed conditions.
Continuous contract thresholds: If hiring part‑time or irregular‑hours staff, track weekly and rolling four‑week hour thresholds, maintain robust records and update benefits policies to reflect eligibility.

For tailored advice on implementing these changes, please contact our Hong Kong employment team.

Our team at RPC are widely recognized as leading employment lawyers in Hong Kong. We are of the few specialist employment law practices in Hong Kong and we act for both employers and employees on contentious and non-contentious matters.

Please do not hesitate to contact our Partner and Head of the Employment Practice in Hong Kong, Andrea Randall for any queries regarding the issues raised in this article or any employment law related queries you may have.

All material contained in this article is provided for general information purposes only and should not be construed as legal, accounting, financial or tax advice, or as opinion to any person or specific case. RPC accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage arising directly or indirectly from action taken, or not taken, which may arise from reliance on information contained in this article. You are urged to seek legal advice concerning your own situation and any specific legal question that you may have.

Take 10 - 22 December 2025

Mon, 22 Dec 2025 13:50:00 Z

RPC's Media and Communications law update

Trump v BBC

President Trump has issued a lawsuit in Florida against the BBC, claiming up to $10 billion in damages over the editing of his 6 January 2021 speech in a Panorama programme titled 'Trump: A Second Chance' which was broadcast in October 2024. He argues the editing was "false and defamatory" and that the BBC "intentionally and maliciously sought to fully mislead its viewers around the world". For further details of the dispute, please see our previous Take 10 newsletters here and here.

The lawsuit relies on two causes of action – defamation and breaching Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The decision to bring the claim in Florida was likely influenced by the state's two-year limitation period for defamation claims (compared to the shorter period of one year in England and Wales) and the availability of higher damages awards (with the upper limit for general damages being around £350,000 in England and Wales).

Much of the commentary on the action has focussed on the significant legal hurdles President Trump is likely to face in establishing that the Florida Court has jurisdiction to hear the claim. Likely with this in mind, his claim cites a number of licensing agreements between the BBC and various third parties who he claims distributed the programme in North America.

If Trump's claim can be heard, he will need to prove the programme was factually false and defamatory, and that he suffered harm. Perhaps most significantly, the long-standing rule in New York Times v Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964) will require Trump as a public figure to prove 'actual malice' on the part of the BBC.

The BBC has made clear that it intends to defend the case in full. The action follows a series of other legal actions by President Trump against other news organisations, including The Wall Street Journal, Paramount/CBS and The New York Times, all of which seek damages of over $1 billion.

SLAPP allegations dismissed

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has dismissed two separate SLAPP-related prosecutions against partners at law firms Hamlins and Carter-Ruck.

Hamlins partner Christopher Hutchings had faced a SLAPP complaint following a case in which his client (Party A) had sued an opponent (Party B) for defamation. Following settlement, a without prejudice call had taken place between Mr Hutchings and Party B's lawyer in which it was put forward that Party A would bring contempt proceedings against Party B but would refrain from doing so if Party B granted Party A a copyright licence in respect of other publications. The SRA's case was that Mr Hutchings said two things on the call that were untrue and that the threat itself was improper. Mr Hutchings denied any wrongdoing. The SDT found the SRA's case to be not proven on 8 December 2025, with reasons to follow.

The SDT also summarily dismissed a separate SLAPP-related prosecution against Claire Gill, a partner at Carter-Ruck. Ms Gill was accused of having made an 'improper threat' in a letter to a defendant whilst acting on behalf of Dr Ruja Ignatova, the proprietor of the OneCoin cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme. In dismissing the action, the SDT stated that Ms Gill's advice at the time was "measured, professional and conscientious" and that the letter, sent with the purpose of protecting Ignatova's reputation following the defendant's efforts to expose the OneCoin fraud, was sent in good faith and was not improper or misleading.

The rulings have prompted a wide range of views on both sides of the SLAPPs debate: see for example commentary in the Law Society Gazette and The Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

Open justice in the criminal courts

On 17 December, the CPS published its refreshed Media Protocol which aims to manage media requests for copies of information or material deployed by the prosecution in criminal proceedings for the purpose of contemporaneous reporting on such proceedings held in open court. The updated protocol, which has been developed in conjunction with various policing bodies and senior representatives from the media, replaces the previous iteration of the protocol, ‘Publicity and the Criminal Justice System’, published in 2005, and reflects developments in the law over the past two decades.

The protocol seeks to uphold the open justice principle while strengthening accurate and transparent reporting of criminal proceedings. Under the updated protocol, the general position is that prosecution documents which have been read out in court should be provided unless there are legitimate interests for such documents to be withheld or redacted, for example where the interests of justice or the interests of victims, witnesses or families are deemed to prevail. This includes images/video of the defendant, scenes of crime as recorded by the police and items exhibited in court as well as transcripts of interviews read out in court. Other prosecution material which may be released includes victim and witness statements, photographs of injuries and audio and video recordings of police interviews and 999 calls. The protocol does not change the position in respect of defence material, with the media still required to contact the defence if they would like access to such material. The protocol also provides the media with another route to appeal any decision to withhold material, in addition to the option to request the release of material under Parts 5.7 to 5.12 of the Criminal Procedure Rules.

Novel privacy action

Earlier this month, Mrs Justice Eady heard the trial of Feldman v Gambling Commission, a novel privacy and confidentiality claim brought against the gambling regulator which relied on the expectation of privacy in a criminal investigation (see Bloomberg LP v ZXC [2022] UKSC 5).

The Claimants are former executives of Entain (formerly GVC Holdings), an international gambling conglomerate which owns various brands including Coral and Ladbrokes. The claim arises from the Claimants' failed bid to take control of online casino group 888 in 2023. During the bid, the Gambling Commission (GC) expressed concerns to 888 about the Claimants' past association with Entain, in particular their potential involvement in alleged bribery in respect of Entain's Turkish operation, which was the subject of a HMRC investigation at the time. These concerns ultimately resulted in the GC commencing a licence review of 888, and in 888 terminating its discussions with the Claimants.

Evoke, 888's owner, published a statement to the stock market explaining the background to the termination. The statement referred to the GC's concerns over the Claimants' involvement in the bribery investigation and stated that "the most basic assurances [to address] these concerns were not forthcoming".

In their claim against the GC, the Claimants allege that the regulator breached their privacy and confidentiality by causing 888's statement to be published, which they say came about through "very considerable collaboration". They are bringing a separate claim over a statement published by the GC in 2024 confirming 888's licence review was over because the bid was not going ahead. The Commission denies wrongdoing, maintaining that its actions were lawful, necessary and in the public interest. It argues that no private information was disclosed and that the Claimants could have addressed concerns directly with 888.

It appears that, since issuing the claim but before the trial, the Claimants have been charged with bribery and fraud in relation to Entain's Turkish operations. It is understood that they deny the charges.

Judgment has been reserved, but should be an interesting read and will likely address novel arguments relating to the GC's responsibility for 888's statement, the relevance of the Claimants' charge being published, public interest, damage and public policy considerations.

Prison sentence over X posts

Joey Barton, the former footballer turned social media commentator, has been handed a six-month suspended prison sentence plus 200 hours of unpaid community service following his conviction for sending grossly offensive and distressing social media posts about Jeremy Vine, Lucy Ward and Eni Aluko. Barton's posts included superimposing Ward and Aluko's faces onto a photo of notorious serial killers Fred and Rose West, and suggesting that Jeremy Vine is a paedophile, including by calling him a "bike nonce".

The case has raised questions by some commentators over whether it is correct that insults on social media, even where highly offensive, meet the high threshold for criminalising speech. Barton's conviction also raises questions for online platforms which under the Online Safety Act, are required to have proportionate systems and processes in place to remove 'illegal' content pursuant to the Online Safety Act while also complying with reciprocal duties to protect freedom of expression.

Australia bans children from social media

Australia has introduced a world-first ban on social media accounts for children under 16, requiring platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, YouTube and X to remove millions of accounts or face fines of up to A$49.5m (£25m). The law, which came into effect on 10 December, obliges platforms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent underage users from accessing their services. The government has made clear that user self-certification will not suffice. Social media platforms must deploy age assurance measures, such as photo ID or bank account age verification.

The move has already prompted legal challenges. Reddit has filed a High Court claim arguing that, although it is complying, it should not be classified as a social media platform and that the policy raises serious concerns about privacy and freedom of expression. Critics also warn that the ban risks driving children to VPNs or unregulated platforms, undermining its effectiveness to protect children.

Internationally, the ban is being closely monitored. Denmark has announced plans to ban social media for under-15s, while Norway is considering similar measures. In the UK, recent reforms under the Online Safety Act already impose strict obligations on platforms to protect children including through age verification, but campaigners may see Australia’s ban as a precedent for further restrictions.

Ofcom: online safety round-up

Ofcom continues to be proactive in its role as the UK's online safety regulator, recently imposing a very substantial fine of £1 million against AVS Group Ltd (AVS) for failing to implement "highly effective” age assurance across its 18+ adult websites, alongside a further £50,000 penalty for failing to respond to statutory information requests. AVS was required to introduce compliant age checks within 72 hours or face daily penalties of £1,000.

Meanwhile, Ofcom has published new guidance for in-scope service providers related to improving online safety for women and girls. The guidance identifies four key areas of online harm (online misogyny, pile-ons and online harassment, online domestic abuse; and image-based sexual abuse) and recommends nine "good practice steps".

The regulator is also currently consulting on draft industry guidance for how service providers should respond to requests from bereaved parents seeking information about their child’s use of online services before their death. The proposals emphasise transparency, timeliness and sensitivity, with measures such as clear disclosure policies, helplines and accessible complaints functions.

Bob Vylan launches defamation action against Irish national broadcaster

On 8 December punk-rap duo Bob Vylan launched defamation proceedings in the Irish courts against Irish national broadcaster RTE, claiming that the broadcaster's allegation that the band led antisemitic chants during their performance at Glastonbury 2025 was defamatory.

The band became the subject of controversy for leading a crowd chant of "death, death to the IDF" during their performance at the festival on 28 June 2025. The chants were broadcast live on the BBC, a decision which the Director General of the BBC at the time, Tim Davie, later apologised for, calling the set "antisemitic" and "deeply disturbing". The Glastonbury organisers also condemned the chants. Bob Vylan have vehemently denied antisemitism.

Ofcom: £375,000 fine for breaking broadcasting rules

On 9 December 2025, Ofcom imposed a £375,000 fine on religious broadcaster The Word Network after finding it repeatedly in breach of the Broadcasting Code.

The regulator’s investigations followed viewer complaints and routine monitoring of several programmes aired between July 2023 and May 2024. Ofcom concluded that the programme Stem Cell Activators made unsubstantiated claims that serious medical conditions could be treated using unlicensed products promoted during the broadcast. Similarly, multiple episodes of Peter Popoff Ministries promoted products and religious services as effective in treating serious medical conditions or alleviating financial difficulties.

Under Section 2 of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code, which ensures adequate protection for audiences from harmful or offensive material, licensees must ensure that audiences are adequately protected from harm. This includes prohibitions on misleading or unsubstantiated claims about health treatments or financial remedies. Ofcom found that The Word Network failed in this obligation, exposing viewers to potentially harmful misinformation.

Ofcom indicated that the substantial fines were warranted given the "serious and in some cases, repeated and reckless" nature of the breaches.

Tommy Robinson v Nigel Farage

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson) has reportedly sent Reform UK leader Nigel Farage a pre-action letter for defamation, following comments made during a live interview on LBC radio on 7 January 2025. During the broadcast, Farage described Robinson as having “a criminal record, a list as long as your arm, violence, violence against women”, prompting Robinson to allege that the statement was false and defamatory, particularly the imputation of violence against women. Robinson has released a statement confirming he does not have any convictions for violence against women, and claiming that Farage's interview has caused him serious reputational harm.

The pre-action letter has been published by GB Politics on X.

Quote of the fortnight

"Those who hope to experience the wonders of the United States… should not have to fear that self‑censorship is a condition of entry."

Sarah McLaughlin from The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, commenting on the Trump administration's proposal to expand vetting of travellers entering the US by requiring the mandatory upload of five years of social media history.

RPC would like to wish all of our readers a very Happy Christmas and best wishes for the new year!

Cyber_Bytes - Issue 78

Mon, 22 Dec 2025 13:29:00 Z

RPC Cyber app: Breach counsel at your fingertips

RPC Cyber_ can be downloaded for free from the Apple Store or Google Play Store.

Cyber Security and Resilience Bill Introduced to UK Parliament: Strengthening the Digital Backbone

On 12 November 2025, the UK government introduced the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill to Parliament. The Bill aims to fortify national defences against cyberattacks by updating the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018 so that they are more consistent with the European NIS2.

Key changes:

Expanded scope to include medium and large IT service providers, data centres and their third-party suppliers;
Increased security controls required when managing essential services and smart energy systems;
Reporting obligations are stricter, in particular, notifiable incidents must be reported to the effected organisation's regulator and the National Cyber Security Centre within 24 hours, followed by a full report within 72 hours;
Enhanced penalties introduced through higher and turnover-based maximums for serious breaches.

Regulated organisations will face stricter compliance obligations, increased reporting requirements, and greater scrutiny of supply chain security.

The Cyber Security and Resilience Bill is expected to pass within the next year, but organisations should actively monitor its progress and prepare for compliance through early engagement.

Read more through the House of Commons Library here.

EU Digital Omnibus Package: A New Era for Data and AI Regulation

On 19 November, the European Commission published its Digital Omnibus Package ('the Package'), proposing updates to key legislation, including:

GDPR
ePrivacy Directive
Data Governance Act, and
AI Act.

The Package signals a shift in the EU’s approach to data and artificial intelligence regulation, by aiming to harmonise compliance standards, reduce administrative burdens, and support innovation in risk management and cyber resilience.

Notable proposed reforms include:

a narrowed definition of personal data, which clarifies that information is not personal data for an organisation if that organisation has no realistic way to identify the person to whom it relates;
streamlined data subject access request processes, with new powers to refuse or charge for excessive or non-genuine requests;
breach notification thresholds to data protection authorities (Article 33 GDPR) being raised to align with Article 34 GDPR, requiring notification only where incidents are likely to result in a 'high risk' to individuals; and
establishment of a single-entry notification system to centralise reporting obligations to regulators across multiple EU regulations, including the GDPR, NIS 2, DORA, CER and eIDAS.

For AI, the Package expands legitimate interest grounds as a legal basis under the GDPR where personal data processing is necessary for the controller's interest in the context of the development and operation of AI. It also proposes the introduction of regulatory sandboxes, aimed at enabling businesses to innovate under regulatory oversight.

Click here and here to read the proposals by the European Commission.

British Security Minister Proposes with National Security Exemptions to Ransomware Payment Ban

On 2 September, the UK Government proposed a ransomware payment ban for public sector and critical national infrastructure organisations, as well as obligations for other businesses to notify the Government of any intention to pay a ransom demand.

However, British Security Minister Dan Jarvis has recently proposed a 'national security exemption' to the ban. The legislative proposal is still pending agreement across the Government, but Dan Jarvis has acknowledged that the ban may have series consequences for UK businesses, stating “that’s why we’re looking very carefully at national security exemptions, because we don’t want people to be facing an invidious choice between a hospital shutting down or going to jail.”

Click here to read more by Infosecurity Magazine.

The Post Office data breach

On 3 December, the ICO issued a reprimand to the Post Office following an “entirely preventable” data breach that disclosed personal information about 502 people involved in the Horizon IT scandal. The incident arose when an unredacted legal settlement document (containing names, home addresses and postmaster status) was mistakenly published on the Post Office’s corporate website for almost two months.

The ICO found the Post Office had failed to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures, highlighting the absence of documented policies and quality assurance for web publication and insufficient staff training, including no specific guidance on information sensitivity or publishing practices.

You can read the news on the ICO website here.

ICO right of access guidance: what it is, key principles and what it means for businesses

The ICO has recently published guidance on how organisations must handle data subject access requests (DSARs) under the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018.

Key principles include: accountability in being able to justify decisions; reasonable and proportionate searches; and careful application of exemptions. The guidance explains when and how exemptions may apply. These include to protect the rights of others, legal professional privilege, management forecasting, negotiations with the requester or where disclosure would prejudice crime/taxation functions. The guidance also explains when a “neither confirm nor deny” response may be used. It sets out specific approaches for third‑party data, children’s requests and special categories of information in health, education and social work. It also covers handling information in emails and archives, deleted data, unstructured manual records held by public authorities, and enforcement risks.

The practical implications for businesses are an increased need to prepare and to standardise DSAR response capability. This includes: the establishment of policies on applying exemptions, third‑party redaction, and format/secure delivery; maintenance of logs and evidence of decisions; and ensuring information management (naming, retention and deletion) supports timely, accurate responses.

Read the detailed ICO guidance here.

The European Commission clarifies ‘important’ and ‘critical’ product categories under the Cyber Resilience Act

The European Commission has published an Implementing Regulation relating to the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA). The regulation provides a non-exhaustive list of products with digital elements whose core functionality matches the technical description of specific important or critical products.

Manufacturers of in-scope products must implement the CRA’s cybersecurity requirements proportionately, undertake a comprehensive cybersecurity risk assessment and evidence how requirements are implemented, tested and assured. Where a product’s core functionality meets an 'important' or 'critical' category, stricter conformity routes apply, including mandatory third‑party assessment or certification in some cases.

Click here to access the implementing regulation.

Lessons for architects from across the Irish Sea

Mon, 22 Dec 2025 13:17:00 Z

The recent Irish High Court case of Ashdrum Lodge Limited v Barbouti [2025] IEHC 522 features a number of issues which occur commonly in architects' negligence claims in this jurisdiction: a difficult client, an oral contract, mission creep, allegations that inspection should have identified latent defects, and an allegedly incorrect mix of mortar.

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 19 December 2025

Fri, 19 Dec 2025 11:58:00 Z

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

We want to take this opportunity to wish all of our readers a merry Christmas and happy new year! The Week That Was will be taking a break for the festive period but will return on 9 January.

Headline development

FCA responds to Which? super-complaint

Readers of this bulletin will be aware that Which? recently made a super-complaint to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in relation to poor consumer outcomes in home and travel insurance.

The super-complaint concerned home and travel insurance markets, with Which? stating that claims are too often rejected and that customers are routinely treated poorly. Which? said three features of these markets are significantly damaging consumers' interests – those being (1) poor claims handling, (2) inappropriate sales processes and (3) a lack of application and enforcement of FCA rules and other relevant law.

Which? called on the FCA to take the following actions:

Urgently intervene to tackle the failure of home and travel insurance firms to comply with their legal obligations, taking formal enforcement action where necessary to force action and act as a deterrent (recommendation 1).
Launch a market study to address the market dynamics driving poor consumer outcomes in the home and travel insurance markets (recommendation 2).
Conduct a joint initiative with the government to review consumer protection legal frameworks in insurance and how they are operating in practice, identifying key areas where these need strengthening (recommendation 3).

The FCA has now responded, with Graeme Reynolds, director of competition and interim director of insurance, stating that the FCA welcomes Which? shining a light on these issues. The FCA has confirmed that it will be expanding the significant work it has planned to improve standards in the home and travel insurance market. This will involve working to improve claims handling by reviewing firms' customer service and delivery, and reviewing how firms oversee third parties that handle claims. The FCA will also look to improve consumer understanding of what their insurance covers in light of the fact its data reveals that "home and travel have persistently lower claims acceptance rates, partly reflecting lower levels of consumer understanding".

The FCA said that it will continue to work with firms where it has concerns and since commencing this review, it has taken various action including:

Opening 2 enforcement cases
Stopping 1 firm from growing its business until it fixes the problem
Launching 3 independent reviews into firms' systems and controls; and
Making 3 senior managers agree to fix problems and consider whether redress is due

Accordingly, it appears the FCA has loosely followed Which?'s first two demands (recommendations 1 and 2) but not the third, but further action could be taken as the FCA warned that "if we don't see improvements in claims outcomes, we will hold the industry to account".

To read the FCA's response, please click here. The super-complaint can be found here.

Pensions

TPR publishes 2025 statistics on occupational DB and hybrid schemes

On 16 December 2025, the Pensions Regulator (TPR) published its 2025 statistics on occupational defined benefit (DB) and hybrid schemes.

TPR's report covers 200 public sector DB schemes with 19,784,000 members and 5,060 private sector schemes with 9,174,000 members. The data broadly shows that the DB market continues to shrink – the key findings are that:

The DB and hybrid landscape continues to shrink at a yearly rate of 3% on average.
Schemes continue to close as the percentage of schemes that closed to future accrual, excluding those in wind-up, rose from 73% in 2024 to 74% in 2025.
Membership in private DB and hybrid schemes has fallen by 3% since 2024 to 9,174,000.
There are roughly an equal number of pensioner members (47% of total members) and deferred members (46% of total members) in private schemes.

Another key finding is that funding levels remain in surplus on the whole. TPR confirmed that the technical provisions (TPs) funding level has stayed the same at 118%, while both assets and liabilities fell by 10%. The percentage of schemes in TPs surplus is 82% in 2025, higher than the 2024 figure of 80%.

To read more, please click here.

Pensions Ombudsman publishes information for members on overpayments

On 16 December 2025, the Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) published new information to help members of pension schemes understand the key issues that arise when a pension has been overpaid.

TPO has explained that the information is designed to be factual and neutral and allow disputes to be resolved the earliest possible stage. TPO has stated that they would like schemes to share this information with a member when informing them of an overpayment, or when a member queries or challenges the scheme’s attempt to reclaim an overpayment.

The information is designed to members understand:

What an overpayment is.
What obligations exist around repaying overpayments.
What potential legal defences exist for not repaying the money.
The requirement to engage with the scheme and provide evidence for the defences.
What to expect from the scheme when an overpayment occurs.
How TPO can help if a dispute cannot be resolved with the scheme.

To read more, please click here.

Government consults on raising trustee standards

The UK government has opened a consultation seeking views on proposals to improve the standards in pension trusteeship and administration.

The government has said it is launching this consultation in recognition of the "pivotal role" trustees play in the pensions industry and their responsibility for the pensions of millions of savers, and the fact that the landscape is changing as the industry shifts towards 'mega-funds' as small defined contribution schemes are consolidated resulting in fewer, larger defined benefit and defined contribution schemes.

The Department for Work and Pensions' consultation paper includes proposals to improve trustees' skills, knowledge, and capability, with potential measures such as the introduction of mandatory accreditation, enhanced oversight, and additional safeguards (which could include imposing limits on the number of appointments held by professional trustees). The government is also considering ways to strengthen trustee board diversity and improve trustee appointments (which could involve the appointment of public (independent) trustees) to ensure boards remain focused on member outcomes.

Responses to the consultation are invited ahead of the closing date in March 2026.

To read more, please click here.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

FCA sets out plans to help build mortgage market of the future

The FCA has announced that from early 2026, it will start to consult the public on reforms to the mortgage market and that it is aiming to introduce the first rule change later on in 2026. The FCA is focussing on four areas:

First time buyers & underserved consumers: Simplification of mortgage rules allowing for greater flexibility in products which reflect different income levels and working patterns at different stages of life.
Later-life lending: Exploring how advice can be improved to help people confidently plan for later life; reviewing interest-only requirements to make them more accessible to those in retirement and to ensure the lifetime mortgage market can meet customers' changing future needs through a market study.
Innovation & disclosure: helping consumers more easily understand online information by looking at advertising and disclosure rules and also encouraging the use of technology (including AI).
Protecting vulnerable consumers: helping to support those using a mortgage to manage or consolidate debt and to support victims of financial abuse by working with partners.

The intention behind these plans is to help first-time buyers and the self-employed to get onto the housing ladder, as well as helping to unlock wealth from property for homeowners in later life. Executive director for payments and digital finance, David Geale, said that the changes will help to widen access to affordable mortgages to meet the needs of consumers today.

The FCA has also confirmed that it will be launching a focussed market study, with terms of reference being published in the first quarter of 2026, to consider how the later life lending market could develop to meet the different needs of consumers. The FCA has said that the study will consider how the FCA can support the market to ensure that consumers can access fair value products that meet their needs.

To read more, please click here.

FCA publishes policy statement on tackling non-financial misconduct in financial services

The FCA has published final guidance on how firms can apply new rules governing Non-Financial Misconduct (NFM) following revisions in July designed to align the conduct rules in banks and non-banks for serious NFM. NFM broadly consists of bullying, harassment or violence in a work context.

The guidance provides further detail on when misconduct becomes an FCA conduct issue and the rules the firm could potentially breach. Its broad effect is to make misconduct issues an FCA issue in a wider range of circumstances.

The guidance is designed to help firms make fair, consistent decisions and take decisive action when standards are breached, with a non-exhaustive list of factors to consider when assessing breach. That said, the FCA stressed that it cannot provide guidance for every scenario and firms must continue to exercise their own judgment. Firms are not expected to investigate trivial or implausible allegations.

The consultation responses showed strong support for further guidance, with 95% of respondents agreeing that new Handbook guidance was needed. The Lloyd’s Market Association welcomed the guidance, emphasising its role in protecting employees, upholding market integrity, and attracting talent.

The final rules, supported by the final guidance, will take effect from 1 September 2026.

To read the FCA's Policy Statement of NFM, please click here.

With thanks to this week's contributors: Daniel Parkin, Dorian Nunzek, Damien O'Malley, Ben Simmonds, Haiying Li, James Parsons, and Lauren Butler.

Lawyers Covered - December 2025

Fri, 19 Dec 2025 09:37:00 Z

Mazur's frost settles until appeal judgment in new year

The uncertainty created by Mazur continues (see the October edition for our summary of the case), CILEX now having been granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, with an expedited hearing listed for 24 February 2026. The Law Society confirmed on 16 December that it has also been granted permission to be joined as a respondent in the appeal.

Meanwhile, the SRA has issued a statement indicating that it will take a sympathetic approach to pre-Mazur breaches "of genuine error based on mistaken interpretation of the law" prior to 20 October 2025 – but that those who fail to address the judgment will feel the full force of the SRA's enforcement powers.

While the SRA in Mazur declined to make a finding whether the individual in question was conducting litigation to avoid cutting across any regulatory action by the SRA, the SRA has similarly declined to make a definitive statement, commenting that "the question of whether an unauthorised individual has acted in breach of the Legal Services Act 2007 in relation to the conduct of a reserved legal activity is ultimately a matter for the courts." Clearly more risk averse since the criticism it received in the judgment, the SRA's new statement contains myriad caveats, stressing that each situation is fact dependent, stating "it is not our role to interpret legislation or give legal advice to the wider legal community or to define terms used in legislation" and encouraging firms to take their own legal advice. In line with their submissions in Mazur, the new guidance focuses on identifying who has ultimate responsibility for the steps taken in the litigation, and on who is exercising professional judgment on how the matter is being conducted.

It is hoped that the appeal judgment is handed down promptly to help resolve uncertainty amongst many in the legal profession – at firm and personal level. Help and support is available from LawCare or via your myCILEX account.

Santa isn't the only fake: more AI misbehaviour before the courts

AI promises efficiency but can expose practitioners and firms to heightened liability. Many do not fully appreciate the risks, so it is advisable to understand them now -before finding out the hard way.

A law firm recently faced the court's ire for drafting a witness statement on the basis of research carried out by a paralegal using, in part, Google's AI Overview – a feature which Wikipedia reports as having been "widely criticized as producing misleading, nonsensical, and potentially dangerous claims". The partner had failed to verify the research and incorporated it into his statement, leading to fictitious cases being cited in the High Court dispute.

Another warning shot on the use of AI arose in a recent US case, Mendones v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., in which deepfake videos of purported witnesses were submitted as evidence. Deepfakes are videos, pictures or audio clips, usually created with AI, to mimic a real person. The wide availability of AI tools now mean that it is easier than ever to put words in someone's mouth. The judge struck out a claim by litigants-in-person who had filed two fake videos in support of an application for summary judgment. One of the videos can be viewed online here and features a robotic-seeming woman whose mouth movements do not match the words being spoken. The case also featured an altered still photograph taken from a Ring doorbell. The Judge noted that a lot of AI was “still a bit off or easy to spot”; however, he added: “It is not about what GenAI can do today; it is about the pace of change". This development is worth bearing in mind, as many jurisdictions are likely to encounter similar forms of deepfake evidence being submitted. The judge did not refer the litigant for prosecution, suggesting a more lenient attitude may be taken where the litigant is self-represented. In this jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal recently commented that it was "entirely understandable" for a self-represented mother in family proceedings to turn to AI as "litigants in person are in a difficult position putting forward legal arguments".

Lastly, AI-generated pleadings and correspondence are becoming more common, but it is essential any AI-generated wording is rigorously checked over for accuracy (i.e. that cases are legitimate and sources are verified), as failure to do so could mislead the Court. A recent judgment in Frederick Ayinde v The London Borough of Haringey criticised a law firm for the use of pleadings citing fake, AI‑generated cases. Read our analysis of the decision here.

Trust is for life, not just for qualification; why ethics training must be strengthened and reinforced throughout a lawyers' career

Public scrutiny of the legal profession is as high as ever, whilst public confidence and trust is worryingly low. Reported criticisms such as the lawyers' involvement in the Post Office Horizon scandal, the use of non-disclosure agreements to conceal wrong doing (particularly in relation to public figures) and the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) to stifle lawful scrutiny continue to erode any trust the public has retained.

Earlier this year the Legal Services Board called for regulators to strengthen ethical training from the outset of our careers; now the House of Lords have taken this thought a step further. In a report by the Constitution Committee, The rule of law: Holding the line against tyranny and anarchy, the Peers have called for lawyers to receive dedicated ethical training throughout their careers. Whilst the Peers acknowledge the obligations placed on solicitors and barristers by the SRA and BSB respectively, they note with concern that there is “almost no ethical training in our profession and there is no mandated requirement for ongoing ethics training”. They also highlight that the training that does exist is outdated and fails to address emerging ethical concerns.

As is acknowledged in the report there are certainly factors outside of our control that has undermined trust in our profession, but widely reported poor ethical behaviour from within has reinforced a negative view from the public. The Peers have therefore recommended that in addition to strengthening the ethical training at the outset, lawyers should receive dedicated ethical training throughout their careers. The Constitution Committee's call will take time to develop but meanwhile firms will no doubt be considering their ethical standards and training through a revitalised lens.

You've drawn your bill of costs, now make sure you check it twice: lessons from the SCCO

We have recently had cause to consider the Senior Courts Costs Office decision, Hyder v Aidat-Sarran ([2024] EWHC 3686 (SCCO)), which highlights the importance of costs management and solicitor oversight. The case before the Costs Judge arose out of the claimant’s repeated failures to serve a compliant bill of costs, culminating in two defective bills despite clear directions and points of dispute.

There were two applications before the court. The first was the claimant’s application for relief from sanction for the late service of their bill of costs, and the second was the defendants’ application under CPR 44.11 to strike out the costs claim due to persistent breaches. CPR44.11 sets out the Court's powers in relation to misconduct and applies to any party or legal representative who, in connection with costs proceedings, is found to have acted “unreasonably or improperly".

The judge confirmed that they were not in a position to make a positive finding of improper conduct but did state that 'serving an unchecked bill without any caveat must come very close'. Whilst it was held there were multiple breaches, which were unexplained and inexcusable, the judge was persuaded that lesser sanctions were appropriate, and 'a strike out would be too draconian'.

In addition, the judge emphasised that solicitors cannot evade responsibility by blaming costs lawyers and cited Gempride v Bamrah [2018] EWCA Civ 1367 in support. The judge confirmed solicitors are vicariously liable for their agents’ failings and must exercise proper oversight and stated that claimant and their solicitors were fortunate the bill was not struck out in its entirety. Ultimately, the court decided on a severe penalty, which was a reduction of 75% in the claimant’s costs.

It is clear that failures in costs management, especially those involving repeated and/or unexplained breaches, can result in serious sanctions. Robust internal processes and genuine attempts at mitigation are essential to maintain the court's confidence.

Peace on earth and good will to all… people! The LSB’s new consultation on diversity and inclusion

The Legal Services Board (LSB) has launched a significant consultation on its proposed statement of policy to encourage a diverse legal profession in England and Wales, which it says 'sits at the heart' of the LSB's statutory responsibilities and strategic ambitions. While the primary focus is on improving diversity and inclusion across the sector, the proposals carry notable implications for the professional liability market, particularly for law firms, their insurers, and risk managers.

Background and aims

The consultation is taking place in response to well-evidenced barriers to diversity within the legal profession. Despite acknowledging some progress, the LSB confirms significant gaps remain in entry, progression, and retention and this is particularly the case for women, minoritised ethnic groups, disabled individuals, and those from lower socio-economic backgrounds. The consultation quotes a gender pay gap for solicitors of 25.4% and an ethnicity pay gap of 25%. It also states that 'junior women at the bar earn 77% of what junior men earn'.

The consultation aims to address issues such as biased recruitment, unequal work allocation, pay disparities, and non-inclusive workplace cultures. These practices can undermine public trust in the profession as well as limiting the sector’s ability to serve society effectively. By proposing a new regulatory approach, the LSB seeks to dismantle these barriers by promoting fairness and ensuring the profession better reflects the diversity of the communities it serves.

What is the LSB proposing?

The LSB’s draft policy sets out four outcomes for legal services regulators:

Strategic, evidence-based, and collaborative action on diversity.
Fairness and equality in regulatory approaches and decision-making.
Accessible, flexible, and inclusive pathways into and through the profession.
Frameworks for professional conduct and competence that support diversity.

Regulators will be expected to implement both core and enhanced expectations, which range from mandatory data monitoring and equality impact assessments to promoting inclusive leadership and transparent pay gap reporting.

Liability implications for law firms

For the professional liability market, the proposals present both risks and opportunities:

Increased scrutiny and accountability: Firms may be required to publish diversity data as well as strategic action plans. This aims to make workplace culture and equality practices more visible to both clients and the public. If a firm fails to meet these standards, it could lead to exposure of reputational risk, regulatory investigation, or claims from employees and clients alleging discrimination or unfair treatment.
Expanded scope of misconduct: The LSB expects regulators to embed anti-bullying, anti-harassment, and anti-discrimination duties into codes of conduct, with clear channels available for raising concerns. This could lead to an uptick in internal complaints and, if mishandled, also external claims against firms and individual practitioners.
Impact on risk profiles: Insurers may need to reassess risk models to account for new regulatory standards and the potential for claims arising from workplace culture, recruitment, progression, and mental health practices. Firms that have robust diversity and inclusion frameworks in place that are regularly reviewed may be considered more favourably, while those lagging behind could face higher premiums or coverage exclusions in non-MTC policies.

Law firms should review their diversity, inclusion, and conduct policies and ensure that there are clear reporting mechanisms. This will include the provision of training for both managers and staff. The practice of transparent data collection and regular review of that data will not only support compliance but will also help to mitigate any liability risks.

For more information, please visit the LSB website. The consultation closes on 2 March 2026.

Not-so-silent night for law firm tricked into revealing client secrets

In a reminder to lawyers to stay vigilant this festive season, it has been reported that a private investigator's unethical methods tricked a solicitor into revealing client confidential information. The newly promoted partner, whose identity was withheld, was plied with alcoholic drinks at meetings he believed were with a potential new client and "skilfully and tenaciously steered" into discussing the litigation and giving insights into settlement strategy.

Eager to impress, the partner had been "lulled into a force sense of confidence and security" and acted out of courtesy or cultural sensitivity, with the court commenting that he had been "deceived and played for a fool by a skilful and well-prepared interrogator". However, he divulged more than he should have done and has been reported to the SRA. Meanwhile, the court declined to strike out the claim, despite finding that the claimants' unethical behaviour was an abuse of process.

A number of lessons emerge:

Ensure that reputable enquiry agents are instructed with express terms that they must not engage in unethical methods of information gathering.
Think twice before reading or relying on material presented by clients. In this case, the court noted that the claimants' original solicitors refused to review the material gathered by the enquiry agent, although the next firm instructed incorporated the information into a witness statement without any attempt to "hive it off".
Remain alert to traps and frauds, especially at this time of year, when the unscrupulous aiming to take advantage of staff absence and office closures to obtain information or funds. Verify any unexpected requests, especially if urgency is expressed.

Tinsel to tribunals: regulator should have good reason to depart from usual procedure for referring complaint to Tribunal Convenor (Hong Kong)

In "The Matter of Section 9A(1) of Legal Practitioners Ordinance" [2025] HKCFI 5383, the High Court dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review against a decision of the Council of the Law Society of Hong Kong to refer a complaint against him to the Tribunal Convenor of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Panel. The applicant had been a serving Council member. The Council (the respondent) is the governing body for the solicitors' profession in Hong Kong. It appears that the complaint is the first time that the Council has referred a complaint against a serving Council member to the Tribunal Covenor.

The complaint related to two alleged breaches of confidentiality concerning the Council's proceedings. A complaint of professional conduct against a Hong Kong solicitor is usually referred to a Standing Committee and an Investigation Committee – pursuant to delegated authority from the Council – before deciding whether to make a referral to the Tribunal Convenor. On this occasion, the Council decided to refer the complaint directly to the Tribunal Convenor because of the unusual circumstances and practical difficulties with referring a complaint against a Council member to the Standing Committee.

The applicant obtained permission to proceed with a judicial review on two grounds. First, whether the decision was procedurally irregular. Second, whether the decision was procedurally improper for "apparent bias" – the decision having been made by the Council against one of its own members.

In a fully reasoned and lengthy judgment, the High Court dismissed the application but not before having thoroughly examined the legal issues and the usual procedure with respect to complaints against solicitors, including Council members.

While the facts are unusual, a number of points are worth noting:

A regulator's usual complaint-handling and investigation process need not be inflexible, but where it is departed from, the regulator should have good reason for doing so. The default position is that usual and published regulatory procedures should be followed. On a judicial review a supervisory court will carefully examine the reasons for departure from such procedures.
Crucially, before making its decision in this case, the Council had appointed an Independent Panel (comprised of three Past Presidents) to investigate the matter, which found that the applicant had breached his duty of confidentiality. The court considered that by appointing the Independent Panel the Council had probably "gone beyond and above the usual level of procedural safeguard that would be afforded to a solicitor the subject of a complaint" (at [119]).
At the material times the Council had obtained independent and specialist legal advice as to how to handle the complaint.
The decision is not a finding of unprofessional conduct, but a decision to refer the complaint to the Tribunal Convenor. While the Independent Panel and the other nineteen Council members (all lawyers) agreed that there had been a breach of confidentiality, whether this constitutes professional misconduct is a matter for the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, should the matter proceed that far.

With thanks to our additional contributors: Sally Lord, Aimee Talbot, Cat Zakarias-Welch and Susan Periselneris.

The Week That Was - 19 December 2025

Fri, 19 Dec 2025 08:29:00 Z

TCC awards summary judgment that expert determination is not binding

On 11 December 2025, the Technology and Construction Court awarded summary judgment in GSY Hospitality Limited v Gladstone Court Developments Limited [2025] EWHC 3231 (TCC). GSY had sought summary judgment for its claim for a declaration that part of an expert determination was not binding because it was made in manifest error and/or error of law.

The expert determination, made in July 2020, related to a development contract for a luxury hotel and how certain costs were to be apportioned between the parties. The expert determination contained an error of law by failing to consider "No Oral Modification" clauses in the relevant agreements and the Supreme Court decision in MWB Business Exchange v Rock Advertising Ltd 2018] UKSC 24 when determining that a variation to cap the defendant Gladstone Court Development Ltd's contribution at £800,000 was valid.

The TCC, citing the Court of Appeal in Premier Telecommunications Group Ltd v Webb [2014] EWCA Civ 994, held that the error of law meant the expert had departed materially from his instructions such that the expert's decision on the apportionment issue was not binding, even if the decision could be justified on a different basis. Where such a material departure from instructions occurred, the Court was not concerned with the effect of the departure on the outcome.

Read the full judgment here.

RIBA president will not renew registration with Architects Registration Board

The president of the Royal Institute of British Architects, Chris Williamson, has announced that he will not renew his registration as an architect with the Architects Registration Board for 2026. He stated that decision is intended to highlight the 'absurdity' of the current regulatory system, which restricts who can use the title of architect but does not provide for oversight of the competence of those carrying out architectural services or activities, such that anyone could carry out the work of an architect as long as they do not use the title.

Read the full article here.

BSR inquiry report criticises 'unacceptable' delays

The House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee criticises “unacceptable” delays at the Building Safety Regulator (BSR), with gateway two cases taking up to nine months against a 12‑week target. It urges the government to fund and train more inspectors, use multi‑disciplinary teams for similar projects, clarify compliance guidance, and streamline or exempt minor high‑rise works. The report also flags gaps in product standards and an ageing inspector workforce.

The BSR has responded to point out that it has set up an Innovation Unit, batching and account managers and also points out that, in the 12 weeks to 24 November, construction proceeded on over 11,000 new homes with a 73% approval rate. Further, a Remediation Enforcement Unit will launch in the new year.

Read the full article here.

Jurisdictional challenges fail meaning adjudicator's decision enforced (TCC)

In Murnells London Ltd v Beale [2025] EWHC 2651 (TCC), the court granted summary judgment enforcing an adjudicator’s £365,000 decision. It rejected all of the defendant's grounds opposing enforcement. The court would not entertain arguments not advanced to the adjudicator; the defendant’s contention that Murnells London Ltd was not the contracting party had only "fanciful prospects" and the dispute had sufficiently crystallised before the notice of adjudication (contrary to the defendant’s narrow approach).

Considering the “pay now, argue later” principle, the court emphasised that adjudication is a fast‑track process and that only limited jurisdictional exceptions are permitted at the enforcement stage where objections were not properly raised during the adjudication. As the judge observed, adjudication is a “fast track process on policy grounds and only limited exceptions are to be permitted. If this results in temporary rough justice, then that is to be anticipated”.

Read the full judgment here and article here.

Apprenticeship drop looms in Scotland as Scotland and Northern Ireland Plumbing Employers' Federation (SNIPEF) warns of funding gap

Apprenticeship numbers in Scotland’s plumbing and heating sector are set to decline, with SNIPEF finding 33% of employers do not expect to recruit apprentices in next three years. Funding constraints are the main barrier: 67% cite limited support, 65% high wage costs and 47% supervision expenses.

More than three‑quarters rate Scottish Government support as poor or inadequate, while 93% say increased funding is the most important change to make recruitment viable.

In contrast, in England, a £725m reforms packages has been introduced, which amongst other things has added 50,000 apprenticeship places and allowed reallocation of levy receipts to frontline training. Scottish firms cannot access unused levy funds, lack spend transparency, and college contributions have been frozen for nearly a decade. Although 80%+ back the four‑year model and two‑thirds still employ apprentices, cost pressures persist. SNIPEF warns of skills shortages affecting decarbonisation and public safety and calls for equal cost‑sharing between government and employers and levy reform.

Read the full article here.

Torus appoints 13 contractors to £224m housing and retrofit framework

Torus has appointed 13 contractors to a £224m, four-year framework running to October 2029 to support housing development and retrofit ambitions across the Northwest. Three lots have been awarded: lot 2 (development works up to £15m), lot 3 (development works over £15m) and lot 4 (development focused on social return above the Public Contracts Regulations threshold). Lot 1 (retrofit works) was advertised but not included in the award notice.

The framework, managed by Torus62, aims to help deliver 9,000 new homes by 2029 and will support both traditional and modern methods of construction. Procured via an open procedure, it is open to SMEs but excludes voluntary or community sector organisations. Successful firms include Eric Wright, Seddon, Caddick, Vistry Merseyside (Countryside), P Casey Co and Watson Construction.

Read the full article here.

With thanks to Kasia Gidens, Holly Bentley, Bodene Robertson

Regulatory Pulse - 18 December 2025

Thu, 18 Dec 2025 15:15:00 Z

The SRA suffered two defeats before the Tribunal in unrelated SLAPPs cases. On 8 December 2025, a partner at Hamlins LLP was cleared of allegations that he misled another solicitor as to the strength of his client's case. Four days later, the SDT summarily dismissed a SLAPP allegation against a partner at Carter-Ruck, holding that the SRA's case was "based on hindsight rather than evidence of professional misconduct".

Regulatory Radar: quick takes December 2025

Thu, 18 Dec 2025 12:43:00 Z

This issue provides updates on new guidance and enforcement activity under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCCA), major updates in product safety and packaging regulation, and evolving standards in ESG, sustainability, and carbon management.

We spotlight changes in advertising and marketing rules, data protection and cyber security, and financial services regulation - including consultations on stablecoins, short selling, and consumer redress. Stay informed on the key issues shaping regulatory compliance and risk as we approach 2026.

Click here to access.

If you would like to discuss any of the topics highlighted or have any requests for themes to be covered in future editions, please do not hesitate to contact me, or your usual RPC contact.

Weis after the event

Thu, 18 Dec 2025 10:00:00 Z

In granting permission for the taxpayer to bring a claim for judicial review that was significantly out of time, the High Court determined that there was good reason to extend time.

Health and Safety bulletin – December 2025

Thu, 18 Dec 2025 09:40:00 Z

Fines and penalties

Hospital Trust and Manager convicted after failing to ensure patient safety

The tragic death in July 2015 of Alice Figueiredo, a 22-year-old patient at a mental health unit in Goodmayes Hospital, has highlighted lessons for improving the safety of patients.

Droplight window incident results in £1m fine for Great Western Railway

In 2018, Bethan Roper tragically suffered a fatal head injury when she put her head outside of a droplight window of a moving train and was struck by a tree branch.

Fatal jet hose accident results in £800k fine

A father of three died on 27 December 2022 following an accident at work involving a jet hose that exploded and hit the 51-year-old in the head.

Roof collapses and injures three workers

A 70-year-old builder was fined and given a suspended sentence following the collapse of a roof which injured three workers.

Man crushed to death and company fined £1.5m

In 2019, Justin Day was working at Tata Steel's Port Talbot steelworks plant and was called out to resolve an issue with a large conveyor system.

Reversing HGV kills worker resulting in £1m fine

Mr Warburton was making a delivery in Manchester for Bestway Northern Limited, a wholesale supplier and was acting as banksman for his colleague who was reversing the HGV. Sadly, whilst directing the vehicle, Mr Warburton was crushed between the HGV and a wall.

Multi-agency collaboration results in fine for ignoring fire safety

Glovers Court Ltd was undertaking a redevelopment project of a former warehouse when Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service (LFRS) inspected the project and identified a number of fire safety issues.

Blatant disregard of fire safety leaves bar with £160k fine

Showtime Sports Bar in Huddersfield was issued with an enforcement notice as inspections identified a number of fire hazards.

Second day at work ends in tragedy as roofer falls to death through skylight

Four workers were installing over-cladding to a large industrial unit in Walsall. One of the workers fell through a glass-wire skylight onto the concrete floor, some 23-feet below.

Cast iron pipe injures 5-year-old during work on house extension

Building work was being carried out on a house extension in Totton, when a loose pipe fell hitting a child below.

Not guilty verdict for couple following death of gardener

Paul Marsden was working as a gardener for Mr and Mrs Prest. Tragically, he suffered a fatal accident after the quad bike he had been using to spray weedkiller on their fields crushed and asphyxiated him.

Food safety

Hospital stay for 7 year old after restaurant's failure to ensure meal was gluten-free

A 7-year-old child suffered a severe allergic reaction after a visit to a former jungle themed restaurant, Rainforest Café on Shaftesbury Avenue.

Fine for Asda for displaying out-of-date food for sale

Inspections at an Asda store in Merseyside resulted in a prosecution after they found out-of-date products on display on its shelves.

Couple prosecuted for hazardous takeaway conditions

Environmental Health officers visited a takeaway in Newcastle, Jesmond Tandoori, three times in 2024.

Environmental

Farmer fined £89k for illegal waste dump

Martin Harvey, a 64-year-old from St Newlyn East, was recently prosecuted in Truro Crown Court for operating an illegal waste site including hazardous materials such as asbestos.

Consultations / Statistics / Guidance

HSE Launches Call for Evidence: Reviewing LOLER and PSSR for Modernisation and Clarity

On 1 October 2025, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) announced a Call for Evidence to review the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations (LOLER) and Pressure Systems Safety Regulations (PSSR).

Work place fatalities - HSE Report 2025

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has published its annual statistics on work-related fatalities for the period April 2024 to March 2025, revealing that 124 workers lost their lives in workplace incidents across Great Britain.

HSE Consultation: Proposed Reforms to the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012

The HSE has launched a consultation on proposed reforms to the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 (CAR 2012), aiming to strengthen the management of asbestos risks in workplaces.

The 12 Claims of Christmas: A Festive Legal Round-Up

Thu, 18 Dec 2025 09:10:00 Z

As the festive season descends and the halls of justice echo with the sound of sleigh bells (or perhaps the clatter of legal submissions), we present the General Liability team's “12 Claims of Christmas”, which is a merry medley of recent cases. So, pour yourself a cup of mulled wine (or a strong coffee), and join us as we sing through some of the most memorable claims of the year.

Money Covered: The Month That Was - the FCA's Vehicle Finance Redress Scheme Consultation

Wed, 17 Dec 2025 10:20:00 Z

In this episode, Mel is joined by David Allinson to discuss the FCA’s proposed section 404 consumer redress scheme for vehicle finance, focusing on discretionary commission arrangements, the scheme’s scope (regulated agreements from 2007 to November 2024), rebuttable presumptions of unfairness and loss, and an estimated £8.2bn in redress averaging about £700 per file.

Insurance and the art of uncertainty (With Sir David Spiegelhalter)

Tue, 16 Dec 2025 12:28:00 Z

In this episode, Peter Mansfield and Sir David Spiegelhalter explore the intricate relationship between insurance and uncertainty. They discuss the nature of uncertainty, the role of statistics, and the importance of effective communication in risk assessment.

Taxing Matters: A very VATy Christmas with Philip Simpson KC from Old Square Tax Chambers

Tue, 16 Dec 2025 09:00:00 Z

In this festive edition of Taxing Matters, RPC’s Senior Associate and Taxing Matters host, Alexis Armitage, is joined by Philip Simpson KC of Old Square Tax Chambers, well known VAT expert and part-time stand-up comedian. Together, they embark on an insightful sleigh ride through the VAT implications of classic Christmas fare, decorations, and traditions, demystifying which seasonal treats and trimmings may attract HMRC’s attention.

Surveillance Evidence and Breaking the Chain: The Court’s Approach in Haley v Newcold Ltd [2025]

Mon, 15 Dec 2025 14:49:00 Z

It is unusual for a judge to have to decide the motives behind an elective below the knee a amputation, however this is exactly what the judge was required to do in the recent case of Hayley v Newcold Ltd [2025].

The Week That Was - 12 December 2025

Fri, 12 Dec 2025 15:29:00 Z

Howells Refits Historic Digbeth Building into Low Carbon Design Hub for EH Smith Architectural Solutions

Howells has refitted a 150-year-old industrial building, turning it into an innovative design space for architects and construction industry professionals. Howells was employed by EH Smith Architectural Solutions to turn the building into an "innovation and design hub for the built environment" where "architects, designers, manufacturers, engineers, contractors, and student can explore new low-carbon materials and test construction technologies to deliver more affordable, sustainable buildings".

Retaining the building’s historic fabric, it showcases new terracotta systems, brick craft, artist commissions and experimental material installations. As a material lab, it provides facilities to test and prototype Europe’s largest collection of brick types, healthy, breathable low carbon construction systems geared to overheating and climate risks, and full-scale mock ups.

Located in investment rich Digbeth (including the new BBC studios), the centre signals a regional push for skills, innovation and manufacturing leadership.

Find the full article here.

NHBC’s Northstowe Apprenticeship Hub Approved in £100m Skills Drive

Planning approval has been granted for NHBC’s multi skill Training Hub in Northstowe, Cambridgeshire — part of a £100m UK-wide network of 12 hubs that will train 3,000 apprentices annually. The Northstowe hub, delivered in partnership with Keepmoat and Homes England, will train around 200 apprentices per year and is expected to open in early 2026.

Focused on high demand trades — bricklaying, groundworks and site carpentry — the hub will provide immersive, real site learning from day one, with accelerated completion in 14–18 months (significantly faster than traditional routes). Additional capacity will support upskilling, bootcamps, masterclasses and sessions for career changers and schools.

Designed to be flexible and responsive to local needs and evolving regulatory requirements, the hub aims to tackle the construction skills shortage and support delivery of the Government’s target of 1.5 million homes this Parliament by creating a pipeline of skilled, site-ready tradespeople.

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 12 December 2025

Fri, 12 Dec 2025 11:41:00 Z

The fourth episode of Season 4 of our podcast, Money Covered – The Month That Was, where the team looks at Employment Practices Liability insurance and its relationship to Directors & Officers insurance, is now available.

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Headline development

FCA streamlines insurance rules as Consumer Duty settles in

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has confirmed changes designed to simplify insurance regulation and reduce compliance costs for insurers, whilst maintaining appropriate levels of protection for smaller commercial customers.

Under the rules, insurers and intermediaries will have greater discretion over how often they review products and how much continual professional development (CPD) staff are required to complete, encouraging a more outcomes-based approach. These changes all form part of a post-Consumer Duty and post-Brexit recalibration, with the FCA signalling plans to remove more than 100 pages of legacy insurance guidance from the Handbook to streamline the regime.

The FCA also intends further amendments next year, such as reviewing international rule application and technical Consumer Duty adjustments where obligations may be duplicative or overly complex. Industry bodies have broadly welcomed the direction of travel but urged clarity on how the new framework will apply in practice, particularly concerning overseas business and the scope of conduct rules.

To read FCA's policy statement of simplifying the insurance rules, please click here.

Accountants

IFoA withdraws Actuarial Profession Standard (APS) L2

In November 2025, the Regulatory Board of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) decided to withdraw Actuarial Profession Standard L2: The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Communications by Actuaries) Regulations 2003. APS L2 summarises various obligations placed on members working in life insurance. These obligations arise from the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Communications by Actuaries) Regulations 2003, as well as from rules issued by the FCA and PRA.

The IFoA has justified the change on the basis that no significant issues have arisen in this area of work since APS L2 was introduced in 2011, and that APS L2 does not impose obligations beyond those already placed on members by the UK government, FCA, or PRA. The Regulatory Board therefore does not believe that withdrawing APS L2 would pose a significant risk to the public interest. APS L2 will be withdrawn from 23 January 2026.

To read the IFoA's announcement, please click here.

Pensions

TPR publishes revised administration guidance for trustees

The Pension Regulator has published revised administration guidance designed to help schemes and their administrators deliver high-quality services that safeguards member benefits and build trust in the pensions system by ensuring the accurate, timely, and secure administration of pension benefits. The regulator has consolidated its administration expectations in recognition that administration is now a "critical driver of good outcomes" rather than a "back-office function".

The guidance replaces the previous "Administration of a DC Pension Scheme" guidance and will apply to all scheme types. It sets out the expectations of trustees and managers on key administration activities including member communications, data management, disaster recovery and business continuity planning.

The guidance introduces several new elements such as:

Calling out the importance of having a policy to plan administration and having robust arrangements in place to enable the effective oversight of outsourced or in-house administration.
Introducing guidance on IT system governance, including assurance on system adequacy, change control processes, technological benefits with proper oversight, and regular backups; and
Broadening performance measurement beyond time-based commitments for a true reflection of the quality and accuracy of the administration service.

To read the revised administration guidance, please click here.

Government promises statutory guidance on trustees' fiduciary duties in investing

At the report stage and third reading of the Pension Schemes Bill, the pension minister, Torsten Bell MP, announced that the government intends to bring forward legislation that will allow it to develop statutory guidance on fiduciary duties for the trust-based private pensions sector.

Bell acknowledged that there has been a "long-running debate" on the scope of trustees’ investment duties and their interpretation of the same when making investment decisions and confirmed the guidance will provide practical support to trustees about how to comply with their fiduciary duties in considering wider factors, including systemic risks (such as climate risk) and members’ standards of living. However, he noted that "this is about giving trustees that ability and not specifying that they must do so".

In doing so the Government aims to give trustees added confidence that they can invest in the long-term interests of their members and society. The government will set out more details on its guidance plans in a matter of months.

To read a news article on this, please clickhere.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

FCA announces proposals to boost UK investment culture

The FCA has announced what it described as a "landmark package" to boost UK investment culture.

The proposals focus on encouraging investment in the UK by giving firms greater confidence when it comes to classifying retail and professional investors. For retail customers, the FCA suggests moving away from prescriptive and complex templates and instead providing customers with material that informs and engages them, with a view to shifting the dial on risk appetite. The FCA has also sought views on how, in an evolving retail investment landscape, long-term regulation can keep pace.

The FCA proposes setting a clearer boundary between retail and professional investors, drawing a line between the two so that wholesale markets can remain agile and innovative. The intention is to give firms more confidence when dealing with professional investors outside retail regulations. The proposals state that, to be classified as a professional investor, the threshold will remain high, and that wealthy and experienced investors would have the option to opt out of retail regulations.

The FCA’s executive director of markets, Simon Walls, said that the proposed measures support investment risk culture across the spectrum.

To read the FCA's announcement, please click here.

FCA sets out expectations for firms collaborating to manufacture financial products and provide services

On 8 December 2025 the FCA set out its expectations for firms that collaborate with each other to manufacture financial products and services. The statement does not introduce any new rules or regulations but instead provides firms with clarity on how the relevant rules (such as the Consumer Duty, PROD, and Principles for Businesses) should be interpreted and applied.

In addition, the statement provides examples of good and bad practice in the context of collaboration with other firms.

Examples of good practice include: unambiguous allocation of manufacturer responsibilities; robust governance and Senior Management accountability; clearly defined target markets; thorough fair value assessments; effective information‑sharing across partners; oversight of distribution; pre‑ and post‑launch testing; ongoing monitoring of customer outcomes; timely remediation and redress; and comprehensive documentation and audit trails.
Examples of bad practice include: vague roles and reliance on partners without challenge; weak product governance; inadequate data‑sharing; superficial or missing value assessments; misaligned remuneration; insufficient oversight of appointed representatives and third‑party distributors; limited outcome monitoring; and reactive fixes that ignore root causes.

The FCA stresses that collaboration must not dilute accountability and that firms must remain responsible for delivering and evidencing good outcomes, including fair value. Boards are also expected to resource, challenge and oversee these arrangements.

To read the Statement, please clickhere.

FCA considers bringing in standardised disclosure for model portfolios

On 8 December, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) launched a suite of consultation papers to “boost investment culture in the UK”, with a key focus on harmonising disclosure and regulatory treatment between model portfolio services (MPS) and authorised funds. Whilst MPS have grown popular among retail investors by offering easier access, the FCA notes they face similar risks to authorised funds but are not subject to equivalent conduct of business or product disclosure requirements. This makes it harder for consumers to compare options and understand risk

The watchdog is seeking feedback on standardising disclosures to enable clearer comparisons of risks, costs and opportunities, and exploring outcome based rules alongside the Consumer Duty for MPS design and management (e.g. investment powers, liquidity and fair order handling). The FCA also signals a desire to improve efficiency and reduce duplication for firms operating both funds and MPS without curbing innovation.

To read FCA's press release on this, please click here.

With thanks to this week's contributors: Daniel Parkin, Dorian Nunzek, Damien O'Malley, Ben Simmonds, Haiying Li, James Parsons, and Lauren Butler

Sports Ticker #142 - Rising rates hit clubs and the Enhanced Games’ merger milestone - a speed read of commercial updates from the sports world

Fri, 12 Dec 2025 10:26:00 Z

As always, if there are any issues on which you’d like more information (or if you have any questions or feedback), please do let us know or get in touch with your usual contact at RPC.

UK aims to bring football home (again) with bold 2035 bid
Following the groundbreaking European success of the Lionesses on English soil in 2022, the UK has submitted a bid to host the 2035 Women’s World Cup. The success of the uncontested bid would mark the first World Cup competition hosted in the UK in almost 70 years. The 2035 competition is forecast to be eight times bigger than Euro 2022. 22 stadiums were listed in the bid as potential venues including what will become England’s largest stadium, the new 100,000 seater Old Trafford. The hosting of the 2035 World Cup would mark a milestone for women’s football across the UK. A whopping 4.5 million tickets would be made available for fans, and the tournament would be the largest single-sport event ever staged in the UK. The successful bid is set to be announced in April 2026.

Financial injection: Enhanced Games to go public
The increasingly controversial Enhanced Games has announced plans to go public via a merger between its corporate entity, Enhanced Ltd, and Hong Kong-based SPAC, A Paradise Acquisition. The move, still subject to regulatory approval, would see the new multi-sport tournament become valued at $1.2 billion in the run up to its debut event in Las Vegas next May. Provided that there are no redemptions, the merger is set to bring in as much as $200 million in gross cash proceeds. The capital gains will offer a welcome safety net for organisers ahead of the inaugural tournament in 2026, which is set to offer an eye-watering prize purse of $500,000 per event. However, concerns remain about the premise of the project, which encourages athletes to “push the boundaries of human performance.” As covered in Sports Tickers #130 and #136, critics have posed questions about the risk to athletes’ health presented by use of performance enhancing drugs, and the dangers posed to fair play and sporting integrity.

R360 launch pushed to 2028 as rugby bodies raise concerns
The proposed global rugby series, R360, has delayed its debut by two years, with its board stating that a 2026 launch would not meet operational or commercial standards. World Rugby had yet to grant sanctioning of the tournament, raising concerns over event staging, calendar clashes and player release. The earliest approval point would have been June 2026 - only four months before the initial proposed start. The shift follows resistance from major stakeholders, including the British & Irish Lions, which has prohibited players from combining R360 participation with international duties (see Sports Ticker #138 for more). Similarly, Australia’s NRL has warned that any player who leaves the code for R360 would face a 10-year ban. The new 2028 timeline avoids clashing with the men’s Rugby World Cup and the first women’s Lions tour, though it now coincides with the planned 2028 Club World Cup - leaving its place in the schedule to be determined.

Great Britain steers to SailGP Glory: champions cash in on $2m Prize
Great Britain claimed their first SailGP championship in Abu Dhabi, winning the Grand Final and securing the $2 million top prize - part of $4.4 million earned across the season, underlining the league’s growing commercial scale. The winner-takes-all format featured the top three teams from the 14-event season, with Britain overturning Australia and New Zealand after a strategic split at the final upwind gate which delivered the defining breeze advantage. The British squad, led by driver Dylan Fletcher and supported by strategist Hannah Mills, entered the final as the most consistent performers and qualified top of the season standings. The competition is set to expand to 14 teams in the 2027 season, with three teams bidding for a place reportedly set at €100 million. Season six begins in January 2026 in Perth, as SailGP continues making headway into high-growth markets around the world.

Premier League stadium valuations spark steep tax surge
Premier League clubs are bracing for hefty tax rises next year as stadium rateable values are set to increase drastically, after new business rates payment calculations announced in the Autumn Budget. Analysis of Valuation Office Agency (VOA) data by global tax firm, Ryan, found that the estimated annual rental value of stadiums across the top five English football divisions have increased to £111.74 million - a rise of 25%. According to the analysis, clubs including Arsenal and Manchester United may see rates rise by as much as £1 million. Regardless of the fact that it is currently in administration, Sheffield Wednesday also saw a 21% rise in rateable value. Explaining the increase, a Ryan spokesperson said the valuation “is driven entirely by income and operating performance.” The last revaluation was in April 2021 which reflected a period when stadiums were operating below capacity due to COVID-19, significantly reducing their income.

Extra time...

…and finally, the NASCAR antitrust trial could lead to a restructuring of NASCAR as we know it. NASCAR teams Front Row Motorsports and 23XI Racing – co-owned by three-time Daytona 500 winner, Denny Hamlin, and basketball icon, Michael Jordan – accuse the racing association of running a monopoly that corners teams into complying with rules and financial arrangements. NASCAR, which has an estimated worth of $5 billion, is accused of suppressing innovation and profit amongst teams by requiring them to drive NASCAR's NEXT Gen cars and use pre-approved licensed suppliers for all repairs. One of the key issues at trial is NASCAR's revenue sharing model. 23XI and Front Row claim that whilst over $400 million was paid by teams to the France Family Trust, 75% of NASCAR teams lost money in 2024. Jim France, owner of NASCAR, fully denies all the claims made against the company.

Brazil Enacts Landmark Insurance Legislation: The Brazilian Insurance Act (Law No. 15.040/2024)

Thu, 11 Dec 2025 16:24:00 Z

The new insurance regulation in Brazil enters into effect today,11 December 2025.

Tribunal orders HMRC to disclose documents to taxpayers in offshore trust case

Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:00:00 Z

In Evans & Ors v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1112 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) ordered HMRC to disclose most of the documents sought by the taxpayers.

ML Covered - December 2025

Mon, 08 Dec 2025 11:00:00 Z

Company founder successfully defends breach of duties claim in the High Court

Background

Jonathan Friend (the Defendant) was the founder and former director of Friend MTS Limited (Friend MTS) as well as being a non-executive director and substantial shareholder of Friend Media Technology Systems Limited (FMTS), a Jersey-registered parent company (together the Claimants).

In 2022, a private equity firm made a significant investment into the Claimants. Divisions soon emerged between the Defendant and the private equity firm's management appointees to the Claimants, and the Defendant was removed as a director of Friend MTS on 22 November 2024.

The Claimants alleged that, following his removal, the Defendant breached his fiduciary duties by seeking to compete with the Claimants, which resulted in a lost opportunity to win back a previous customer in a deal worth £1.8 million, and an alleged missed chance to acquire a rival business valued at £5.42 million. The Defendant had also established a company, Friend TP Ltd (Friend TP), for this purpose.

The Defendant denied the allegations, asserting that he had acted pursuant to his duties and that the allegations were an attempt on the part of the Claimants to put pressure on him in relation to separate proceedings between them in the Employment Tribunal and in Jersey.

Decision

The judge dismissed the claims in their entirety. In respect of the lost opportunity to win back a past customer, the judge concluded that, based on the contemporaneous documents, the Defendant had neither contacted nor attempted to contact the previous customer in relation to the provision of services. Regarding the allegation that the Claimants had missed the chance to acquire a rival business, the judge determined the supporting evidence to be "inadequate," and that the alleged £5.42 million loss was unjustifiable and had likely been included "in the context of their wider dispute."

The judge also determined that the Defendant incorporating Friend TP months earlier, and which also remained dormant, did not constitute competitive activity and therefore did not breach any restrictive covenants.

Overall, the judge criticised the lack of supporting evidence for many of the allegations made by the Claimants. The judge assessed the Claimants' losses as being "entirely without foundation" and also highlighted that the Claimants could have cleared much of their suspicion of the Defendant if they had made further enquiries of what had been discussed at the time.

Commentary

The judgment illustrates that companies who suspect that a director may not be acting within their duties should adequately investigate the matter to fully ascertain the facts before bringing a claim for breach of duty. The judgment also highlights that companies are expected to adequately evidence their claimed losses, which can potentially be challenging in circumstances where it is alleged that a company has lost an opportunity.

To read more, please click here.

Director who transferred company assets after liquidation found to be in breach of fiduciary duty

In Mitchell and another (Joint Liquidators of MBI International & Partners Inc (In Liquidation)) (Appellants) v Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber (Respondent) No 2UKSC/2024/0076, the Supreme Court held that a director had breached his fiduciary duties by transferring company assets after the company had entered liquidation.

Background

Sheikh Mohamed Al Jaber (the Respondent) was the director of MBI International & Partners Inc (the Company). In March 2009, the Company acquired 891,761 shares (the Shares) in JJW Inc, another company associated with the Respondent. The Shares were transferred in return for sums of money which were to be “paid on demand” by the Company. Payment was never demanded, and no payments were made.

The Company was wound up on a creditor’s application on 10 October 2011, and the Respondent's powers as director came to an end, although the Company was still the registered owner of the Shares. In 2016, the Respondent, without the knowledge of the Company's liquidator, signed undated share transfer forms in his capacity as director to transfer the Shares to a new company, JJW Guernsey.

In May 2019, the Company’s liquidator commenced proceedings against the Respondent claiming that the 2016 share transfer was void, the Respondent had acted in breach of fiduciary duty or in breach of trust for transferring the Shares, and that JJW Guernsey was a knowing recipient of the Shares.

The trial judge and Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the liquidators, but the Court of Appeal allowed the Respondent to appeal on the ground that the liquidators had failed to establish any loss (see our blog on the Court of Appeal's decision here).

Decision

The Supreme Court held that the Respondent was in breach of fiduciary duty for transferring the Shares. The Court rejected the Respondent's argument that a single indivisible act cannot both create a fiduciary duty and be a breach of that duty.

The Court also held that the Company did suffer financial loss because the Shares were not acquired subject to a vendor’s liens, as claimed by the Respondent. The Court found that the intention behind the Company acquiring the Shares had been to enable an initial public offering of the shares in JJW Inc. However, the Court found that the existence of an unpaid vendor’s lien on the Shares would have prevented their sale in the IPO, meaning there was nothing to suggest the parties intended to create the lien.

The Court also ruled that the loss suffered by the Company should be calculated by reference to the value of the Shares at the date of the breach of fiduciary duty. Compensation was calculated at €67,123,403.36.

Commentary

The case demonstrates that insolvency practitioners have a flexible and broad discretion to pursue fiduciaries in instances where they believe fiduciaries have breached their duties. More specifically, the case serves as a reminder that if a fiduciary wishes to rely on a later event as breaking the chain of causation between their breach and the beneficiary’s loss, the burden lies on the fiduciary to prove that later event, and that it impacts causation.

To read the judgment, please click here.

Employment Rights Bill update: the Commons consider the Lords' amendments

The Employment Rights Bill (ERB) reached a pivotal stage on 5 November 2025, as the House of Commons reviewed a further set of amendments from the House of Lords, following their debate on 28 October. This ongoing parliamentary ‘ping-pong’ reflects the process of refining the Bill’s final wording before it can proceed to Royal Assent.

We previously covered the Commons’ initial response to the Lords’ amendments in our October edition of ML Covered (see here).

The latest Commons debate demonstrates the Government’s determination to deliver its original reform agenda, even where the Lords have proposed more measured or clarifying changes.

Key outcomes from the Commons

Unfair dismissal: Labour ministers agree six-month qualifying period

A central point of contention was the qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection. The Lords advocated reinstating a six-month qualifying period, allowing employers a probationary window to assess new staff. The Commons then rejected this, upholding the Government’s stance that unfair dismissal protection should apply from day one of employment. However, Labour ministers have now agreed to introduce the right to make a claim after six months of service instead of on day one, with a start date of 1 January 2027. This follows backlash from business groups.

Guaranteed hours and zero-hours contracts

The Commons voted down a Lords amendment that would have allowed workers to request guaranteed hours where their actual working patterns exceeded those stated in their contracts. Instead, the Government’s original proposal stands: employers must issue contracts that accurately reflect established working patterns. This represents a significant change for sectors reliant on flexible staffing, including hospitality, retail, social care, and logistics, and will necessitate closer monitoring of hours and more frequent contract updates.

Seasonal work definitions and coverage

Another area of disagreement was the definition of seasonal work. The Lords sought to narrow this definition, which would have excluded some workers from predictable-hours protections. The Commons disagreed, maintaining that the existing clause and regulations provide sufficient flexibility. The broader definition will bring more workers in cyclical or short-term roles within the scope of new rights, increasing administrative responsibilities for industries such as agriculture, tourism, and events.

Trade union procedures and industrial action rules

The Commons also considered technical amendments relating to trade union political funds and voting thresholds for industrial action. While the Lords supported retaining elements of the existing, more restrictive regime, the Commons favoured the Government’s streamlined approach. Although largely procedural, these changes may facilitate union ballots and industrial action, potentially increasing operational uncertainty for employers amid ongoing industrial activity.

What's next?

The Bill now returns to the House of Lords for further consideration of the Commons’ latest positions, with another round of exchanges anticipated before the final text is agreed.

Update: On 17 November 2025, the Lords debated the final amendments, including motions confirming the Commons’ disagreement with earlier Lords amendments (such as those relating to guaranteed hours) and agreeing to Government amendments in lieu (for example, on unfair dismissal and trade union provisions).

In parallel, the Government has launched consultations to shape the practical operation of the reforms. These cover topics such as union access to workplaces, employer duties to inform workers of union rights, bereavement-related leave (including pregnancy loss), and enhanced protections from dismissal for pregnant employees and new mothers. These consultations, expected to conclude in early 2026, will inform the secondary legislation and guidance underpinning the new regime.

Takeaways for Insurers

For insurers, the recent Commons and Lords debates reinforce the clear direction towards a more protective employment rights framework, with implications for risk profiles across the sector.

The Commons’ commitment to stricter obligations regarding contractual terms, signals a future claims landscape characterised by increased early-service disputes and challenges around contractual entitlements and worker classification. The more permissive approach to union ballot procedures may also lead to a rise in industrial disputes.

Insurers should monitor these developments closely. As further details emerge, it will be essential to review internal processes, update risk models, and adapt client communications to reflect the evolving regulatory environment.

Conclusion

The ERB is nearing its final form, with the Commons largely maintaining the Government’s original proposals despite Lords’ interventions. The forthcoming consultations and secondary legislation will be critical in determining how these reforms are implemented in practice. Employers and insurers alike should prepare for a more robust employment rights regime, with heightened obligations and increased scrutiny of employment practices.

To ensure that you stay abreast of this fast-moving area and the relevant changes being proposed, please sign up to our live ERB Tracker, and for all things employment, don’t forget our fortnightly podcast, The Work Couch.

2025 Autumn Budget pension announcements

The Autumn Budget has introduced numerous changes to pensions, the most notable of which is the change to salary sacrifice rules.

A salary sacrifice scheme allows employees to reduce their salary in return for a non-cash benefit – in this context, it allows employees to contribute a portion of their salary to their pension and, in exchange, the employer makes an agreed contribution. Presently, the employee's salary sacrifice contributions are not subject to income tax or National Insurance (NI). However, this is set to change from April 2029.

The Government has highlighted that the costs of the tax relief associated with salary sacrifice schemes have increased from £2.8bn in 2016/17 to £8bn (projected) in 2030/31 and therefore reform is required. Consequently, from April 2029, NI relief on salary sacrifice contributions into pension schemes will be capped to the first £2,000 per year. Over this amount, NI will be payable on salary sacrifice contributions at the normal rate.

Many in the pensions industry have suggested that the decision undermines the work that is being done to address pension inadequacies and the drive to encourage individuals to save for their retirement (thus to avoid an overreliance on the State). However, the Government has suggested that the NI tax relief disproportionately benefitted higher earners and that the new cap will shield 74% of basic rate taxpayers using salary sacrifice and the Government will continue with its efforts to support pension saving through auto-enrolment and tax relief.

Given that the changes are four years away, it will be interesting to see how attitudes develop during this time.

Unused pension funds and inheritance tax: an update

In last year's Autumn Budget, it was announced that from April 2027, unused pension funds and death benefits will no longer be exempt from inheritance tax (IHT) and will contribute to the value of an individual's estate. This means that where an individual's assets exceed the nil rate band of £325,000, IHT will also become payable on a member's pension pot.

The change was brought around following the realisation that some pension schemes were being sold as a tax planning tool to enable high net worth individuals to transfer wealth without their estate incurring an IHT charge. The Government's aim was to introduce measures to tackle the loopholes associated with inherited wealth and make IHT fairer.

However, the changes only appear to have exacerbated the issue: pension pots are now being treated as assets in the context of estate planning and a survey has found that nearly half of pensions advisers say that clients are reducing their pension contributions to invest in IHT solutions ahead of the April 2027 deadline or exploring the making of gifts. Similarly, the change appears to have an adverse effect on pension saving with attitudes of the over 55s having soured. This cohort are therefore less likely to maintain contributions in circumstances where they consider it likely that their pension pot will be taxed on their death.

It can be expected with any change to tax rules that there will be a proportion of society that is not in support. Pensions advisers need to ensure that individuals are not making rash or risky decisions with their pension funds which could lead to greater losses than the potential IHT charge payable by their estate.

Insurance Covered: A look at captive insurance (With Caroline Wagstaff)

Mon, 08 Dec 2025 10:06:00 Z

In this conversation, Peter Mansfield and Caroline Wagstaff discuss the concept of captive insurance, its benefits, and the current efforts to establish a captive insurance market in London.

The Week That Was - 5 December 2025

Fri, 05 Dec 2025 16:55:00 Z

Insurance Covered: A look at Fine Art & Specie insurance (with Joshila Sharma)

In this podcast episode, Peter Mansfield interviews Joshila Sharma, a specialist in Fine Art and Specie insurance. They explore the broad definitions of fine art and specie, the unique items covered under these insurance policies, and the intersection with cargo insurance. Joshila shares her experiences in the industry, including the most expensive items she has insured, and the challenges posed by natural disasters. She also discusses her motivation for starting Amalthea Underwriting and her passion for marine conservation.

Listen to the full episode here.

Autumn Budget 2025

The UK Autumn Budget 2025 has landed. In this article Ben Roberts and Julia Szerer outline the government’s main tax announcements for businesses, investors and individuals. It highlights changes to business rates, capital allowances, investment schemes, personal tax thresholds, dividend and savings tax rates, and new property-related taxes. Of particular interest to those in the construction sector is the Construction Industry Scheme. From 6 April 2026, in a strengthening of HMRC's powers, businesses may lose their CIS gross payment status, be hit by a 30% penalty, and be assessed for any tax loss if involved with fraudulent evasion of tax.

Read the full article here .

Potential site identified for relocation of historic meat and fish markets

'Albert Island' has been identified for the relocation of the historic meat and fish markets (the Markets) in London, and which are current sited in Smithfield and Billingsgate. The new site, which has been announced by The City of London Corporation (and which currently operates the Markets) would, if viable, mean that the Markets could trade alongside each other.

To proceed, planning permission for Albert Island would need to be applied for and granted. The Markets also need to obtain Parliament's permission to cease trading at their current sites. However, the move has been welcomed by traders as a positive step in securing the future of the Markets.

Read the full article here .

"Mansion Tax" - comments by Chartered Institute of Taxation

Leigh Sayliss, the chair of the CIT's Property Taxes committee has released comments that the proposed "mansion tax" for properties worth over £2 million announced in the recent budget "adds further complication to the current system of property taxation". Citing the 9 main taxes which require consideration for property owners (council tax, SDLT (England)/land transaction tax (Wales)/building transaction tax (Scotland), annual tax on enveloped dwellings (above £500,000), income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax, VAT and national insurance), she highlights the risk of a tax on the value of the property risks disproportionately affecting those who are "asset-rich, cash-poor" such as pensioners or those who otherwise have limited equity in the property.

The government plans to consult on the charge in early 2026 and implementation is planned for April 2028.

Read CIT's comments here.

Application to strike out fails for Grays Thurrock Properties Ltd in defending anaerobic digestion plant claim

Confirming that a Reply to a Defence is for "yes, but" style arguments, but not raising new causes of action which ought to be in the Particulars of Claim per Martlet Homes Ltd v Mulalley & Co Ltd [2021] EWHC 296, Jonathan Acton Davis KC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court rejected GTP's attempt to strike out BioConstruct Limited's claim against them for unpaid sums of just under £920,000 arising from Milestones 14, RR1 and RR2 of their mutual contract.

The Judge further commented that, given BioConstruct's claim relied upon cited authority, "it is impossible to say it has no prospects of success" to justify strike out under CPR24.3. As no defect in the pleading could be identified, or was raised in the application, there appeared to be no difficulty in the court discerning the nature of the claim to establish striking out under CPR 3.4(2)(a).

Read the full judgment here.

UK's largest independent timber supplier enters administration

National Timber Group, the UK’s largest independent timber supplier, has entered administration following a challenging trading period and liquidity issues. The group, which operates 47 sites across England and Scotland and employs 1,150 people, appointed Michael Magnay, Gemma Quinn and Jonathan Marston of Alvarez & Marsal as joint administrators on 26 November. The business, formed through acquisitions of brands such as Thornbridge and Arnold Laver, suffered a pre-tax loss of £6.3 million in 2023, with directors citing macroeconomic uncertainty, high interest rates, and reduced demand as key factors. Immediate consequences include 561 redundancies. The administrators have launched a sale process and remain hopeful of finding a buyer for all parts of the group. The remaining sites continue to operate, and support is being provided to affected employees during this difficult period for the sector.

Read the full article here.

With thanks to: Emrys Moore, Jessica Hill and Hannah McDonagh

A penalty shoot-out? Not for default interest rates

Fri, 05 Dec 2025 14:42:00 Z

The High Court in Houssein and others v London Credit Limited and others [2025] EWHC 2749 (Ch) decided that a default interest rate of 4% compounding monthly under a facility agreement is not a penalty, reversing its previous decision on the point.

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 5 December 2025

Fri, 05 Dec 2025 09:54:00 Z

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Headline development

FCA confirms plans to streamline complaints process for firms

The FCA has published Policy Statement PS25/19, outlining significant changes to the complaints reporting process for regulated firms. The initiative aims to reduce administrative burdens and improve clarity across the sector.

Key changes include clearer guidance, a more user-friendly reporting interface and streamlined data submission requirements to eliminate duplication and unnecessary complexities. In addition, five separate complaint returns will also be replaced by a single consolidated return. The FCA will also introduce a fixed 6-month reporting period for all firms to ensure consumers benefit from high-quality, actionable complaints data.

Sarah Pritchard, FCA deputy chief executive, commented: "These improvements are a significant step forward in ensuring transparency and consistency across the sector. By streamlining returns and introducing clearer guidance, we’re making it easier for firms to provide high-quality complaints data while strengthening our ability to protect consumers, particularly those who are most vulnerable."

To view the Policy Statement, please click here.

Pensions

TPR sets out its priorities for modernising pensions regulations

The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has published a speech by its Chief Executive, Nausicaa Delfas, outlining TPR’s vision for reform and its priorities for implementing the Pension Schemes Bill. TPR has stated that it is a pivotal moment for pensions, warning that 14.6 million people are under-saving and risk inadequate retirement income without systemic change. Delfas identifies three priorities: (1) improving governance; (2) delivering value for money; and (3) ensuring savers are well-informed about retirement choices.

In respect of governance, TPR says that trusteeship must evolve as schemes consolidate into larger funds, with higher governance standards. This includes trustees taking responsibility for improvements in data quality and technology adoption. TPR expects to launch a joint consultation with the FCA and DWP early next year on introducing a framework that ensures defined contribution pensions receive value for money. TPR has also warned that most savers risk losing value when accessing their pension pots, as only one in five currently have a plan for how to access their funds.

TPR wants trustees to consider the design, cost, and overall value of decumulation solutions from now so that they are ready for when duties come into force. Delfas also stated that TPR is working to reduce the regulatory burden, including by cutting the volume of evidence documents required from master trusts by around half and reviewing regulatory capital reserving requirements to ensure they are proportionate.

To read more, please click here.

Trustees urged to 'step up' in fight against pension fraud

TPR has called on trustees to take action to beat pension fraud as the "first line of defence", following analysis from Action Fraud which has revealed that savers over 55 are at a higher risk of being scammed.

TPR wants more trustees to sign up for its 'Pledge to Combat Pensions Scams' campaign, and for those that have signed up to go one step further and self-certify they are turning their commitment into action. Following the launch of the Pledge five years ago in partnership with the Money and Pensions Service (MaPS), over 650 schemes and organisations have signed up, with more than 31.5m memberships now protected.

To read more, please click here.

FOS developments

FOS spends £900k on abandoned AI tool

The FOS' annual report and accounts for the 2024/2025 year show that £3.5m was spent on the watchdog's data strategy, which included "designing and building new data warehouses and providing core foundations for the development and strengthening of [the FOS'] artificial intelligence and reporting strategies”. However, the accounts also show a write off of £900k due to an "impairment of our document identification Al solution due to a change in the technical solution”. It is understood that FOS has decided to use an off-the-shelf AI product, and is moving away from a large technology programme.

The FOS has said: "We are delivering a once in a generation reform programme to modernise our service and make it fit for today’s economy. The continuous delivery of changes and improvements is a key priority, and we are delivering at pace. We are harnessing the power of available technologies – including AI – to deliver efficiencies and transform our operations, allowing us to become a more agile organisation and focus our judgment where it matters most.”

To read more, please click here.

FOS sets out strategic priorities for a fairer and improved service

The FOS has unveiled its strategic priorities for the coming year, signalling a renewed focus on reform and enhanced service delivery. In its latest announcement, FOS emphasises its commitment to modernising operations, with a particular drive to streamline case-handling processes and deliver swifter, more consistent decisions. This modernisation effort is underpinned by investment in new technology and a review of internal procedures, aiming to make the service more efficient and accessible.

Central to the FOS’ plans is a pledge to improve the experience for both consumers and financial businesses. The organisation is placing greater emphasis on clear communication and transparency, ensuring that its processes are easier to navigate and that parties involved in disputes are kept well informed throughout. FOS also highlights the importance of collaboration, engaging with industry bodies and consumer groups to ensure its approach remains relevant and responsive to the evolving financial landscape.

Looking ahead, the FOS' objectives for the next year include adapting to new types of complaints and responding to changing consumer needs. The service reiterates its core commitment to impartiality and fairness, striving to deliver balanced outcomes for all parties. These reforms and forward-looking plans reflect the FOS’ goal to drive positive change within the financial dispute resolution sector, reinforcing its role as a trusted resource for both consumers and businesses

To read more, please click here.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

FCA brings forward lifting of the pause on motor finance complaints to 31 May 2026 and issues 'Dear CEO' letter

On Wednesday the FCA confirmed it will be lifting the pause on the handling of motor finance complaints on 31 May 2026 (rather than 31 July). The regulator has confirmed this timeframe allows it to finalise the compensation scheme and give firms a reasonable period to prepare, while the early lifting of the stay "reflects its commitment to ensuring consumers receive fair and timely outcomes".

The FCA paused its handling of some motor finance complaints in January 2024 in order to prevent inconsistent outcomes for consumers while it assessed whether there had been adequate disclosure of commissions between motor finance lenders and brokers. The FCA notes that legal clarity from the Supreme Court and High Court allowed it to proceed with a compensation scheme for customers who were treated unfairly.

Moreover, in a "Dear CEO" letter sent on 3 December, the regulator reminded firms that they should be progressing complaints and be ready to start issuing final responses if they are not covered by any scheme. It will publish the final compensation scheme rules in February or March 2026. It has confirmed that it will consider how the rules interact with the end of the complaint handling pause, to avoid firms having to send final responses that would otherwise be dealt with in the scheme.

To read more, please click here.

Emerging risks

Crypto governance needs private law frameworks, says master of the rolls

The Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, has emphasised the essential role of private law in governing crypto assets and decentralised finance (DeFi). He argued that private law which comprises of contract, property, and trust law provide the necessary legal frameworks for resolving disputes and clarifying rights within the rapidly evolving crypto sector. Sir Geoffrey highlighted that, while regulatory measures are important, they cannot fully address the complexities of ownership, transfer, and enforcement of rights in digital assets.

He explained that private law offers certainty and predictability, which are crucial for market confidence and the protection of participants in crypto transactions. The Master of the Rolls also noted that the courts are well-placed to adapt existing legal principles to new technologies, helping to fill gaps left by regulation and ensuring fair outcomes. In his view, effective crypto governance depends on a robust private law foundation, enabling innovation while safeguarding legal rights and obligations.

To read more, please click here.

With thanks to this week's contributors: Daniel Parkin, Dorian Nunzek, Ben Simmonds, James Parsons, and Lauren Butler

Insurance Bulletin - Hong Kong Autumn 2025

Fri, 05 Dec 2025 09:23:00 Z

Offshore Insurance Products in Focus

Hong Kong’s insurance market is served by more than 150 authorized insurers, offering a wide range of coverage options. Nonetheless, some policyholders look to offshore insurers for niche products or competitive features. Licensed insurance broker companies play a crucial role in advising clients on these offshore options and the regulations surrounding the placement of these products often arises.

Background

Under the Insurance Ordinance (Cap. 41), only authorized insurers may carry on insurance business in or from Hong Kong. Offshore insurers fall outside HKIA’s direct supervision, which is why brokers must apply heightened due diligence and disclosure when advising on such products. The "Code of Conduct for Licensed Insurance Broker Companies" makes these obligations clear – brokers must act in the best interests of clients, avoid conflicts of interest and maintain proper documentation.

Disclosure Requirements

When presenting offshore products, brokers are required to disclose the identity and regulatory status of the offshore insurer, its financial standing, the governing law and the jurisdiction for dispute resolution. Written acknowledgement of these disclosures must be obtained from clients. Beyond disclosure, brokers must explain the risks inherent in offshore policies – from claims handling limitations and foreign exchange exposure to tax implications, political uncertainties and solvency concerns. Suitability assessments must be thorough, advice must be documented, and due diligence must be rigorous.

Takeaway – The requirements on keeping policyholders fully informed are crucial. Failure to meet these obligations may result in regulatory action, including suspension or revocation of license, fines, or public reprimand. Notably this topic has been addressed specifically in the HKIA's most recent "Conduct in Focus" bulletin (which we look at further, below). Internationally, this approach aligns Hong Kong with practices in markets such as Singapore and the UK, where transparency and suitability are central to regulatory expectations.

HKIA Issues Practice Note on Remuneration Structures and Commission Spreading for Participating Policies (Effective from 2026)

On 30 July 2025, the HKIA issued a "Practice Note on Remuneration Structures of Authorized Insurers for Licensed Insurance Intermediaries for Participating Policies" (Practice Note). This guidance applies to long-term participating policies with regular premium payment terms and supplements existing requirements under the "Guideline on Underwriting Long Term Insurance Business" (GL16).

Key Requirements

Commission cap: No more than 70% of total commission may be paid in the first policy year.
Spreading rule: The remainder must be paid evenly over 5 years, or the full premium term if shorter.
Encouragement to exceed minimums: HKIA urges insurers and intermediaries to adopt even more conservative structures (e.g., lower upfront commission or longer spreading) to strengthen policyholder protection.
Governance obligations: Insurers must ensure fair allocation of costs, clear profit-sharing frameworks, proper segregation of assets and maintain records of non-financial performance metrics for at least seven years.

Exceptions

The spreading requirement does not apply to:

Overriding commissions for agent managers, if based on objective non-financial metrics.
Bonus commissions tied to persistency, product mix, or customer feedback.
Fixed remuneration packages not linked to policy sales.
Bancassurance commissions (subject to GL16).
Policies purchased by professional investors.

Impact

Participating policies are singled out because of their long-term nature and profit-sharing features, where fair remuneration is critical to protect policyholders. The new rules aim to reduce misaligned incentives, improve post-sale servicing and enhance transparency.

Internationally, Hong Kong’s approach aligns with global trends: the UK emphasizes commission disclosure, while Singapore has introduced remuneration guidelines to curb aggressive sales practices. Hong Kong’s framework positions it as a jurisdiction committed to consumer-centric regulation.

Implications for Insurers and Intermediaries

Operational recalibration: Commission frameworks must be revised, compliance protocols updated and non-financial metrics documented.
Record-keeping: Firms must maintain evidence of compliance for seven years.
Next steps: Review existing contracts, update governance manuals, train intermediaries and monitor further regulatory developments.

Takeaway – This Practice Note marks a significant step towards aligning intermediary incentives with policyholder interests. Insurers and intermediaries should review and adjust commission structures, strengthen governance and prepare for implementation of the Practice Note on 1 January 2026. It also ties in with the HKIA circular on Benchmark Referral Fees Requirements (September 2025) – this again aims to curb aggressive remuneration practices that prioritize sales over long-term servicing. We have written on this previously [here].

Captive Insurance: Hong Kong's New Momentum

Hong Kong has stated its aim of becoming a leading hub for captive insurance in Asia. In 2025, the HKIA approved two new captive insurers: Wayfoong (Asia) Limited and SAIC Motor Insurance Limited. These approvals are a positive market response and demonstrate momentum in the sector.

To attract more local and foreign enterprises to form captives in Hong Kong, a continuing incentive is available: since FY 2013/14, captives benefit from a 50% reduction in profits tax on insuring offshore risks. This long-standing concession remains a cornerstone of Hong Kong’s competitive offering.

Captive Insurance: What and Why?

Captive insurance is typically a tool used by multinational companies for tailored risk management and to reduce premiums otherwise paid to external insurers. Captives allow groups to retain control over their risk financing, improve cash flow and potentially access reinsurance markets directly.

The legal definition of "captive insurer" under Cap. 41 is a company authorised to carry on general insurance business only, with restrictions that its business must not cover compulsory insurance risks and is limited to insuring or reinsuring risks within its corporate group.

Set-up: Process and Regulatory Requirements

To establish a captive, the holding company must first apply to the HKIA for approval. Adequate information must be provided for HKIA to consider giving an "approval-in-principle". Upon full compliance with the requirements set out in the "approval-in-principle" letter (e.g., to establish a fully-fledged office and have the necessary capital in place) formal authorisation will be given. The approval process usually takes around three months.

The key regulatory requirements for captives sit within the Insurance (Marine Insurers and Captive Insurers) Rules, which prescribe a dedicated capital regime. Unlike commercial insurers, which must comply with complex solvency requirements, captives benefit from a simplified calculation method based on net premium or relevant claims outstanding. The capital base of a captive must be no less than HK$2,000,000, but it is not required to hold assets in Hong Kong – an attractive feature for multinational groups.

Risks and Considerations

While captive insurance offers many benefits, the HKIA has highlighted several risks for companies to consider. These include the need for enhanced corporate governance and risk management, as captives must be able to handle claims and maintain adequate reserves. The risk of regulatory non-compliance may also lead to penalties or a revocation of the captive's license. Companies must ensure transparency, maintain robust internal controls and regularly review their risk profiles.

Clear regulatory guidelines are welcomed by the market and provide a solid foundation for growth. Companies considering this route should assess the regulatory requirements and risks and seek professional advice where needed.

Takeaway – Hong Kong’s regime is designed to be straightforward and cost-efficient. Compared with Singapore, which has a more established captive market but stricter solvency requirements, Hong Kong offers a lighter regulatory burden and tax concessions. Labuan (Malaysia) also provides a competitive environment, but Hong Kong’s proximity to mainland China and its role as an international financial centre give it a unique advantage for Chinese and regional enterprises.

Some Key Regulatory Takeaways from Insurance Authority's "Conduct in Focus" Issue 11

The Hong Kong Insurance Authority (HKIA) has released Issue 11 of its "Conduct in Focus", touching on, among other topics, the rise in complaints in the first half of 2025.

Rise in Complaints

The HKIA reported a 33% increase in complaints in the first half of 2025, with 593 cases compared to 445 in the same period of 2024. Much of this was driven by policy actions such as cancellations, surrenders, renewals and administrative matters.

Early surrender requests in long-term policies remain particularly sensitive. These transactions often involve significant financial loss to policyholders. Insurers are required to apply rigorous checks to ensure decisions are informed and to manage anti-money laundering risks. While these procedures are necessary safeguards, they can frustrate policyholders if not explained clearly. The HKIA has emphasised that effective communication and efficient processing are key to reducing grievances.

Despite the short-term rise, the longer-term picture is more positive – during the past five years, complaints have trended downward compared to pre-pandemic levels, reflecting improvements in market conduct and consumer protection.

From a regulatory perspective, insurers are required by the "Guideline on the Corporate Governance of Authorised Insurers" (GL10) to establish clear policies and procedures to ensure all complaints are properly handled, including accessibility, proper record keeping, time frame and monitoring, and to resolve disputes with customers in a fair manner. The recent rise in complaints highlights the importance of strict adherence to these obligations, as poor complaint handling can itself become a regulatory breach and a focus for regulators.

Takeaway – The HKIA’s Conduct in Focus Issue 11 delivers clear messages. Insurers must communicate more proactively and clearly when handling policy actions, especially sensitive matters like early surrenders and must establish clear complaint handling policies and procedures.

This highlights the regulator’s continued push for a consumer-centric market. For insurers and intermediaries, the regulatory and compliance path forward is clear: strengthen governance, train staff and ensure that every interaction with policyholders is transparent, compliant and professional.

Final Aside – AML high on the regulatory radar

Hong Kong's next assessment by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) – the intergovernmental body responsible for assessing countries or jurisdictions compliance with anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing global standards (AMLCTF) – is due (at the time of writing) in the second half of 2029, followed by the FATF's "mutual evaluation" report in 2030. In the run up to that, all regulators for the financial industry and designated non-financial businesses and professions in Hong Kong are expected to show increased focus on regulated entities and individuals' compliance with customer due diligence and record-keeping requirements and AMLCTF laws and regulations. The HKIA conducts routine "AML/CFT Onsite Inspections" to ascertain standards of AMLCTF compliance across the Hong Kong insurance market. The HKIA's AMLCTF regulatory focus is on all authorised insurers carrying on long-term business and licensed insurance intermediaries carrying on regulated activities in respect of long-term business, to ensure that they (among other things) maintain effective AMLCTF controls and procedures and take all reasonable measures to mitigate money laundering and terrorist financing risks. Authorised insurers and licensed intermediaries should expect more regulatory focus on AMLCTF and be prepared for that.

Contact Us

Please contact Andrew, Beverly or Heidi if you have any queries regarding the issues raised in this publication or if you wish to consider commercial law or insurance matters in Hong Kong.

With thanks to Kylie Tang who assisted with the preparation of this publication.

Latest SFO guidance on corporate self-reporting, cooperation and DPAs

Thu, 04 Dec 2025 10:00:00 Z

In this article, Adam Craggs and Tom Jenkins of RPC's Tax, Investigations and Financial Crime team, consider the important guidance issued by the Serious Fraud Office in April 2025, providing information to companies on the agency's expectations relating to corporate self-reporting, cooperation during investigations and deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs).

Unfair prejudice claims & the "desirability test" for removing parties

Wed, 03 Dec 2025 21:37:00 Z

The High Court has recently ruled that it is appropriate to remove parties as respondents to a petition under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 (the Act) when no substantive remedy is sought against them, despite the wide jurisdiction in respect of relief afforded to unfair prejudice petitions. Further, it was held that section 994 should not be used as a means of seeking judgment on causes of action that are wholly distinct from the unfair prejudice claim itself.

Green claims update: November 2025

Wed, 03 Dec 2025 14:41:00 Z

For future updates, please subscribe here.

Key updates

Green Claims Under the Spotlight: 62% of Products Fail Which? Investigation

A Which? investigation into over 1,000 online product listings found 62% of products breached at least two of the CMA's Green Claims Code principles. Only 16% of products passed all checks. Most failures related to vague and unsubstantiated claims such as “sustainable” or “environmentally friendly”, or to broader failures to back-up claims such as through QR codes, hyperlinks or other signposting to further supporting information.

French court finds Total Energies misled consumers over climate action

TotalEnergies has been found guilty of misleading commercial practices for claims that it planned to be carbon neutral by 2050 and that it was a "major actor in the energy transition", despite continuing to invest in fossil fuels. In what is the first greenwashing judgment issued against the oil industry, the court ordered Total to pay the claimant NGOs €8,000 each and to publish the court's decision on its website for 180 days, or face significant fines (of up to €20,000 per day).

FCA to regulate ESG ratings providers

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is set to regulate ESG ratings providers, marking a significant milestone in the UK’s approach to sustainable finance. The new regulatory regime, which under draft legislation will kick in from 29 June 2028, aims to improve transparency, reliability, and trust in ESG ratings, which are highly influential in investment decision-making.

ASA rulings

Cruise Circle and Cruise 1st

The ASA upheld complaints against two travel agents Cruise Circle and Cruise 1st for ads suggesting that MSC Cruises offered an "eco-friendly" and "green alternative" by using liquified natural gas (LNG) which they described as "the world’s cleanest marine fuel". According to the ASA, the ads did not provide contextual information about the broader environmental impacts of cruising and LNG (eg methane emissions and underwater discharges impacting marine life) and therefore they exaggerated the environmental benefits of MSC Cruises.

Shell Energy UK

The ASA ruled in favour of Shell, finding that a paid-for LinkedIn ad promoting Shell's decarbonisation work with its business customer Baker Hughes was not misleading. The ASA accepted Shell's arguments that the B2B ad was narrowly confined to Shell's work with a specific corporate client and would not be interpreted by consumers as representative of Shell's wider consumer-facing activity or its own carbon transition plans.

Red Tractor

The ASA held that a TV ad for Assured Food Standards' Red Tractor Scheme misleadingly implied that all products carrying the Red Tractor Logo meet certain environmental standards. The ASA found that the ad, which included the text "certified standards" and "farmed with care", exaggerated the benefits of Red Tractor endorsement and Assured Food Standards had failed to show it had robust processes to ensure basic legislative standards and a good environmental outcome were met.

Stove Industry Association

The ASA ruled that the Stove Industry Association's (ISA) claims that modern wood-burning stoves can "significantly lower emissions" compared to open fires or older stoves were misleading because they did not make clear what "emissions" meant. Whilst the ISA said "emissions" referred to Particulate Matter 2.5, this was not made clear in that ad and the ASA found that consumers would likely interpret the claims more broadly as relating to greenhouse gas emissions. The claims, as consumers would understand them, were not adequately substantiated and were misleading.

Sector updates

Consumer brands and retail

Shein fined €1M for misleading green claims

Online fashion retailer Shein has been fined €1m (£870,000) by Italy’s competition authority (AGCM) for publishing “misleading and omissive” green claims on its website. The AGCM found the presentation of Shein's evoluSHEIN by Design collection risked misleading consumers about products' sustainability and recyclability, while Shein's net zero mission statements were "vague, generic and/or overly emphatic" and were contradicted by Shein's increase in emissions in 2023 and 2024. This follows a €40m fine against Shein in France for similar business practices.

Beauty and personal care
ASA guidance on beauty and cosmetics claims

The ASA has published advertising guidance for the beauty and personal care sector. The guidance reiterates that environmental claims must be based on the complete product life cycle (from manufacture to disposal), and where general claims cannot be backed up, brands should opt for more limited claims about specific products or ingredients.

Energy

House of Commons Research Briefing: Fossil fuels, advertising and 'greenwashing'

The House of Commons has published a report assessing fossil fuel advertising, greenwashing and commenting on the ongoing debate in the UK and internationally about whether fossil fuel advertising should be banned outright. Whilst the report stops short of making any policy recommendations, it assesses the arguments both for and against a ban from a range of different stakeholders.

ASA 'Greener Homes' guidance

The ASA has published guidance on claims made in the heating and home energy sector setting out six top tips for marketers, including how to avoid greenwashing. These tips include ensuring any broad, absolute green claims like "environmentally friendly" or "sustainable are based on a robust full lifecycle analysis, and that claims do not exaggerate overall environmental benefits of products or services.

Transport

21 airlines commit to change green claims practices

Following an investigation by the European Commission and EU consumer authorities, 21 airlines have committed to change their green claims practices. This includes agreeing to stop claiming that the CO₂ emissions of a specific flight can be reduced or offset by consumers making financial contributions to climate friendly initiatives or alternate fuel use. Other commitments discussed include ensuring any CO₂emissions calculations are displayed clearly and only using the term "sustainable aviation fuels" with appropriate clarifications to substantiate it.

Publications

RPC's ESG Evolve whitepaper provides insight on how businesses in the consumer brands and retail sector are navigating evolving ESG risk, regulation and opportunity. Following months of in-depth conversations with GCs, sustainability leads and in-house counsel across the sector, the whitepaper offers a candid view of how businesses are navigating ESG pressures while continuing to deliver value and progress. For further information about ESG Evolve and to get involve, please get it touch!

Taxing Matters: Unpacking the complexities of tax deed claims with Jivaan Bennett of Temple Tax Chambers

Wed, 03 Dec 2025 14:18:00 Z

In this episode of Taxing Matters, Alexis Armitage, Senior Associate in RPC’s Tax Disputes team, is joined by Jivaan Bennett of Temple Tax Chambers. Jivaan brings nearly 15 years of international experience in tax, commercial transactions, and disputes, having worked across the Caribbean, London, and New York.

Tax Bites - December 2025

Wed, 03 Dec 2025 10:08:00 Z

News

HMRC has updated its Guidance for financial institutions who report information using the Automatic Exchange of Information

HMRC has updated its Guidance on how financial institutions should report information to HMRC under the Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI) program.

There are currently two AEOI regimes that apply to the UK:

the United States Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), which requires UK financial institutions to report to HMRC on US customers that hold accounts with them; and;
the Common Reporting Standard (CRS) which provides for automatic exchange of financial account information within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

From 1 January 2027, financial institutions will not be able to use HMRC's combined CRS and FATCA schema. Instead, they must provide separate reports using:

the amended CRS Extensible Markup Language schema published by the OECD; and
the Internal Revenue Service FATCA schema.

HMRC has updated its Guidance for the CIS

HMRC has updated its Guidance on the Construction Industry Scheme (CIS).

Specifically, HMRC has made the following changes:

Section 1.8 has been updated to confirm that employment status for CIS purposes is determined in accordance with common law.
Section 2.12 now includes clearer guidance on when agencies are treated as subcontractors and new material on the application of the off-payroll working rules to agencies.
Section 2.13 has been revised to provide further clarity on the rules for agency workers, including an added section on how off-payroll working applies to those workers.
A new section 2.14 has been introduced, setting out when agencies may be regarded as contractors under the CIS.

HMRC has updated its International Exchange of Information Manual

HMRC has updated its International Exchange of Information Manual with a new chapter on the crypto-assets reporting framework (CARF).

The CARF comes into effect in the UK on 1 January 2026 and will require certain crypto-asset service providers to undertake due diligence on their users and report tax-relevant crypto-asset data to HMRC.

The new chapter is designed to help relevant crypto-asset service providers prepare for the CARF and put in place any systems and procedures required to meet their obligations under the new rules.

HMRC has issued a policy paper which warns employment agencies and employers of new tax fraud models

HMRC has issued a policy paper warning employers and recruitment agencies about new fraudulent payroll models that claim to reduce employment tax liabilities.

HMRC reports that businesses are being approached by organisations who claim they can acquire companies with existing tax credits on file with HMRC. These organisations claim the tax credits can be used to offset employment taxes, including PAYE and National Insurance.

The paper explains how these arrangements are marketed, why HMRC consider them to constitute tax evasion, and the risks for businesses that use them, including liability for unpaid tax, interest and penalties. It also sets out the signs HMRC say businesses should look for when such models are being promoted and advises businesses to undertake robust due diligence and seek appropriate independent professional advice.

Case reports

Tribunal allows expat's appeal confirming that SIPP withdrawals were not subject to UK tax

In Trevor John Masters v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 967 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) allowed the taxpayer's appeal, finding that withdrawals from a self-invested personal pension (SIPP), by a non-UK resident, were not taxable in the UK, under the terms of the UK-Portugal Double Tax Convention (DTC). This decision provides important guidance on the application of double tax treaties to pension transfers and withdrawals. The case confirms that a transfer to a SIPP will not necessarily break the employment link for treaty purposes and provides a degree of clarity for expatriate taxpayers and their advisers on the interaction between UK pension rules and DTCs.

The case is also a reminder of the complexities and potential pitfalls that can arise when transferring or consolidating pension arrangements, particularly where a change in tax residence is involved. Small differences in structure, timing, or contribution history, can have significant tax implications in both jurisdictions. Individuals should seek specialist advice before transferring pensions or drawing benefits overseas, as missteps can inadvertently forfeit treaty relief, or trigger unexpected UK tax liabilities.

You can read our commentary on the decision here.

Tribunal confirms caregiver living with parents is eligible for principal private residence relief

In Mark Campbell v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 00867, the FTT allowed the taxpayer’s appeal and confirmed that principal private residence (PPR) relief was available on the disposal of multiple properties as the taxpayer qualified under the job-related accommodation rules whilst residing at his parents’ home in order to care for his father.

The taxpayer's appeal was initially dismissed by the FTT but was allowed by the Upper Tribunal (UT) who found there had been multiple material errors of law and remitted the outstanding issues back to a reconstituted FTT.

This case provides some important practical lessons for taxpayers and their advisers in relation to PPR relief claims, particularly, where a taxpayer has multiple properties or unusual living arrangements, such as living with family members due to caregiving responsibilities.

The UT confirmed that a taxpayer’s intention at the time of acquisition is critical in establishing whether a property was their only or main residence. Taxpayers should ensure they retain contemporaneous evidence, such as correspondence, property searches or personal notes, to support their intentions.

The reconstituted FTT also clarified the correct application of the job-related accommodation rules. Accommodation must be occupied by reason of employment, not simply due to convenience or family ties. Taxpayers should assess the necessity of the living arrangement and its connection to the taxpayer’s duties, rather than simply relying on general assumptions.

Finally, with regard to penalties, the UT made it clear that findings of deliberate behaviour must be supported by clear and specific reasoning from HMRC. A generic conclusion will not suffice.

You can read our commentary on the decision here.

Taxpayer recovers almost £2m in successful SDLT appeal

In Christian Peter Candy v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 416 (TC), the FTT confirmed that the taxpayer was entitled to bring a claim for repayment of stamp duty land tax (SDLT) outside the usual 12-month window for amending a return, by relying on paragraph 34, Schedule 10, Finance Act 2003.

The FTT's interpretation of paragraph 34 will be welcomed by taxpayers who are in a similar position to Mr Candy and who are seeking to claim SDLT relief outside the 12-month amendment window.

The FTT's analysis of paragraph 34 may also have broader application to taxpayers who are seeking overpayment relief in relation to other taxes.

You can read our commentary on the decision here.

And finally …

Check out our Taxing Matters podcast, that explores complex tax issues and recent developments in tax law.

In Season 4, Episode 2:

We discuss top tips for tax litigation with Jonathan Davey KC of Wilberforce Chambers. The podcast and transcript can be found here.

In Season 4, Episode 3:

We speak with Rebecca Sheldon of Old Square Tax Chambers, about the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in A Taxpayer v HMRC, in which Rebecca was instructed on behalf of the taxpayer. The podcast and transcript can be found here.

Claims for financial misselling under English law

Wed, 03 Dec 2025 09:29:00 Z

RPC's market-leading banking and financial markets disputes team's updated practice note "Claims for financial misselling under English law" (paywall) has been published on Practical Law.

The practice note provides an overview of the key requirements and considerations in financial misselling claims.

This latest update covers the impact of the most recent authorities in financial misselling claims, including last week's landmark Privy Council decision in Credit Suisse Life (Bermuda) Ltd v Bidzina Ivanishvili and others [2025] UKPC 53. For those of you who missed it, you can find our take on the decision and its wider impact here.

Lawyers Covered - November 2025

Mon, 01 Dec 2025 14:22:00 Z

SRA Thematic Review: navigating complaints and supporting vulnerable clients

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has recently undertaken a thematic review of first-tier complaints handling, in which it visited 25 law firms and analysed 50 complaint files and surveyed 750 firms across England and Wales. The review focused on how firms recognise, manage, and learn from complaints, which also shone the spotlight on what support there is for vulnerable clients.

Key findings

Complaint recognition: Only one firm interviewed used the Legal Services Board’s (LSB) full definition of a complaint with most other firms relying on judgement calls, which can lead to inconsistencies and requests for clearer guidance.
Client information and timescales: 95% of firms notified clients in writing at the outset about how to complain, as required by the SRA Standards and Regulations and most provided final responses within the mandated eight weeks. However, 30% of reviewed files were found to have exceeded this timescale. It was also identified that the complaints procedures on firm websites were often hard to locate.
Supporting vulnerable clients: The approach taken by firms to support vulnerable clients varied. 72% offered in-person meetings, 62% provided clear explanations, and 57% allowed extra time for vulnerable clients to reflect on the response/decision. All firms that were interviewed confirmed they were happy to accept complaints on behalf of clients e.g. from family members, as long as the client had given their consent.
Monitoring and learning: 22 interviewees monitored complaints at a firm-wide level, using data to identify trends and improve service delivery. Good complaints handling was linked to business benefits, such as client retention and recommendations.

Best practice recommendations

The SRA’s thematic review highlights that best practice begins with proactively asking clients if they wish to make a complaint and having the firm's complaints procedure clearly signposted at every stage. Firms should be flexible in the way clients can raise concerns, and ensure that every process is accessible, particularly for those who may be vulnerable. All processes should be reviewed and updated regularly, and staff should be provided with training as well as continuous support in how to handle difficult situations.

The SRA also encourages a data driven approach and recommends that the complaints information is used to inform a firm's learning and development, with a view to improving their procedures and service delivery.

The FCA's new role in supervising lawyers' AML – further details emerge

The UK government has announced further details of its plan to give the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) a much larger role in supervising anti-money laundering (AML) compliance across the legal sector.

HM Treasury has launched a consultation (open until 24 December 2025) outlining detailed proposals that would give the FCA new powers including:

Gatekeeping & Registration: The FCA could register legal firms, perform “fit and proper” checks on beneficial owners, officers, and managers (BOOMs), and refuse or cancel registration if individuals do not pass rigorous checks.
Risk-Based Supervision & Intervention: The FCA may issue formal “directions” for improvement, require a firm to appoint a “skilled person” to review AML controls, and conduct inspections (including unannounced visits).
Enforcement Powers: The FCA could impose civil penalties, suspend or prohibit individuals, or initiate criminal proceedings for breaches of AML regulations.
Funding via Fees: The FCA intends to recover its supervisory costs by charging fees to supervised firms.

Things to consider:

Conduct a BOOM “fit and proper” review - audit all BOOMs against the proposed fit-and-proper criteria. Confirm documentation is complete, up-to-date, and evidences competence and AML compliance history.
Strengthen AML Governance and Record-Keeping - review your firm’s AML framework, including policies, risk assessments, client due diligence procedures, and training records. The FCA will expect clear, well-evidenced governance structures aligned with a risk-based approach.
Prepare for more detailed regulatory engagement - you may be asked for more data, subject to new inspections, or required to make improvements on demand.
Consider submitting a response to the consultation. Your feedback could help shape how the new regime will work in practice.

LSB intervention following SSB Collapse

SSB Group Limited, which traded as SSB Law (SSB), entered into administration on 4 January 2024. It focussed on "no-win, no fee claims", and brought a number of the cavity wall insulation (CWI) claims. However, according to its administrators, the CWI litigation posed "challenges", which led to its clients receiving adverse costs orders, not all of which were recoverable from the After The Event (ATE) Insurers.

When SSB went into administration, SSB owed £200m to six of its litigation funders, and its former clients were left with large unpaid bills and in many cases adverse costs.

The SRA began investigating after receiving more than 100 reports between January 2019 and March 2024 on SSB's handling of the CWI litigation, and after its clients were left exposed to adverse costs. A SSB Law Victims Support Group, made up of former clients of SSB, gave evidence to the SRA on the effects of the outstanding adverse costs on them. However, it is understood that by April 2023, the SRA had sufficient information to take enforcement action against SSB but failed to do so until October 2023.

The SRA had originally planned to complete its investigations this autumn, however, this has now been put back to the New Year, due to delays. In the meantime, the SRA has recommended that former clients of SSB facing demands for adverse costs, seek redress by making a negligence claim on SSB's insurance, or complain via the Legal Ombudsman or Financial Ombudsman Scheme for claims against the ATE Insurer for payment under the policy, and/or negotiate the adverse costs with the defendant directly.

The SRA itself came under scrutiny from the Legal Services Board (LSB) in the way it dealt with its investigation, and for failing to act more quickly into the mishandled litigation. The LSB appointed Irish firm Carson McDowell LLP, to assess the SRA's handling of the investigation. Carson McDonell produced a 44-page report, based on the information available to the SRA at the time, and the SRA's own assessment of its procedures (which admitted shortcomings in its approach to the investigation into SSB) and found that the SRA had failed in all cases to properly investigate the reports and to comply with SRA processes. The report recommended four key areas for improvement of the SRA's procedures, which in summary included that the SRA:

Improves its knowledge, training and procedures to ensure effective assessment of reports about authorised individuals and firms;
Review its process for members of the public submitting a report to the SRA to make it more user-friendly;
Improves its processes for investigating reports where a potential regulatory breach has been committed; and
Considers what measures can be taken to control the transfer of files upon closure of a firm to ensure the protection of the consumer and public interest.

The LSB accepted the report and has said it will take enforcement action in accordance with its powers under section 31 (performance targets) and section 35 (public censure) of the Legal Services Act 2007. The SRA have now issued an apology.

The LSB was established by the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA) to oversee the regulators in England and Wales and the observance of the regulatory objectives contained in Part 1 of the LSA, which include protecting consumers and the publics' interests. Whilst The Law Society is the approved regulatory body in England and Wales, it has delegated its function to the SRA. Under the provisions of the LSA, the LSB can intervene when there is reason to believe that an approved regulator has failed to act appropriately to protect and/or promote the regulatory objectives.

It is hoped the outcome of this review may now improve the way reports to the SRA are made, and how the SRA responds to reports against a regulated firm and/or individual.

Renters’ Rights Act: enhanced security for tenants

In September 2024, the Renters' Rights Bill was set out in Parliament. That Bill has now received Royal Assent, becoming the Renters' Rights Act 2025 (the Act). Whilst the main provisions of the Act are yet to come into force (and that's not likely to be until at least 2026), the Law Society is pleased with the enhanced protection for private renters the Act brings.

Marking the biggest reform of the rental market in over 40 years, the Act's key changes:

removes s21 notices or "no-fault" evictions;
ends fixed term, assured and assured shorthold tenancies so that all existing and new tenancies will be periodic (or rolling) assured tenancies;
alters the rent increase process and increases will only be valid with a s13 notice providing two months' notice;
introduces a new digital database and landlord ombudsman;
applies the Decent Homes Standard and compulsory timeframes for remediation work under Awaab's Law;
provides tenants with a right to keep a pet (with insurance if the landlord requests it); and
unveils new investigatory powers and sanctions for non-compliance (including increase civil penalties and criminal offences) to make it easier for local authorities to take action.

The Law Society president, Mark Evans, welcomes the Act and said: “We’re pleased that the Law Society’s calls to stop landlords asking for more than one month’s rent upfront have been accepted. This helps make renting fairer and more accessible for prospective tenants, making a real difference to their lives…The decision to end ‘no-fault’ evictions addresses a long-standing imbalance that gave landlords an unfair advantage. The act also introduces new and revised grounds for possession. To ensure fairness for both parties, the government must clarify what kind of evidence landlords will need to provide to invoke those grounds…For this act to be successful, the government must now invest in the courts to ensure they can handle the expected rise in contested hearings. Court reform and modernisation is crucial if the Renters’ Rights Act is to help both tenants and landlords…The Renters’ Rights Act is an important step towards a fairer housing system that gives both tenants and landlords the necessary foundation for wellbeing, dignity and stability.”

You can read our previous article on the Renters' Rights Bill here and our update here.

Public access to court documents: new rules

From 1 January 2026, new rules will come into force in the Commercial Court, London Circuit Commercial Court and Financial List with the aim of improving public access to documents in civil proceedings. The new rules will require legal representatives to add various categories of documents referred to at public hearings to the Court's electronic file, meaning they will be, by default, available to the public. The new rules are governed by Practice Direction 51ZH and are part of a 2-year pilot scheme aimed at improving transparency and open justice in the civil courts.

The new rules will make it much easier for members of the public to obtain publicly available documents as legal representatives will need to file key hearing documents to the court's electronic file.

You can read our full article here.

Hong Kong – Distribution of client account balances following forced closure of law firm

In Hong Kong, an intervention in the practice of a law firm by the Law Society of Hong Kong – the regulator for a solicitors' profession that is self-regulated – usually means that the firm is closed immediately. In a profession that has approximately 925 law firms, there may be on average approximately three or four interventions per year. Some interventions are unavoidable due to (for example) the death or incapacity of a sole proprietor; other interventions may be the result of regulatory action following serious breaches of the Solicitors' Accounts Rules or rare instances of suspected dishonesty by a solicitor or member of staff.

For former clients, an intervention in the practice of a law firm can cause real inconvenience and concern. An intervention is supervised by an "intervention agent" (another law firm) – appointed by the regulator – whose role is (for example) to take control of the closed firm's office and client files and help preserve funds in its bank account(s). Former clients will often have two principal concerns: (i) retrieving any documents that belong to them and transferring their instructions to another law firm; and (ii) claiming any money owed to them that is held in the closed firm's bank account(s).

This gives rise to the question of what the most appropriate method is to distribute the balances held in a closed firm's client account(s) – following an intervention – where there is insufficient money to reimburse former clients after all claims have been verified. This can be a particular concern where a law firm is closed because of serious account rule breaches or suspected dishonesty within the firm.

Recent case law in Hong Kong confirms that where there is insufficient money in a closed firm's client account(s) to satisfy verified claims, the usual practice is to adopt a pari passu approach to distribution – treating like claims alike – rather than a "first in, first out" approach (The Council of the Law Society of Hong Kong v Yeung [2025] HKCFI 3292).

Therefore, where there is insufficient money to pay all verified claims made by former clients, the loss is shared equally. This generally makes sense. Payments into a law firm's client account(s) by their nature do not generally get paid out nor are they treated on a "first in, first out" basis. Further, in those rare instances of suspected dishonesty within a law firm where there is insufficient money to satisfy verified claims, it may be too onerous or impracticable (because of the misconduct) to ascertain the order in which client money was received by the law firm and paid into its bank account(s).

With thanks to our additional contributors: Catherine Zakarias-Welch, Sally Lord and Aimee Talbot.

Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) – the sequel

Mon, 01 Dec 2025 11:26:00 Z

One of the challenges regularly mentioned by international businesses operating in the UK, is the (often subtle) differences in the way in which similar risks are regulated across the EU and UK.

SFO publishes significant new guidance on evaluating corporate compliance programmes

Fri, 28 Nov 2025 16:00:00 Z

The SFO has updated its guidance on evaluating corporate bribery and fraud crime compliance programmes to indicate when, how and why, it will evaluate those programmes across six scenarios covering prosecutions, DPAs, Bribery Act and ECCTA defences and sentencing considerations.

Sports Ticker #141 - Mercedes' minority stake sale and the Squad Cost Ratio shake up - a speed read of commercial updates from the sports world

Fri, 28 Nov 2025 15:55:00 Z

As always, if there are any issues on which you'd like more information (or if you have any questions or feedback), please do let us know or get in touch with your usual contact at RPC.

Premier League tackles financial fair play with new Squad Cost Ratio rules
In a landmark meeting, Premier League clubs have backed a shift from the old Profit & Sustainability Rules (PSR) to a new Squad Cost Ratio (SCR) system, taking effect in 2026/27. From that season, clubs will be limited to spending 85% of their football-related revenue – known as the “green threshold” – on wages, transfers and agents. A 30% multi-year allowance will be available – though overspend will trigger levies from the 2027/28 season, and potential points deductions if clubs exceed the “red threshold”. An annual SCR compliance test will ensure that clubs adhere to the new rules. A new Sustainability & Systemic Resilience (SSR) framework won unanimous backing, introducing checks on liquidity, working capital and equity to ensure clubs’ financial health. However, Anchoring, a proposed rule linking each club’s spending limit to a multiple of the league’s lowest-earning club, was ultimately set aside after clubs concluded it was not the appropriate mechanism to incorporate into the League’s new financial framework. The Premier League stated that the new rules aim to protect “competitive balance” and ensure “clubs operate in a financially sustainable way.”

Mercedes shifts gears: Wolff sells stake as team value races past £4.5 billion
Mercedes CEO and Team Principal Toto Wolff has announced the sale of 15% of his shareholding in the team to CrowdStrike CEO and former US race car driver George Kurtz. Wolff, who joined Mercedes in 2013, still owns a third of the team and reiterated after last weekend’s Las Vegas Grand Prix that he has “no plan to sell the team” or step away from his roles. Mercedes has confirmed that “the governance of the team will remain unchanged”. The deal highlights a remarkable rise in Mercedes’ valuation, climbing to around £4.57 billion from £208 million in 2022. The increase underscores F1’s rising global appeal, capturing interest from audiences beyond its traditional fanbase. Kurtz cited F1’s growth in the US – boosted by Netflix’s “Drive to Survive” – as a motivating factor behind his investment. On track, Mercedes currently sits second in the Constructors’ Championship, an improvement on last year but still short of the Hamilton-led dominance of 2014–2022. Though this season’s title is out of reach, the deal shows the team’s commitment to building future success.

UFC combines punches and predictions with AI analytics power up
The Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) launched its AI-powered fight analytics programme, In-Fight Insights, at UFC 322 in Madison Square Garden. Developed in partnership with IBM, the tool draws on over 13.2 million data points from more than two decades of UFC events and 2,400 fighters, delivering near-live insights to viewers. The collaboration means that key data points, information and milestones can reach fans almost instantly, elevating the all-round viewing experience for UFC’s growing fanbase. Jonathan Adashek, IBM’s Senior Vice President of Marketing Communications, highlighted the launch as a prime example of “how AI is really changing the game for the live sports viewing experience for fans around the world”. He praised UFC’s commitment to innovation, stating that the launch is “a testament to the commitment of UFC to always think outside the octagon, to best capture the enormous storytelling potential and human element of the action going on inside the cage”.

British Basketball Federation’s financial fallout forces insolvency
The British Basketball Federation (BBF) has announced it will enter liquidation, citing a “significant and unanticipated reduction in income” and “unforeseen expenditure” that left it unable to meet liabilities. As covered in Sports Ticker #139, FIBA, the international governing body for basketball, had previously suspended the BBF over governance concerns. FIBA later struck a deal with Super League Basketball (SLB) to oversee the men’s top tier, in an attempt to bring stability to the league. In an official statement, the BBF said that it “appreciates the ongoing commitment” of key stakeholders, and that it “will continue to work towards compliance with international commitments”. With GB Men’s team set to face Iceland in a crucial World Cup 2027 qualifier, the Home Countries teams have also stressed their commitment “to maintain Great Britain’s participation in upcoming FIBA competitions.”

Sky Sports’ “little sister” Halo is benched after fans cry foul
Sky Sports has axed its new TikTok channel, Halo, just days after its launch following negative reception from fans. The idea was for Halo to be the Sky Sports channel’s “little sister”, creating a platform for young female sports fans to access and explore content. Whilst the company’s Head of Social Media and Audience Development announced that he “couldn’t be prouder” of the platform, commentators struggled to grasp the logic behind it. Disappointed fans noted that creating a separate platform aimed at female enthusiasts under “little sister” branding was regressive and undermined efforts for women’s sports to be deemed an equal, as opposed to an afterthought. The platform’s content was equally controversial, with posts featuring pink colour schemes, references to “matcha” and “hot girl walks”, and the romantic lives of professionals. Sky Sports accepted the criticism, admitting that they “didn’t get it right”.

Extra time...

…and finally, popular Chinese mobile multiplayer game Honor of Kings set a world record this month, with 62,196 people attending the 2025 King Pro League Grand Finals in Beijing. The King Pro League (KPL) consists of 18 teams and has seen the prize pool on offer increase almost 5,500% from around £197,210 in 2016 to £11 million in 2025. This reflects the rising global popularity of esports, with tickets to the KPL Grand Finals selling out within 12 seconds. With global viewership worldwide estimated by Statista to be at around 320 million people, esports has levelled up from niche to worldwide sensation, smashing records at every turn.

The Week That Was - 28 November 2025

Fri, 28 Nov 2025 15:07:00 Z

New contract model launched for nuclear fusion schemes

A new contract model for nuclear fusion construction projects, developed by Fusion for Energy and King’s College London, is based on the FAC-1 framework alliance contract from the NEC suite. It unites consultants, contractors, and suppliers under a collaborative agreement, with the design phase delivered via a “pure alliance” model—partners agree not to pursue legal action against each other. The construction phase allows for traditional or bespoke contracts, drawing on lessons from the ITER Tokamak project, the contract promotes early supply chain involvement and meaningful SME participation, giving smaller firms a voice throughout project delivery. This approach is expected to enhance collaboration, innovation, and risk-sharing in future UK fusion schemes, such as the STEP facility, and may set a precedent for more inclusive contracting in major infrastructure projects.

The full article can be found here [may require subscription]

Octavius deal pushes RSK deeper into infrastructure sector

RSK Group, a major environmental and engineering services conglomerate, has acquired civils contractor Octavius from Sullivan Street Partners, further strengthening its position in the UK infrastructure sector. Octavius, ranked 61st in the CN100 table, specialises in transport infrastructure and reported a turnover of £276.7 million and a pre-tax profit of £4.7 million for the year ending 31 March 2025, with an average monthly workforce of 684. RSK’s chief executive, Alan Ryder, described the acquisition as a “pivotal step” in expanding RSK’s presence in safety-critical infrastructure delivery, particularly transport and water, which now represents 14% of RSK’s revenue and is its fastest-growing segment. Octavius’s chief executive, John Dowsett, will remain in post, ensuring continuity. The deal is expected to accelerate RSK’s growth and expertise in delivering complex infrastructure projects across the UK.

The full article can be found here [may require subscription]

Welsh Government announces plans to modernise the construction industry

In November 2025, the Welsh Government announced two major strategies for the construction sector: the Built Environment Mission Statement and the Digital Action Plan for Construction. The Mission Statement sets out a strategic vision for a resilient, innovative, and socially responsible industry, aiming to unify the sector around efficiency, productivity, profitability, innovation, safety, and sustainability. Key objectives include strengthening local supply chains, promoting best-practice payment behaviour, supporting modern construction methods, reducing waste, advancing net-zero goals, and improving building safety. The Digital Action Plan targets increased digital adoption, outlining priorities to boost productivity, project delivery, and future-ready skills. Proposed initiatives include funding client-awareness campaigns, piloting emerging technologies, and developing digital twins for public sector assets. Both strategies emphasise transparency, collaboration, and improved access to upcoming public sector contracts, with a focus on overcoming barriers to digital skills and adoption across the sector.

The full article can be read here [may require subscription]

Equans cites Grenfell evidence in £2.73m cladding claim against manufacturer Arconic

Equans has initiated a £2.73m High Court claim against the French manufacturer, Arconic, alleging the manufacturer knowingly supplied unsafe Reynobond 55 polyethylene (PE) aluminium composite cladding for three council high-rise blocks in north London refurbished between 2011 and 2012, which was later installed on Grenfell Tower and identified in the Grenfell Inquiry as the "primary cause" of the deadly fire in 2017.

In support of its claim, Equans has relied on evidence disclosed during the Grenfell Tower Inquiry including Arconic's internal emails, test results and marketing documents which demonstrate that Arconic was aware of the serious fire risks before the disaster.

The claim is brought under section 149 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (which applies to manufacturers of inherently defective cladding products).

Read the full article here.

Modular build Merit enters administration

Offsite construction specialist Merit has entered administration, resulting in the loss of the majority of its 340 jobs. Joint administrators from Interpath were appointed to Merit Health Limited, Merit Holdings Limited, and the wider Merit Group Services in mid-November 2025.

Based in Cramlington, Northumberland, Merit delivered modular projects across healthcare, life sciences, education, battery technology, and aerospace sectors. The company faced severe cashflow pressures following contractual disputes, project delays, and an unexpected winding up petition, which stalled new contracts and ongoing work.

Despite efforts to refinance or sell the business, directors opted for administration after failing to secure a solvent solution. The collapse has halted major projects, including a £33m hospital in Berwick, and is expected to impact creditors and the wider supply chain.

Read the full article here.

With thanks to Tess Turner, Holly Bentley and Aleksander Polaszek

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 28 November 2025

Fri, 28 Nov 2025 14:50:00 Z

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Headline development

Autumn budget

In this year's Autumn budget, the Chancellor took the opportunity to make various changes to tax and pensions..

Some of the more notable changes to tax and pensions include:

Personal Tax

For those under the age of 65, the £20,000 ISA limit being maintained but with a requirement that £8,000 of that must be reserved exclusively for investments. For those over 65 the ISA limit will remain the same.
National Insurance and Income Tax thresholds to be frozen for a further 3 years from 2028.
Basic and higher income tax rates on property, savings and dividend income will be increased by 2 percentage points to account for the lack of National Insurance on rental income.
Starting in 2028, a 'High Value Council Surcharge' will be introduced alongside Council Tax. For properties worth more than £2m, there will be a £2,5000 charge, which will rise to £7,500 for properties worth more than £5m.

Corporation Tax

The Chancellor, in her preamble, committed to widening eligibility enterprise incentives, and referred to re-engineering the enterprise investment and Venture Capital Trust Schemes.
Companies that choose to list in the UK will be eligible for the UK listing relief which will exempt them for 3 years from UK Stamp Duty Tax.
There will be a reduction to the relief for capital gains tax on business sales from 100% to 50%.
The current rates for corporation tax and business expensing will be retained.
The first year allowance will be increased to 40% for businesses in order to allow them to write off more of their investment and reduce main rate down allowances.
There will be an introduction of targeted tax measures to support retail and leisure businesses including permanent lower business rates for over 750,000 retail, hospitality, and leisure properties.

Pensions

The basic and new state pension payments will go up by 4.8% from April 2026.
The exemption from National Insurance for pension contributions under salary sacrifice schemes will be capped to £2,000 from 2029.
The Chancellor has committed to transferring the investment reserve fund from the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme to its members.
The Chancellor has committed to indexing for inflation on all pensions incurred before 1997 in the Pension Protection Fund and the Financial Assistance Scheme – introducing CPI-linked increases capped at 2.5% per year.
Abolishment of access to Class 2 Voluntary National Insurance contributions and increasing the amount of time a person has to live in the UK prior to claiming a pension.
People only in receipt of the basic or new state pension will have to pay small amounts of income tax if their earnings cross the tax-free threshold as determined by simple assessments from April 2027.

To read the budget in full, please click here.

Pensions

Pensions Commission urged to consider climate change and sustainability as part of its ongoing sector review

Earlier this year, the governmentrevived the Pensions Commission (the Commission) to review and address issues associated with savings inadequacy in the UK pension system. The Pensions Commission's report is expected next spring. More recently, the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association (UKSIF) has raised concerns that the Pension Commission's current review does not adequately consider climate risk or the transition to net zero.

UKSIF’s chief executive, James Alexander, has written to the Commission, urging it to integrate climate change considerations into its review, especially as the government seeks to tackle pension savings inadequacy for future retirees. Alexander points out that neither rising global temperatures nor the shift towards decarbonisation are explicitly mentioned in the Commission’s terms of reference, which could undermine the resilience of pension portfolios in the face of future climate-related challenges.

UKSIF argues that climate risk and sustainability are inseparable from the long-term security of pension schemes, given their exposure to both physical and transition risks as the UK moves towards 2050. The organisation recommends that, at a minimum, the Commission should highlight the importance of factoring climate change and net-zero objectives into any future pension reforms.

To read more, please click here.

FOS developments

FOS releases 2026/27 plans and budget consultation paper

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has launched a consultation on its 2026/27 Plans and Budget, focusing on continuous service improvement and ambitious targets for case resolution. This forms part of the FOS’s broader engagement on priorities and performance. The FOS publishes its final plans and budget before the end of each financial year, including a summary of stakeholder feedback. Its budget must be approved by the FCA, which also publishes details of its fees.

Although case volumes are starting to fall following measures to ensure complaints are better evidenced, the FOS expects to receive 188,000 cases next year and aims to resolve 245,000, including 60,000 related to motor finance commission. Complaints about Buy Now Pay Later products are anticipated from mid-2026, with around 2,000 cases expected.

Working with the FCA and HM Treasury, the service plans major reforms over the next two years to improve consistency and help firms resolve issues earlier. To support this, it is consulting on increasing the case fee to £680 and the compulsory levy to £86m - which is still below 2023/24 levels. The FOS is also planning to simplify its billing process. The Consultation is open until 21 January 2026.

To read the consultation on the FOS' Plans and Budget 2026/27, please click here.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

FCA publishes data on skilled person reviews for first two quarters of 2025/26

The FCA has published data on Skilled Person Reviews for the first two quarters of 2025/26. Under s.166 of FSMA, the regulator can get a view from a third party (the skilled person) if it is concerned about aspects of a regulated firm's activities or want further analysis.

The FCA commissioned 16 reviews in total for the first half of the 2025/2026 year, with 10 in Q1 (April – June) and 6 in Q2 (July – September). The Q1 reviews were spread across consumer investments (2), insurance (1), retail banking (2), payments and digital assets (1), and wholesale markets (4). Q2 activity was concentrated in insurance (2), payments and digital assets (1), retail banking (1) and wholesale sectors (2).

As it stands the FCA appears on track to initiate fewer Skilled Person Reviews this year than the 2024/2025 year when 47 reports were commissioned (23 of which involved firms in the consumer investments market, for which there have only been 2 so far this year).

To access the FCA's data please click here.

FCA proposes to reduce costs on industry by streamlining transaction reporting requirements

The FCA has proposed a number of changes to streamline transaction reporting requirements. The FCA receives over 7 billion MiFID transaction reports a year. These reports are used to support the cleanliness, transparency, and resilience of UK markets. However, the current annual cost of MiFID transaction reporting to the industry is £493m. The FCA is seeking to reduce the costs for firms, in order to support growth and to improve the quality of the data that they receive. Given this, the FCA has proposed to:

Remove foreign exchange derivatives from reporting requirements, reducing costs for over 400 firms;
Remove reporting requirements for 6 million financial instruments including equities, bonds and certain derivatives that are only traded on EU trading venues; and
Reduce the period for correcting historic reporting errors from 5 to 3 years, lowering the number of transaction reports that need to be resubmitted by a third.

The proposed changes are estimated by the FCA to reduce the cost of MiFID transaction reporting to approximately £385m, resulting in a saving to industry of £108m. The FCA has confirmed that they will work in lockstep with the Bank of England and the Treasury to remove any unnecessary duplication of transaction and post-trade reporting requirements as part of a long-term approach.

To read more, please click here.

Emerging risks

FCA collaborates with industry to help shape future of UK's crypto markets

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has accepted the RegTech platform, Eunice, into its Regulatory Sandbox to explore an industry-led solution to improve transparency of the UK's crypto markets.

Working alongside major firms like Coinbase, Crypto.com and Kraken, Eunice aims to create an innovative solution in the sandbox for disclosing important information about crypto assets.

Eunice intends to experiment with disclosure templates to achieve maximum transparency. The outcomes from this sandbox test will inform the FCA's approach to disclosure requirements for crypto assets.

To read more, please click here.

With thanks to this week's contributors: Daniel Parkin, Dorian Nunzek, Damien O'Malley, Ben Simmonds, Haiying Li, James Parsons, and Lauren Butler

A welcome end to the "fraudsters charter": Privy Council brings the law of deceit back in line with commercial reality

Fri, 28 Nov 2025 12:44:00 Z

The decision is a vitally important correction in the path of the law for those misled into entering into transactions. It removes a significant legal and evidential hurdle which was wrongly erected by a succession of controversial judgments on claims arising from implied misrepresentations. Many but not all of those were concerned with alleged financial misselling and securities fraud, where strong financial incentives coupled with English law's strong respect for the caveat emptor principle in commercial matters do on occasion lead to distorted economic behaviour.

The judgment brings English law back in line with the realities of commercial and human comprehension and behaviour. This is reflected in the remarkable clarity of the Privy Council's judgment.

Background

The Privy Council's decision determined claims commenced in 2017 by Georgian businessman and former prime minister, Bidzina Ivanishvili, against Credit Suisse Life (Bermuda) Ltd (CSLB) in relation to certain life investment policies that were essentially investment funds managed by Credit Suisse AG (Credit Suisse).

Mr Ivanishvili invested over US$750 million in these policies on the recommendation of his relationship manager at Credit Suisse, Patrice Lescaudron. However, Mr Lescaudron misappropriated the policy assets as part of a wide-ranging fraud. Upon its discovery, Mr Ivanishvili brought claims for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation against CSLB.

Mr Ivanishvili's claims were upheld at first instance by the Bermudan Court. In doing so, the Court found that, by recommending the policies, CSLB impliedly represented that Credit Suisse (including Mr Lescaudron) was not managing Mr Ivanishvili's accounts fraudulently and did not intend to manage the policy assets fraudulently.

The Bermudan Court of Appeal dismissed CSLB's subsequent appeal in relation to the breach of contract claim, but allowed its appeal in relation to the misrepresentation claim. CSLB appealed the Court of Appeal's decision in relation to the former and Mr Ivanishvili cross-appealed in relation to the latter.

The "awareness" requirement

One of the key issues for the Privy Council in determining Mr Ivanishvili's cross-appeal was whether the Bermudan Court of Appeal was correct in holding that the misrepresentation claim failed because Mr Ivanishvili had not pleaded or proved that he had any conscious awareness or understanding of the representations at the time they were made.

The Court of Appeal's decision was based on a relatively recent string of first instance decisions in the English Courts in relation to financial misselling claims: Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AV v Royal Bank of Scotland plc^{^[1]}, Marme Inversiones 2007 SL v Natwest Markets plc^{^[2]}, Leeds City Council v Barclays Bank plc^{^[3]} and Loreley Financing (Jersey) No 30 Ltd v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd^{^[4]}.

The crux of these first instance decisions was that, in order to establish the necessary element of reliance in a misrepresentation claim, a claimant must prove that they had given "contemporaneous conscious thought" to the representation or that the representation was "actively present" in their mind, when they decided to enter into the contract. Critically, this awareness had to be more than an assumption.

The emergence of this requirement has been highly controversial and subject to widespread criticism and doubt (including in the notable judgment in Crossley v Volkswagen^{^[5]}). In reality, in the absence of any specific cause for concern, the starting point for parties is quite reasonably that their counterparties are self-interested, but honest. That is perhaps all the more so when dealing with ostensibly reputable financial institutions or commercial organisations. Parties will rarely have consciously considered whether their counterparty's conduct amounts to a specific representation of an absence of fraud, which essentially requires consciously thinking your counterparty might be acting fraudulently and then dismissing it because they have done something to contradict the possibility of fraud. Consequently, the requirement to plead and prove specific, conscious awareness of such a representation has often since this line of authority began to solidify presented an insurmountable barrier for victims of deceit – particularly in cases involving an actively concealed fraud.

The requirement has also proved difficult to reconcile with other English Court judgments where claims for fraudulent misrepresentation or deceit have been upheld in circumstances where the claimant did not have any such conscious awareness or understanding that a specific representation was being made. Attempts to do so have generally resulted only in further confusion, with expressions such as "quasi-automatic" or "quasi-reflexive" understanding doing little to clarify the point at which this requirement would be satisfied.

This developing requirement for conscious awareness of an implied representation of honesty which was subsequently falsified was also at odds with the position in English criminal law where there is no such requirement. The famous example being restaurant 'dine-and-dash' criminals who by sitting down to dine at a restaurant, ordering, and generally behaving like good paying customers impliedly represent to the waiter and restaurant that they will pay for the meal without saying so expressly (after all, who would ever say that, and why would the law require that?), which the waiter then relies on in serving them. In criminal law, defendants would not get off by arguing that the waiter was unable to evidence that he or she had consciously thought that the way they were acting like good paying customers meant a representation had been made that they would pay for the meal. That goes without saying, or consciously deliberating about, and is implicit in the actions.

The Privy Council's decision

The Privy Council categorically rejected the existence of a freestanding requirement for civil law claimants to prove contemporaneous awareness or understanding of a representation in order to establish reliance in claims for deceit/fraudulent misrepresentation.

In doing so, the Privy Council recognised that it is an "everyday feature of human experience that people form and act on beliefs without any conscious awareness or thought", often through established social norms and expectations. A defendant that acts in such a way as to cause and exploit such a belief is just as much liable for deceit as one who deceives the claimant by influencing their conscious mind.

The Privy Council illustrated the point by comparing two taxi drivers each hailed by a passenger who never intended to pay. The first driver naturally assumed, without any conscious thought, that the passenger intended to pay. The latter (unusually) consciously had the thought that the passenger was impliedly representing that they would pay by flagging down the cab. The Privy Council recognised that both drivers are victims of the same deceit, and it would be "unreasonable and unworldly – and a charter for fraudsters – if the law were to distinguish between the two cases". Unfortunately, that was exactly the position that had begun to develop in the first instance decisions referenced above.

The Privy Council also addressed the two principal justifications often cited for the awareness requirement:

First, that a claimant supposedly cannot have relied on a representation when acting on an assumption. The Privy Council noted that this was a false dichotomy, with the two not being mutually exclusive. The correct question is whether the assumption is one the claimant would naturally be expected to make in response to the defendant's actions, or one that the claimant formed independently of the defendant's conduct. The first could be actionable, the second could not because the defendant's conduct did not change the claimant's position.

Secondly, that the absence of the awareness requirement would supposedly collapse the distinction between misrepresentation and non-disclosure. Again, the Privy Council held that the question comes down to whether the defendant's conduct caused the claimant to form a false belief, or whether the defendant simply did not correct a false belief that the claimant had in any case formed independently of anything done by the defendant.

The Privy Council reiterated that the question of whether a claimant relied on a misrepresentation by a defendant is one of fact to be determined in each particular case. In some instances, that may require the claimant to prove their contemporaneous understanding of the representation being made (for example, where a representation is capable of one or more interpretations). However, it does follow that it is necessary to do so in every case.

The Privy Council therefore upheld the first instance Court's finding that, in proposing the policies, Mr Lescaudron induced Mr Ivanishvili to believe that Credit Suisse did not intend to manage the policy assets fraudulently and enter into the policies. Unfortunately for Mr Ivanishvili, the Privy Council upheld findings that his misrepresentation claim was time-barred under Georgian law (although the Privy Council did substantially uphold his claim for breach of contract so all was not lost).

The determination of this long-running claim has undoubtedly served the wider interests of justice by providing the Privy Council with the opportunity to quash the errant requirement for conscious awareness of an implied representation which had, unfortunately, temporarily developed in English civil law. Fraudsters may well regret the Privy Council's crisp despatch of a "fraudsters charter", but good actors should have no reason to mourn its passing. It is certainly good news for those who have fallen foul of sophisticated fraudsters who are careful with their words but no less persuasive for it.

[1] [2010] EWHC 1392 (Comm).

[2] [2019] EWHC 366 (Comm).

[3] [2021] EWHC 363 (Comm).

[4] [2023] EWHC 2759 (Comm).

[5] [2021] EWHC 3444 (QB)

Autumn Budget 2025 – Main tax announcements

Fri, 28 Nov 2025 11:31:00 Z

This blog discusses some of the key tax changes announced in this week's Autumn Budget 2025.

Take 10 - 28 November 2025

Fri, 28 Nov 2025 09:50:00 Z

Law Commission publishes first report on review of contempt laws

On 18 November 2025, the Law Commission published its first report covering the recommended new framework for liability and contempt following a consultation in July 2024.

The recommended framework abolishes the current distinction between civil and criminal proceedings. It establishes four forms of contempt liability: general contempt, contempt by breach of a court order or undertaking, contempt by publication when proceedings are active, and contempt by disrupting proceedings.

"Contempt by publication when proceedings are active" is to replace strict liability contempt. The Law Commission recommends changing the point at which proceedings are considered 'active' from arrest to charge. This may allow for publication of more details about a suspect, such as their name, age, nationality and ethnicity, prior to charge. However, it is important to note that publishers could still be found guilty of general contempt for publications made prior to charge where such publication create a substantial risk of interference with the administration of justice. Most significantly, unlike current strict liability contempt laws, this new form of contempt requires proof of fault. The defendant no longer bears the reverse burden of proof, instead the applicant must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that proceedings were active or was aware of a risk that proceedings were active. These recommendations reflect the Commission's concerns that the current law interferes too heavily with publishers' Article 10 ECHR rights.

Digital Omnibus: EU resets the rulebook

The European Commission has unveiled its Digital Omnibus, a set of proposals designed to streamline and simplify the EU’s digital regulatory framework following concerns that overlapping rules on AI, data protection and cybersecurity have become fragmented and burdensome, particularly for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs). The Digital Omnibus is intended to reduce compliance costs and uncertainty, while clarifying how personal data can be processed in AI systems. Key proposals include:

Regarding the GDPR: i) clarifying the definition of 'personal data' in relation to pseudonymisation and transfers between entities; ii) amending Article 12 to enable organisations to refuse Data Subject Access Requests (DSARs) where they are abusive or pursued for purposes other than protecting the individual’s data; and iii) extending breach notification deadlines to 96 hours.
Regarding the AI Act: Implementation deadlines for high-risk AI systems will be linked to the availability of harmonised standards, with transition periods extending compliance dates to December 2027. Oversight of general-purpose AI models and systems embedded in very large platforms will be centralised under the AI Office, which gains powers to conduct conformity assessments and impose penalties.
Regarding the Data Act and Cybersecurity: Existing rules on data governance and open data will be consolidated, with a single-entry point for breach and incident reporting managed by the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA). A new 'European Business Wallet' will provide secure cross-border tools for identity verification and document exchange.

UK businesses should note the parallels with the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, which introduced similar reforms to the UK GDPR, including methods to prevent abusive DSARs and new bases for processing pseudonymised data.

For further information on the potential impacts the EU's Digital Omnibus may have on your business, please visit our Autumn 2025 Snapshots article here

Hemming v Poulton & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1494: a Court of Appeal intervention on meaning

The Court of Appeal handed down judgment on 20 November 2025 in Hemming v Poulton & Ors [2025] on what is a relatively rare example of the Court of Appeal intervening in the determination of meaning in a libel claim. The claim related to two publications made in 2019: 1) a YouTube video of an interview with Sonia Poulton, a journalist (the Video), and 2) a statement titled 'Police Update' which Ms Poulton published on her website (the Update). Hemming appealed the meanings attributed to the Video and the Update. The original meanings are at [30] (the Video) and [34] (the Update).

On appeal, Lord Justice Warby substituted clarified determinations of meaning for each publication. For the Video, the meaning substituted was that "there are reasonable grounds to investigate whether John Hemming abused Esther Baker when she was a child". Whilst the judge was held to have correctly identified a Chase level 3 meaning, the meaning wording had included some irrelevant non-defamatory matter, failed to focus on what the statement meant about the claimant, and omitted the essential defamatory imputation which the Judge had earlier identified [49]. As for the Update, the Court substituted the following defamatory meanings – i) that Mr Hemming tried to stop Mr Baker exposing child abuse by members of the Establishment by taking part in applying inappropriate and excessive pressure on the police and Attorney General to charge her with breaching a reporting restriction; ii) his motivations for this were improper; and there are reasonable grounds for investigating whether those motivations include a desire to cover up his own criminal activities [60]. Warby LJ found the Judge's meaning was incorrect because she identified a meaning without having dealt with the issue of reference albeit it was recognised that this was a knock on effect of the Master's order which had not resolved the reference issue, nor did it provide for determination of the issue of reference [51,54-55].

Warby LJ restated that the natural and ordinary meaning of a publication is that which the ordinary reasonable reader would take from the publication as a whole, emphasising that the repetition rule and "bane and antidote principle" are "subsidiary" to this overarching principle and are simply "tools" to help the court decide the meaning [43].

Scotland's commitment to reform SLAPPs

A new report following Scotland’s consultation on SLAPPs confirms the government’s view that comprehensive and accessible legal reform is necessary and urgent enough to be pursued at the next legislative opportunity. The consultation sought responses on respondents' personal experiences of SLAPPs, their views on the existing position regarding SLAPPs in Scots law and views on potential legislative and non-legislative solutions.

Several individuals reported having personally been affected by SLAPPs, explaining that they felt intimidated by the significant legal costs posed by SLAPPs which in some instances had led to them abandoning the work which was the subject of the SLAPP. Individuals described that whilst court proceedings were threatened they were not pursued leaving individuals feeling "in a state of limbo". Others who had not directly experienced a SLAPP noted that the problem of SLAPPs was difficult to quantify because their aim is to silence and that SLAPPs were "invisible" as opposed to non-existent. The report concludes that most of the respondents saw SLAPPs as having a chilling effect on free speech, and were being used as a tool to stifle publication of matters in the public interest. The government’s commitment to reform is therefore a positive sign, and a mirroring of s.194 and s.195 ECCTA 2023 to enable a uniform approach to tackling SLAPPs across the British Isles would be a sensible first step.

High Court awards £70,000 in libel damages over software site publications

On 20 November 2025, Mrs Justice Collins Rice handed down judgment in Garrett v Schestowitz and Schestowitz [2025] EWHC 3063 (KB), awarding the Claimant £70,000 in damages for libel and granting injunctive relief against two software news websites, Techrights and Tuxmachines, restraining continued publication and ordering a summary of the judgment to be published pursuant to section 12 of the Defamation Act 2013.

Dr Matthew Garrett, a software engineer and free software activist, brought proceedings over 24 publications alleging criminality, harassment and drug use. The Defendant website operators' defences of truth, honest opinion and public interest were dismissed. Collins Rice J found that the allegations amounted to Chase Level 1 assertions of fact [27] and that the ordinary reasonable reader would have understood the publications as straightforward allegations of criminality, including cybercrime, blackmail and drug use [25]. Applying the Supreme Court’s guidance in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd, Collins Rice J recognised the grave nature of the allegations and that the publications constituted a mass publication to those with which Garrett's UK reputation was materially engaged, therefore causing Garrett serious reputational harm [53]. The Court held that the Defendants had not proven the statements to be true [71], and that the statements did not pursue a matter of public interest, but were made to attack Garrett [79]. In awarding judgment in Garrett's favour, the Court described the publications as a campaign of “grossly defamatory tendency” [28] and condemned them as an “unsubstantiated character assassination” [119].

Munim v Rahman & Ors – Steyn J grants summary disposal

On 19 November, Mrs Justice Steyn granted an application for summary disposal of a libel claim pursuant to section 8 of the Defamation Act 1996.

The claim arose from a series of Facebook posts published by the defendant in May 2018 accusing the claimant, a business owner, of stealing his business, business ideas and intellectual property. The accusations followed wider litigation between the parties concerning copyright and shareholder disputes, both of which had already been tried and resolved.

Although summary disposal exists as a statutory route, it has been rarely used in recent years. It can be used where no defence has a realistic prospect of success and where there is no other reason why the claim should proceed to trial (s.8(3) Defamation Act 1996). Whilst the test applied under s.8(3) is essentially the same for that as for summary judgment, the relief is different. For instance, a court can make declarations of falsity, order a defendant to publish an apology, and damages are capped at £10,000.

Steyn J held the exceptional circumstances were met in this case as the defendant had ceased engagement with proceedings, and his pleaded defences of truth, honest opinion, and public interest were untenable. The truth defence was “hopeless” given the binding factual findings from the earlier litigation which established that the intellectual property and investment decisions complained of were lawful and the property was not stolen [52-55]. The honest opinion defence failed because the posts were statements of fact, not opinion and an honest person aware of the facts surrounding the defendant's sale of his shares and the development of the ARTA logo, as the defendant had been aware, could not have held the opinion that the claimant was a "dishonest exploitative crook" given that the only bases for that allegation was known to be false [62]. The public-interest defence was held to have no real prospect of success as the defendant did not reasonably believe he was publishing statements which were in the public interest. This was because the defendant had provided no evidence to prove that he had undertaken the relevant enquiries and checks prior to publication to verify the allegations, and (despite the burden not being on the claimant to prove this) the claimant had provided evidence showing that the defendant had not sought to verify any of the allegations with him prior to publication [71].

The Court granted summary relief in favour of the claimant in the form of a declaration of falsity, an order to publish a correction and apology, the maximum amount of damages (£10,000) and an injunction. Whilst ordering an apology and correction was seen to potentially interfere with the defendant's Article 10 rights, it was considered justified here to repair and vindicate the claimant’s reputation, particularly given the credibility lent to the original allegations and their publication to thousands within the claimant’s business community [83].

Campaigners call for inquiry into the ICO

In an open letter to Dame Chi Onwurah, the chair of the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, a coalition of 73 civil-liberties groups, academics and legal experts have urged Parliament to launch an inquiry into the ICO, citing concerns that the regulator has undergone a serious “collapse in enforcement activity" following its refusal to formally investigate the Ministry of Defence after the 2022 Afghan data breach which compromised the personal data of nearly 19,000 Afghans who worked with British forces. The letter criticises the ICO’s new “Public Sector Approach” (which prioritises "naming and shaming" public organisations over legally binding sanctions) and how, despite a number of egregious data breaches recently, this has resulted only in ineffective reprimands and reduced penalties. Signatories say that lack of enforcement may be encouraging lax data-handling practices in organisations in the view that the ICO will not pursue any complaints made. The letter calls for a parliamentary inquiry to restore accountability and ensure the ICO fulfils its statutory duty to protect individuals’ data rights. The ICO has responded that it will discuss its approach thus far at its "next regular engagement" and will account for its work when speaking to and appearing before the DSIT select committee.

Ofcom fines nudification site £50,000 and launches wider crackdown

Ofcom has fined Itai Tech Ltd, the operator of the nudification site Undress.cc, £50,000 for failing to implement adequateage assurance measures to prevent children from accessing pornographic content. The regulator also levied an additional £5,000 penalty on the company for failing to comply with a statutory information request. It has also issued two preliminary decisions against Kick Online Entertainment S.A. and 8579 LLC for similar failures, to which the two companies are invited to respond. This enforcement action forms part of Ofcom’s wider programme under the Online Safety Act, which requires pornography sites to deploy robust age verification or estimation tools.

Separately, Ofcom has announced new investigations into five providers who collectively offer 20 adult sites. Investigation into these companies was driven by their potential risk of harm based on user numbers and traffic growth since the age-check rules came into force in summer 2025. Ofcom has also expanded ongoing probes into other providers, bringing the total number of sites and apps under investigation to 76.

The regulator’s approach reflects its commitment to tackling non-compliance across the sector. Providers are required not only to implement effective age checks but also to respond accurately and promptly to Ofcom’s statutory requests for information. Failure to do so can result in significant financial penalties, as demonstrated in this case. Organisations operating in the online content space should take note to review their compliance frameworks carefully, particularly around age assurance and regulatory reporting.

Investigation launched by US broadcast regulator over BBC Trump speech edit

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced on 20 November 2025 that it would be launching an investigation to determine whether a BBC Panorama episode titled "Trump: A Second Chance?" had been broadcast in the United States. The Panorama episode has been at the centre of controversy following allegations that it contained an edited version of a speech made by President Donald Trump on 6 January 2021, which allegedly suggested that President Trump had directly called for the 6 January Capitol riots (see our previous Take 10 article on the threatened defamation claim by President Trump here).

The Chair of the FCC, Brendan Carr, wrote to the BBC and two US broadcasters, PBS and NPR, on 19 November to determine if the broadcast had been made available in the US and if so, whether it had broken FCC rules. The FCC requires broadcasters to operate in the public interest, including prohibiting news distortion and broadcast hoax. The BBC has since apologised to President Trump for the editing of the speech, admitting that it gave the "mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for action", but is defending his threatened defamation claim over the broadcast.

Chief Constable of Lancashire apologises in Court over TikTok video

On 21 November 2025, the Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary publicly apologised in the High Court to Mr Ali Ahmed after broadcasting a TikTok video which wrongly appeared to link him to criminal behaviour.

The video, posted on the Constabulary’s official TikTok account on 3 November 2023, contained Mr Ahmed’s private information and was juxtaposed with footage of another man - whose face was obscured - throwing a firework at a police car. The post was accompanied by the lyrics from Rihanna’s song Take a Bow saying “you look so dumb right now”, creating the false impression that Mr Ahmed was the individual involved in the incident.

In Court, the Constabulary admitted that the defamatory allegations against Mr Ahmed were untrue and that use of Mr Ahmed’s image amounted to misuse of his private information. The Chief Constable accepted that the broadcast was misleading and apologised for the damage caused to his reputation and any distress. She has agreed to pay "substantial" damages to him along with his legal costs, to destroy the TikTok post and to publish an apology on TikTok itself.

Quote of the fortnight

"Those who are protected from abusive legal threats are better able to speak out and inform others, leading everyone in Scotland to be better aware of the world around them. To protect against SLAPPs is to protect democracy."

Nik Williams, Scottish Anti-SLAPP Working Group convener

https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/scottish-government-commits-to-anti-slapp-law

Upper Tribunal grants taxpayers permission to bring late appeals

Thu, 27 Nov 2025 10:00:00 Z

In Medpro Healthcare Ltd & Another v HMRC [2025] UKUT 255 (TCC), the Upper Tribunal allowed the taxpayers’ appeals, finding that the First-tier Tribunal had failed to give adequate reasons and misapplied the Martland test.

VAT update November 2025

Wed, 26 Nov 2025 14:35:00 Z

News

HMRC has published a Brief 6, explaining changes in the right to input tax deduction for insurance intermediary services supplied outside the UK before 31 December 2023.

HMRC's Brief can be viewed here.

HMRC's recorded webinar link for 'VAT on private school fees - what you need to charge and reclaim VAT for' has been updated.

The webinar can be accessed here.
HMRC has updated its internal manual concerning the VAT treatment of contracted out services relating to government departments and health authorities, giving practical advice in relation to VAT recovery concerning computer services systems and/or software packages.

The updated internal manual can be viewed here.

Case reports

Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v HMRC [2025] UKSC 37

This appeal concerned whether VAT should have been charged on the supply of car parking at hospitals. Ordinarily, VAT is charged on the supply of goods and services. However, there is an exception where a public body is supplying a service, which would otherwise be taxable, if it is ‘acting as a public authority’. A body is ‘acting as a public authority’ if it acts under a ‘special legislative regime’ (SLR). A body will be acting under an SLR when it is under different legal rules to a private operator carrying out the same activity. If the exception applies, the public body is not treated as a taxable person and so it does not have to charge VAT on its supply of the relevant goods or services. Even when this exception applies, if treating the public body as non-taxable would lead to ‘significant distortions of competition’, then the public body is restored to being taxable.

Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) supplied paid-for car parking at various sites between May 2013 and March 2016. The Trust argued that it was acting under an SLR, because there was guidance from the Department of Health regarding its car parking operations in conjunction with the public law obligation to follow such guidance unless there was good reason not to. The Trust argued that this meant it was not a taxable person when it supplied car parking. Alternatively, it argued that the provision of car parking was closely linked to its functions of providing healthcare and so it was not a taxable person when it supplied car parking. On this basis, the Trust made a claim for overpaid VAT. HMRC rejected the Trust’s claim and both the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed the Trust’s appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed the Trust’s appeal and HMRC appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

(1) whether NHS car-parking was performed under a SLR such that the Trust was acting as a public authority and fell within the exclusion under Article 13 of the Principal VAT Directive (PVD) and could be treated as non-taxable for VAT purposes; and

(2) whether exempting the Trust from VAT would lead to significant distortions of competition.

The Supreme Court allowed HMRC's appeal and confirmed that the Trust had to pay VAT on its hospital car parking charges because it was not acting as a public authority when providing car parking. The Court said that the guidance relied upon by the Trust did not constitute a legally binding regime with the certainty required to qualify as a SLR. Guidance, even externally issued, did not create enforceable obligations as it could be departed from and amended.

The Court was also of the view that even if the Trust had qualified as a SLR, exempting the Trust from VAT would have resulted in more than negligible distortions of competition. Evidence showed that VAT-free treatment would either allow the Trust to undercut its competitors or enable it to retain higher profits, both of which would constitute distortions of competition.

Why it matters

This judgment has sector-wide financial implications, as around 70 similar NHS appeals were stayed behind this case, with up to £100 million of VAT in issue.

The Supreme Court has clarified the VAT position for NHS organisations providing car-parking supplies and limits the circumstances in which public bodies can rely on Article 13 PVD to avoid taxable-person status. Crucially, non-binding guidance, even when combined with public-law duties, cannot amount to a SLR. Only legally enforceable obligations with sufficient certainty can satisfy Article 13.

The judgment can be viewed here.

Eurocent (Buckingham) Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 01253 (TC)

The FTT considered whether Eurocent (Buckingham) Ltd (Eurocent) was entitled to recover input VAT on professional fees incurred in connection with the purchase of a parade of let retail units.

Eurocent had claimed input VAT in respect of two invoices: one from BHNV Development Ltd (BHNV) for £46,000 of VAT on consultancy and property-related services, and another from Colridge Ltd (Colridge) for £4,960 of VAT, described only as an 'Introduction' fee.

The appeal turned on three questions. First, whether HMRC could deny input tax even if the invoices themselves were valid. Second, whether the BHNV and Colridge invoices complied with the VAT invoice requirements. Third, if any invoice was invalid, whether HMRC acted reasonably in refusing to accept alternative evidence under Regulation 29(2), Value Added Tax Regulations 1995.

HMRC's position was that it could refuse input tax recovery under Regulation 29(2) even if valid VAT invoices existed, on the basis that no genuine taxable supplies had been made. The FTT rejected HMRC’s argument, holding that Regulation 29(2) gives HMRC discretion to accept alternative evidence where invoices are missing or defective, but it does not empower HMRC to deny input tax where valid invoices are held. The FTT found that HMRC’s decision letters and internal review had been made solely under Regulation 29(2), not under any broader power.

Accordingly, the FTT concluded that the BHNV invoice was valid: it contained sufficient detail of the services provided, and it was acceptable for the date of issue and time of supply to coincide. However, the FTT found that the Colridge invoice was invalid, as it lacked the customer’s address, and an adequate description of the services supplied. The FTT held that HMRC had not acted unreasonably in refusing to exercise its discretion under Regulation 29(2) to accept alternative evidence.

The appeal was therefore allowed in part. Input tax on the BHNV invoice was recoverable, but not on the Colridge invoice.

Why it matters

This decision confirms that Regulation 29(2) concerns evidential sufficiency, not substantive entitlement. For businesses, the case underlines the importance of ensuring invoices satisfy legal requirements in order to allow them to make appropriate claims for input tax.

The decision can be viewed here.

Illuminate Skins Clinics Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKUT 00341 (TCC)

The UT considered whether Illuminate Skin Clinics Ltd (Illuminate) was entitled to treat its cosmetic and aesthetic treatments as exempt supplies of 'medical care' for VAT purposes under Item 1, Group 7, Schedule 9, Value Added Tax Act 1994.

Illuminate operated a private clinic offering a range of aesthetic and skincare procedures, including treatments for collagen loss, excess fat, Botox and dermal fillers. Illuminate sought to recover VAT on these aesthetic treatments on the basis that they were exempt as supplies of 'medical care', arguing that many of the procedures were performed for therapeutic purposes.

The FTT had dismissed Illuminate's claim for VAT repayment, concluding that the services did not constitute 'medical care'.

Illuminate relied on four grounds of appeal, arguing that the FTT:

focused on 'commercial and economic reality' instead of asking itself whether the services were purely cosmetic and therefore outside the exemption (Ground 1);
based its decision upon its view of the purpose, or primary purpose, of Illuminate's services when the correct question was whether the treatment was purely cosmetic (Ground 2);
assessed therapeutic purpose too narrowly and misapplied the case law on what constitutes medical/therapeutic care (Ground 3);
did not deal with Illuminate’s argument that HMRC was trying to impose an EU exclusion regarding cosmetic care that Parliament had not enacted into UK law (Ground 4).

The UT rejected Grounds 1 and 2, because the FTT had applied the correct legal test for the medical-care exemption, namely, identifying the principal purpose or aim of each treatment. The FTT had properly focused on whether each procedure had a therapeutic aim, and its references to 'commercial and economic reality' did not amount to an error of law.

With regard to Ground 3, the UT agreed with Illuminate that the FTT had unduly confined its assessment of therapeutic purpose by setting overly rigid evidential expectations for diagnosis. The FTT should have applied a holistic, multifactorial analysis of the evidence, considering the practitioner’s recorded diagnoses, the patient’s circumstances, the clinical context and the nature of the procedure.

The UT rejected Ground 4. The UT was of the view that there was no error of law in the FTT’s treatment of Illuminate’s 'Parliamentary intention' argument as the FTT had adequately addressed the point and applied the correct legal framework.

The appeal was therefore partly successful, with the UT setting aside the FTT’s decision in part and remitting the case to the FTT for reconsideration of the therapeutic purpose assessment, in light of its findings.

Why it matters

This decision provides important guidance on the VAT treatment of cosmetic and aesthetic medicine. It confirms that an exemption arises only where the principal purpose of a treatment is therapeutic and clarifies how the tax tribunals should determine that purpose. The UT’s emphasis on giving appropriate weight to medical diagnoses, distinguishing between cosmetic motivations and therapeutic aims, and conducting a transaction-by-transaction analysis, will influence numerous stayed appeals in the sector. It also limits the ability of HMRC to characterise aesthetic treatments as taxable without properly engaging with the medical evidence presented by qualified practitioners.

The decision can be viewed here.

Customs and excise quarterly update – November 2025

Wed, 26 Nov 2025 10:27:00 Z

Welcome to the November 2025 edition of RPC's Customs and excise quarterly update.

It's a wrap! Highlights from the ICO DPPC 2025

Tue, 25 Nov 2025 08:48:00 Z

The ICO held its annual Data Protection Practitioners' Conference (DPPC) on 14 October. With a packed agenda, eminent speakers and over 7,000 data protection professionals in attendance, it was one of the highlights of the privacy lawyer's year. Here we set out the key messages we took away from the conference.

The Week That Was - 21 November 2025

Fri, 21 Nov 2025 15:37:00 Z

Supreme Court held that Condition precedent is not deemed fulfilled by party's own breach

In King Crude Carriers SA v Ridgebury November LLC, the Supreme Court confirmed that English law recognises no general principle whereby a condition precedent to a debt obligation is treated as fulfilled simply because the obligor's breach caused its failure. The higher court overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal, in which it was held that the case of Mackay v Dick established this “deemed fulfilment principle”. Instead, the Supreme Court held that the starting point is the contract itself: if a debt is expressed as conditional, the obligation only arises when the condition is actually met. The Claimant (seller) argued that this interpretation enabled the Defendant (buyer) to escape liability through its own breach. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that deeming the condition satisfied would effectively rewrite the parties’ agreement. The seller’s remedy lies in damages, not payment of the conditional debt, unless the contract expressly provides otherwise.

Read the judgment here and the full analysis here.

Government Sets Out 2026 Reforms to Establish Independent Building Safety Regulator

The Government has published the draft Building Safety Regulator (Establishment of New Body and Transfer of Functions etc.) Regulations 2026, marking a major step in its plan to overhaul the Building Safety Regulator (BSR). Stemming from the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower public inquiry, the reforms aim to strengthen oversight and move towards a single construction regulator. Under the proposals, the BSR will be removed from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and re-established as an independent body under the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. When the relevant regulations come into force on 27 January 2026, the new BSR will assume the HSE’s building safety functions, with corresponding legislative amendments to reflect the shift in responsibility. The restructured regulator will operate with its own financial framework, including powers to charge for services and receive government funding.

Read the full draft regulations here.

Former ISG Chief Executive appointed to Mace Consult

Former ISG Chief Executive, Zoe Price, has been appointed as Managing Director for Europe at Mace Consult. At ISG, Zoe Price previously served as group director for public sector frameworks and chief operating officer for UK construction before becoming chief operating officer in February 2024 following the departure of Matt Blowers. Zoe Price has previously had roles at Wilmott Dixon and Morgan Sindall.

Mace Consult, which now operates as an independent programme delivery consultancy, employs more than 3,000 people in its Europe hub. It provides services including advisory, project management, planning, cost and commercial management, and responsible business consultancy. Mace Consult has recently made three other senior hires.

Read the full article here.

House of Lords European Affairs Committee Reports on UK-EU Reset

On 12 November 2025, the House of Lords European Affairs Committee published its first assessment of the UK government’s efforts to reset relations with the EU. The report, covering developments up to October 2025, evaluates progress on foreign policy, defence, trade, and mobility. Key recommendations include clearer scrutiny of the new UK-EU agreements that are expected to arise from the May 2025 summit, and clarification of the relationship between alternative electricity trading arrangements and possible UK participation in the EU internal electricity market. The Committee highlight the role of Parliament in scrutinising the Government’s implementation of its policies, and notes that no White Paper was produced by the Government setting out objectives at the outset, which would have facilitated the House of Lord's task of holding the Government to account.

Read the full analysis here.

RICS and ICE announce harmonised carbon assessment standards for the built environment

Both the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) have announced guidance aimed at promoting the adoption of two complementary carbon assessment standards for the built environment. The complementary standards are the RICS Whole Life Carbon Assessment (WLCA) Standard, which provides for a lifecycle methodology that measurers and reports building projects' carbon emissions, and this is complemented by PAS 2080:2023: Carbon Management in Buildings and Infrastructure (PAS). PAS defines the governance and management processes for reducing carbon impacts. The two assessment standards, together, support global decarbonisation objectives by embedding the carbon assessment and management into design, procurement, and construction workflows.

Read the full article here.

With thanks to Oliver Clarke, Jessica Hill, Sikander Azam and Victoria Sessions

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 21 November 2025

Fri, 21 Nov 2025 15:18:00 Z

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Headline development

Company founder successfully defends breach of duties claim in the High Court

In Friend Media Technology Systems and another v Jonathan Friend and another [2025] EWHC 2897 (KB), the High Court dismissed a claim that a founder and former director had breached his duties or misused confidential information, following a disagreement with the new private equity owners. The Claimants alleged that, following his removal, the Defendant engaged in multiple discussions with the Claimants' customers, potential customers, potential partners and competitors, and divulged confidential information, with the aim of competing with the Claimants. The Defendant denied the allegations, asserting that he had acted pursuant to his duties.

The judge dismissed the claims in their entirety. The judge criticised the lack of supporting evidence for many of the allegations made by the Claimants, as well as the inconsistent nature of how the claim was presented. Furthermore, the judge determined that the Defendant incorporating a dormant company did not constitute competitive activity. The judge also highlighted that the Claimants could have cleared much of their suspicion of the Defendant if they had made further enquiries of what had been discussed at the time.

To read more, please click here.

Insolvency practitioners

Government releases individual insolvency statistics for October 2025

In October 2025, 10,552 individuals in England and Wales entered formal insolvency, marking a 4% drop from September but a 14% increase on the same time last year. The breakdown includes 599 bankruptcies, 3,846 Debt Relief Orders (DROs), and 6,107 Individual Voluntary Arrangements (IVAs). DROs remain elevated, although slightly down from their August 2025 peak, whilst IVA registrations in October exceeded the average monthly number seen in the first half of 2025. Meanwhile, bankruptcy filings remain roughly half of pre-2020 levels.

Over the 12 months ending 31 October 2025, the insolvency rate stood at 24.8 per 10,000 adults in England and Wales (one in 403), up from 23.4 per 10,000 a year earlier. The 'Breathing Space' debt scheme saw 7,701 registrations in October 2025, similar to October 2024.

The commentary notes a temporary dip in October figures due to the Insolvency Service migrating to a new case-management system, which meant no debtor bankruptcy orders or IVA registrations were entered on 31 October.

Despite this, quarterly and annual trends suggest individual insolvency remains high, driven by historically high DROs and increased IVAs.

To read the government's commentary on Individual Insolvency Statistics October 2025, please click here.

Pensions

TPR focusses on member data in lead up to pension dashboard implementation with revised guidance issued

With the deadline for the implementation of the pensions dashboard fast approaching, The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has urged trustees to treat member data as their most important 'strategic asset'.

TPR conducted a large-scale engagement exercise with hundreds of schemes. The exercise revealed that whilst many schemes had made significant progress in improving their data quality, there were some which had work to do.

The key findings were that:

Most schemes had progressed with the cleansing of personal data but what is often overlooked is the data used to calculate benefits – value data. The exercise found that plans to improve and / or engage with trustees are often inadequate.
There was a significant range in terms of controls and trustee focus when it comes to data. Some schemes have addressed deficiencies, however there are others with issues due to historical underinvestment. TPR published a report in July which found that one in four schemes continue to hold non-digitised records, and less than three in five schemes are confident in the accuracy of their membership data.
The exercise was focused on improvement plans and measuring data, which is considered by the TPR a necessary foundation as part of schemes' preparation for connecting to the pensions dashboard.

TPR has also issued new guidance whereby it has consolidated all its data-related guidance into a single place. It has also provided clearer expectations along with best-practice examples. The guidance explains how:

Trustees bear ultimate accountability for the quality of data, even where such tasks are delegated to administrators.
There must be regular data assessments, reports must be reviewed, and scheme returns must contain accurate data.
Trustees will need a clear strategy for data management. Where improvement is needed resource must be allocated and service providers must be challenge where standards are not complied with.
The largest schemes' data preparations are now under regulator scrutiny, with TPR engagement to increase across 2026. Trustees must be ready to show that they are maintaining data in accordance with legal requirements and TPR expectations. TPR intervention including improvement notices may be issued to firms unable to demonstrate compliance.

To read the TPR publication, please click here.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

FCA gives speech on consumer needs and potential reshaping of regulation

On 12 November 2025, Sarah Pritchard, FCA deputy chief executive, gave a speech at The Investing and Saving Alliance’s (TISA) annual conference. Pritchard highlighted new challenges, including the pensions landscape where recent research has showed that over half of UK adults don’t understand enough about pensions to take critical decisions. The FCA believes that the introduction of targeted support and making pensions dashboards a reality will ensure the system delivers for consumers and the economy, although it was noted that there is no silver bullet. Regarding home ownership, it was noted that the FCA has set out a wide-ranging set of ideas to change mortgage lending rules, with the aim of opening the possibility of homeownership to more people.

Pritchard noted that there is an opportunity to reset their rulebook through smarter regulation, rather than deregulation. This includes stripping away unnecessary burdens to allow firms to innovate, grow and deliver for their customers. Pritchard identified that too few consumers invest, and that targeted support can help consumers make informed decisions, as well as reviewing risk warnings and ensuring consumers have a fair impression about investing. Looking to the future, the FCA remains focused on ensuring the Consumer Duty is working in practice and wants to ensure the insurance market helps consumers, provides peace of mind and supports growth.

To read the full speech, please click here.

FSCS raises deposit protection limit to £120,000 from December 2025

The Bank of England announced on 18 November 2025 that the Financial Services Compensation Scheme will increase the limit for reimbursement on deposits held by customers of failed banks to £120,000 from December 2025. Customers who have deposited money in any U.K. regulated bank would get full reimbursement up to the new limit of £120,000 if that lender failed. The program paid out £327 million in compensation in 2024 to 2025 to almost 33,000 customers of such companies. The program is funded by levies on all FCA-regulated firms. The FSCS also protects policyholders when insurers fail, covering 90% of the value of the claim on home or travel insurance, and 100% for life insurance and pensions.

The FSCS also covers claims for temporary high balances held with banks. This limit will rise from £1 million to £1.4 million from December. The Prudential Regulation Authority has said that the increase from the current compensation limit of £85,000 reflects inflation since 2017, although the increase exceeds their earlier proposal of £110,000.

To read more, please click here.

PRA publishes results of its life insurance stress test

The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) has published the results of the 2025 Life Insurance Stress Test (LIST 2025), the first conducted under the Solvency UK regime implemented in 2024. For the first time, in addition to sector-level findings, the PRA will publish the individual firm results on 24 November 2025. LIST 2025 covers eleven of the largest UK life insurers active in the bulk purchase annuity market, accounting for more than 90% of annuity liabilities.

The PRA has confirmed that the results of LIST 2025 indicate that the sector is resilient to a severe financial market stress scenario that impacts insurers’ investment portfolios. The stress scenario, designed to be severe but plausible, indicates that firms would experience an aggregate £8.6 billion reduction in capital surplus above regulatory requirements, with £12.9 billion of assets downgraded to below sub-investment grade. The PRA found that the aggregate solvency capital requirement coverage ratio would fall from a strong starting point of 185% to 154% post-stress, meaning that participating firms maintain sufficient capital resources.

The PRA has emphasised that LIST 2025 is not a pass or fail exercise and that firms’ boards and senior managers remain responsible for maintaining robust, forward-looking stress testing and capital planning processes.

To read the LIST 2025 results, please click here.

Emerging risks

Fraudulent insurance claims continue to rise

On 17 November 2025, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) warned that fraudulent claims in the U.K. general insurance sector rose again in 2024. According to the ABI, major players in the insurance sector uncovered 98,400 claims connected with fraud in 2024, a 12% increase on the 81,100 claims found in the previous year. The total value of these claims came to £1.16 billion in 2024, which represents a 2% increase on the £1.14 billion detected in 2023. The largest share of the fraud volume came from motor insurance scams, with 51,700 cases worth £576 million. This figure equates to 53% of the value of all detected fraudulent claims and a 5% increase since 2023. Property insurance fraud has also increased 11% from the previous year, while fraud connected with commercial policies remained relatively flat.

Although there are an increasing number of claims involving fraud, insurers prevented an estimated 684,800 fraudulent policy applications in 2024, an increase of 7.4% from 2023. This type of fraud involves the misrepresentation or omission of information when taking out a policy. The ABI added that fraud increasingly uses sophisticated tools such as artificial intelligence, and tackling it will require broader cooperation with technology firms and social media platforms.

To read more, please click here.

With thanks to this week's contributors: Daniel Parkin, Dorian Nunzek, Damien O'Malley, Ben Simmonds, Haiying Li, James Parsons, and Lauren Butler

Tribunal allows expat's appeal confirming that SIPP withdrawals were not subject to UK tax

Thu, 20 Nov 2025 10:00:00 Z

In Trevor John Masters v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 967 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal allowed the taxpayer's appeal, holding that the taxpayer's SIPP withdrawals were taxable only in Portugal under the UK–Portugal Double Tax Convention.

Insurance Covered: A look at Fine Art & Specie insurance (With Joshila Sharma)

Wed, 19 Nov 2025 11:24:00 Z

In this episode, Peter Mansfield interviews Joshila Sharma, a specialist in Fine Art and Specie insurance.

Mind the Gap: the Competition Appeal Tribunal rules on the approach to allocation of unclaimed settlement funds

Wed, 19 Nov 2025 10:53:00 Z

The recent judgment of the Competition Appeal Tribunal in relation to the distribution of unclaimed settlement funds following settlement of the Stagecoach South Western Trains Limited (SSWT) opt out collective action provides important practical guidance for legal and other professionals involved in opt-out collective action proceedings.

Taxing Matters: The Court of Appeal's decision in A Taxpayer v HMRC with Rebecca Sheldon, Old Square Tax Chambers

Wed, 19 Nov 2025 10:11:00 Z

In this episode, Alexis Armitage, Taxing Matters host and Senior Associate at RPC, speaks with Rebecca Sheldon of Old Square Tax Chambers, about the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in A Taxpayer v HMRC, in which Rebecca was instructed on behalf of the taxpayer.

Company founder successfully defends breach of duties claim in the High Court

Tue, 18 Nov 2025 16:39:50 Z

In Friend Media Technology Systems and another v Jonathan Friend and another [2025] EWHC 2897 (KB), the High Court dismissed a claim that a founder and former director had breached his duties or misused confidential information, following a disagreement with the new private equity owners.

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 14 November 2025

Fri, 14 Nov 2025 15:07:00 Z

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Headline development

BoE introduces systemic stablecoin strategy and consultation

The Bank of England (BoE) has outlined its regulatory framework for the introduction of systemic stablecoins in its consultation dated 10 November 2025, which marks a pivotal development in the UK’s approach in this space. Systemic stablecoins are digital assets whose value is linked to established currencies to maintain price stability.

The BoE's strategy aims to facilitate stablecoins in retail payments and wholesale settlements across the UK. Under the consultation framework, issuers of these stablecoins would be required to maintain strong capital and liquidity positions; back coins primarily with short-term government bonds, and; ensure users can redeem them at full value.

The consultation framework also mandates stringent operational resilience, including rigorous cybersecurity, effective risk management, and transparent governance structures. Temporary holding limits for individuals (£20,000) and businesses (£10m) are suggested as the financial system adapts over time. These measures are designed to mitigate risks such as financial instability, consumer loss, and operational failures, supporting trust and stability as digital assets become increasingly integrated into UK payments and settlements.

The consultation period runs until 10 February 2026. The BoE invites feedback from industry participants, consumer groups, and financial institutions to ensure the regulatory regime is proportionate and effective. By encouraging dialogue and collaboration, the BoE seeks to promote responsible innovation while protecting consumers and the integrity of the UK financial system. The consultation’s outcome is expected to shape future legislation and supervisory practices in digital finance.

To read the consultation, please click here.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

FCA's review of credit builder products

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has reviewed a range of credit builder products – services that claim to help you improve your credit score by building a record of making payments. Whilst these products are often marketed to people with little or no credit history, the FCA found little evidence that they significantly improve credit scores.

The FCA warned that some products give a misleading picture of consumers' financial positions and encourage consumers to take on credit they cannot afford. The review also found that most firms offering these products were unregulated, and that these firms were failing to clearly explain the limitations and risks. The FCA's review has already led to several firms withdrawing or changing their offerings.

Before signing up for a credit builder product, the FCA urges consumers to consider whether these products really fit their needs and are worth the cost. The FCA encourages consumers to seek free, impartial advice from services such as MoneyHelper as an alternative.

To read more, please click here.

FCA reports on firms' risk assessment processes

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) conducted a multi-firm review in 2025, focusing on business-wide risk assessments (BWRA) and customer risk assessments (CRA), as part of its broader financial crime supervisory work. The review assessed how firms identify, understand, mitigate, and manage financial crime risks, as part of the FCA’s 2025–30 strategy. Firms assessed included building societies, platforms, custody and fund services, payments (e-money), and wealth management firms.

The survey's key findings centre around how firms go about:

1. Identifying, Understanding, and Assessing Risk

The FCA found that most firms have a BWRA in place and that larger firms integrate risk assessment into business functions and aggregate results firm-wide. Some firms use both qualitative and quantitative data, tailored sub-factors, and weightings to assess inherent, control, and residual risks. There is effective linkage between risk appetite, BWRA, and CRA processes. However, often BWRAs are lacking detail, missing quantitative analysis, or unclear processes. Some focus mainly on fraud or generic risks, neglecting money laundering, sanctions, anti-bribery, proliferation financing, and terrorist financing. There is also often an oversimplification and failure to explain risk impact on the firm.

2. Mitigating Risk

The survey showed that financial crime risk is generally considered in strategy, growth, and product development, and that risk appetite is clearly linked to BWRA. Actions from risk assessments are documented and there is compliance capacity for current and future growth. There are often bad practices though in relation to the mitigation of risk, with business growth often outpacing risk assessment updates, and there is generally a lack of records or evidence of risk mitigation. Also, CRAs are not scaled or updated in line with business expansion.

3. Managing Risk

The survey found that there is strong governance and senior management oversight, with regular review and challenge of risk assessments. Discussions, changes, and approvals are documented, and firms have dynamic, regularly refreshed risk assessment models. However, at times there is a lack evidence of senior oversight and challenge, and insufficient documentation of senior management involvement. There is also a narrow focus and static approach to risk assessment.

The report suggests that stakeholders understand the specific risks faced by businesses and that they maintain robust financial crime systems and controls. Firms should regularly review and update risk-based approaches, and ensure risk assessments are comprehensive, tailored, and documented. The FCA also suggests that risk assessment outcomes are linked to business strategy and compliance capacity, and that senior management must actively oversee, challenge, and approve risk assessments. The FCA will continue to monitor firms and work with those where weaknesses are identified.

To read more, please click here.

FCA figures reveal home insurance still falling short on payouts

New data from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) shows that home insurers are still falling short when it comes to paying claims. In 2024, only around 70.7% of home insurance claims made on combined buildings and contents insurance policies were accepted. This figure is slightly down from the previous year (71.9%) with some insurers paying out on as few as half of all claims. By contrast, other insurance sectors, such as motor and pets, see payout rates above 90%, highlighting that home insurance continues to underperform.

Consumer group "Which?" has filed a super-complaint with the FCA over poor claims acceptance rates and poor treatment of customers during the claims process. With the FCA having until 23 December to respond.

To read more, please click here.

FSCS Chief Executive gives statement on 2025 progress and future outlook

On 12 November 2025, Martyn Beauchamp, the Chief Executive of the FSCS, made a statement on the FSCS' progress and outlook for this financial year, and review of the 2026/27 levy forecast.

Beauchamp confirmed that so far in 2025, the FSCS has completed the transition of their claims service, bringing the majority of claims management and all customer call-handling in-house. It was confirmed that the 2025/26 levy remains as forecast in May 2025 at £356m and the FSCS does not anticipate any additional levies for firms. The FSCS also expects to pay slightly less in compensation over the year than anticipated in May, a decrease of 5% to £315m (from £332m). Beauchamp also confirmed that a key priority for the FSCS remains maximising recoveries, with close to £40m in recoveries anticipated by the end of 2025/26.

The early forecast of the total levy in 2026/27 is £342m, which represents a small decrease on 2025/26. This is based on a forecast of £294m in compensation costs for 2026/27. This decrease is based on a changing claims environment with lower forecasted compensation costs in the Investment Provision class, mainly driven by fewer claims against SIPP operators. Beauchamp confirmed that they will publish an update to the FSCS' budget, which will provide full details of our management expenses for 2026/27, which forms part of the overall levy.

To read more, please click here.

FCA issues warning to CFD providers after multi-firm review

The FCA announced on 13 November 2025 that contracts for difference (CFD) providers have been warned to provide fair value, after its multi-firm review found some CFD providers had not risen to the Consumer Duty. The FCA's review did find evidence of good practice, including firms simplifying fee structures and stopping investors who might not be able to shoulder losses from buying CFDs in the first place. However, the FCA also identified areas for improvement, including:

not adequately considering consumer complaints or customer satisfaction as part of their fair value assessments;
making little or no changes to their products or services in response to the Consumer Duty;
applying varying levels of overnight funding charges without providing clear justification – the potentially significant charges often were not adequately disclosed; and
charging overnight funding separately on matched long and short positions, incurring potentially significant ongoing charges with little benefit for the consumer.

The FCA has also published examples of good practices and areas for improvement for CFD providers. The FCA has confirmed they will, where necessary, engage directly with firms included in their review to drive improvements, and will also consider further work to address the issues identified.

To read more, please click here.

FRC reports on the transition to the UK Stewardship Code 2026

The UK Stewardship Code 2026 takes effect from 1 January 2026, introducing a streamlined two-part reporting model. The Financial Reporting Council's (FRC) guidance, “Preparing for the UK Stewardship Code 2026: applying insights from current reporting”, provides practical examples and insights drawn from high-quality reporting under the 2020 Code. The new reporting structure separates (1) Policy and Context Disclosure, submitted every fourth year, focusing on policies and organisational context and (2) Activities and Outcomes Report, submitted annually, demonstrating how the Code’s Principles are applied in practice. The revised approach aims to reduce reporting burdens while maintaining high standards and transparency. 2026 will be a transition year; existing signatories retain their status if they submit their first report to the updated Code during their usual application window.

It is expected that the reduced administrative burden and less frequent policy reporting allows organisations to focus annual efforts on stewardship activities and outcomes. Further, the separation of policy and activity reporting enables clearer demonstration of stewardship practices and their effectiveness. The report notes that the fundamentals of high-quality reporting remain, including effective engagement case studies, reporting of policies alongside evidence of implementation and oversight of external managers. The report provides examples relevant to different asset classes and organisational contexts, supporting tailored approaches.

The FRC’s optional guidance gives suggestions on information to include in reports, explains stewardship approaches, and addresses areas of greatest interest for example engagement, manager oversight, voting and stewardship in non-public equity. It also suggests using the transition year (2026) to familiarise teams with the new structure and expectations. The report suggests signatories ensure that annual reporting focuses on demonstrating real-world stewardship activities and outcomes, not just policies.

To read more, please click here.

Pensions

Industry calls for greater clarity on TPR’s new enforcement strategy

The Pensions Regulator’s (TPR) proposed new enforcement strategy has received broad support but also prompted calls for greater clarity, particularly on how it will apply to smaller schemes.

In its consultation response, the Society of Pension Professionals (SPP) backed TPR’s risk-based approach but warned that prioritising cases by scale and impact could give the impression smaller schemes face less scrutiny. The SPP also cautioned that limited regulatory resources might focus enforcement on large or high-profile cases. Some members of the SPP further urged TPR to clarify how new surplus flexibilities under the Pension Schemes Act 2021 interact with existing criminal offences.

The Association of Professional Pension Trustees has, similarly, supported TPR’s proposed new strategy but described the strategy as overly high-level, stressing the need for transparency, clear success measures, and adequate resourcing.

Both groups agreed the approach aligns with TPR’s preventive, risk-based model but said detailed policies and communication will determine its effectiveness.

To read the TPR's enforcement strategy consultation, please click here.

Tax practitioners

HMRC's AML supervision fees update

HMRC will increase its anti-money laundering (AML) supervision fees from 1 December 2025 to reflect inflation and rising supervision costs.

Following a consultation launched in July 2025, HMRC received 478 responses, mainly from small businesses, many of whom raised concerns about affordability. As a result, HMRC has moderated some proposals: the fit and proper test fee will rise from £150 to £500 (instead of £700), and the application fee will be set at £300 (not £400), with refunds for eligible small firms. The premises fee will increase from £300 to £400, or £180 to £200 for small businesses, whilst the sanctions administration charge will rise to £2,000.

HMRC will also raise awareness of the Small Business Fee refund, which many eligible firms fail to claim. The government maintains that supervised businesses, not taxpayers, should cover the cost of AML regulation, and HMRC remains committed to strengthening its supervisory role.

To read the HMRC's policy paper on AML's supervision fees, please click here.

First-Tier Tribunal upholds penalty notice against pension trustees

In New Internationalist Publications Ltd v Pensions Regulator [2025] UKFTT 1328 (GRC), the First-Tier Tribunal dismissed an appeal against a Penalty Notice of £12,500 issued by the Pensions Regulator. The Penalty Notice was issued to the Appellant for failure to complete a detailed value for members assessment annually as required under regulation 25(1)(b) and 25(1A) of the Occupational Pension Schemes (Scheme Administration) Regulations 1996. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant failed to comply with its legal obligation to complete the detailed value for members assessment by the 31 October 2023 deadline and took no steps to remedy the breach until contacted by the Pension Regulator in April 2024, with ignorance of legal obligations not constituting grounds for penalty reduction.

The Tribunal found that there were grounds to issue the Penalty Notice, which was not disputed by the Appellant. The Appellant submitted that there was no intention to breach any rules or regulations, however the tribunal decided that this was of no assistance to the Appellant as the Appellant's intentions were not relevant. The directors of the trustee company were required to have understanding and knowledge of the law relating to pensions and trusts to a degree which was appropriate for the purposes of enabling the individual properly to exercise the function as a trustee director. Ultimately, the tribunal found that the level of Penalty Notice was fair and reasonable and within the range permitted by the legislation.

To read the full decision, please click here.

With thanks to this week's contributors: Daniel Parkin, Dorian Nunzek, Damien O'Malley, Ben Simmonds, Haiying Li, James Parsons, and Lauren Butler

Take 10 - 14 November 2025

Fri, 14 Nov 2025 14:54:00 Z

BBC refuses to pay compensation to Trump in response to threatened $1 billion lawsuit

The BBC has refused a demand for compensation made by US President Donald Trump following his threat to sue the BBC for $1 billion in damages in Florida over a Panorama documentary episode ("Trump: A Second Chance?") broadcast on 28 October 2024. Following the leak of an internal BBC memo reported by The Telegraph, President Trump's claims the episode broadcast a selectively edited clip of his speech on 6 January 2021 which appeared to show him inciting the 'Capitol riots' which he labelled as "false, defamatory, disparaging and inflammatory". His legal team have demanded that the BBC agrees to issue an apology, retracts the programme and "appropriately compensate" President Trump for the harm cause, failing which a lawsuit for no less than $1 billion (£760m) will be filed today (Friday 14 November).

It seems likely that any claim for libel will be pursued in the US state of Florida, despite the programme only reportedly being broadcast in the UK. President Trump is no stranger to pursuing claims in the UK – his recent data protection claim against Orbis Intelligence concerning alleged inaccuracies in the so-called 'Steele Dossier' was dismissed by the Court last year – but any defamation claim over the broadcast is now time-barred in England and Wales. In contrast, the limitation period in Florida is two years from the date of publication. It is generally harder for litigants to sue over libel claims in the US due to the significant protection given to freedom of speech under the First Amendment, following the landmark US Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), which held that for a public figure to succeed in a libel claim in the US they need to prove actual malice on behalf of the publisher. Despite the high threshold to overcome, the size of US damages awards are likely to be a substantial concern to UK media organisations more generally.

Carter-Ruck sues the SRA for requesting privileged material

Carter-Ruck and Mohammed Amersi, a former Conservative Party donor, have issued a Part 8 claim against the SRA seeking a declaration that the SRA are not entitled to require the production of legally privileged material for the purposes of a regulatory investigation. The investigation relates to an SRA investigation into Carter-Ruck in relation to its representation of Mr Amersi in his well-publicised claims against former Conservative MP Charlotte Leslie. Mr Amersi's defamation claim was struck out in June 2023, with the High Court finding that Mr Amersi had failed to satisfy the 'serious harm' requirement. Ms Leslie subsequently reported the firm to the SRA alleging that it had knowingly participated in a SLAPP. Mr Amersi has vehemently rejected the SLAPP allegation and Carter-Ruck denies any suggestion of misconduct.

Section 44B of the Solicitors Act 1974 gives the SRA the power to issue a Notice to a solicitor to provide information or documents where it is necessary for the purpose of an investigation into whether there has been professional misconduct or any failure to comply with any legal or regulatory obligations. It is regularly used by the SRA to seek production of privileged documents from the recipient law firms. This point has not previously been determined by the High Court in England and Wales. However, in 2022, the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland ruled that the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, the equivalent regulatory authority in that jurisdiction, was not entitled to recover legal privileged information from a solicitor's file to investigate a third-party complaint without client consent. If the Part 8 claim succeeds, the SRA's ability to investigate law firms for alleged breaches of the SRA Code of Conduct will be severely hampered save in circumstances where a client agrees to a waiver of privilege.

Dale Vince granted permission to appeal

The Court of Appeal has granted Dale Vince permission to appeal the High Court's decision to strike out as an abuse of process a data protection claim alleging unfairness under Article 5(1)(a) of the UK GDPR against Associated Newspapers Limited, which was issued shortly before a claim in defamation over the same article was dismissed. Mr Vince's claim related to two Daily Mail articles which published photographs of him alongside a headline which reported that Labour had repaid £100,000 to a "sex pest donor". The content of the articles made clear that Mr Vince was not the 'sex pest' mentioned in the headline. Lord Justice Warby granted permission on two grounds. First, it was arguable that the Judge at first instance had not identified with sufficient clarity or precision the basis on which the claim was an abuse of process, having found no abuse under Henderson. Second, the Court of Appeal may conclude that the lower court gave too much weight to the defamation principles and the importance of legal coherence in a case relying on principles of unfairness in data protection law.

This is the third case in which Mr Vince has been granted permission to appeal in 'media' claims in recent weeks. On 10 November, Mr Vince was granted permission to appeal findings at a preliminary issue trial in the libel claim of Vince v Bailey related to the second, third and 'malice' conditions of Mr Bailey's honest opinion defence. That appeal has been jointly listed with the appeal in Bridgen v Hancock which raises the same issue. We understand that Mr Vince has also been granted permission to appeal the preliminary issue decision on the findings of fact that the publication complained of was a statement of opinion and bore the meaning that was found in Vince v Tice [2025] EWHC 412(KB). The appeal hearings are yet to be listed. RPC acts for ANL and Mr Hancock.

Nicklin J orders disclosure of documents held by third-parties in Lawrence & ors v ANL

On 10 November 2025, Mr Justice Nicklin handed down judgment ordering standard disclosure of documents be provided by a 'Research Team' engaged by the Claimants in wide-ranging claims of unlawful information gathering brought against Associated Newspapers. Nicklin J held that documents in the possession of their Research Team (two journalists and an ex-MP who have worked closely with solicitors acting for claimants in the concurrent litigation against NGN and MGN) were within the Claimants' control due to the practical and cooperative relationship between the Claimants and the Research Team who were formally engaged in April 2022 to assist in the litigation. Irrespective of the capacity in which the members of the Research Team originally obtained documents, the individuals now held the documents as agents for the Claimants. Under CPR 31.8, control for the purposes of disclosure is not limited to physical possession or enforceable rights but also includes situations where there is a practical arrangement or understanding that provides unfettered access. Moreover, there was evidence to show that the Research Team had voluntarily provided access to their documents and there was no suggestion that access to their documents had been withheld. Crucially, the court rejected the Claimants' attempt to limit disclosure to documents obtained post-engagement and ruled that all relevant documents held by the Research Team, regardless of when they were acquired, are within the Claimant's control and therefore must be disclosed if they fall within the scope of standard disclosure.

Ofcom rules on TalkTV breach of Broadcasting Code impartiality obligations

Ofcom has found that a TalkTV broadcast titled "Kevin O'Sullivan's Political Asylum" which aired in January 2025, breached Rule 5.5 of the Broadcasting Code which requires broadcasters to preserve due impartiality on matters of political controversy relating to current public policy. The broadcast contained repeated allegations that the Labour government postponed local elections out of fear that Reform UK would win and unfavourably compared Labour to authoritarian regimes, without giving due weight to the government's position. Although TalkTV argued that the personal view format and audience expectations justified the approach, Ofcom concluded that alternative viewpoints were not properly reflected or contextualised in the broadcast. In fact, Ofcom deemed that the broadcast's "brief" references to the government's position were insufficient and easily dismissed by the presenter and other contributors. Ofcom emphasised that even opinion-led programmes must preserve impartiality when discussing contentious public policy which underscores the importance of balanced coverage in discourse concerning democracy.

Police encouraged to speak to the press to 'rebuild trust'

As part of a consultation on its media and communications standards, the College of Policing has released new draft guidance seeking to revise and improve how police forces share information with the media. In a welcome move towards transparency and repairing the relationship between police forces and the media, the draft guidance encourages officers and staff of all ranks and roles to speak to journalists and have "regular, meaningful interaction and engagement" with the press. It also provides further guidance on when information about ongoing police investigations should be released to the media, including the confirmation of the nationality and/or ethnicity of a defendant in high-profile investigations. The consultation is open until 4 January 2026, and submissions can be made via an online questionnaire here.

Developments in online safety regulation

Ofcom has launched a call for evidence ahead of preparing two statutory reports under the Online Safety Act 2023 focussing on the use of age assurance technologies and the role app stores play in exposing children to harmful content. The age assurance consultation invites stakeholders to provide evidence on how online services have implemented age assurance measures; their effectiveness in protecting children; and any challenges that might have hindered their implementation such as financial, technological, or privacy concerns. The app store consultation aims to analyse how such stores may facilitate children’s exposure to harmful material by evaluating the effectiveness of current safeguards like age ratings and parental controls. It will also explore whether enhanced age assurance or other protective mechanisms could strengthen children’s online safety. Ofcom’s findings will shape policy recommendations to the UK Government, with reports due in July 2026 (age assurance) and January 2027 (app stores). Responses are due by 17:00 on 1 December 2025 and can be submitted here. Ofcom has also published an update to its timelines for implementing the remaining phases of the Online Safety Act it intends to publish its final guidance, with its guidance for improving online safety for women and girls due on 25 November 2025.

On a similar note, Ofcom, the European Commission, and Australia’s eSafety Commissioner have announced a joint initiative to promote safer digital environments for children worldwide. Their collaboration aims to ensure that young users experience “safe, inclusive, and empowering access” to technology. The initiative will be supported by a dedicated expert group on age assurance who will aim to develop evidence-based verification solutions whilst maintaining privacy for users.

Royals win privacy case against French magazine

A French court has ruled that Paris Match, a French gossip magazine, infringed the privacy of the Prince and Princess of Wales and their children by publishing paparazzi photographs taken during a private ski holiday in Courchevel earlier this year. The images, which showed the family on the balcony of their lodge, were described by Kensington Palace as “grossly intrusive”. The couple sued the magazine, seeking damages, but agreed to drop their claim in exchange for a judicial notice acknowledging the breach and requiring Paris Match to pay legal costs. The notice, printed in Paris March's recent issue, confirms that both the print and online articles violated the family’s right to respect for private life and image.

This case continues the well-trodden path of the British royal family enforcing their privacy rights in respect of alleged breaches by French media organisations. The Princess of Wales was awarded €100,000 in 2017 after suing Closer for publishing topless photographs of her sunbathing on a private holiday in 2012. Prince William’s mother, Diana, famously died in Paris in 1997 while being pursued by photographers, a tragedy that has heightened sensitivity around royal family privacy claims in France. It is notable that the majority of the royal family rarely litigate against the UK media, with the exception being the spate of recent claims by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

ECHR decline to compel the UK to investigate election interference

On 22 July 2025, the Strasbourg Court handed down judgment in Bradshaw & Others v United Kingdom (App no. 15653/22). While the underlying proceedings will not be of particular interest to media practitioners, its readiness to extend the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to create new positive obligations to combat the challenges created by new technologies such as social media will be. The proceedings follow the applicants being refused permission to apply for judicial review to challenge the UK Prime Minister's decision not to direct an independent investigation into Russian interference with the UK's democratic process in the 2014 referendum on Scottish Independence, the 2016 EU membership referendum and the 2019 general election, with the High Court finding that it was not arguable that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR – the right to free elections – required the UK government to undertake an independent investigation. Upholding the High Court's decision, the Strasbourg Court held that the UK government's response to the threat of Russian election interference did not fall outside the wide margin of appreciation afforded to it, while acknowledging there is an obligation on member states to address the real risk to freedom of expression as a consequence of hostile interference in elections via new technologies. While the decision did not touch on Articles 8 or 10 of the ECHR, which protect the rights to privacy and freedom of expression, it is a reminder that the ECHR is a 'living instrument' and the rights afforded by it are not set in stone. It may not be the last word on the matter as the applicants have referred the case to the Grand Chamber. Detailed analysis of this judgment can be found on 11KBW's data blog here.

Law Commission report on contempt of court laws

Next week, the Law Commission will publish the first part of its report on its review of contempt of court laws on Tuesday 18 November 2025. The report will focus on liability for contempt and the role of the Attorney General in contempt proceedings. Part one of the report and a summary will be published here. Part two, which will address all remaining issues, will be published in 2026.

Quote of the fortnight

"Trump's first problem is that, according to the BBC, Panorama is not actually available in the US and neither is the BBC iPlayer - unless you're using a VPN in a naughty way, which you might not want to ventilate in a court of law. So what's the damage?"

Alan Rusbridger, The Independent, 13 November 2025.

Cyber_Bytes - Issue 77

Fri, 14 Nov 2025 13:53:00 Z

RPC Cyber app: Breach counsel at your fingertips

RPC Cyber_ can be downloaded for free from the Apple Store or Google Play Store.

UK government urges business leaders to prioritise cyber security amid rising threat

In a ministerial letter dated 13 October 2025, addressed to CEOs and Chairs across the country, senior ministers and security officials highlight that cyber incidents are "growing more intense, frequent, sophisticated". The letter warns of the risks this poses to economic and national security and encourages organisations to strengthen their resilience by:

embedding cyber security into board-level decision-making and adopting recognised frameworks such as the Cyber Governance Code of Practice;
registering for the National Cyber Security Centre’s Early Warning service; and
requiring Cyber Essentials certification within their supply chains.

The letter cites that over 90% of company boards now recognise cyber security as a critical priority. However, it is important to convert this awareness into practical action and these measures are intended to help companies address vulnerabilities and improve their ability to prevent, detect, and respond to cyber risks.

You can read more by clicking here for the Ministerial letter on the government website.

ENISA Threat Landscape 2025: Ransomware, Phishing, and AI Shape Europe’s Cyber Risk

The European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) has released its annual Threat Landscape report which provides an overview of the evolving cyber risks facing organisations across Europe.

The report sets out that ransomware continues to be at the core of cyber intrusion activity. The report found that 96.3% of cybercrime activities targeting EU organisations included ransomware, with key target sectors being the manufacturing sector and digital infrastructure and services. Attackers are increasingly professionalising their operations, employing double extortion tactics and targeting critical infrastructure sectors. Ransomware groups are not only seeking financial gain but also widespread operational disruption.

Phishing is identified as the primary method for initial compromise, accounting for 60% of observed cases. The report also notes that attackers are increasingly leveraging phishing-as-a-service platforms. This allows less technically skilled actors to launch large-scale campaigns, which significantly raises the threat level. Furthermore, AI is being used to enhance the credibility and scale of campaigns. Phishing remains a persistent challenge due to its adaptability and effectiveness in bypassing organisational defences.

Overall, cyber risks are becoming more complex and interconnected, with ransomware, phishing, and AI-driven attacks at the forefront. Organisations are encouraged to remain vigilant and protect themselves from these persisting threats, for example, by taking a pro-active approach to assessing their operational and technical architecture, engaging in breach-readiness planning prior to a breach occurring and having cyber insurance in place to ensure they have access to a panel of specialist advisors, as well as support in meeting incident response costs, should they suffer a cyber incident.

Click here to read the report by ENISA.

ICO issues practical cyber security tips for small businesses

The ICO has published new guidance to help small businesses strengthen their cyber security and better protect personal data. With government figures estimating 7.7 million cyber crimes against UK businesses over the past year, the ICO has urged organisations to review their security measures to ensure they are fit for purpose. The guidance highlights a range of practical steps, such as regularly backing up data, using strong and unique passwords, enabling multi-factor authentication, and limiting access to sensitive information. Businesses are also advised to dispose of old data and IT equipment securely, install and update anti-virus software, and ensure Wi-Fi connections are secure, especially when working remotely or using public networks.

Staff training is recommended to help employees spot suspicious emails and phishing attempts and to encourage caution when sharing screens or sending bulk emails. Organisations are reminded to lock devices when unattended and to suspend system access for staff who leave or are absent for extended periods. Safely removing personal data that is no longer necessary also reduces the risk in the event of a cyber-attack or breach.

These measures can make a meaningful impact in protecting both organisations and their customers from the potential effects of cyber incidents.

You can read the ICO guidance here.

Jaguar Land Rover: Government steps in with £1.5bn loan guarantee as supply chain reels

The fallout from the recent ransomware incident involving Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) continues to reverberate across the UK’s automotive sector. This has prompted intervention from the UK Government, who have announced a £1.5bn loan guarantee for JLR, aiming to safeguard thousands of jobs and support the supply chain.

The emergency measure will provide JLR with liquidity over the next five years. JLR, which employs 34,000 directly in the UK and supports around 120,000 jobs through its extensive supply chain, was forced to halt production after the ransomware incident took place in early September. The government is reportedly considering further measures, including the potential purchase of car components from struggling suppliers, to be sold back to JLR once production resumes.

It has been well reported that JLR did not have cyber insurance in place at the time of the attack. JLR’s experience is likely to prompt renewed scrutiny of cyber risk management throughout the sector. Industry experts have noted that while cyber insurance uptake has increased across the FTSE 100, coverage remains patchy, with many firms weighing the cost against perceived risk. It is important for organisations to understand that cyber insurance can play an important part in providing financial and practical support in the event of a cyber incident.

As the automotive industry grapples with the ongoing consequences of the incident, the importance of robust cyber defences and effective risk transfer mechanisms has never been clearer. The UK Government’s intervention may offer a lifeline, but the episode serves as a stark warning of the cyber risks facing UK manufacturing.

Click here to read more on this article by the Financial Times.

Harrods shows incident response capability when it suffers second cyber incident in six months

Harrods has found itself in the midst of a serious cyber incident once again, with personal data belonging to approximately 430,000 shoppers being stolen as part of a breach suffered by an undisclosed third-party supplier. The attack, discovered late September, is not linked to the earlier Scattered Spider incident that targeted Harrods in May, nor to the recent Salesloft Drift, Salesforce breach affecting other retailers.

Harrods has emphasised that the breach impacted only a small proportion of its customer base, as most clients favour in-store shopping over online transactions. No account passwords or payment details were accessed. The retailer has informed all affected customers and notified the relevant authorities, including the National Cyber Security Centre and the Metropolitan Police Cyber Crime unit.

Whilst Harrods' appears to have responded well to the incident – through clear incident steps, prompt notification and defined follow-up actions, the fact that its customers are being placed at risk for a second time demonstrates the importance of not just maintaining good practice in respect of internal processes but also being alert to any suppliers' processes. Even if an organisation has adequate security standards in place to protect its systems from a direct cyber attack, they can still be affected by security issues elsewhere in the supply chain.

You can read more here through this article on computerweekly.

Surging demand for Generative AI insurance: Businesses seek protection as risks and adoption accelerate

A new report from Geneva Association, an international association which serves as a think tank for the global insurance industry, indicates that more than 90% of businesses worldwide are actively seeking insurance cover for risks associated with Generative AI (Gen AI).

As adoption of Gen AI accelerates, organisations recognise that traditional insurance policies may not sufficiently address the unique exposures created by AI, particularly as incidents involving defective outputs, biased recommendations or data breaches can have far-reaching consequences.

GenAI solutions are often sourced from third-party vendors. This reliance on third parties means that if an external AI product fails (whether through malfunction, inaccurate outputs, or operational disruption), the resulting losses are outside the control of an organisation, but may not be recoverable from the vendor, leaving the organisation potentially exposed. Traditional insurance policies may not fully cover all losses arising from Gen AI failure. With 71% of respondents to the Geneva Association report confirming they have already implemented Gen AI and two-thirds of businesses being willing to pay at least 10% higher premiums for such protections, this is an area of insurance that could potentially develop quickly.

By way of example, Hiscox have already updated their Tech PI wording to provide "explicit cover for those who use, build and advise on artificial intelligence", whilst AXA XL has created a Generative AI endorsement that can be added on to its cyber policies, which "extends cover for specific risks that businesses may encounter when building out their own Gen AI model". By proactively assessing exposures, securing appropriate insurance, and embedding strong governance, businesses can innovate more confidently.

You can read more in the Geneva Association’s report here through their press release.

Capita fined £14 Million over 2023 cyber-attack that exposed data of 6.6 Million people

Capita, a leading UK outsourcing provider, has been fined £14 million by the ICO after a cyber incident in March 2023, which resulted in the exposure of personal data belonging to 6.6 million individuals. Although Capita’s systems raised a high-priority security alert within ten minutes, the company failed to quarantine the infected device for 58 hours—well beyond its target response time of one hour. The stolen data included financial records, criminal background checks, and special category data such as details of race, religion, sexual orientation and health status.

The ICO found that the company’s security operations centre was understaffed, its systems contained known vulnerabilities, and its cyber defences were not adequately tested. The fine was reduced from an initial £45 million after the company demonstrated improvements to its cyber security and cooperated with authorities, including the National Cyber Security Centre, and offered support to affected individuals.

Cyber security experts have emphasised the dangers of delayed responses to such incidents, with a call for greater investment in detection, containment, and recovery capabilities. The regulator’s message is clear: every organisation, regardless of size, should take decisive action to safeguard personal data and respond swiftly to cyber threats.

You can read more here through this ICO statement.

The Court considers "greater practical experience" of expert witnesses crucial in assessing applications for the disclosure of documents restricted by foreign law

Fri, 14 Nov 2025 11:11:00 Z

In Aabar Holdings S.À.R.L v Glencore Plc & Others , the High Court dismissed applications to withhold documents relating to criminal investigations abroad, on the basis that disclosure could lead to prosecution under foreign law.

The judgment reiterates the threshold principles to be satisfied and provides useful guidance on the factors the Court will take into account when considering foreign law expert evidence.

Sports Ticker #140 - Court critiques Super League sanctions and historic highs for women's sport - a speed read of commercial updates from the sports world

Fri, 14 Nov 2025 10:19:00 Z

Super League sanctions scrutinised: Courts find restrictions unlawful
The Provincial Court of Madrid has upheld the decision that UEFA, the Spanish Football Federation (RFEF), and La Liga engaged in anti-competitive practices and abused their dominant market position, by prohibiting clubs from participating in the European Super League. Opposition from fans and the threat of heavy sanctions from UEFA contributed to preventing Real Madrid, along with eleven other European clubs, from joining the breakaway league in 2021. In an official statement, Real Madrid stated that the ruling “paves the way for the club to claim substantial damages for the losses suffered”. The Spanish decision is consistent with a 2023 judgment of the European Court of Justice, which held that FIFA and UEFA’s rules requiring prior approval for new interclub football competitions such as the Super League, and prohibiting clubs and players from participating in them, are unlawful under EU competition law. UEFA responded that it will “carefully review the judgment before deciding on any further steps.”

The Hundred breaks boundary with UK's first player auction
The Hundred will introduce a player auction for the 2026 season, replacing the current draft system in a major overhaul driven by new private investment. Under the new model, teams can sign four players directly, with the rest of each squad selected through the inaugural auction in March 2026. Teams’ salary pots will also rise significantly, with the men's increasing by 45% to £2.05 million and the women's doubling to £880,000. The minimum salary for women will also climb 50% to £15,000. Managing Director Vikram Banerjee said changes to the men's salary pot were influenced by “market forces”. Higher pay has historically been offered in other franchise leagues, such as the Indian Premier League (IPL). Four teams now have IPL-linked ownership, including the Northern Superchargers, renamed “Sunrisers Leeds” to mirror IPL sister team Sunrisers Hyderabad. Banerjee said that the Hundred “has always been proud to innovate”, aiming to attract “the best players in the world”.

Trophy-takers and record-breakers: Women’s sport reaches viewership high
Capping off a memorable year, new data from the Women’s Sports Trust revealed that women’s sport reached new heights this summer. In the UK, women made up 44% of all audience members for the Women’s Euros and 43% Women’s Rugby World Cup, the highest proportions on record for either competition. The Lionesses and Red Roses also dominated TV ratings. England’s victories over Spain in the Euros final and France in the Rugby World Cup semi-final became the most watched broadcasts of 2025, drawing 16.22 and 9.88 million viewers apiece. The historic rise in popularity of women’s sports has not been limited to marquee tournaments – Sky Sports reported similar successes across the full spectrum of women’s fixtures. With the ICC Women’s T20 World Cup and European Athletics Championships on their way, sports fans will be hoping the trend continues in 2026.

Whip Crackdown: Horseracing Authority rules on Murphy miscounts
The British Horseracing Authority’s Judicial Panel has ruled that Oisin Murphy, a multi-time British Champion Jockey, is banned from riding for 15 days for excessive whip use. The breach, which occurred at Newmarket last month, was one of multiple over a six month period. All of Murphy’s breaches were marginal – using the whip seven times instead of the permitted six. As a result, he was able to escape the entry point sanction of 28 days. Instead, five of the 15 days will be suspended, for either six months or the completion of 200 rides. He must also spend one day attending specialised training. Explaining his violation, Murphy claimed he “miscounted”. The Panel, however, did not seem to find this particularly compelling, calling the explanation “hollow and unattractive”. Concluding its ruling, the Panel warned that eventually, it may be concluded that Murphy “either cannot or will not control his use of the whip”.

Game Over: IOC and Saudi Arabia split on Esports Games
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Saudi National Olympic Committee (SNOC) have agreed to terminate their agreement to host the inaugural Esports Games. The inaugural Games – part of a proposed 12-year deal – were initially scheduled for Riyadh in 2025 but were postponed to February 2027 due to concerns about preparation time. Both organisations have committed to hosting their own esports events independently. Saudi Arabia previously hosted the Esports World Cup in both 2024 and 2025. According to Saudi Arabia’s Esports World Cup Foundation, the organisation now aims to launch “the inaugural Esports Nations Cup” in November 2026, allowing teams to compete under their national flags. The IOC is expected to face challenges in developing the Esports Games from scratch but remains confident. Both organisations are committed to exploring the commercial viability of the esports market. As the esports landscape continues to shift, we’ll be watching closely for new announcements from both parties!

Extra time...

…and finally, once niche tools for political scientists, prediction markets have exploded into multi-billion dollar sports betting giants. Unlike traditional sportsbooks, these exchanges allow users trade shares in outcomes – such as a win or a loss – with prices and odds fluctuating as trades occur. Kalashi, a New York-based prediction market, now handles almost $1 billion in weekly sports volume, far exceeding volumes seen in its political origins. The company's estimated value is now $10 billion, five times its June worth. Polymarket, a crypto-based competitor, is reportedly targeting a $12-15 billion valuation. This growth has attracted major partners, with the NHL becoming the first league to agree licensing deals with both. Traditional betting platforms are also taking notice, with DraftKings planning to launch its own prediction market – blending fandom, finance and data in a new era of sports speculation.

The Week That Was - 14 November 2025

Fri, 14 Nov 2025 08:51:00 Z

Court of Appeal endorses TCC's robust approach to striking out unparticularised and speculative heads of loss (Wilson v HB (SWA))

In a judgment dated 29 October 2025, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal concerning fire safety defects claims. This endorsed the Technology and Construction Court (TCC)’s approach in striking out unparticularised and speculative heads of loss. The TCC struck out 7 of the 9 claimants' Schedule of Losses as being either too remote, or purely hypothetical. The Court of Appeal's judgment shows how proper pleading standards must be maintained in construction defect claims. It was further found that there was no material difference between damages recoverable under the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA 1972) and contractual damages, while the court detailed how damages claims should be clearly particularised in pleadings. Purely speculative, hypothetical or vague claims should be avoided, while the focus should be on established categories of loss, such as cost of works, diminution in value and residual diminution.

The full analysis can be found here [may require subscription]

Assent Building Compliance enters insolvency

Assent Building Compliance, one of the UK's largest private building control firms has ceased trading and has entered insolvency, creating uncertainty across thousands of construction projects. The Wakefield-based company, which employed 222 staff and reported a £24.3m turnover but £2.2m loss in 2023 may have been working on up to 20,000 projects, with local authorities already receiving widespread cancellations. Developers warn of delays to completions, certification gaps, and knock-on impacts for buyers and small businesses. The Building Safety Regulator has confirmed that 10 high-rise building projects are directly affected under the pre-transition model but said it does not expect a knock-on impact on its wider gateway 2 programme. The HSE has issued emergency guidance to firms to avoid work stoppages and compliance breaches. Assent’s failure follows similar collapses of AIS Surveyors and PWC Building Control Services, highlighting fragility in the private building control market.

The full article can be found here

TFL starts market engagement for the planned £1.7bn DLR extension to Thamesmead

TFL has started market engagement for the £1.7bn DLR extension to Thamesmead. The 3km line will branch off from Gallions Reach to a new station in Thamesmead town centre. Two new stations are planned as part of the scheme. One will sit at the Becton Riverside Development and the other at Thamesmead. The scheme is expected to support 30,000 new homes and deliver a £15.6bn boost to London's economy. TFL is inviting contractors, designers and suppliers to help shape the delivery model of the project before the formal tendering process begins next year. Construction is expected to take place from 2028 to 2033. Funding remains under discussion and the project is still subject to full Treasury approval.

The full article can be found here

Land Registry Unveils 'Strategy 2025+' to Transform UK Property Transactions

HM Land Registry (HMLR) has unveiled its ‘Strategy 2025+’, outlining a vision to deliver faster, simpler, and more accessible property services by 2035. The strategy sets out four strategic outcomes to guide this transformation. First, HMLR aims to make its services and property information easy to access, understand, and use, ensuring fair pricing and clear communication at every stage. Second, the Registry will support the property market by adopting consistent data standards, digitising records, and sharing information securely and responsibly. Third, HMLR is committed to modernising digital systems to better protect property rights, harnessing automation, artificial intelligence, and secure digital verification for quicker, safer transactions. Fourth, the strategy focuses on developing a skilled, knowledgeable workforce that embraces digital transformation and fosters a high-performance, customer-focused culture. Together, these priorities promise more efficient, reliable, and transparent property services for users and the wider market.

Read the full article here

UK Construction Activity Plummets to Five-Year Low

UK construction has hit a five-year low, with October’s SP Global PMI plunging to 44.1—its weakest since May 2020 and signalling contraction for the tenth consecutive month. Civil engineering bore the brunt, collapsing to 35.4, while residential work slumped to 43.6, the sharpest fall in eight months. Even commercial building, typically resilient, remained in decline at 46.3.

Industry experts blame high political uncertainty and risk-averse clients for delayed decisions and postponed projects. Tim Moore of SP Global notes, “Reduced workloads were again widely attributed to risk aversion and delayed decision making among clients.” Shrinking order books and rising payroll costs triggered the fastest job cuts in over five years, with demand for construction materials also dropping sharply.

As Chancellor Rachel Reeves considers tax hikes in the autumn Budget, economists warn that ongoing uncertainty and possible higher taxes could further stall private sector investment, threatening future growth and employment across the sector.

Read the full article here [requires subscription] and here.

With thanks to Amraj Biring, Richad Tosh and Kelly Smith.

Arbitration Act 2025: Welcome Progress or Missed Opportunity?

Thu, 13 Nov 2025 14:05:00 Z

After nearly three decades, English arbitration law has undergone a significant overhaul with the enactment of the Arbitration Act 2025 (the Act). The journey to this landmark legislation has been rigorous: a comprehensive Law Commission review, extensive consultation with industry stakeholders and considerable anticipation from the arbitration community. But as the Act comes into force, the question arises: does it deliver the strategic leap necessary for London to maintain its status as a leading seat of arbitration or does it leave critical gaps that could hinder future competitiveness?

High Court finds fraud in start-up fundraising – key lessons for venture investors and founders

Thu, 13 Nov 2025 12:44:00 Z

The Commercial Court has found that a founder’s exaggerated claims about “imminent” blue-chip investment amounted to fraudulent misrepresentation.

In Candy Ventures SARL v Aaqua BV & Robert Bonnier [2025] EWHC 2877 (Comm), the English High Court awarded £4.6 million in damages to Candy Ventures (CVS) after finding that Aaqua’s founder knowingly misled investors about a proposed investment from Apple and LVMH.

Contentious Tax Quarterly Review – Autumn 2025

Thu, 13 Nov 2025 10:00:00 Z

This Contentious Tax Review by RPC provides an update on a number of recent and important decisions in the tax disputes arena.

CEO and CFO of listed company fined by FCA for inaccuracies in market update: Lessons for PLC directors

Tue, 11 Nov 2025 13:43:00 Z

The former CEO and former CFO of Metro Bank have been held to be personally liable for inaccurate information included in one of the company's RNS announcements. The decision provides a reminder of the high standards expected of directors of listed companies in relation to market disclosures.

Case: Donaldson & Arden v Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) ([2025] UKUT 00185 (TCC))

PLC QTRLY - Q3 2025

Mon, 10 Nov 2025 10:37:00 Z

FCA publishes final rules implementing changes to UK prospectus regime

On 15 July 2025, the FCA published its final rules implementing the new Public Offers and Admission to Trading regime, which will replace the existing UK Prospectus Regulation from 19 January 2026.

The new rules form part of a package of measures to help companies raise capital and boost growth. They will apply to companies seeking to admit securities to a regulated market, such as the Main Market of the London Stock Exchange, or to a primary multilateral trading facility, such as AIM or the AQSE Growth Market.

The final rules implement most of the proposals from the FCA's consultations (see PLC QTRLY Q3 2024), including raising the prospectus exemption threshold for further issuances from 20% to 75%.

Further details of the key changes which the FCA's new rules will make to the existing regulatory framework can be found here.

London Stock Exchange approved as PISCES operator

Following the establishment of the PISCES (Private Intermittent Securities and Capital Exchange System) sandbox in June 2025 (as reported in PLC QTRLY Q2 2025), the FCA approved the London Stock Exchange's operation of a PISCES trading platform, the Private Securities Market, in August 2025.

The Private Securities Market will be operated as a recognised investment exchange, allowing private companies to trade their existing shares in a controlled environment during intermittent trading windows. It is expected to launch later in 2025.

On 26 August 2025, following its approval as a PISCES operator, the London Stock Exchange published Market Notice N09/25, including draft Rules for the Private Securities Market for consultation.

On 15 September 2025, the London Stock Exchange issued revised versions of its Admission and Disclosure Standards and the Rules of the London Stock Exchange, both of which have been amended to reflect the creation of the Private Securities Market.

FCA publishes findings of multi-firm review of share buybacks

The FCA has published the findings of its multi-firm review of share buybacks in UK listed equities, with a particular focus on the role of banks in conducting buybacks for issuers.

Traditionally, UK issuers have returned capital to investors primarily through dividends, but buybacks have grown in popularity in recent years. For the 2022-2024 period, 42% of the capital returned to FTSE 350 shareholders was via buybacks (up from 20% for the pre-COVID period of 2017-2019).

Of the 165 share buybacks reviewed by the FCA, 101 were vanilla buybacks (where the bank buys shares on a best-efforts basis and receives a commission-based fee) and 64 were structured buybacks (where the bank may provide a guarantee and receives a variable fee).

The FCA did not find material concerns about the outcomes banks delivered when structuring, marketing and executing share buybacks and, in particular, did not find unmanaged conflicts in the way that structured buyback products were executed.

Structured buybacks exhibited a wider range of fees than vanilla buybacks, with 30% of structured buybacks involving negative fees (where the issuer received a rebate from the bank). However, the average fee issuers paid was not significantly different across both types of buybacks.

Issuers typically engage with several banks when considering a structured buyback, often including formal processes to compare banks' proposals.

Undertaking buybacks in a way that falls within the UK Market Abuse Regulation (UK MAR) safe harbour is optional for issuers and banks executing them and UK MAR makes clear that a buyback undertaken outside of the safe harbour would not of itself be deemed market abuse. However, the FCA review nevertheless found that most banks and issuers undertake buybacks in a way which does fall within the safe harbour (for example by making the necessary disclosures to the public, reporting to the regulator and observing limits on price and volume).

FCA proposes changes to share buyback notification requirements

On 10 September 2025, the FCA published its Quarterly Consultation Paper No. 49.

The paper includes a proposal to amend the UK Listing Rules on post-trade share buyback notifications.

UKLR 9.6.6R currently requires any purchase of a listed company's own equity shares by or on behalf of the company to be notified to an RIS as soon as possible, and in any event, by no later than 7.30am on the business day following the calendar day on which the purchase occurred.

Following receipt of feedback that this current deadline is onerous for issuers, the FCA proposes extending the deadline for notification to the end of the seventh daily market session following the date of execution of the purchase. The revised deadline would align with the requirements for the buyback programme exemption under UK MAR, as set out in article 2(3) of the UK Buy-back and Stabilisation Regulation, and would allow weekly rather than daily market notifications.

Market sounding practices reviewed in Market Watch 83

On 8 September 2025, the FCA released Market Watch 83.

The newsletter comments on various practices around market soundings which may lead to a heightened risk of market abuse.

In particular, the FCA noted that it had seen examples of:

Disclosing Market Participants (DMPs) extending their market soundings to a relatively large number of market sounding recipients (MSRs) without a process for considering the appropriateness of the number of MSRs contacted. The FCA encourages firms to consider whether their policies and procedures help effectively manage the number of MSRs to control the flow of inside information and recommends a simple governance process where a senior employee or relevant committee approves the initial proposed list of MSRs and any additions to it.
DMPs sharing information with individuals at an MSR via email, after receiving consent from a gatekeeper at the MSR to undertake a market sounding, and the list of recipients on the email chain expanding without obvious control over who was added and whether they had been wall crossed by the gatekeeper. The FCA notes that both DMPs and MSRs should consider and address the risk of unlawfully disclosing inside information by sharing market sounding information with individuals at the MSR that the gatekeeper has not wall crossed.
Varying practices for identifying and agreeing the deal-specific information to share with an MSR. The FCA notes that firms’ policies and procedures should make sure the same level of information is shared with every MSR and that best practice involves the DMP using an approved script for all market soundings to help minimise differences in information shared in soundings.
A broker (Broker A) appointed by an issuer to undertake market soundings for a potential transaction asking another broker (Broker B) to market sound its own investor contacts, sometimes without the issuer's knowledge. Where Broker B is acting without the issuer's knowledge, it will not benefit from the safe harbour provided by UK MAR Article 11(4) from the unlawful disclosure of inside information offence under UK MAR Article 10(1). Broker B will therefore need to consider whether its disclosures are lawful under UK MAR Article 10(1). Firms should make sure they have clear policies and procedures in place to ensure compliance with UK MAR whether acting as Broker A or Broker B.

The FCA also noted that it had seen a number of examples of breaches of Personal Account Dealing policies by individuals within firms and highlighted the need for firms to implement adequate arrangements to manage the risk of such breaches, including by setting the right tone from the top to embed a culture of compliance.

FCA highlights use of data and technology to monitor regulatory compliance

On 17 July 2025, the FCA issued Primary Market Bulletin 56, which highlights its use of transaction and position data from market participants and investment in technology to monitor compliance with reporting obligations under UK MAR.

This monitoring work triggered the FCA's enforcement investigation into Mr András Sebők, who was a Person Discharging Managerial Responsibilities (PDMR) at Wizz Air Holdings plc and therefore subject to notification requirements under Article 19 of UK MAR. Between April 2019 and November 2020, Mr Sebők made 115 transactions in Wizz Air shares, including trades during closed periods, without notifying the issuer or the FCA. The trades were eventually disclosed to the market following the FCA's 2021 intervention and, in 2024, Mr Sebők was fined £123,500 for breaches of Article 19 of UK MAR.

The use of alerts also triggers regular enquiries into transactions by directors and other PDMRs. For example, in early 2024, Bytes Technology Group plc announced the resignation of its CEO, Mr Murphy, after being prompted by the FCA's request for information about transaction notification requirements.

The FCA notes that it will continue to strengthen its detection capabilities and follow up with firms and individuals as needed, and reminds directors, other PDMRs, major shareholders and holders of net short positions in listed and quoted issuers of the importance of meeting their reporting obligations under the relevant rules.

Digitisation Taskforce: final report and government response

On 15 July 2025, the Digitisation Taskforce, chaired by Sir Douglas Flint, published its final report setting out its recommended plan to achieve the full digitisation of shareholdings and an ultimate move to a fully intermediated system of shareholding for companies whose securities are traded publicly.

The Taskforce recommends implementation of its plan in three steps, as follows:

Step 1: removal of paper shares and establishment of digitised registers, with a single implementation for this move before the end of 2027
Step 2: preparing for a fully intermediated system
Step 3: all shares transition into the intermediated securities chain

The government has published a response to the report, accepting all its recommendations and stating that it intends to

Legislate to end the issuance of paper shares and require companies to replace paper share registers with digitised share registers. The government aims to deliver this by the end of 2027 at the latest, with a precise date to be determined by the recommended Technical Group.
Amend relevant legislation so that shares in UK companies can be held on overseas branch registers in uncertificated form. The government aims to deliver this by Q2 2027 at the latest, so that UK firms listed in Hong Kong can participate in the dematerialisation of shares on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.
Take forward the recommendations made to the government which need to be delivered through legislation as part of Step 2, including improvements to facilitate the ability for beneficial owners of shares to exercise their rights effectively and efficiently through intermediaries. The government aims to deliver these over the course of this Parliament.
Appoint an industry Chair to establish and lead the recommended Technical Group. The government will publish terms of reference detailing the setup and objectives of the group and a timeline for it to report back to the government with its implementation plan.

FRC publishes annual review of corporate reporting 2024/25

On 30 September 2025, the FRC published its Annual Review of Corporate Reporting 2024/25, setting out its findings from its monitoring of UK companies' annual reports alongside its expectations for the upcoming reporting season.

Key findings included:

The quality of corporate reporting by FTSE 350 companies was maintained during the year.
A lower proportion of the FRC's reviews during the year resulted in substantive enquiry letters and restatements (both within and outside the FTSE 350). However, there remains a quality gap between companies in the FTSE 350 and other companies and the FRC is undertaking a thematic review to look further into reporting by UK smaller listed companies.
The FRC's frequently raised issues remain consistent with recent years, with key areas for improvement being impairment, cash flow statements and explanations of key assumptions.
Lack of internal consistency within the annual report and accounts continues to be a significant driver of queries.

With a stable set of reporting requirements and similar recurring themes in the matters raised with companies, the FRC's expectations for the coming reporting season remain consistent with those highlighted in recent years (for example, as reported last year in PLC QTRLY Q3 2024).

If you would like to discuss any of these issues or any other public company matters, please contact Connor Cahalane, James Channo or Karen Hendy.

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 7 November 2025

Fri, 07 Nov 2025 15:56:00 Z

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Headline development

FCA extends consultation period for motor finance consumer redress scheme

The FCA has decided to extend the consultation window for its car finance compensation scheme proposals, which will now close on 12 December.

In extending the deadline, the FCA acknowledges the importance of receiving as much evidence as possible as well as alternative suggestions. The FCA has said it will consider all the evidence and ideas received before taking final decisions, and that the scheme is still expected to launch in February or March 2026.

To read the FCA's Consultation Paper, please click here. To read RPC's blog, please click here.

Accountants and auditors

ICAEW's annual AML supervision report examines non-compliance

The ICAEW’s latest supervision report for 2024/25 (the Report) reviewed 1,185 firms for anti-money laundering compliance. It found that four out of five firms met the required standards or were generally compliant, maintaining the overall level of compliance seen in the previous year. There was a positive increase in firms achieving full compliance – rising to 19.4% from 13.9% seen in 2023/24. However, the Report recorded a slight increase in firms failing to meet compliance requirements - rising to 20% from 19.3%.

The Report identified persistent shortcomings in CDD procedures. Frequent issues included inadequate documentation of risk assessments, which affected 12.6% of firms. Additionally, 11.9% of firms were found to have insufficient processes for verifying the identity of clients, while 10.2% struggled with the effectiveness of their verification checks. Another area of concern was the failure to keep CDD information up to date throughout client relationships, with 11.6% of firms failing to conduct ongoing monitoring.

Firms with annual incomes below £300,000 were less frequently subject to follow-up action, whereas those with incomes exceeding £2m were disproportionately represented among those requiring further intervention. Mid-sized firms tended to be repeat offenders, while smaller practices were more often flagged for first-time compliance failures.

The ICAEW states that the lack of understanding of AML regulations remains a significant barrier, with some firms misinterpreting requirements or failing to keep pace with regulatory changes. Many firms focused heavily on identity verification but neglected broader risk evaluation and ongoing monitoring. To address these challenges, the ICAEW recommends regular and comprehensive staff training, enhanced due diligence for high-risk clients, and the integration of adverse media screening into onboarding and transaction reviews. Firms are urged to treat CDD as a proactive, continuous process rather than a box-ticking exercise.

To read the ICAEW's full Report, please click here.

FOS developments

Law firm and CMC complaints to FOS collapse

The number of complaints brought by law firms and claims management companies (CMCs) to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has fallen dramatically since the introduction of a new case fee. As of 1 April 2025, professional representatives can bring 10 cases to the FOS for free each financial year but are charged £250 for each one thereafter. If the outcome goes in favour of the complainant, £175 is credited to the representative.

Between July 2025 and September 2025, law firms and CMCs accounted for 4,300 cases brought to the FOS, compared to 37,100 in the same period last year, with a 37% reduction in the total number of FOS complaints over the same period. The FOS has also reported that professional representatives have withdrawn or abandoned “a large number of cases”.

Of the complaints resolved between July 2025 and September 2025, a third were upheld, with current accounts being the most complained-about product. The number of complaints brought over motor finance mis-selling between July 2025 and September 2025 had fallen to 2,200, compared to 9,500 in 2024. This fall is reflective of not only the new case fee, but also the FCA's complaint-handling pause while it planned the redress scheme to follow the Supreme Court ruling.

To read the FOS' publication, please click here.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

FCA warns risk from consolidation in financial advice and wealth management sector

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has warned that consolidation among financial advisory firms can create risks for consumers and the wider financial system if not effectively managed.

In a recent review of firms acquiring independent financial advisers or wealth managers, the FCA found high levels of debt, short-term borrowing, and reliance on cash from regulated entities to service group debt, often without emergency plans. Some businesses also used complex or offshore structures that weakened oversight and financial resilience. Governance weaknesses were common, including inadequate board challenge and poor monitoring of acquisitions.

The FCA identified conflicts of interest, such as incentives for advisers that could influence client decisions, and noted that mitigation measures were often underdeveloped. Whilst not introducing new rules, the FCA urged firms to assess their risk management, capital structures, and governance to prevent harm to clients, employees, and markets resulting from poorly managed consolidation.

To read the FCA's review of consolidation in the financial advice and wealth management sector, please click here.

Pensions

Pensions Dashboard Programme marks key milestone as Final Connection deadline approaches

The Pensions Dashboard Programme (PDP) has announced a significant milestone in the rollout of the pensions dashboard ecosystem, with just one year remaining until the final connection deadline of 31 October 2026. This deadline requires all in-scope pension schemes and providers to be fully connected, marking a pivotal moment in the UK’s ongoing pensions digital transformation.

Since the first connection in April 2025, the programme has seen robust progress, with over 700 schemes and providers now linked to the dashboard, representing approximately 60 million pension records—including the State Pension. The MoneyHelper Pensions Dashboard is currently undergoing rigorous testing, with early user trials indicating that the dashboard service is swiftly becoming a reality for pension savers. With infrastructure largely in place, the PDP emphasises a shift in focus: the next 12 months are crucial for ensuring every organisation meets its obligations on time. Trustees and managers are reminded of their ongoing responsibility to comply with the Pensions Dashboards Regulations 2022, Financial Conduct Authority rules, and PDP technical standards. The PDP warns that delaying preparations could lead to last-minute complications and regulatory breaches.

To support the industry, comprehensive guidance, technical support, and resources remain available from both the PDP and the Pensions Regulator. The PDP calls on pension schemes and providers to maintain momentum and prepare early, following the “connect by” dates set out in Department for Work and Pensions guidance. As the final connection deadline approaches, the PDP underscores the transformative potential of the dashboard ecosystem, urging the industry to make the coming year count and ensure a successful, compliant transition for the benefit of pension savers nationwide.

To read the announcement, please click here.

With thanks to this week's contributors: Daniel Parkin, Dorian Nunzek, Damien O'Malley, Ben Simmonds, Haiying Li, James Parsons, and Lauren Butler

The Week That Was - 7 November 2025

Fri, 07 Nov 2025 14:27:00 Z

Modern slavery risks in housebuilding

A 2025 report commissioned by the Director of Labour Market Enforcement and the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre finds that modern slavery risks in the UK housebuilding sector are poorly understood, despite its significant share of construction output.

Common exploitation types include unpaid wages, health and safety breaches, debt bondage, forced labour, and “bogus” self-employment particularly affecting migrant workers who face language barriers and limited rights. Enforcement challenges stem from high levels of informal work, widespread use of labour intermediaries, and weak monitoring, with accountability often unclear. The report highlights major gaps in quantitative data and a lack of worker-focused research, noting that most studies centre on organisational responses.

Key recommendations include investing in better data collection, improving worker reporting pathways, strengthening enforcement protocols, and enhancing intelligence-sharing between agencies such as HMRC, GLAA, the Home Office, and HSE to prevent severe exploitation.

The full article can be found here [Subscription Required].

Construction firms experiencing financial distress

A recent analysis, conducted by Begbies Traynor, on industry data has revealed a 70% year-on-year rise in UK construction firms experiencing critical financial distress – with over 6,000 companies now affected, marking the highest level recorded since the pandemic. The surge has been attributed to persistent inflationary pressures, rising interest rates, and escalating material and labour costs, which have eroded margins and strained cash flow.

Delays in payment and project cancellations have further compounded financial difficulties, particularly for smaller contractors. The sector’s vulnerability is heightened by ongoing economic uncertainty and subdued demand, with many firms struggling to secure new work or refinance existing debt.

Experts warn that this trend could lead to increased insolvencies, job losses, and disruption across the supply chain, threatening the delivery of major infrastructure and housing projects. The situation underscores the urgent need for robust financial management and industry-wide support to safeguard the sector’s stability.

The full article can be found here.

Fraud prevention and safety: construction’s digital revolution

Recent legislative changes have significantly raised the bar for compliance and safety in UK construction. The new Failure to Prevent Fraud Law, introduced under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, means construction clients may be criminally liable if fraud is committed by staff or associates for company benefit.

To avoid prosecution, clients must demonstrate robust fraud prevention measures throughout their supply chain. The Building Safety Act (BSA), enacted in response to the Grenfell tragedy, imposes strict requirements for safety culture, documentation, and workforce competence, with severe penalties for non-compliance - including fines and reputational damage. For clients, these laws heighten compliance risk and demand greater oversight of contractors and site operatives. Tools such as CSCS Smart Check enable clients to verify worker qualifications and identity in real time, ensuring only properly trained personnel access their sites. This reduces legal liabilities, supports safer project delivery, and helps protect client reputation in a more accountable industry.

The full article can be found here.

Bridging the divide: why construction needs inclusive AI training

Skills England has published new research titled "AI skills for the UK workforce", which highlights that low digital literacy and limited access to tailored training are the major barriers to effect AI adoption. The report covers AI skills needs across a number of key UK industries including construction.

AI technologies are gradually being adopted in construction, supporting activities such as drone-assisted surveying, project planning, retrofit design, and on-site safety simulations using VR and AR. However, the sector remains one of the least digitally mature, with the 2024 Lloyds Bank UK Consumer Digital Index revealing that 65% of construction workers lack essential digital skills.

AI is beginning to influence entry-level roles through digital planning and hazard detection, while mid-career professionals are seeing increased use of data modelling and automated scheduling. Managerial and sustainability-focused roles require skills in interpreting environmental data and guiding teams through AI-driven transitions, yet relevant training is limited.

Key challenges include digital exclusion, lack of tailored CPD, and gaps in green skills. Inclusive, modular training and partnerships between employers and training providers are needed to ensure equitable AI adoption and support productivity and sustainability across the industry.

The full report can be found here.

Company prosecuted for failing to comply with Improvement Notice

Birmingham City Council have successfully prosecuted Freehold Managers (Nominees) Limited ("the Company") after they failed to undertake remedial works that had been specified in an Improvement Notice issued in September 2023. The Improvement Notice required the Company to undertake improvement works required to make the building safe . The specified works included repairs to fire doors, improvements to emergency lighting and the provision of a suitable means of escape in the event of a fire.

The Company plead guilty at Birmingham Magistrates' Court and was fined £50,000. It represents the second such prosecution of this type by a local authority, and the first in the West Midlands.

For further reading please click here.

New approach to environmental regulations to support new homes drive

The changes introduced by the Government to the environmental permitting system will reduce the waiting times for permits, in a bid to speed up the new delivery of new housing and infrastructure.

Currently, certain activities which are required at the early stages of construction projects, such as site investigation works and storage of waste materials, require environmental permits to be obtained, despite the minimal risk imposed by these activities. This creates a delay at the outset of a project, which is often considered to be disproportionate to the relevant risk.

The Environmental Agency will be empowered to consider which activities should be exempt from requiring a permit, making the permitting regime more flexible and proportionate for low risk activities. While some activities may be exempt from requiring permits, there will be safeguards in place to ensure that the environment is not degraded. The objectives already in the regulations will continue to apply, in order to uphold environmental protections. The Environmental Agency will be required to consult on any proposed exemptions before they are introduced.

For further reading, please click here.

With thanks to Charlie Underwood, Xiao Chen and Brendan Marrinan

First (Brands) of many? US firm collapses rock private credit markets

Thu, 06 Nov 2025 16:36:00 Z

Since we last wrote about private credit in early September, the market has been rocked by the collapse of US car parts company First Brands. The First Brands debacle, the similar demise of the subprime lender Tricolor and concerns in the US regional banking sector all appear set to cause billions of dollars in losses across capital markets. First Brands and Tricolor both collapsed with unnerving speed amid allegations of fraud, culminating in First Brands suing its own founder for allegedly misappropriating billions of dollars of company money. Litigators like us are watching the fraud allegations and related inter-creditor disputes closely, but the broader industry will be more concerned by what they say about private credit markets as a whole.

A slightly counterintuitive view is that these fraud allegations may reassure lenders, suggesting that the First Brands and Tricolor collapses arose from problems unique to these companies: First Brands' rapid growth and opacity and the disproportionate exposure of Tricolor's borrower demographic to recent changes in US immigration policy and enforcement. On this view, these are isolated events without wider implications. However, fraud can also be a reflection of wider market standards. The private credit market is inherently opaque and, at least in the short term, problems can be relatively easily deferred. This has led to a now widely acknowledged decline in underwriting standards. A former lender to First Brands was quoted in the FT as saying, "You're not paid to do due diligence in this market." It would be difficult to find a clearer example of misaligned incentives and therefore scope for fallings-out and ultimately litigation.

This is not just a private credit problem. Firstly, banks such as Jefferies and UBS have direct exposure of their own to First Brands. Secondly, JP Morgan has acknowledged that banks are exposed to the private credit providers themselves via back leverage.

Global institutions are now sounding warnings. October saw the International Monetary Fund, European Central Bank and Bank for International Settlements all deliver warnings about the potential risks to global financial stability. Events in the US have seized the headlines thus far, but both the Bank of England and the FCA have confirmed that they too are concerned by the possibility of contagion.

The most high-profile intervention was made by the Bank of England governor, Andrew Bailey, in his appearance before the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee on 21 October. He asked the Committee: "The big question today … is are these cases idiosyncratic, or are they the canary in the coal mine?" The Deputy Governor Sarah Breeden then observed to the Committee that First Brands and Tricolor illustrated "High leverage, opacity, complexity and weak underwriting standards." Unconfirmed reporting suggests that the Bank of England is now likely to launch a stress test across the private sector in an attempt to answer that "big question".

The FCA has also observed the linkages between the banking and private credit sectors, calling First Brands and Tricolor "case studies" of how those linkages function in a crisis. These comments follow on from the FCA's review, published in March this year, of private market valuation processes in light of the lack of regular price discovery. While the review's conclusions were broadly positive, finding that valuation processes were generally robust and consistent, it raised concerns around the use of unrealised performance in marketing materials aimed at new investors or for new vehicles. Firms justified this by the sophistication of their investors: institutions, high-net-worth individuals or other investment professionals. Still, attracting a potential investor through unrealised performance on an asset not subject to price discovery is inherently risky, with scope for disputes in relation to valuation methodologies, representations made and other similar issues if the investment ultimately goes sour.

It was also interesting to note that the FCA's deputy CEO, Sarah Pritchard, in a speech given to the Investment Association's Private Markets Summit, presented the review's findings as part of a national movement to increase risk appetites, especially for retail investors: "Now is the time to have this debate – particularly as we consider how retail investors might access private markets. Many argue that retail participation in our capital markets is too low. A ‘missing ingredient’ for our success compared to other jurisdictions."

In keeping with this, the Treasury has repeatedly floated plans to reduce cash ISA limits and expand stock market participation in an attempt to increase participation in equity markets and create a personal investment culture more akin to the US's. Private credit markets are in play too: while not quite as innovative as the private credit ETFs launched in the US, the ability to hold (from 2026) Long Term Asset Funds in a Stocks & Shares ISA shows the direction of travel. Inevitably, the push into retail markets gives rise to new litigation risks.

Renters' Rights Act: now in force

Thu, 06 Nov 2025 14:57:00 Z

In September 2024, the Renters' Rights Bill was set out in Parliament. That Bill has now received Royal Assent, becoming the Renters' Rights Act 2025. However, the main provisions will not be in force until at least 2026. RPC will be providing updates as the government announces how the reforms will be rolled out over the coming months.

The Act marks a significant change to the law affecting tenants in private rented accommodation. Landlords, property managers and surveyors will need to fully grasp the new requirements and take steps to comply, where necessary.

Tribunal confirms caregiver living with parents was eligible for principal private residence relief

Thu, 06 Nov 2025 10:00:00 Z

In Mark Campbell v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 00867, the First-tier Tribunal upheld the taxpayer’s claim for Principal Private Residence (PPR) relief on the disposal of multiple properties, accepting that the taxpayer qualified under the job-related accommodation rules whilst residing in his parents’ home to care for his father.

ML Covered - November 2025

Wed, 05 Nov 2025 08:47:00 Z

SRA's AML powers transferred to the FCA

The last few weeks have been eventful for the legal market following the recent judgment in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) in which the High Court considered the question of what constitutes the conduct of litigation and whether certain activities undertaken by non-authorised fee earners, such as trainees or paralegals, was unlawful, even if supervised by an authorised person.

Last month, on 21 October 2025, the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, also announced that the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) would lose its anti-money laundering responsibilities, which would be passed to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The Government is to designate the FCA as Single Professional Services Supervisor (SPSS) for AML. The Government's aim is to reduce the bureaucracy on business in order to help drive economic growth. The changes to the regulatory powers of the FCA may also impact upon those firms who hold a management liability policy.

The SRA has been responsible for regulating the AML compliance of law firms since it was formed in 2007. Since then, its powers have significantly increased due to the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds regulations. All firms, including sole practitioners, are required for in-scope work to maintain and keep up to date a firm-wide risk assessment and have compliant AML policies, controls and procedures in place. By October 2023, the SRA was supervising 23,275 beneficial owners, officers and managers spread across more than 6,000 firms in scope.

Bodies such as the Law Society have raised concerns that the FCA currently has limited dealings with the legal profession and that sector-specific expertise could be lost in this consolidation.

The move comes as the UK Government intensifies its focus on combating financial crime, through initiatives such as the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act and the introduction of digital ID cards, amplifying the scrutiny that legal and financial firms will face. Last year, the FCA's Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision stated that the absence of real oversight of lawyers and accountants was hampering efforts to combat money laundering. The FCA also has the powers to heavily penalise those it believes are not meeting their AML obligations.

Key Takeaways

Although questions remain about the consolidation and its implications in terms of the regulatory burden faced by firms, there is a risk that the scrutiny of law firms' AML compliance will increase. This may result in closer scrutiny of the regulatory cover available from a firm's management liability policy.

Senior management should review their AML policies, controls and procedures they have in place to ensure they are compliant with existing regulations. Particular areas that D&Os should focus on are ensuring AML risks are assessed, either at firm level or client/matter level, as well as ensuring a compliant firm wide AML risk assessment has been performed before submitting a declaration to the regulator. The SRA in recent years has identified these as areas where "a very significant proportion of firms" were not compliant and could therefore be an area of focus for the FCA as it assumes this new responsibility.

To read more, please click here.

High cost of doing business is the biggest challenge facing UK SMEs

Simply Business has surveyed 2,300 UK small-business owners and consumers and published their findings in their 2025 SME Insights Report. There are currently 5.5 million SMEs in the UK, making up over 99% of the UK business population. They account for more than half of the total turnover in the UK private sector, as well as 60% of private sector employment. Many SMEs are currently struggling for a variety of reasons, including high inflation and weakened consumer demand. The survey seeks to establish the challenges faced by UK SMEs.

High running costs is listed as the biggest challenge faced by 22% of SME business leaders, followed by uncertain consumer demand (at 20%), the unpredictability of the economy (at 16%), and rising inflation (at 13%). SMEs have taken various steps in response to these economic challenges, with 42% delaying buying new equipment, 23% reducing spending on marketing and subscriptions, and 22% halting expansion plans or hiring.

Rising business costs are also impacting operations, with 28% struggling to pay the rising utility bills, and 24% being forced to stop hiring. 16% have reduced employees' hours and one in ten are lowering their use of energy or water.

Many SMEs are also raising prices to offset the high costs of doing business. Three quarters of SMEs have confirmed that they are planning price rises of less than 10%. However, 15% will raise their prices by at least 20%. Despite increasing prices, only 17% of small business leaders expect their firm’s profits to increase this year. This is down from 43% in 2023. Meanwhile, 44% expect profits to fall, compared with just 28% two years ago. One in ten said profits would fall by more than 50%.

If the struggles continue into 2026, it is projected that c.30% could be forced to cease operations, at least temporarily, and one in 10 will have to reduce headcount.

Key Takeaways

The number of corporate insolvencies reached a 30 year high in 2023 and has remained high in 2024 and 2025. With many SMEs facing a precarious financial position, it is expected that the number of insolvencies will continue to remain high. Given the various challenges facing firms, directors should be mindful of their obligations to the company's creditors and should ensure that they are aware of when there is no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvency.

To read more, please click here.

Employment Tribunal Fees: Government confirms fees will not be reintroduced

The Government has confirmed that employment tribunal fees will not be reintroduced, following speculation prompted by mounting backlogs and delays. This decision reaffirms the principle of open access to justice for all workers, irrespective of income.

Historical Background: The 2013 – 2017 Fee Regime

In July 2013, a two-tier fee structure was introduced in Employment Tribunals, aiming to reduce claim volumes. Type A claims, such as statutory redundancy and unlawful wage deductions, attracted lower fees (£160 issue, £230 hearing), while Type B claims, including unfair dismissal and discrimination, incurred higher fees (£250 issue, £950 hearing). Although fee remission was available, concerns persisted that the regime restricted access to justice.

Annual claims fell dramatically, from around 190,000 to 83,000 at their lowest. However, the extension of the ACAS pre-conciliation process, from one month to six weeks, may have also contributed to this decline.

Legal Challenge and Supreme Court Ruling

The 2013 fee regime faced legal challenge, most notably by Unison. The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in 2017 (R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51) found the fees unlawful, as they prevented legitimate claims and undermined the right to justice. The Government was required to reimburse claimants, at an estimated cost of £32 million.

The Unison judgment was widely celebrated as a victory for workers’ rights, but it also intensified the challenge of managing tribunal demand within a resource-constrained system.

Recent Developments and the 2024 Proposal

Following the Supreme Court ruling, claim volumes rebounded to over 100,000 annually. By March 2024, a backlog of 45,000 cases had developed owing to resource shortages leading to delays. To avoid the previous challenges around fees disproportionately restricting access to justice, the previous Government proposed a single, modest fee of £55 per claim, with extended remission for those unable to pay. However, with a change in Government in July 2024, the proposal was shelved. Nonetheless, speculation about reintroducing fees persisted, fuelled by concerns over an overburdened tribunal system. By March 2025, cases were routinely taking between two to three years to reach a final hearing, with fears that the tribunals are “on the brink of collapse”.

Despite these pressures and the anticipated rise in claims which will follow the introduction of the Employment Rights Bill, David Lammy MP has confirmed that the Government will not reintroduce tribunal fees emphasising the Government's position that it is a “fundamental principle that everyone, regardless of their income, should have access to justice to challenge unfair workplace behaviour”.

This has reignited the long-standing debate: how do we balance access to justice with the increasing strain on the judicial system?

Implications for Insurers

For insurers, the decision not to reintroduce fees affects risk profiling and policy pricing. While a fee-free system may result in higher claim volumes, the increased predictability of tribunal claims can and should be planned for by insurers.

Future Outlook

The Government’s decision marks a pivotal moment in the debate over access to justice and tribunal sustainability. While pressures on the system remain acute, the commitment to open access underscores the vital role tribunals play in protecting workers’ rights. Further reforms may be necessary to address backlogs and delays.

Conclusion

The confirmation that employment tribunal fees will not be reintroduced is significant for employees, employers, and insurers alike. As the system evolves, stakeholders should monitor developments and engage strategically with ongoing reforms. Engagement is especially important, given the provisions in the Employment Rights Bill (which is covered more broadly in our October edition here).

Trustees warned to strengthen cyber defences as Capita fined £14m for data breach

Pension scheme trustees are being urged to strengthen their cyber-security and fraud defences following a surge in cyber-attacks, most recently exemplified by Capita's major data breach that exposed the personal data of 6.6 million people and led to a £14 million fine.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) ruled that Capita had failed to ensure the security of personal data, leaving it at significant risk. The breach, which occurred in March 2023, saw financial information, addresses, and even data relating to criminal records leaked online, with some data circulating on the dark web. Capita, which administers more than 600 pension schemes, confirmed that around 325 schemes were affected. Information Commissioner, John Edwards, said the scale of the breach “could have been prevented had sufficient security measures been in place”.

The ICO initially proposed a £45m fine but this was later reduced to £14m following Capita's cooperation with regulators and efforts to strengthen its cyber defences.

Advisory firm, RSM UK, has warned that strengthening cyber-risk frameworks and tightening fraud controls must be a priority for pension scheme trustees. In the UK, significant cyberattacks have more than doubled in the year to September 2025, according to the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) and RSM’s report, published on 17 October 2025, calls for schemes to maintain paper copies of their cyber-response plans in case digital systems are compromised.

Erin Sims, Fraud Risk Director at RSM, also released a statement cautioning that cyberattacks targeting pension funds are likely to increase ahead of the Autumn Budget, as speculation over changes to the tax-free treatment of pension lump sums grows (and is anticipated to lead to an increase in savers drawing down their tax-free lump sums as a precautionary measure). The warning follows data from Action Fraud which estimates that an average of £48,000 is lost to pension fraud every day.

The NCSC's new Code of Practice is a vital tool to help trustee boards bolster cyber resilience. However, with cyberattacks becoming increasingly common, a proactive and combined approach by regulators will be needed to strengthen cyber defences.

Government backs expansion of CDC pension schemes

The Government has confirmed plans to expand Collective Defined Contribution (CDC) schemes, with new regulations laid before Parliament on 23 October, allowing for unconnected multiple-employer CDC schemes. It is anticipated that the move will extend CDC access to more employers and reflect growing demand for secure, lifelong retirement incomes.

Alongside the proposed regulations, the Department for Work and Pensions aims to allow savers in defined contribution schemes to transfer their pots into CDC at retirement and a consultation to this effect has recently been launched. The department anticipates that this measure will boost retirement incomes by up to 60% while improving financial security. The pensions minister, Torsten Bell, said CDC pensions “offer a better deal, one where risks are shared, returns are smoothed and retirement incomes are stronger and paid for life.”

Industry leaders welcomed the announcement as a “major step forward” for UK pension provision. Aon’s Chintan Gandhi said the new framework will open the market to multi-employer and master trust CDC schemes, offering workers an income for life without complex investment decisions. TPT Retirement Solutions confirmed it will be among the first to launch a multi-employer CDC scheme, targeting authorisation by the end of 2026.

Tax Bites - November 2025

Wed, 05 Nov 2025 08:23:00 Z

News

HMRC publishes Guidance on upcoming changes to umbrella company PAYE rules

HMRC has published Guidance which explains what companies should consider if they are in a labour supply chain that includes an umbrella company, or any third party supplying labour.

Draft legislation was published on 21 July 2025, which includes measures to make UK agencies supplying workers to end clients jointly and severally responsible for the PAYE liabilities of the umbrella company that employs the worker. These rules will come into force on 6 April 2026.

The Guidance provides a high-level explanation of how these rules will work.

HMRC has also added new paragraphs to its employment status manual: ESM2400 to ESM2440.

HMRC publishes Guidance on how digital platform operators should report sellers' information to HMRC

Digital platforms are required to collect details from sellers on their platforms and report this information to HMRC. A digital platform includes any software, including mobile apps and websites, which allow you to offer services and goods to users.

HMRC has published Guidance which explains how digital platform operators should:

Check whether they need to register with HMRC as a digital platform operator.
Collect information from sellers on their platform.
Report that information to HMRC.

HMRC has also published Guidance in respect of steps two and three, which can be viewed here and here.

HMRC publishes Guidance on Research and Development tax relief claims

HMRC has published the following additional Guidance relating to claims for research and development (R&D) tax relief:

1. Guidance and an online tool which allows you to input information about your project and receive HMRC's view as to whether it might qualify for R&D tax relief.

2. Guidance for agents or accountancy professionals explaining how to report other agents and professionals who are suspected of giving HMRC misleading information, having poor technical knowledge, or engaging in dishonest behaviour.

HMRC publishes policy paper on the tax treatment of Cryptoasset Exchange Traded Notes

Cryptoasset Exchange Traded Notes (CETNs) are debt instruments that mirror the performance of specified cryptoassets. CETNs were previously restricted to professional investors but from 8 October 2025, following changes to Financial Conduct Authority rules, they will be open to retail investors as well.

HMRC has published a policy paper which explains how CETNs will be treated for tax purposes, including their eligibility for inclusion within Individual Savings Accounts and registered pension schemes.

HMRC publishes new pages in its International Exchange of Information Manual listing reportable jurisdictions for Digital Platform Tax Reporting

HMRC has published new pages in its International Exchange of Information Manual providing updated lists of partner and reportable jurisdictions under the UK’s digital platform tax reporting rules, as set out in the Platform Operators (Due Diligence and Reporting Requirements) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023/817).

The updates include:

IEIM906000 – revised list of partner jurisdictions for the 2025 reporting period.
IEIM906100 – revised list of reportable jurisdictions for 2025.
IEIM906200 – index page for previous reporting periods.
IEIM906201 – list of reportable jurisdictions for 2024.

New partner jurisdictions added for the 2025 reporting period include: Colombia, Croatia, Czechia, Iceland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, the Slovak Republic, and Slovenia.

Case reports

Case 1

Tribunal grants taxpayer's application for disclosure against HMRC in Kittel appeal

In CIS-Pay Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 00751 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) granted the taxpayer's application for disclosure of all material within HMRC's possession that might assist its case or undermine HMRC's case.

This decision highlights the importance that the FTT attaches to protecting procedural fairness in hearings involving penalties, that are considered criminal charges, due to their punitive nature.

The FTT recognised that although the underlying tax appeal fell outside the protections of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the penalty issue constituted a criminal charge engaging Article 6 rights, including disclosure obligations. It rejected HMRC's argument that Article 6 rights are limited only to penalty specific conditions and do not extend to overlapping issues with the substantive appeal.

You can read our commentary on the decision here.

Case 2

Tribunal confirms its decision on 'intangible fixed assets' preventing HMRC from reopening the issue

In Inside Track 3 LLP and Ingenious Film Partners 2 LLP v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 986, the FTT has issued a further decision in the long running Ingenious film partnerships litigation and has ruled in favour of the taxpayers, confirming that its decision, of several years earlier, had determined that certain rights held by the LLPs constitute intangible fixed assets, for the purposes of Part 8 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009, and HMRC could not therefore reopen that issue.

This decision reinforces the importance of paying attention at every stage of the appeal process, especially with regard to appeal deadlines in complex and multi-faceted tax litigation. Points left unappealed cannot be revisited. When appealing a decision of the tax tribunals, it is important to ensure that all issues are carefully considered and taken on appeal if necessary, in order to avoid any later ambiguity arising. In complex multi-stage disputes, tax advisers need to be alert to which points have been expressly, or implicitly, decided and which issues remain to be determined.

This decision enhances the principle of finality and certainty in tax litigation. Once an issue is decided and unchallenged on appeal, it should no longer be vulnerable to fresh attack.

You can read our commentary on the decision here.

Case 3

IHT not due on failed EBT arrangement

In Tonkin v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 750 (TC), the FTT allowed the taxpayer's appeal against a charge to inheritance tax (IHT) under section 94 (charge on participators in a close company), Inheritance Act 1984, which HMRC considered had arisen as a result of an ineffective employee benefit trust (EBT) arrangement.

This is a significant victory for the taxpayer. The decision considers fundamental issues of double taxation and the ability of HMRC to take different approaches in the context of different taxes. The decision is likely to be welcomed by the large number of taxpayers who implemented EBT arrangements and in respect of whom HMRC wish to impose an IHT liability.

You can read our commentary on the decision here.

And finally …

In collaboration with Temple Tax Chambers, our latest Tax Take webinar series explore the UK tax landscape and key considerations for professionals and business leaders seeking insights into the often-complex world of tax.

The webinars cover the following topics:

- HMRC's penalty regime

- Judicial review proceedings

- Research & Development tax reliefs

- HMRC's information powers

Recordings of the webinars can be found on Tax Take +

Insurance Covered: Life as an insurance CEO (With Mark Wheeler)

Mon, 03 Nov 2025 08:21:00 Z

In this episode, Peter Mansfield interviews Mark Wheeler, co-CEO of Mosaic Insurance, discussing his journey from underwriter to CEO, the challenges and joys of leadership in the insurance industry, and the impact of geopolitical risks and technological advancements like AI and climate change on the sector.

Improving transparency: new rules on public access to documents in proceedings

Fri, 31 Oct 2025 14:49:00 Z

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 31 October 2025

Fri, 31 Oct 2025 11:09:00 Z

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Headline development

Mazur decision applied to cut costs

District Judge Richard Lumb recently applied the High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] to limit the costs awarded to a firm in a housing dispute from £3,000 to less than £500.

The conduct of litigation is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007, meaning that only those authorised (such as SRA-regulated solicitors) or exempt (such as litigants-in-person) can carry out it out. Mazur has confirmed that non-authorised employees of law firms cannot conduct litigation under supervision but can support a solicitor or other authorised person in conducting litigation.

DJ Lumb found that the person in question was not authorised to be conducting litigation and disallowed the costs as a result, applying Mazur. DJ Lumb warned that “judges at my level are going to make decisions and I’m afraid you’re going to end up with a whole lot of decisions which are inconsistent with each other”.

It remains unclear whether Mazur will be appealed, but this development shows the potential claims that may follow in respect of the past conduct of litigation. Mazur is also not limited to where non-authorised employees carry out litigation. In addition to costs disputes between parties such as that considered by DJ Lumb (or fee disputes between client and firm), there could be professional negligence claims if unsuccessful parties decide to pursue their former representatives on the basis the litigation was handled by a non-qualified employee (if they consider the matter was mishandled as a result).

To read more about this decision, please click here.

FOS developments

FOS' Quarterly Complaints Report: Q2 2025/26 – a notable decrease in complaints

The FOS has recently released its Q2 2025/26 report – analysing complaint data from July to September 2025. The key highlight is that the FOS only received 46,300 complaints. This may seem like plenty, however, it represents a 37% decrease compared to the 73,700 complaints received in Q2 2024, and a sharp decline from the 68,000 complaints received in Q1 2025 (from April to June).

The number of complaints submitted by professional representatives also fell. In Q2 2025, professional representatives accounted for only 4,300 cases, compared to 37,100 cases in Q2 2024. This is largely attributable to the FOS' introduction of its new charging model, which led many representatives to withdraw or abandon cases - particularly those with historically low uphold rates.

The overall complaint uphold rate stood at 33%, and the products subject to the most complaints were:

Current accounts – 7,900 complaints
Motor Hire purchase – 4,900 complaints
Credit cards – 4,700 complaints
Car/motorcycle insurance – 3,200 complaints
Electronic money – 2,200 complaints

There was a notable drop in Motor Hire Purchase complaints, declining from 24,300 in Q1 2025 to only 4,300 in Q2 2025. This decrease is likely attributable to the Supreme Court's decision on vehicle finance commissions handed down at the start of April 2025 (you can read our article on this judgment here) and subsequent announcement of a s.404 redress scheme.

To read the FOS' full report for further analytics, please click here.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

Complaints rise across UK financial services in early 2025

In the first half of 2025, financial services firms received 1.85 million complaints, an increase of around 3.6% since late 2024. The biggest increases came from:

Investments (+10.1%)
Banking & credit cards (+7.2%)
Decumulation & pensions (+5.5%)

Meanwhile, home finance and insurance and pure protection saw decreases of approximately 6.3% and 0.2%, respectively.

Overall, around 57% of complaints were upheld, with a total of £283 million paid in redress; representing a 20% rise on the 2024 H2 figure of £236 million.

To read the FCA's overview on this, please click here.

ESG ratings providers to fall under FCA regulation

Legislation has been finalised to bring Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) ratings providers under FCA regulation.

The legislation has been introduced following an initial government consultation in 2023, which was prompted by a call from the International Organization of Securities Commissions in relation to transparency in data and ESG ratings.

The legislation will require ESG ratings providers to hold FCA authorisation, and the law will apply to ESG ratings providers operating both inside and outside of the UK. There will be four key areas for focus: transparency, governance, systems and controls, and conflicts of interest.

The FCA has said that the legislation was broadly supported throughout the industry and that it "marks a significant milestone in the UK's commitment to enhancing transparency and trust in this market."

The FCA has been working on developing this new regulatory regime and it plans to introduce the proposed rules by the end of 2025. Guidance is also expected from the FCA to help firms establish whether they will require authorisation for the activities they undertake.

To read the FCA's announcement, please click here.

FCA makes first ever data protection prosecution

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has made its first prosecution under the Data Protection Act. Luke Coleman pleaded guilty to unlawfully obtaining and the subsequent disclosure of personal data in breach of the Data Protection Act. Coleman accessed customer details from Virgin Media O2’s systems, where he was employed. The data obtained by Coleman was sold to Nicholas Harper, a friend of Coleman's, who then exploited the data in a crypto fraud that defrauded at least 65 investors. Coleman was fined £384, ordered to pay a £38 surcharge, and contribute £500 in prosecution costs, the maximum penalty available for this type of offence.

While the fine is not significant in size, the case is important as it marks the first prosecution by the FCA under the Data Protection Act. Enforcement of data protection laws is usually the responsibility of the Information Commissioner’s Office, however this case demonstrates that the FCA is also prepared to prosecute individuals in order to tackle misuse of personal data that facilitates financial crime.

To read more on FCA's prosecution, please click here.

FCA warns investors in CFDs risk losing out on protections

The FCA has urged individuals who invest in Contracts for Difference (CFDs – investments that involve betting on the price of an asset without owning it) not to give up vital retail consumer protections.

The regulator is referring to leverage limits and client loss protections that prevent nearly 400,000 people a year from risking more than their original stake in CFDs and provide between £267m and £451m worth of protection. The warning has been prompted by concern that firms are using high-pressure techniques to encourage investors to claim they are professional clients in order to push these investments and encourage them to invest more than they can afford to lose.

To read the FCA's press release on this, please click here.

Emerging risks

UK losses to fraud rise to £629.3 million in the first six months of 2025

On 24 October 2025, UK Finance published its half year fraud report for the first half of 2025. Criminals stole a total of £629.3 million in the first six months of 2025, with 2.09 million confirmed cases across both authorised and unauthorised fraud. This represents a 3% increase in losses and a 17% increase in cases relative to the first half of 2024.

The rise in losses was primarily due to larger sums being lost through authorised payment fraud (APP), which witnessed a 12% surge to £257.5 million. Investment scams have risen by 55% to £97.7 million, now representing 38% of total APP losses. The average loss for an investment scam is over 20 times greater than for a purchase scam.

AI has been identified as the main driver for enabling fraud as it allows criminals to execute more sophisticated, high-volume scams using deepfakes and synthetic identities.

To read the UK Finance's half year fraud, please click here.

Relevant case law updates

Linear Investments Ltd v Financial Ombudsman Services Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1369

On 29 October 2025 the Court of Appeal dismissed Linear Investment Ltd's appeal regarding an Ombudsman's adverse finding. Back in April 2022, the Ombudsman upheld a complaint against Linear, finding that a client had been mis-sold the "Pembroke strategy". The client was ordered to be compensated by reference to how their investment performed against the benchmark of the FTSE UK Private Investors Income Total Return Index.

The appeal was dismissed on two grounds concerning liability and the use of a FTSE index benchmark for the calculation of the award. However, the court allowed the appeal on the third ground concerning contributory negligence regarding the client's misrepresentation of his own trading experience. Given this misrepresentation, the case has now returned to the Ombudsman to determine and an appropriate reduction for contributory negligence.

To read the judgment, please click here.

With thanks to this week's contributors: Daniel Parkin, Dorian Nunzek, Damien O'Malley, Ben Simmonds, Haiying Li, James Parsons, and Lauren Butler

Sports Ticker #139 - FIFA faces NFT probe and Apple accelerates into F1 partnership - a speed read of commercial updates from the sports world

Fri, 31 Oct 2025 10:48:00 Z

Swiss scrutiny surrounds FIFA's football tokens
Switzerland's gambling regulator Gespa has filed a criminal complaint against FIFA, following the Federation's decision to sell “Right to Buy” NFTs as part of its ticketing offering for the 2026 World Cup. The tokens, tradeable on a secondary market called FIFA Collect, provide the holder with an opportunity to purchase tickets for specific matches in the tournament, separate to the ballot system. Many of the NFTs allow the purchase of tickets for a round of the tournament only if a specific country makes it that far – the “Right to Final: England” token allows holders to purchase a ticket to the final (at further cost) if England make it all the way. The regulator concluded that the FIFA Collect platform constituted “gambling services that are not licensed in Switzerland, and are therefore illegal.” The referral remains under review by Swiss law enforcement, who will decide whether to pursue charges against FIFA, which is headquartered in Zurich.

Apple races ahead with $700 million entry into American F1 market
Apple has secured a $700 million, five-year deal to stream Formula 1 races in the US from 2026, taking over from ESPN as F1's US broadcaster. Senior VP of services at Apple, Eddy Cue, has revealed plans to “bring everything that Apple has to offer” to its F1 offering, potentially utilising Apple's full ecosystem as a one-stop shop for fans. Races will air on Apple TV, while the sport is amplified across Apple's retail stores and proprietary apps including Apple News, Apple Music, and Apple Sports. The move follows the recent success of the Apple Original, “F1: The Movie”. The film became the highest-grossing sports film in history and drew in a younger, more diverse audience that traditionally favours streaming. The partnership, described by F1 CEO Stefano Domenicali as “the perfect match”, gives F1 a shot at pushing deeper into the US market and capturing the attention of American fans as it works to embed itself in the nation’s sporting DNA.

Seven Seven Six serves up its new volleyball vision

US women's volleyball has netted major backing, with venture capital firm Seven Seven Six announcing that it will lead the ownership group for a new Los Angeles-based women's professional volleyball franchise. The firm, founded by Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian, has previously invested in other women's sports teams, including Chelsea FC Women in May this year. The team will compete in League One Volleyball (LOVB), the largest volleyball organisation in the US, from January 2027. Women's volleyball has seen ever increasing popularity, with more participation, views, coverage and sponsorships. LOVB's first season began this January with six city-based franchise teams, attracting 38.9 million views of cross-platform match content. The size of the investment has been undisclosed, though it has been stated that the decision was influenced by the social media market and the fact that the athletes have “massive followings and real fan engagement”. Rosie Spaulding, the president of LOVB Pro stated that the league is “thrilled to partner” with Seven Seven Six, calling the firm “true women's sports champions”.

Spotify strikes shirt sponsorship with Spanish superclub
Spanish footballing powerhouse FC Barcelona has agreed a multi-year sponsorship extension with music streaming giant Spotify. Spotify and Barcelona first partnered at the beginning of the 2022/2023 season, with the Swedish company obtaining rights to front of kit branding rights until 2026. Financial details have not been officially released by either party, though the deal is reportedly worth as much as €460 million, which is €120 million more than the total value of the original four-year sponsorship contract. The extension to the deal means that Spotify will continue to feature on the front of Barcelona's famous first team kits, as well as the training kits for both the men's and women's teams. Spotify will also retain naming rights over Barcelona's stadium, the Spotify Camp Nou, until 2034. In a statement released this month, FC Barcelona stated that the extension “further strengthens the shared goal of exploring new ways to bring fans, football and music together”.

British Basketball benched: FIBA suspension sparks game cancellations
FIBA, the international governing body for basketball, has suspended the British Basketball Federation (BBF), preventing Great Britain’s men’s team from taking part in any international matches. The suspension follows an investigation by a FIBA taskforce set up in August 2025 to look into governance problems and rule breaches in British men’s basketball. The dispute began when several Super League Basketball clubs took legal action against the BBF. The clubs sued the BBF because they disagreed with the BBF’s decision to hand over control of a new national league to a private consortium for 15 years in exchange for £15 million of funding. FIBA’s investigation found that the BBF had mishandled the situation. As a result, the federation has been suspended, and FIBA will now work with UK basketball stakeholders and the Government to set up an interim system for running men’s basketball competitions. The suspension has already caused disruption: the GB men’s World Cup qualifier against Lithuania, scheduled for 27 November, has been cancelled. UK Sports Minister Stephanie Peacock said she was “deeply concerned” by the developments and called for urgent reform to restore stability to British basketball.

Extra time...

…and finally, WWE has reportedly made a bold strategic play into the tech world, hiring a new Senior Director of Creative Strategy to spearhead integration of AI into its graphics, video production, and potentially storytelling. The famed wrestling company is renowned for embracing technology, becoming one of the first sports entertainment businesses to launch its own streaming service with the WWE Network in 2014. While not yet deploying AI performers in the ring, WWE is positioning itself at the intersection of entertainment and tech, signalling a shift in creative production methods across sports and media.

Take 10 - 31 October 2025

Fri, 31 Oct 2025 08:23:00 Z

Laurence Fox's libel claim to be retried following serious harm reversal

The Court of Appeal has held that Laurence Fox should be granted a retrial in his libel dispute on grounds that the first instance decision erred in the approach to the assessment of serious harm. The proceedings concern a 2020 Twitter exchange between Mr Fox and three individuals (Simon Blake, Colin Seymour and Nicola Thorp). At first instance, the High Court awarded Mr Blake and Mr Seymour £90,000 each after Mr Fox alleged they were paedophiles, and dismissed Mr Fox's libel counterclaim after finding that the posts calling him racist did not cause serious harm to his reputation. See our previous Take 10 for more details.

The first instance Judge had seen evidence of 15 third-party tweets calling Mr Fox racist before the tweets complained of, but the Claimants had not pursued their case that Fox had a general bad reputation as a racist at trial. The Court of Appeal found that the Judge had erred in considering whether, if Mr Fox had a reputation for being a racist, that reputation had been shown to result from the tweets complained of. The Judge had also considered a range of other factors which might have caused or contributed to reputational harm, which included previous third-party publications similar to the alleged libels, and Mr Fox's own statements. Following the rules in Dingle and Plato Films v Speidel, the Court of Appeal held that it was wrong to have considered third-party publications in the causation assessment of serious harm, and that this was evidence that Mr Fox had a general bad reputation as a racist. The Court of Appeal considered that the "only conclusion" was that the publications had caused serious harm to Mr Fox's reputation, having regard to the seriousness of the allegations and scale of publication. Consequently, the case will be remitted for re-trial on the issues of honest opinion, truth and if necessary, damages.

The Court of Appeal also upheld Mr Blake and Mr Seymour's libel claims but halved the "excessive" damages to £45,000 each, having regard to Mr Fox's steps to mitigate the harm and rejecting the first instance Judge's treatment of mainstream media reporting of the parties' exchanges as evidence of additional reputational harm.

Ofcom updates guidance around politicians presenting news

On 20 October 2025, Ofcom confirmed that it would not be expanding the scope of Rule 5.3 of the Broadcasting Code to prohibit politicians from presenting news in "any type of programme" as opposed to maintaining the current restriction on politicians presenting "news programmes" only. It follows the High Court's decision in R (on the application of GB News Limited) v Ofcom [2025] EWHC 460 (Admin) that Rule 5.3 does not, for example, prevent politicians presenting current affairs programmes. Ofcom subsequently consulted on expanding Rule 5.3 to prevent politicians presenting news in any type of programme but a number of broadcasters raised concerns with the "significant practical challenges" which could inadvertently lead to a de facto ban on politicians presenting any kind of programme.

Ofcom has instead updated its guidance to clarify that if an MP presents news outside of "news programmes", their status as an MP, political position on the issue and the nature and subject of the news would be a relevant factor in assessing whether the news had been presented with due impartiality. The definition of a "politician" has been updated to remove "activists", and to include members of the House of Lords and "representatives" of political parties. Ofcom has also expanded on the "exceptional circumstances" in which politicians could deliver news, namely being circumstances that "are outside the control and/or could not have been foreseen" by the broadcaster, though this situation would be "rare" and contingency measures must be in place to avoid such situations.

ECtHR reinforces that politicians should expect a higher level of scrutiny

The European Court of Human Rights handed down judgment on 21 October 2025 in the case of Mortensen v Denmark (Application no 16756/24), finding that the conviction of defamation (punishable by a fine and compensation) for calling the leader of a right-wing national and anti-Islam political party a "Nazi" had unnecessarily interfered with the applicant's Article 10 rights. The ECtHR disagreed that the X post complained of "failed to contribute to a topic of public interest". The post implied that there was injustice that someone had been arrested for insulting a police officer whereas, in the applicant's opinion, the politician could "say horrible things about people solely on the basis of their ethnic origin". There was also no indication that the post had been widely viewed or shared.

The ECtHR criticised the Danish court's failure to address "how well known the person concerned is and his prior conduct", observing that the politician was a well-known public figure, and had attracted attention to himself in the past with his anti-Islam protests, including burning Qurans. The ECtHR emphasised that public figures must display "a particularly high degree of tolerance" to critical comment and in the circumstances, the Danish court had not conducted a proper balancing exercise between the competing rights of the applicant and the politician. The ECtHR found the interference with the applicant's Article 10 rights to be "disproportionate", and the sanctions imposed to be disproportionately severe.

Permission to appeal refused in Hijab v The Spectator & Douglas Murray

Mohammed Hijab has been refused permission to appeal his defamation claim against The Spectator and Douglas Murray. Mr Hijab's claim concerned an article published in September 2022, authored by Douglas Murray, which alleged that Mr Hijab had whipped up his followers on the streets of Leicester during the civil unrest in 2022 by, among other things, making derogatory comments about Hindus by reference to their belief in reincarnation. In his judgment on 5 August 2025, Mr Justice Johnson found that Mr Hijab failed to establish that the article had caused or was likely to cause serious harm to his reputation, and also held that the Defendants' truth defences succeeded. Further details of the claim can be found in our summer round-up edition of Take 10.

In refusing permission for Mr Hijab to appeal the findings, Warby LJ considered the success of the truth defences to be "properly reasoned from legitimate findings of fact based on admissible evidence". Warbly LJ also found that having heard Mr Hijab's evidence, Johnson J was "plainly entitled to find that his evidence was 'worthless' and to make findings of dishonesty". On serious harm, Warby LJ held that it was "open to argument that the judge should have inferred serious harm" and that his approach to the parties' online followings and the response of those who followed Mr Hijab may have involved legal errors comparable to those identified in Blake v Fox (see above). However, it made no difference whether or not Johnson J had erred in relation to serious harm because of his "unchallengeable findings" on the truth defences which meant the claim "must fail in any event". RPC acts for The Spectator.

Settlement reached in The Lost King libel claim

On 27 October, Richard Taylor settled his libel claim against Pathe Productions, Baby Cow Productions and Steve Coogan regarding the film The Lost King. The film covered the discovery and identification of the remains of Richard III under a Leicester car park in 2012. Mr Taylor was portrayed in the film as the key co-ordinator for the University of Leicester's involvement in the dig. The settlement follows a preliminary issue trial on meaning, in which His Honour Judge Lewis found that the film depicted Mr Taylor as having "knowingly misrepresented" the University's involvement in the search for Richard III's remains, and as being "smug, unduly dismissive and patronising". The claim has subsequently settled, with the Defendants agreeing to pay Mr Taylor damages and costs, and to make changes to the film to withdraw the allegations by adding an introductory message to the start of the film stating that the character of Mr Taylor does not represent the actions of the real Richard Taylor.

Two out of three interim injunctions refused in privacy, libel and harassment claim

In AXB v CYD, EYD and FZG [2025] EWHC 2642 (KB), an interim injunction was granted prohibiting the publication of private information, but the Court refused to make orders preventing the republication of allegedly defamatory statements and the pursuit of conduct alleged to amount to harassment. The case arises from four social‑media videos which the Claimant alleged accused her of being (i) an obsessive and mentally ill stalker and (ii) responsible for establishing, running and dishonestly falsifying the content on a related social media account.

The Court granted the interim order prohibiting the publication of the Claimant's home address, personal telephone numbers and correspondence, and images of her child, as it is trite law that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy over such information and there was evidence that the Third Defendant had published it. For the allegedly defamatory statements, the Court was not satisfied that the Claimant's prospects of success at trial were sufficiently favourable to justify an order (contrary to the principle in Bonnard v Perryman) as it found there was a credible case that the Claimant was either behind, or at least substantially contributed to, material published on the social media account in question and the Defendants demonstrated sufficient prospects of successfully defending the claim via a truth defence. Injunctive relief against republication was therefore refused. Similarly, the Court refused to grant interim relief on the Claimant's harassment case as there was no real evidence that there was a threat of harassment from any Defendant before trial. However, the Court granted anonymity given the unusual circumstances of the case: the Claimant filed evidence that she had received death threats and was in serious fear for her and her child's safety due to the publications in question.

Dan Neidle invokes new ECCTA anti‑SLAPP provisions in £8m libel battle

The tax campaigner Dan Neidle has revealed that he and his company, Tax Policy Associates, are relying on new anti-SLAPP CPR provisions in applying to strike out an £8 million libel and malicious falsehood claim issued by barrister Setu Kamal over a February 2025 report they prepared on Arka Wealth - a firm linked to Mr Kamal. The report alleged Arka Wealth was promoting a tax avoidance scheme that should be “closed down to protect the public” as clients risked large up‑front tax liabilities and even losing control of their assets. In the claim form, Mr Kamal claims that the report falsely alleged that he engaged in unethical, unlawful or failed tax avoidance activity and that he posed a risk to the public. He also denies that his claim is abusive and intended to suppress scrutiny.

In advance of the application hearing, Neidle has published the claim form, and his application notice and supporting evidence on his website. This appears likely to be the first time the English court will have considered the new anti-SLAPP provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA). Under sections 194 and 195, the Court can strike out claims deemed to be SLAPPs, i.e. abusive actions intended to silence public‑interest speech in respect of alleged economic crimes that cause harassment, alarm, distress, expense or any other harm or inconvenience "beyond that ordinarily encountered in the course of properly conducted litigation". Neidle claims the action is an attempt to deter scrutiny of tax avoidance schemes and should be struck out under ECCTA. Mr Kamal has not published any responsive evidence, and copies are not publicly available. Watch this space for what will be a seminal decision on the application of the ECCTA.

BBC documentary found to have breached Broadcasting Code

Ofcom has ruled that the BBC's documentary 'Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone' breached Rule 2.2 of the Broadcasting Code by not disclosing that the narrator was the son of a Hamas official. The BBC has accepted Ofcom's findings in full, having conducted its own internal review of the programme in July. Ofcom found the omission to be "materially misleading" as it withheld information potentially crucial to viewers' assessment of the narrator's perspective in a highly sensitive context. The BBC stressed that following its internal review, there was no evidence of improper influence on the documentary's content and reiterated its commitment to restoring public trust and no other breaches of the Broadcasting Code were found by Ofcom. The BBC has been directed to broadcast a statement of Ofcom's findings at a later date. The documentary was removed from iPlayer in February after the narrator's family links emerged.

Donald Trump refiles $15 billion defamation lawsuit against the New York Times and Penguin Random House

On 16 October, Donald Trump filed an amended defamation claim against the New York Times, Penguin Random House LLC and three journalists after the initial statement of case was struck out. The initial 85-page pleading, which only made reference to two counts of alleged defamation on the 80th and 83rd pages, was found to be "decidedly improper and impermissible” in the form originally filed. The revised 40-page pleading alleges defamation arising from the publication of a book published by Penguin Random House titled 'Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success' and two articles in the New York Times. The allegations include that President Trump received a modern-day equivalent of a $400 million inheritance from his father, which his father accumulated through illegal tax evasion schemes. Trump claims the statements threaten to damage his reputation as a successful businessman and affect the credibility and profitability of his businesses, and seeks $15 billion in compensatory damages plus punitive damages. In response to the amended filing, the New York Times said: "this lawsuit has no merit. Nothing has changed today. This is merely an attempt to stifle independent reporting and generate PR attention, but the New York Times will not be deterred by intimidation tactics".

Two years on since the Online Safety Act received Royal Assent

On 26 October, the Online Safety Act reached the two-year mark since it received Royal Assent. Oliver Griffiths, Ofcom’s Group Director of Online Safety, said "real change" is already underway. Ofcom has said it plans to publish a report in December to "detail the progress seen so far". This follows the letter from Ofcom's CEO, Dame Melanie Dawes, to the Chairs of the Chairs of the Communications and Digital Select Committee and the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee earlier this month updating the Committees on the implementation of the Online Safety Act to date. Dame Dawes explains that the "most visible and significant change" has been the introduction of age assurance measures on pornography sites and sites hosting "primary priority content" (as defined by the Act). She also set out Ofcom's priorities to achieve by the end of the 2025/2026 financial year, which includes completing a number of consultations and introducing a super-complaints regime. The consultation will remain open until 30 November. Ofcom's current consultation to inform its guidance for the making of super-complaints will also close at 5pm on Monday 3 November 2025.

Next week, Ofcom also intends to publish a call for evidence on how online services have used age assurance measures to comply with their obligations under the Online Safety Act, and any barriers to these measures such as cost or privacy concerns.

Quote of the fortnight

"There is little scope under Article 10(2) of the Convention for restrictions on freedom of expression in two fields, namely political speech and matters of public interest. … A degree of hostility and the potential seriousness of certain remarks do not obviate the right to a high level of protection, given the existence of a matter of public interest."

The European Court of Human Rights in Mortensen v Denmark (Application no. 16756/24) at [44]

Taxpayer recovers almost 2 million in successful SDLT appeal

Thu, 30 Oct 2025 10:00:00 Z

In Christian Peter Candy v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 416 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decided that Mr Candy was entitled to bring his claim for stamp duty land tax (SDLT) relief outside the 12-month window for amendments to returns, by relying on paragraph 34, Schedule 10, Finance Act 2003.

Am I being good enough? Good faith obligations in real estate contracts

Thu, 30 Oct 2025 09:25:00 Z

It is common to see parties agree to act in "good faith" towards each other throughout the duration of a contract. However, it is often difficult to articulate exactly what that means in a commercial context.

VAT update October 2025

Wed, 29 Oct 2025 13:39:00 Z

News

The Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) has submitted a budget representation on repayment interest and commercial restitution for VAT, highlighting issues such as the imbalance between the rates of repayment and late payment interest.

The CIOT's representation can be viewed here.

HMRC has updated its internal manual on VAT input tax to clarify when a late claim for input tax can be made.

The updated manual can be viewed here.

HMRC has corrected an error in VAT cash receipts which has led to an upwards revision of VAT cash receipts by £2.4 billion (approximately 3% of year-to-date VAT receipts).

HMRC's monthly bulletin can be viewed here.

Case reports

The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKSC 34

The Supreme Court considered whether a performance-based “success fee” payable by Prudential Assurance Company Ltd (Prudential) to its former group company, Silverfleet Capital (Silverfleet), was subject to VAT.

Silverfleet provided investment management services to Prudential. A success fee was payable to Silverfleet when the value of the funds exceeded a threshold fixed in a services supply contract. When those services were supplied, both companies belonged to the same VAT group, and therefore supplies between them were disregarded for VAT purposes, under section 43, Value Added Tax Act 1994 (VATA).

Several years later, after Silverfleet left the VAT group, the success fee became payable. Silverfleet issued an invoice to Prudential for the fee plus VAT. HMRC accepted that VAT was properly chargeable, but Prudential contended that no VAT should apply because the underlying services were rendered while both parties were in the same VAT group, and therefore the supply was outside the scope of VAT.

The key issue for determination was whether VAT-grouping rules under section 43 displaced the ordinary “time of supply” rules, given that the underlying investment management services had been performed while both companies were in the same VAT group.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Prudential’s appeal, holding that the “time of supply” for VAT purposes occurred when the success fee became due and was invoiced. As Silverfleet’s invoice was issued after Prudential's departure from the VAT group, the success fee was not an intra-group supply, and VAT was properly due. The Court further held that section 43 does not displace the ordinary time-of-supply rules. VAT grouping is not a “self-contained code” but operates within the broader framework of VAT law.

Why it matters:

This decision clarifies the interaction between VAT grouping and time of supply rules. Deferred or performance-linked payments may attract VAT if invoiced after a party leaves a VAT group, even where the underlying services were performed earlier. Businesses with group structures and contingent fee arrangements should review their contracts and VAT accounting practices to ensure proper treatment when group membership changes.

The judgment can be viewed here.

Isle of Wight NHS Trust v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1114 (TC)

The Isle of Wight NHS Trust (the Trust) appealed HMRC’s decision that the supply of locum medical practitioners to the Trust did not qualify for VAT exemption under Item 5, Group 7, Schedule 9, VATA. HMRC determined that such supplies were taxable supplies of staff rather than exempt supplies of medical care.

The key issue before the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) was the correct interpretation of Item 5, which exempts “the provision of a deputy for a person registered in the register of medical practitioners.” HMRC argued for a narrow reading consistent with EU law, that the exemption applies only where medical care is directly supplied to patients. The Trust contended that the natural meaning of “provision of a deputy” was broader and covered the supply of locum doctors acting as substitutes for registered practitioners.

The FTT also considered whether certain documents, including internal HMRC policy papers and Hansard extracts, could be used to interpret Item 5. The FTT held that such materials were inadmissible, except for public explanatory documents, reaffirming that non-public internal HMRC files cannot be relied upon as an aid to statutory interpretation.

The FTT accepted the Trust’s interpretation, finding that Item 5 should be given its ordinary meaning. It held that the supply of locum doctors constituted the provision of deputies for registered medical practitioners and therefore fell within the VAT exemption. The FTT rejected HMRC’s argument that the provision should be limited to supplies of medical care in a narrow sense, noting that to do so would contradict the clear statutory wording. The appeal was therefore allowed.

Why it matters:

This decision has significant implications for NHS bodies and locum agencies. It may mean that many locum doctor supplies are VAT exempt, potentially leading to substantial VAT recovery claims. The case also reinforces that where statutory language is clear, tax tribunals will apply its ordinary meaning, and internal HMRC policy documents cannot be used to interpret legislation.

The decision can be viewed here.

Bottled Science Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKUT 00313 (TCC)

Bottled Science Ltd (Bottled Science) sought permission from the Upper Tribunal (UT) to appeal the FTT's decision that its collagen-infused drink, Skinade, was not zero-rated for VAT as food under Item 1, Group 1, Schedule 8, VATA.

The key issue determined by the FTT was the correct interpretation of the term “food” in the VAT context and whether a collagen drink qualifies as “food of a kind used for human consumption”. The FTT determined that Skinade does not fall into this category and should be treated as a standard-rated product, on the basis that it was marketed and consumed primarily for cosmetic or health purposes, rather than as food.

Bottled Science argued that the FTT had erred in law by:

1. not applying the principle that “food includes drink” under Note 1 to Group 1, Schedule 8, VATA;

2. placing too much emphasis on marketing and promotional material rather than on the product’s ingredients, nutritional content, and regulatory classification; and

3. wrongly conflating the purpose of consumption with nutritional function, applying an overly narrow test for “food”.

The UT granted permission to appeal the FTT's decision on all three grounds, concluding that the grounds raised arguable errors of law with a realistic prospect of success. The case is to proceed to a substantive appeal hearing before the UT.

Why it matters:

The case is significant for companies producing borderline food and drink products with cosmetic or health claims, as it may clarify how the VAT zero-rating rules apply to functional beverages. It also highlights that the classification of products for VAT purposes depends on the ordinary meaning of statutory language and a balanced assessment of all relevant factors, and should not be based solely on marketing or promotional material.

The decision can be viewed here.

Financial Crime Time - Your update from RPC: 2025 Q3

Wed, 29 Oct 2025 09:25:00 Z

To read more, please click on the headlines below.

Judicial guidance on time limits for challenges to arbitral awards

Mon, 27 Oct 2025 12:28:00 Z

The question of whether challenges brought under section 72(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the AA) can be made post-award has been a source of judicial and academic debate.

Lawyers Covered - October 2025

Mon, 27 Oct 2025 09:44:00 Z

Troubling High Court judgment alarms legal profession

In a recent judgment in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), the High Court considered the question of what constitutes the conduct of litigation and whether certain activities undertaken by non-authorised fee earners, such as trainees or paralegals, was unlawful, even if supervised by an authorised person. The dispute arose following a complaint by a former client that a fees recovery claim was being conducted by a formerly suspended solicitor who had been employed (with the SRA's permission) at Charles Russell's Speechlys' instructed solicitors. The conduct of litigation is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA), meaning that only those authorised (such as SRA-regulated solicitors) or exempt (such as litigants-in-person) can do so. The SRA and Law Society intervened in Mazur, given the importance of this issue.

Ultimately, the court declined to determine whether the individual in question had in fact been conducting litigation due to the risk of cutting across any regulatory investigation or findings by the SRA following the firm's self-report. However, the court considered the issues in the abstract, finding that whether someone is conducting litigation is a question of fact and degree, but crucially that employment by an authorised body, or supervision by an authorised person, does not automatically confer a right to conduct litigation on a non-authorised person. The decision has caused significant concern in the legal profession, not helped by the SRA apparently having given incorrect advice to firms in the past about how to interpret the requirements of the LSA. It is not yet clear whether the judgment is under appeal, but in the meantime, firms will want to carry out an urgent review of their supervision arrangements and processes to ensure compliance with the LSA.

Meanwhile, the Law Society has provided new guidance on the topic here, the SRA has issued a statement on the topic here and further pronouncements from regulators in this regard can be expected.

Bar Council demands investigation into HMCTS evidence system failures

A report has found that an IT bug caused evidence to go missing, be overwritten or appear lost in the HMCTS systems. The report was leaked to the BBC and found it took several years for HMCTS to react, meaning it did not understand the full extent of the issue and impact.

The software - known as Judicial Case Manager, MyHMCTS or CCD - is used to manage evidence and track cases before the courts. Sources within the organisation believe that civil, family and tribunal courts will have made decisions in cases where evidence was affected and therefore incomplete. The Social Security and Child Support Tribunal, which handles benefit appeals, is thought to have been most affected.

After an initial investigation with a small sample size, the risk category was downgraded from 'high' to 'low', with the suggestion that staff would spot anomalies and manually correct them. However, following a formal whistleblower, the further internal investigation was undertaken which found large-scale data breaches and that data loss incidents continue to be raised.

Judges and lawyers were reportedly not informed because HMCTS management decided it was "more likely to cause more harm than good". HMCTS says its internal investigation found no evidence that "any case outcomes were affected as a result of these technical issues".

Barbara Mills KC, Chair of the Bar Council, expressed alarm that this had potentially caused miscarriages of justice and said there was an urgent need for investigation, particularly into whether emergency child protection cases were affected. She went on to say that this was yet another instance of issues with court IT systems, and that "the Ministry of Justice should undertake an audit of all its IT systems so that any problems can be proactively identified".

CLC Compensation fund

The Council for Licenced Conveyancers (the "CLC") regulates conveyancing and probate lawyers and is responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct.

It operates a Compensation Fund designed as a fund of last resort for clients who have suffered financial loss due to the dishonesty, fraud or failure to account by a CLC-regulated firm or its staff.

On 14 July 2025 the CLC announced that it has received claims from over 300 individuals relating to over 50 developments in property investment schemes. These property investment schemes are promoted as the routine buying of property when in reality the buyer's money is being pooled and used to finance a high-risk development eg where a developer sells a room in a hotel, care home or student accommodation for a high return. The SRA has issued many warning to solicitors providing advice to investors due to their potential to collapse or turn out to be a scam. In 2021 two solicitors (Margaret Bridget Hetherington and Patrick Clement Hetherington) were struck off for their involvement in advising on investments involving parking lots. There have been many warnings issued by the FCA and numerous court cases highlighting the significant legal issues surrounding the schemes, particularly regarding fraud, collective investment schemes and regulatory compliance.

In September 2025 the CLC confirmed that its initial review identifies clear patterns and similarities in claims dependent upon which development was involved. It is focusing on providing determination by development, starting with the developments in respect of which they have received the most claims. It expects to have completed all of its assessments by spring 2026.

Due to the high volume of claims, the fund pool created for them has been closed and the CLC is not accepting any more applications.

Changes to the UK Anti-Money Laundering Supervisory Regime

The UK government’s October 2025 announcement marks a significant shift in anti-money laundering (AML) supervision for law firms. Under the new regime, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) will become the single professional services supervisor for AML and counter-terrorism financing (CTF), substantially reducing the role of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).

For law firms, this transition brings notable implications. The consolidation aims to streamline supervision, but the Law Society has cautioned that legal sector-specific expertise may be diluted. The Law Society considers firms must prepare for changes in regulatory expectations, particularly as the FCA is expected to emphasise proportionate, risk-based regulation rather than strict compliance. However, the cost and complexity of transitioning to a new supervisor could pose challenges, especially for small and medium-sized practices. The ICAEW considers this change will "cause confusion and increase compliance costs" and that the regulatory burden that already weighs heavily on firms, will only increase.

The FCA, however, has stated that "We recognise the benefits of an improved regime for anti-money laundering supervision. These changes will simplify the supervision of professional services, ensure more consistent oversight and help us identify and disrupt crime". It also considers its 'extensive expertise' in this area will ensure a smooth transition.

The reforms remain subject to enabling legislation and further consultation, meaning the actual timeline for implementation is uncertain. It has never been more important for law firms to ensure robust AML policies and procedures are in place.

Complying with Principle 6 - encouraging equality, diversity and inclusion

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has provided updated guidance on Principle 6 of its Code of Conduct, which states that legal professionals promote equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI). Despite the expectations on firms and individuals remaining the same, the new guidance provides better practical advice and examples of behaviours that could raise regulatory concerns.

Individuals must treat colleagues respectfully and avoid discrimination, bullying, or harassment, and senior individuals are expected to lead by example, to challenge incorrect behaviour, and take steps to create an inclusive culture. The SRA has also provided guidance confirming that actions outside of work, including online conduct, can impact public trust and may fall under SRA remit if the behaviour is discriminatory or offensive.

Law firms are being encouraged to take steps to create comprehensive EDI in their workplaces, including implementing policies and training for individuals on EDI topics. Recruitment and promotion practices are another area for firms to consider, and these must be fair and free from discrimination. While not all firms are required to put in place every piece of the guidance, larger firms will be expected to do more and may need to set aspirational targets or publish pay gap reports and other reports on diversity data.

The SRA recommends that firms work on developing EDI policies, ensuring fair recruitment and promotion processes, providing appropriate staff training, encouraging open dialogue around EDI issues and making sure reasonable adjustments are made where appropriate for those with disabilities. For more information read our analysis here.

Costs orders on applications by King's Counsel for ad hoc admission in Hong Kong

At the time of writing, Re Owen KC [2025] HKCFI 4569 is the most recent judgment concerning an application by overseas counsel for ad hoc admission to appear before the Hong Kong courts. Such applications proceed by consent or are contested before a judge of the High Court. Applicants should be eminent senior counsel (advocates) and the case for which they wish to appear should involve points of law of unusual complexity and difficulty. The court is guided by the public interest when deciding whether to approve an application for ad hoc admission and rarely makes a costs order against an applicant. In Re Owen KC the court gave guidance on costs.

The applicant sought permission to represent two parties on an application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal with respect to a restraint order obtained by the Secretary for Justice pursuant to section 15 of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance. The Court of Appeal had refused permission to appeal based on written submissions but subsequently allowed a hearing with oral argument – it was for this hearing that the applicant sought permission to appear together with any substantive appeal (CAMP 290/2023).

Given that the hearing before the Court of Appeal was (in effect) a "screening exercise" the court declined to grant the applicant permission to appear in the proceedings. In the context of the application for ad hoc admission the court was not convinced that the issues raised before the Court of Appeal involved any points of law of unusual complexity and difficulty.

Of particular interest is the court's consideration of the Secretary for Justice's request for costs against the applicant. The Secretary for Justice is an interested party with respect to applications for ad hoc admission by overseas counsel. Re Owen KC appears to be the first instance of the Secretary for Justice opposing such an application to which the Hong Kong Bar Association (as another interested party) had agreed. In that context, the court's guidance on costs is important. The court declined to order costs against the applicant – noting that:

court proceedings arising out of applications for ad hoc admission are not normal adversarial litigation – rather, they are guided by the public interest. The role of the Secretary for Justice and the Bar Association is to assist the court and there should normally be no order as to costs;
the court can make a costs order against an unsuccessful applicant but would only do so where their application is "one that should never have been made as no applicant could reasonably view the application as having a reasonable prospect of success" (paragraph 60 of the court's judgment).

Re Owen KC confirms that the threshold for obtaining an adverse costs order following a contested application for ad hoc admission is high. In short, an application by King's Counsel for ad hoc admission that is made in good faith and to which the Bar Association consents should not attract adverse costs.

With thanks to our additional contributors: Aimee Talbot, Sally Lord and Cat Zakarias-Welch.

Complying with Principle 6 - encouraging equality, diversity and inclusion

Mon, 27 Oct 2025 09:36:00 Z

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has issued updated guidance on Principle 6 of its Code of Conduct, which requires individuals and firms regulated by the SRA to act in a way that encourages equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI). The updated guidance also provides clarity on how these obligations interact with other core principles, in particular Principle 2 (upholding public trust and confidence in the profession) and Principle 5 (acting with integrity).

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 24 October 2025

Fri, 24 Oct 2025 15:52:00 +0100

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Headline development

HMRC's tax warning letters to crypto investors increase by 134%

Research by UHY Hacker Young has revealed that the number of warning letters issued by HMRC in relation to tax owed on cryptocurrency rose by 134% in the 2024/25 tax year (to 65,000 from 27,700 the previous year).

The firm noted there had been a sharp rise in cryptocurrency investment since 2023 and in turn the amount of undeclared capital gains tax on those assets, which could be substantial where an estimated 7 million taxpayers hold an estimated £12.9m in crypto.

The rise in these 'nudge' letters would suggest HMRC is clamping down on crypto investors it considers have underpaid tax. One issue is that some crypto investors will not realise that they should have declared their gains. The tax rules can also be unclear particularly when it comes to determining when an individual should pay income tax (if HMRC classifies investors as "traders") rather than capital gains tax payable on the disposal of the assets.

Accountants and auditors

ICAEW warns against FCA’s new role in AML supervision for business

The UK government has announced plans to transfer responsibility for anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CTF) supervision of accountancy and legal firms to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The FCA would oversee around 60,000 additional firms, on top of the 17,000 it already supervises. Currently, 22 professional body supervisors (PBSs) carry out this work, including ICAEW, which supervises about 10,000 firms.

ICAEW has criticised the move, warning that it will increase compliance costs, regulatory confusion, and fragmentation, whilst diminishing the effectiveness of supervision. The decision follows HM Treasury’s 2022 review and consultation, which considered four reform models. The government has chosen the third option - creating a single professional services supervisor for both sectors.

ICAEW argues this approach risks losing essential expertise and will take years to achieve the same level of effectiveness as the current PBs-led system. ICAEW plans to continue engaging with ministers to seek alternatives.

To read more about ICAEW's viewpoint on the proposed changes, please click here.

FRC issues two thematic review into corporate reporting

On 21 October 2025, the FRC issued two thematic reviews with a view to providing insights into and improving the quality of – (1) UK company reporting in respect of investment companies and (2) share-based payment arrangements.

The reviews into these two areas of corporate reporting are said by the FRC to highlight the importance of clarity and consistency in financial reporting, and that they "shed light on common pitfalls and showcase good practice."

The investment companies thematic review covers reporting by investment trusts, venture capital trusts and other closed-ended investment entities – including disclosures in relation to Level 3 fair value measurements.

The share-based payment review covers how companies apply IFRS 2 'Share-based Payment' – which is described by the FRC as "a complex standard that requires judgement and modelling to value share-based transactions".

The aim of these thematic reviews is to provide investors with confidence in UK financial reporting, by supporting high standard of corporate reporting.

To read more, please click here.

Insolvency practitioners

Insolvency rates remain stable but high based on the Insolvency Service's latest statistics

The Insolvency Service has published its monthly insolvency statistics for September 2025 which reveal that there were 2,000 company insolvencies in September. This is similar to levels in both August 2025 (2,046) and the same month last year (1,967 in September 2024). For individuals, insolvencies in September 2025 amounted to 11,101, 3% lower than August 2025 and 7% higher than September 2024.

Although insolvency rates are steady, they remain high. The president of insolvency trade body R3 (Tom Russell) has said there is a sense of ‘stable stress’ continuing across businesses and households alike.

This does not appear likely to change in the immediate future based on the latest Office for National Statistics business insights data, which revealed that around one in six businesses reported having no cash reserves in late September 2025 - the highest proportion since the question was introduced in June 2020.

To read more about the latest statistics, please click here.

Tax practitioners

HMRC issued guidance to promote good practice among tax payer intermediaries

HMRC has issued guidance to promote good practice among intermediaries, such as accountants, employers, and financial advisers, who act on behalf of taxpayers. Whilst recognising the important role intermediaries play in supporting taxpayers, HMRC is concerned about a small minority whose behaviour can harm the tax system, including misleading advertising and misuse of HMRC’s rules and systems.

To tackle these issues, HMRC has introduced rules and guidance and will take action against intermediaries causing harm, which may include blocking access to HMRC services, reporting to professional bodies, or pursuing criminal prosecution in cases of fraud. Additionally, HMRC continuously monitors risks to identify emerging problems and adjusts its approach accordingly.

Taxpayers are reminded that they remain responsible for their tax affairs even when using intermediaries and should be wary of unrealistic claims, unclear fees, and requests to share HMRC login details or sign blank forms. Additional guidance is available, including advice for those using umbrella companies.

To read the HMRC standard for agents, please click here; to read the HMRC's guidance regarding working through an umbrella company, please click here.

HMRC steps up enforcement on Capital Gains Tax penalties

Recent data obtained by Financial Software Ltd (FSL) reveals a sharp rise in HMRC’s ‘Failure to Notify’ penalties relating to Capital Gains Tax. The number of penalties issued increased from 175 in both 2020/21 and 2021/22, to 254 in 2023/24, and has already reached 350 in 2024/25. This escalation coincides with significant reductions in the annual exemption amount, which fell from £12,300 to £6,000 in 2023/24 and then to £3,000 in 2024/25, which means more individuals are now liable for CGT.

Penalties are typically imposed when taxpayers miss reporting deadlines for asset disposals, changes in tax status, or registration requirements. The fines are calculated according to the potential revenue lost to HMRC, though early disclosure can mitigate the penalty. Moreover, HMRC has also intensified its efforts to tackle undeclared capital gains, particularly from property sales and investments. In the past year, HMRC has reportedly sent over 14,000 “nudge” letters to taxpayers suspected of failing to report gains, leveraging data from the Land Registry and financial institutions to identify discrepancies.

Experts at FSL have commented that the increase in fines and interest charges reflects HMRC’s renewed focus on maximising tax receipts, particularly following the Chancellor’s recent drive for fiscal tightening. With the lower exemption threshold, more taxpayers are at risk, prompting calls for greater awareness and professional advice to avoid costly mistakes.

Click here to read more.

Pensions

Pension and investment complaints to FCA rise in H1 2025

Data from the FCA has revealed an increase of 3.6% for complaints about financial services from 1.78 million in H2 2024 to 1.85 million in H1 2025.

Whilst complaints have generally remained constant since H1 2021 (typically 1.7m – 2m biannually), three product groups experienced a notable increase in complaint numbers:

Banking and credit cards increased 7.2% from 839,526 (2024 H2) to 899,861 (2025 H1).
Decumulation & pensions increased 5.5% from 89,172 (2024 H2) to 94,035 (2025 H1).
Investments increased 10.1% from 52,971 (2024 H2) to 58,303 (2025 H1).

Over the same period, home finance complaints decreased 6.3% from 83,936 to 78,641 and insurance / pure protection complaints 0.2% from 718,497 to 717,406.

It is unclear what is driving the increases for the above product groups (whether it is simply a reflection of cost of living pressures, for example) but it is generally unsurprising that complaint levels remain high where there is increased scrutiny on FCA-regulated firms, who are expected to focus on delivering good outcomes following the introduction of the Consumer Duty in July 2023.

To access the FCA's latest complaints data please click here.

Sterling 20: Government unites pension funds and insurers to boost nationwide investment

During a regional investment summit in Birmingham, the UK Government has announced the formation of the "Sterling 20" club. The initiative brings together the UK's 20 largest insurers and pension funds to mobilise national savings and pension capital to support vital infrastructure projects and high-growth businesses, with the broader goal of stimulating economic development.

Key objectives include encouraging collaboration between major investors to deliver new homes, modern infrastructure, and thriving industries such as AI. Multiple notable commitments have already been made by members. Legal & General has pledged £2 billion towards property development by 2030, including the construction of 10,000 affordable homes. NEST is said to be investing £500 million via Schroders Capital, with £100 million earmarked for UK opportunities, and £40 million is to be dedicated to expanding high-speed broadband in rural Scotland and Northern England.

The Chancellor will also engage with AustralianSuper, Australia’s largest pension fund, which is considering increasing its UK assets to £18 billion by 2030. This initiative follows the Mansion House Accord, under which leading UK pension providers agreed to invest £25 billion in domestic unlisted equities by 2030.

Click here to read more.

Pension trustees urged to review cyber security and fraud prevention measures

Audit, tax and consulting firm, RSM UK, has urged trustees of pension schemes to review their cyber controls and fraud prevention measures and ensure they are robust. The request comes amid a doubling of ‘nationally significant’ cyber-attacks this year, which can cause significant disruption and financial loss for businesses and consumers, including pensions where the average loss is £34,000 per person. The National Cyber Security Centre published data earlier this year showing that 50% of businesses and 66% of high-income charities had experienced some form of cyber security breach or attack in the last year, with the prevalence of attacks even higher among medium sized businesses (70%) and large businesses (74%).

RSM state that these figures are a stark reminder that more needs to be done to protect pension savers from scams and fraudsters. RSM recommend that, to avoid falling victim to fraud, pension savers should use strong, unique passwords for each website, enable multi-factor authentication, to avoid logging in using public Wi-Fi, and to never click on links in emails claiming to be from their pension provider.

To read more, please click here.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

FCA publishes general insurance value measures data for 2024

On 17 October 2025, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published the general insurance value measures data for January 2024 to December 2024. The data is a factual summary only, and is aimed at driving transparency in the market and to provide firms, consumer groups and other stakeholders with common indicators of value across a range of general insurance products. The FCA's key findings were that:

Despite recent cost increases for consumers for home insurance and motor finance, the proportion of premiums paid in claims for these core products has remained broadly consistent from 2023.
The data reflects the impact of the FCA's previous intervention on GAP insurance, where some firms agreed to pause selling until they could show their products provide fair value to customers.

The data also shows that claims costs as a proportion of premiums:

Range from 20% for tyre cover to 69% for healthcare cash plans.
Were 54% for motor insurance, down from 56% in 2023, and 46% for home insurance, up from 45% in 2023.
Were over 100% for GAP insurance, due to the FCA's interventions

The FCA notes that the proportion of premiums paid out in claims is only one possible indicator of the relationship between the risk price and total price.

To read more, please click here.

Theresa Chambers encourages firms to "do the right thing"

A speech by the FCA's Theresa Chambers (Joint Executive Director of Enforcement and Market Oversight) reiterated the FCA's central expectation that firms and individuals do "the right thing". This was in the context of Chambers discussing the change in approach to enforcement cases, with an increased focus on using its criminal and supervisory powers before opening investigations, as well as its prioritisation of cooperation, remediation, and consumer redress.

Chambers referred to the declining number of enforcement cases since 2023 and also the increasing speed at which conclusions have been reached when compared to the previous average duration over 42 months. Chambers said that this change in approach has meant the FCA can focus on the most serious cases.

Chambers said that firms should "do the right thing well before an investigation is opened" and that by doing so, FCA interventions can be avoided, whilst remediation, cooperation and consumer redress can materially impact upon enforcement outcomes.

In terms of addressing financial crime, market abuse, and crypto-related misconduct, Chambers referred to the FCA's increased use of criminal powers.

To read the Chamber's speech, please click here.

FCA opens data room to assist with motor finance consultation responses

As a part of its ongoing consultation on the compensation scheme for motor finance customers, the FCA has introduced a controlled-access data room, which contains underlying data relevant to the FCA’s analysis of loss within the context of the consultation. The data room is designed to enable stakeholders with expertise in handling large datasets and financial modelling to examine the FCA’s methodology and respond more effectively to the consultation.

Access to the data room is not open to all. Stakeholders must formally request entry by emailing the FCA (motordataroom@fca.org.uk). The request must specify which individuals are seeking access, their reasons for doing so, and provide evidence of their credentials in working securely and confidentially with substantial volumes of data and financial modelling. Before gaining access, individuals are required to sign a confidentiality agreement to ensure the data is handled appropriately.

However, the FCA has clarified that firms must use their own internal data when calculating redress liabilities. The data room is intended solely to aid understanding of the FCA’s analysis and should not be used for firms’ own redress assessments. Firms are therefore obliged to ensure that their calculations are based on their own records and data, in line with FCA requirements.

Click here to read more.

Consumer duty next steps set out by FCA, as firms told they must evidence outcomes.

During the recent Consumer Duty conference, Charlotte Clark of the FCA stated that in the next steps of the Consumer Duty, firms must demonstrate that their communications move vulnerable customers into better value products.

Clark said that these next steps will be a "deliberate move" from "prescription to principles with proof", which will necessitate more evidence of better outcomes, with fewer rigid templates.

Clark stated that the benefits of the consumer duty were clear to see through increasing rates and improving prompts, but that it is now the time for firms to "prove these communications actually move vulnerable and long tenured cohorts into better value products."

In clarifying how firms can understand the FCA's expectations, Clark said: "Are firms delivering fair value, clear understanding and timely support? If the answer is yes then innovation and growth can thrive. If not then complexity and harm creep back in."

Clark also relayed the message that the cultural shift the FCA is looking for is beyond simply whether a firm is compliant.

Clark's message was simplification, which can help with achieving these objectives. The "simplification plan" relates to four aspects – (1) future proofing disclosing to ensure fewer rigid templates and more clear outcome oriented communications, (2) reducing duplication, removing legacy material where the duty already sets a high bar, (3) targeted clean ups to align mortgage, insurance and credit advertising expectation with the consumer duty and (4) cultivating support for small firms through guidance and pilots.

Clark's closing remarks detailed the FCA's priorities as it moves towards the next stage of the Consumer Duty – identifying simplification, proportionality and outcomes monitoring. Clark stated that "these are not abstract goals, they are practical steps to make financial services fairer, clearer, and more responsive to everyday lives."

To read more, please click here.

Emerging risks

FCA urges banks to protect victims of romance fraud

The FCA has found that romance fraud is a growing crime, with cases rising 9% last year, where victims are tricked into sending money to fraudsters posing as romantic interests, often via social media or dating sites. The FCA’s review highlights that over 85% of cases start online, underscoring the role of platforms in preventing fraud. Victims often don’t disclose the true reason for payments, making intervention difficult.

Many firms miss chances to spot suspicious transactions due to inconsistent staff training and ineffective monitoring systems. However, some banks go beyond expectations, providing a high level of support and tailored engagement to victims, albeit this wasn't consistent across all firms. The FCA urges firms to improve detection and care, whilst warning the public to watch for red flags such as requests for money, reluctance to meet in person, or suspicious behaviour. Victims are encouraged to report fraud to Action Fraud or the police and consult their banks, which may offer refunds of up to £85,000 to help prevent further losses.

To read the FCA's romance fraud review, please click here.

With thanks to this week's contributors: Daniel Parkin, Dorian Nunzek, Damien O'Malley, Ben Simmonds, Haiying Li, James Parsons, and Lauren Butler

The Renters' Rights Bill: What landlords, property managers and surveyors need to know

Fri, 24 Oct 2025 11:38:00 +0100

The Bill, introduced to parliament in September 2024, forms part of a broader effort to reform the private rental sector in the UK to establish a fairer balance between landlords and tenants.

The Bill has passed through both the House of Commons and House of Lords and is currently back with the House of Commons to consider the House of Lord's amendments. The next and final stage for the bill is receiving Royal Assent.

Product bulletin: October 2025

Thu, 23 Oct 2025 10:22:00 +0100

The headlines...

Product Liability Consultation
On 31 July 2025, the Law Commission launched a review of the law relating to liability for defective products, the first of its kind since the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill
The Product Regulation and Metrology Act ('the Act') finally received Royal Assent on 21 July 2025. Whilst the Act is primarily an "enabler", the Government have produced a Code of Practice which outlines how the powers of the Act will be utilised.

Provisional Agreement on EU Toy Safety Measures
The European Parliament and Council have reached a provisional agreement to update and strengthen the existing Toy Safety Directive (2009/48/EC) with new measures which aim to reduce the number of unsafe toys sold across the EU and address new risks, including those arising from digital technologies and online sales.

Public Consultation on Cosmetic Products Regulation (EC) 1223/2009
The European Commission has launched a review of its Cosmetic Products Regulation (Regulation 1223/2009), which governs all cosmetic products sold across the EU. The Regulation was introduced to establish a singular legal framework which aimed to protect consumer health by ensuring that all cosmetics sold the European marketplace complied with strict safety requirements

Delays in EU Batteries Regulations
In May 2025, the European Commission published two new proposals which will impact the timeline and scope of the EU Battery Regulation (2023/1542) ("EUBR"). The EUBR entered into force in August 2023 and is being implemented in a phased approach, with the first set of obligations applying from February 2024.

WEEE Regulations before Parliament
The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Amendment, etc.) Regulations 2025 ('the Regulations') came into force on 12 August 2025. The Regulations will introduce significant changes to the existing WEEE framework,

Tackling unsafe e-bikes: APPGCW calls for urgent action
In February's product bulletin, we reported on the fire risk and product safety of e-bikes and scooters. In particular, the number of fires being reported (mostly due to batteries) was considered by the London Fire Brigade as London's fastest growing fire risk in 2024.

To read the full stories download the pdf below:

IHT not due on failed EBT arrangement

Thu, 23 Oct 2025 10:00:00 +0100

In Tonkin v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 750 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) allowed the taxpayer's appeal against a charge to inheritance tax (IHT) under section 94, Inheritance Act 1984 (IHTA 1984) (charge on participators in a close company), which HMRC considered had arisen as a result of an ineffective employee benefit trust (EBT) arrangement.

The Work Couch: Disability at work (Part 2): What is a "reasonable" adjustment? With Victoria Othen

Wed, 22 Oct 2025 13:34:00 +0100

The Work Couch: Disability at work (Part 2): What is a "reasonable" adjustment? With Victoria Othen

Taxing Matters: Top tips for tax litigation with Jonathan Davey KC from Wilberforce Chambers

Wed, 22 Oct 2025 08:33:00 +0100

In this episode, our host and Senior Associate at RPC, Alexis Armitage, is joined by Jonathan Davey KC, of Wilberforce Chambers, one of the UK’s leading barristers in commercial chancery work with a particular focus on tax, trusts and property.

Dust Settles in Favour of Industrial Defendant: Andrews v Kronospan Limited

Mon, 20 Oct 2025 08:43:00 +0100

Introduction

In the recent case of Andrews v Kronospan Limited [2025] EWHC 2429 (TCC), the High Court rejected a group nuisance claim brought by residents living near a major wood-processing facility in North Wales.

The judgment provides important guidance on establishing what constitutes a substantial interference in nuisance claims against established industrial operations subject to environmental regulation, and more broadly, serves as a reminder of the importance of reliable contemporaneous monitoring data, as well as rigorous and independent expert methodology.

Background

The dispute arose from the operation of Kronospan's particleboard, MDF and laminate flooring factory in Chirk, a town near Wrexham with approximately 1,800 households. Kronospan has operated on the site since 1973, handling around 1.5 million tonnes per annum of timber and timber products. Chirk has a mixed character, with industrial areas physically separated from residential areas by main roads.

The claimants comprised residents from 159 households living at varying distances from the factory, ranging from approximately 80 metres to several hundred metres away. Sixteen "lead claimants" were selected for a stage one trial to determine liability and quantum for the period from 18 July 2011 to 18 July 2017. The claimants complained of three categories of emissions: dust particles (including sawdust and wood fibres), odour (primarily woody smells and occasionally chemical odours from manufacturing processes), and noise (particularly from operations and vehicle reversing alarms at night).

Crucially, there was no scientific evidence that any emissions were harmful to health. The case concerned loss of amenity rather than personal injury, with claimants seeking damages for interference with the use and enjoyment of their properties, manifesting primarily through dust deposits on cars, garden furniture and windowsills.

The Court's decision

The Court applied the well-established principles for nuisance claims as recently restated by the Supreme Court in Fearn v Tate Gallery [2023] UKSC 4. Two key requirements must be satisfied. First, the defendant's use of land must cause a "substantial interference" with the ordinary use of the claimant's land, assessed objectively by the standards of an ordinary person. Second, even where substantial interference is established, there is no liability if the defendant's activity is itself no more than an "ordinary use" of its own land, judged having regard to the character of the locality and the "established pattern of uses".

The Court also considered the relevance of planning permissions and environmental permits. Following Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 312 and Lawrence v Fen Tigers [2014] AC 822, the judge concluded that environmental regulatory conditions may provide a starting point for determining where the dividing line lies between emissions that do and do not amount to nuisance. Compliance with regulations may be evidence of reasonable operation, though this is not determinative.

Kronospan's operations were subject to detailed environmental permits issued by Wrexham County Borough Council. The permits contained various conditions regarding dust suppression, noise attenuation and odour control, though they did not specify precise emission limits for dust, noise or odour beyond the site boundary.

Considering the facts of this case and applying the relevant principles, the Court held the following:

The claimants had not established substantial interference from dust emissions. Between January 2011 and September 2017, Kronospan recorded 475 dust complaints, most relating to dust on cars. However, the Court noted that complaints were made on only 253 days over seven years (approximately 10% of all days) from a population of 1,800 households, a "vanishingly small percentage" of potential complaints.

The Court found that claimant witnesses, whilst generally honest, had significantly exaggerated the frequency and impact of emissions, influenced by genuine but unfounded health concerns and adverse publicity on social media.

The importance of expert evidence and contemporaneous monitoring data. The available monitoring data did not support the claimants' case. Expert evidence using data from the two dust monitoring programmes that had been put in place during the claim period were pivotal to the decision. These were (i) limited monitoring by the local environmental liaison group covering a nine-month period between 2016-17 using "frisbee" gauges, and (ii) more comprehensive monitoring by Kronospan from 2017-20 using "dustdisc" equipment. The Court preferred the evidence of Kronospan's expert, Dr Datson, over that of the claimants' expert, Ms Wilson, finding that that Ms Wilson had placed excessive weight on the limited and unreliable frisbee data from 2016-17. The more reliable dustdisc data from 2017-18 relied on by Kronospan showed much lower levels, with few exceedances of recognised thresholds for likely complaints.

More significantly, the Court applied particularly critical scrutiny to the claimants' experts' change of methodology. At paragraph 752, HHJ Davies held that he was "entitled to look particularly critically at the evidence of an expert when, as here, they materially depart from the initial common approach … in a significant and material manner. That is even more so where, as here, the initial results happen to be adverse to their clients' case and where their subsequent investigations produce conclusions more favourable to their clients' case. In my view that expert must satisfy the court that it was appropriate to do so on a purely objective basis and that the results of the second analysis should be preferred to the results of the initial analysis undertaken on the basis of the initial approach."

At paragraph 753, the judge found that the claimants' experts had not "been able to persuade me that their change of approach was not at least partially influenced by their desire to see whether or not their further analysis would benefit their clients' case more than their existing analysis." This finding effectively undermined the credibility of the claimants' expert evidence on the issue of dust emissions.

Claims relating to odour and noise also failed. The Court noted minimal complaints about odour and noise over the relevant period, no expert evidence that noise levels exceeded recognised thresholds, and concluded that the odours complained of (primarily fresh or heated wood) would not be considered offensive or substantially interfering by a reasonable person.

The absence of enforcement action was a relevant factor. Despite periodic expressions of concern by the local authority about dust emissions, no enforcement action was ever taken against Kronospan. The judge noted this as relevant context, whilst recognising that absence of enforcement does not preclude a finding of nuisance in civil proceedings.

In reaching his conclusions, the judge emphasised at paragraph 1078 that "any reasonable householder, knowing that the Kronospan dust emissions presented no demonstrated health hazard, would not have regarded an occasional dust emission event as anything more than a modest irritant of life in Chirk." He acknowledged the decision was "close to the borderline" but concluded that the impact and frequency were insufficient to establish a substantial interference with the ordinary use of the claimants' properties.

Practical takeaways

The judgment confirms several important principles for parties involved in environmental nuisance litigation:

Contemporaneous monitoring data is critical. The Court repeatedly emphasised that limited, unreliable or post-dating monitoring data could not establish what occurred over the six-year claim period. The frisbee data from 2016-17, covering only nine months and subject to reliability concerns, was insufficient to prove nuisance throughout the limitation period.

Expert evidence must be rigorously justified. Where experts materially depart from initially agreed methodologies to produce results more favourable to their client's case, such departures warrant "particularly [critical]" scrutiny. The Court stated at paragraph 752 that experts "must satisfy the court that it was appropriate to do so on a purely objective basis" and found that the claimants' experts had not demonstrated this.

Subjective complaints require objective corroboration. The judgment demonstrates the difficulty of succeeding in nuisance claims based primarily on witness testimony, particularly where complaints may be influenced by perceived (but unproven) health concerns and adverse publicity. The Court found that such factors had led to exaggeration and hypersensitivity, making the factual evidence unreliable without objective corroboration.

Regulatory compliance matters but is not determinative. Whilst not a complete defence, evidence of serious engagement with environmental obligations, compliance with BAT requirements, and the absence of enforcement action provided important context supporting the defendant's case.

The threshold for nuisance remains high for established industrial operations. In mixed-use areas with an established pattern of industrial activity, claimants face significant challenges in proving that emissions constitute an unacceptable interference rather than a consequence of the locality's character that reasonable occupiers must tolerate.

[1] Andrews v Kronospan Limited [2025] EWHC 2429 (TCC).

[2] Fearn v Tate Gallery [2023] UKSC 4

[3] Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 312

[4] Lawrence v Fen Tigers [2014] AC 822

Insurance Covered: Women in insurance (With Sandra Lewin)

Mon, 20 Oct 2025 08:24:00 +0100

In this episode, Peter Mansfield interviews Sandra Lewin, Founder of 100 Women in Insurance.

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 17 October 2025

Fri, 17 Oct 2025 14:46:00 +0100

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Headline development

BlueCrest Capital Management: FCA censure firm and impose $101m redress scheme over conflict-of-interest failings

On 13 October 2025, the FCA issued a Final Notice against BlueCrest Capital Management (UK) LLP (BlueCrest) following an extensive investigation into its management of client and proprietary funds.

Between 2011 and 2015, the FCA found that BlueCrest reallocated experienced portfolio managers from its external client fund (BCIM) to its proprietary fund (BSLF), substituting them with less experienced staff without adequate disclosure to clients. This led to diminished performance for client investors and highlighted significant failures in BlueCrest’s governance and conflict management.

BlueCrest has now been censured by the FCA and ordered to pay $101m to non-US investors. The FCA's decision and rationale centred on the importance of transparency and fair treatment, noting that BlueCrest’s conduct undermined client trust and market integrity.

BlueCrest initially appealed the FCA’s decision notice to the Upper Tribunal, which struck out the FCA’s case on redress and set out the need for a legal liability to be established before redress was payable under a single-firm redress scheme (similar to the position under s.404 of FSMA). The FCA successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal, which determined that the FCA's ability to implement a redress scheme under s.55 of FSMA was not constrained by the need to establish a legal liability as required by s.404F(7) of FSMA (although they did note that, if none of the four conditions for establishing a legal liability were fulfilled, a redress scheme may be deemed irrational – see here for RPC's blog on this). Although BlueCrest obtained permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, this appeal has now been withdrawn.

Click here to view the FCA's Final Notice.

IFAs and wealth managers

Firms set aside £423m for ongoing advice redress

According to a review by the FCA, UK advice firms have collectively set aside £423 million for ongoing advice redress. This figure is based on disclosures from seven firms, though the FCA surveyed 22 firms for its review. Some firms have yet to publish annual results for 2024, so further provisions may be announced.

The seven firms who have disclosed figures to date are as follows:

St James’s Place: £320 million
Quilter: £76 million
Ascot Lloyd: £17 million
True Potential: £5 million
Schroders Personal Wealth: £3.7 million
Sandringham Financial Partners (MG): £1 million
2Plan: £1 million

The FCA's review covered the 22 largest advice firms. 83% of client reviews were delivered as promised. However, 15% of clients did not respond or declined to engage and 2% of reviews were not delivered. The FCA described the results as “a good outcome for the industry”, highlighting improved delivery and client engagement.

Despite positive findings, the significant redress provisions indicate ongoing gaps in the delivery of annual advice reviews. The FCA expects firms to honour commitments and maintain trusted client relationships. Firms not meeting delivery standards risk regulatory scrutiny and may need to set aside further redress. The FCA’s focus remains on transparency, accountability, and ensuring clients receive the advice they have paid for.

To read more, please click here.

Financial institutions

Capita fined £14m by ICO for data breach

Outsourcing firm, Capita, suffered a data breach in 2023, affecting the personal data of 6.6 million individuals. Compromised information included bank details, phone numbers, and home addresses. Stolen data was subsequently sold on the dark web, significantly increasing the risk to affected individuals. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) fined Capita £14 million for failures in data protection and security. Capita reached a settlement with the ICO, accepting responsibility and agreeing to pay the penalty. Following a forensic investigation, Capita contacted all individuals identified as potentially impacted by the breach.

Capita’s new CEO, Adolfo Hernandez, stated that the firm has significantly strengthened its cybersecurity posture. Measures include advanced protections and an embedded culture of continuous vigilance to prevent future incidents. Capita has publicly reaffirmed its commitment to data security and client protection.

The fine and breach have led to downgraded free cash outflows for the year, now estimated at £59m to £79m (previously £45m to £65m). The incident has reputational implications and may affect client trust and future business. Capita faces ongoing scrutiny regarding its data protection practices and must maintain robust compliance to avoid further regulatory action.

The ICO’s enforcement highlights the seriousness of inadequate data security, especially for firms handling large volumes of personal data. Organisations must ensure proactive cybersecurity measures, thorough incident response, and transparent communication with affected individuals. The case underscores the need for continuous improvement in data protection and compliance with UK GDPR requirements.

To read more, please click here.

Pensions

Pensions Data Project highlights benefits of small pot consolidation

The Pensions Data Project (PDD) has published its final report which finds that around 2 million small defined contribution pension pots (out of 11.8 million deferred pots in 2022/23) of the UK's five largest master trusts could be consolidated if all five master trusts were designated as default consolidators under current government proposals.

The report identifies gender and age disparities in pension savings (men, older members, and those in certain regions typically have higher balances). It also points to the risks associated with fragmented pots with members across the five master trusts having an averaging of 1.3 pension pots each (the result of job changes and churn in the labour market) but likely more if they have pots from other types of scheme. The PDD notes that "small pots are an issue because they are not economically viable for a provider to administer and risk being lost by the member" and suggests that consolidating pots could increase average balances by over 25%.

The report concludes that its findings align with ongoing parliamentary scrutiny of the Pension Schemes Bill which will look to consolidate small pots through multiple default consolidators.

To read the report, please click here.

FOS developments

High Court dismisses claim for judicial review against FOS

The Administrative Court has refused the claimant (Ms Clark) permission to apply for judicial review of a decision by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) in which it rejected her complaint Legal & General's for refusing to pay a terminal illness benefit claim under a life insurance policy.

The policy provided as follows:

"If the Life Assured has a Terminal Illness, namely an advanced or rapidly progressing incurable illness, where in the opinion of an attending Consultant and our Chief Medical Officer, the life expectancy is no greater than 12 months, Legal & General will make an advanced payment of the Sum Assured".

The Claimant relied on a medical report from July 2021 which stated that the claimant's life expectancy was on balance three years plus/or minus a year. This was presented to insurers in support of a claim for the terminal illness benefit in August 2021.

The Court decided that the FOS's decision was reasonable and therefore lawful based on the Claimant having failed to produce clear evidence to establish that her life expectancy was less than 12 months at the relevant time as required by the policy. The decision is unsurprising based on the medical evidence the Claimant relied on in support of the complaint given it clearly did not satisfy the relevant term of the policy.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

FCA Consultation on Car Finance Redress Scheme: Key Implications for Senior Managers

The FCA has published a consultation paper on the proposed car finance redress scheme. The proposals state that senior managers must personally attest that their firm has robust systems to identify customers eligible for redress and has properly assessed whether disclosures about commissions and tied arrangements were adequate. Attestation carries significant personal risk: if the FCA later finds the firm’s processes or decisions were insufficient, senior managers may face direct enforcement action.

The FCA’s proposed scheme sets lower thresholds for “high commission” than recent case law, increasing the number of agreements subject to compensation and scrutiny. Senior managers are responsible for making judgement calls on disclosure adequacy, including documenting the rationale for each decision. Failure to demonstrate reasonable efforts or proper documentation may expose managers to regulatory sanctions.

Many lenders and brokers lack historic customer records, especially for older or tied arrangements; smaller dealerships may have poor record-keeping practices. Data protection laws may mean relevant records have been lawfully deleted, complicating efforts to identify affected customers. Senior managers must ensure all reasonable steps are taken to locate missing data, which may involve tracing agents or contacting estates of deceased customers. The FCA expects a forensic approach to data retrieval and may require collaboration with third parties to reconstruct records. Firms may need dedicated claims handling teams and robust governance to manage complaints efficiently and mitigate regulatory risk.

Under the scheme, senior managers should adopt a well-documented, reasonable approach to disclosure assessments, anticipating FCA scrutiny. Legal and operational challenges include contesting FCA presumptions about missing records and navigating lower compensation thresholds. The personal accountability imposed by the attestation requirement means senior managers must be vigilant and proactive in overseeing compliance.

To see the consultation paper, please click here.

FCA announces plans to support tokenisation to drive innovation and efficiency in asset management

On 14 October 2025, the Financial Conduct Authority set out plans to support tokenisation in order to drive innovation and growth in asset management. Tokenisation means the digital representation of assets on distributed ledger technology. The FCA believes that tokenised products could drive competition and increase choice for consumers, as well as broaden access to private markets and infrastructure investment. It can also help asset managers to innovate, as well as reduce the costs of fund management, and open up new ways to distribute funds, including to those new to investing.

The FCA has set out a number of proposals to support tokenisation including:
Guidance on operating tokenised fund registers under current FCA rules through the UK Blueprint model.
A streamlined, alternative dealing model for fund managers to process buying and selling of units in authorised funds, whether traditional or tokenised.
A roadmap to advance fund tokenisation and address key barriers like using public blockchains and settling transactions entirely on the blockchain.
A discussion on how tokenisation models could evolve and how regulation may need to change.

The FCA's consultation is also intended to support the delivery of the FCA’s roadmap for digital assets.

To read more, please click here.

Emerging risks

FSB publishes report for authorities on AI monitoring

On 10 October 2025, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) published a report advising financial authorities on monitoring the adoption of AI and related vulnerabilities in the financial sector. The report builds on the FSB’s 2024 report on the Financial Stability Implications of Artificial Intelligence. The report notes that although financial authorities have made progress in understanding AI use cases and their benefits and vulnerabilities, oversight is still at an early stage, with challenges including data gaps and lack of standardised taxonomies. The report identifies indicators to support monitoring AI adoption and related vulnerabilities in the financial system.

The report recognises that third-party providers play a critical role in helping financial institutions to deploy and develop AI applications. However, the report highlights that such relationships could expose financial institutions to operational vulnerabilities and could lead to critical third-party dependencies. This is particularly so with generative AI where there is dependence on a small number of key suppliers. The report includes a case study to explore these challenges.

The FSB also encourages national authorities to enhance their monitoring approaches by leveraging the indicators presented in the report.

To read more, please click here.

With thanks to this week's contributors: Daniel Parkin, Dorian Nunzek, James Parsons, and Lauren Butler.

Sports Ticker #138 - The IFR's new licensing landscape and darts debuts in Saudi - a speed read of commercial updates from the sports world

Fri, 17 Oct 2025 12:41:00 +0100

Independent Football Regulator rolls out robust reform regime
The new Independent Football Regulator (IFR) has unveiled plans for a mandatory licensing system that will apply to all 116 clubs across England’s top five men’s divisions starting in the 2027/28 season. As covered in Sports Ticker #133, the IFR has wide ranging powers and plans to exercise them to ensure greater financial sustainability in the men's game. To gain a licence, clubs must demonstrate sound financial management, meet governance standards, and consult with fans on key issues like ticket prices and club heritage. Clubs unable to show sustainable finances may be required to increase reserves or cut costs. Provisional licence applications will begin next season, marking what IFR chair David Kogan calls a “transformational change.” Clubs will also be expected to report publicly on a new code of governance. A seven-week consultation on the measures is now open, giving clubs just enough time to get their books in shape before the referee blows the whistle.

Viva la Revolut-ion: Rugby rebel R360 secures investment from banking chair
It has emerged that breakaway rugby union league R360 has secured the backing of Revolut chairman Martin Gilbert, after his name was identified as a director of AOTG Sport Ltd alongside founders Stuart Hooper and Mark Spoors. R360 plans to unite the women's and men's game under a US-style sports franchise model, with twelve city-based teams competing around the world across three months in a “Grand Prix-style” circuit. The shorter season is intended to avoid clashes with major international tournaments, but the International Rugby Players Association (IRPA) has advised players to exercise “extreme caution” if they consider joining the competition. Eight national rugby unions, including England and Australia, have stated that “participation in R360 would make [players] ineligible for international selection”. The league still hopes to launch in October 2026, with R360 responding that it will “look forward to submitting to the World Rugby Council for sanctioning next summer as planned”.

BBC Sport Scores Broadcast Deal for the UEFA Women’s Champions League
In a landmark agreement, BBC Sport has landed an exclusive free-to-air broadcast deal for the UEFA Women’s Champions League. Over the course of the five-year deal, the broadcaster will have the rights to show up to seven live matches per season across TV and BBC iPlayer, including the final. The partnership with UC3, the UEFA and ECA's joint venture responsible for handling the commercial rights of UEFA’s club competitions, is designed to “grow BBC Sport’s commitment to showcasing the incredible talent and excitement of the women’s game”. BBC Sport has emphasised that fans will benefit from a multi-platform, digital-first approach, gaining direct access not only to live broadcasts but also to the best moments, goals, and highlights via BBC Sport’s digital platforms and social media.

Littler leads as darts goes larger: World Darts confirms Saudi debut
Quick on the heels of boxing, snooker and mixed martial arts, the PDC has announced that darts will head to Saudi Arabia for the first time in January 2026. In a collaboration between Matchroom Sport and Riyadh Season, the Saudi capital will host the World Series of Darts, featuring as one of six initial venues confirmed for the 2026 roadshow. Chairman of the Saudi General Entertainment Authority, Turki Alashikh, previously spoke of wanting to do darts “in a crazy way” and was responsible for introducing the “20-point golden ball rule” in the 2025 Saudi Arabia Snooker Masters (which saw players who potted a golden ball after a 147-break earn a £395,000 bonus). Current World Champion Luke “The Nuke” Littler is expected to participate and will hope to replicate his success in last weekend's World Grand Prix, where the eighteen-year-old cruised to victory by a margin of 6-1 over world number one Luke Humphries. Hopefully, the tournament will be a success across the board!

Grand Slam Track secures comeback stack
Following a tumultuous few months, Michael Johnson’s Grand Slam Track (GST) has secured emergency funding with a view to reviving the upstart track event, which was postponed following financial difficulties suffered during its inaugural season (see Sports Ticker #135 for more). At its inception, GST offered race winners up to $100,000 in prize money, in addition to lucrative salaries for its roster of contracted athletes and was set to distribute up to $12.6 million in winnings during its first year alone. However, the event was cut short prior to completing its debut season after concerns arose around GST’s ability to pay its athletes, and was shortly thereafter placed on indefinite hiatus. GST operations manager Karen Taylor stated that the funding marked “the beginning of Grand Slam Track's reboot” and apologised for frustrations caused. The event hopes to return next year, seeking a second shot at glory.

and finally...

…Russell Courts founded SailGP to make grand prix sailing commercially viable, and celebrity stakes from Ryan Reynolds, Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, and others suggest he’s succeeded. SailGP's high-speed sailing league now fields 12 national teams, with franchise values soaring from $5m to $75m in three years. Its cutting-edge tech, 60mph races in iconic locations, and celebrity backing have attracted audiences and sponsors far beyond traditional sailing. The Spain Sail Grand Prix on 5 November 2024 drew 1.78 million CBS viewers, with Coutts noting 85% of the audience comes from a non-sailing background. As views and valuations climb, more celebrities and brands are expected to jump aboard.

Non-financial misconduct: how the FCA's new rules could impact acquisitions in financial services

Thu, 16 Oct 2025 11:41:00 +0100

The FCA's latest proposals on non-financial misconduct (NFM) will add an additional factor to corporate transactions in the financial services sector. With new rules extending the regulatory spotlight to a wider range of firms, acquirers should consider NFM risks and policies as part of their due diligence processes. This development is set to influence risk assessment and post-completion integration, making NFM compliance a concern for buyers and sellers alike.

Tribunal confirms its decision on “intangible fixed assets” preventing HMRC from reopening the issue

Thu, 16 Oct 2025 10:00:00 +0100

In Inside Track 3 LLP and Ingenious Film Partners 2 LLP v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 986, the First tier Tribunal (FTT) has issued a further decision in the long running Ingenious film partnerships litigation and has ruled in favour of the taxpayers that its earlier decision had already determined that certain rights held by the LLPs constitute intangible fixed assets for the purposes of Part 8 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 and that HMRC cannot now reopen that issue.

Take 10 - 16 October 2025

Thu, 16 Oct 2025 09:10:00 +0100

Unsuccessful public interest defence after Defendant lacks contemporaneous evidence

On 9 October 2025, Richard Spearman KC gave judgment dismissing the Defendant's public interest defence in Naseer v Raja. The claim was brought by a former Pakistani Brigadier who was the subject of 10 posts across the Defendant's Twitter, Facebook and YouTube accounts. The meanings of the posts were all centred around allegations of election manipulation and other corrupt practices said to have been carried out by the Claimant.

The relevant requirements of the Claimant's case were met, including the inferential case on serious harm on the basis the words complained of had "such an inherent tendency" to cause serious harm[59] and the number of publishees were "sufficiently large" based on figures presented in relation to the Defendant's social media followings in the jurisdiction which were as high as 53,600 in respect of the Defendant's X followers[54, 69].

In respect of the Defendant's public interest defence, the discussion centred around whether the Defendant could demonstrate his reasonable belief that publication was in the public interest.

It was found that the Defendant's evidence lacked detail as to whether the Defendant believed the allegations advanced, with evidence suggesting the Defendant did not intend to publish the publications as drafted. The judge recognised that, for s4 purposes, where a defendant intended a meaning that is less defamatory than the single natural and ordinary meaning of the publication, the reasonable belief of the defendant generally falls to be assessed by reference to the less damaging meaning, "unless the natural and ordinary meaning is one obvious possible meaning", which was the case for the publications in issue [89 – 92]. The Court considered this alongside various Reynolds factors such as the seriousness of the allegations and no attempt being made to seek comment [94].

The Defendant's evidence was unsupported by contemporaneous records evidencing information gleaned from sources and steps taken to verify the allegations, which left the Court "in great difficulty" in assessing whether the Defendant's belief was genuinely held or reasonable. The Court remained unpersuaded by the Defendant's attempts to justify this on the basis of source protection, noting that even brief or anonymised notes would be sufficient to demonstrate the Defendant's due diligence prior to publication [87 – 88].

Clearview: jurisdictional reach of the UK GDPR and ICO

On 7 October 2025, the Upper Tribunal (UT) granted the ICO's appeal in Clearview AI v Information Commissioner. Clearview is a US-based company which scrapes images from the internet which are uploaded into a database. Clearview sells access to the database to private and public sector clients for the purpose of national security and criminal law enforcement activities. The appeal concerned the reach of the GDPR and UK GDPR and relatedly whether the ICO had jurisdiction to issue an enforcement notice and monetary penalty notice against Clearview. See here for a previous edition of Take 10 covering the background and the First-tier Tribunal's decision.

The UT considered whether the GDPRs applied to Clearview's processing with respect to (1) material scope (specifically, whether Clearview's processing was an "activity which falls outside the scope of Union law" under Article 2(2)(a)); and (2) territorial scope (specifically, whether Clearview engaged in "behavioural monitoring" such that Clearview's processing put it within territorial scope pursuant to Article 3(2)(b) even though it is based in the US).

On material scope, the UT adopted a narrow interpretation finding that an activity only falls "outside of the scope of Union law", and therefore the reach of the GDPR, when processing relates to activities which are "reserved to national governments of Member States" [191]. The UT therefore rejected Clearview's argument that its work for foreign governments placed it beyond the GDPR's reach [187 – 188].

By contrast on territorial scope, the UT adopted a broad interpretation of “behavioural monitoring”, including even “"passive” collection, sorting, classification and storing of data by automated means" without "active…human involvement" [275]. As such, the UT found that Clearview's activities, being sold with a view to assist clients with investigations on matters of national security or law enforcement did constitute processing “related to” behavioural monitoring.

The UT also dismissed submissions that Clearview benefits from state immunity and comity, as despite Clearview engaging in "quintessentially state activities", it undertakes these as a commercial entity with no agency relationship to the state body [217 – 219].

Strengthened media access in criminal courts

On 6 October 2025, changes to the Criminal Procedure Rules came into force requiring parties applying for discretionary reporting restrictions in criminal cases to notify the media of such applications.

The changes expressly require notification of the media as soon as reasonably practicable, in place of the previous provision where the media only fell to be notified as an interested party. The amendments aim to secure more consistent practice and to better equip the media to challenge proposed restrictions which they believe fall short of the threshold for imposing limits to open justice. The amendments only apply to discretionary reporting restrictions and do not affect automatic reporting restrictions which the court has no power to vary or remove.

Tattersall v Tattersall: failure to establish serious harm

On 8 October 2025, Mrs Justice Collins Rice handed down judgment in Tattersall v Tattersall granting the Defendant's strike out and/or summary judgment application in respect of the Claimant's claim in libel. The claim concerned a single Facebook post in the context of a family dispute, carrying a meaning that (1) former mutual friends of the parties had taken the Claimant's side, (2) the Claimant had attempted to deprive the Defendant of her home and (3) had lied about the Defendant (with only the meanings (2) and (3) held to be defamatory).

The Defendant's application was founded on the fact the Claimant's pleaded case on serious harm relied on the Claimant’s own distress and subjective reaction to the post and did not set out a coherent basis on which serious harm could be established in line with the objective test required in Lachaux [29]. Such defects were incapable of remedy given the lack of cogent evidence available to demonstrate that readers thought less well of the Claimant "at all, or seriously so" [46], instead the evidence only focused on the Claimant's subjective views on the consequences of the post (such evidence only to be considered on assessment of quantum).

Collins Rice J placed weight on the Claimant's confirmation she had no intention of amending her pleading to address the deficiencies and that no further evidence in respect of serious harm would be available. In the circumstances, the Court had all the available evidence that was going to be advancedand was therefore "unusually well-placed at an interlocutory stage" to assess the final merits of the claim[43].

The Defendant's alternative submissions that the claim fell to be struck out as an abuse of process were not considered in full. However, the Court noted it was not in the interests of justice (nor the Claimant's interests) to pursue proceedings over a personal grievance [60].

Successful appeal of conviction for man who burnt a copy of the Quran

On 10 October 2025, Southwark Crown Court allowed Hamit Coskun's appeal against his conviction for a religiously aggravated public order offence after burning a copy of the Quran outside the Turkish consulate.

In recognising the protections afforded by Article 10, particularly with respect to political speech, the Court acknowledged that "insulting conduct is not sufficient" to form the basis of any inroads into this right [34]. The Court also considered the particular factors of Mr Coskun's conduct which meant it did not cross into the realms of criminality, including (1) his conduct was merely generalised protest and not aimed at particular individuals, (2) was located in front of the consulate, being an established site for political protest and (3) was of a short duration.

Lawrence & Others v ANL

On 10 October 2025, Mr Justice Nicklin delivered a judgment in Lawrence & Others v Associated Newspapers, the on-going proceedings against Associated Newspapers which allege unlawful information gathering. Nicklin J addressed the Claimants' application to amend their Particulars of Claim, the Defendant's cross-strike out application and the permissible scope of the litigation.

The Defendant succeeded in substantially narrowing the proceedings. The Court accepted its argument that “propensity” or “generic” evidence, suggesting misconduct by one journalist implies wrongdoing by others, was inadmissible unless directly connected to the individuals accused. Citing O’Brien, the Court held that such evidence must be relevant and "logically probative", not merely suggestive of institutional culture [19 – 22]. The Court also struck out the so-called “Ward Allegations”, concerning a 1992 alleged 'burglary' relied upon as propensity evidence. Nicklin J held that "the Claimants' insistence on maintaining the Ward Allegations as part of their case reflects a continued and fundamental misunderstanding of the proper scope of this litigation" on the basis (1) the Claimants do not allege any particular link from this incident to any Claimant or particular journalist and (2) the allegation was disproportionate to investigate in any event [45 - 49]. The judge determined that litigation must be conducted proportionately, with focus on specific, provable allegations rather than sweeping assertions [22, 39]. The trial is listed for January 2026.

ECHR: disbarment of lawyer violated Article 8 and 10 rights

On 7 October 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) determined the disbarment of human rights lawyer Yalchin Imanov by Azerbaijan violated both his Article 10 and Article 8 rights.

Disciplinary proceedings in 2019 resulted in Mr Imanov being disbarred. He was found to be in breach of his professional obligations after statements he made to the press regarding his client's alleged mistreatment in Gobustan Prison were determined to be "unsubstantiated".

The ECtHR found a clear and unjustified interference with Mr Imanov's Article 10 rights. In particular, it recognised the public interest in speech which relates to, or makes complaints about, public officials particularly where these statements concern persons under control of such officials, such as prisoners. The Court acknowledged the strength of the meaning of Mr Imanov's statements, which called into question the professionalism of targeted individuals. However, Mr Imanov's right to freedom of expression outweighed the need to protect the relevant individuals' rights to reputation, particularly in circumstances where Mr Imanov was fulfilling his duty "in his capacity as a lawyer" requiring him to "protect the interests of his client by using all the means provided for by the law" [45]. The ECtHR also recognised Mr Imanov's statements were not baseless given he had the benefit of a statement from his client and evident signs of ill-treatment.

In respect of Article 8, alongside the background above, the ECtHR considered the disproportionality of the interference in circumstances where disbarment represented the "harshest disciplinary" sanction available with "irreversible" consequences on a lawyer's professional life [67].

Advocate immunity

On 8 October 2025, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in XGY v Chief Constable of Sussex Police & CPS where it re-instated the County Court's earlier strike out decision. The case arose after XGY’s confidential address was inadvertently disclosed in open court by a CPS advocate during a bail hearing. XGY brought claims against the Chief Constable and CPS under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) and Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA), and for misuse of private information and breach of confidence.

At first instance, Her Honour Judge Brownhill struck out the claims, holding that both the police and CPS were protected by the common law principle of advocate immunity. On appeal, Mr Justice Ritchie disagreed, holding that such immunities required case-specific justification.

The Court of Appeal, however, allowed the CPS and police's appeals in full. The Court set out the principles of core immunity, which exists to protect the administration of justice by ensuring those involved in proceedings (including the parties themselves, witnesses, advocates and judges) have unfettered freedom of expression. In contrast to Ritchie J's findings, the Court also determined (1) that immunity must be foreseeable and should not be determined on a case-by-case basis [30, 64 – 65] and (2) that the principle is not displaced by either the HRA or DPA [75 – 76].

Whilst expressing sympathy for XGY, the Court determined that public policy prohibited the availability of a remedy in the circumstances [99].

Ofcom's update on its ongoing enforcement activity

On 13 October 2025, Ofcom published an update into its ongoing enforcement activity. The update flags one investigation which has proceeded to a fine and other investigations which have concluded following the service's engagement with Ofcom.

Ofcom imposed a fixed penalty fine of £20,000 on 4chan in respect of its failure to respond to two statutory information requests. Ofcom's information requests required 4chan to supply (1) its Illegal Content Risk Assessment and (2) qualifying worldwide revenue. 4chan is now required to take immediate steps to comply. Until the requested information is provided, 4chan will be subject to a daily rate penalty of £100 per day (for a maximum of 60 days). 4chan, a US-based tech company, is currently challenging the extra-territorial scope of the Online Safety Act (see discussion in our previous Take 10).

Meanwhile, Ofcom is not taking further action in respect of 1Fichier.com and Gofile.io's potential breaches of their duties to protect users from encountering child sexual abuse material (CSAM). The platforms demonstrated "willingness to make timely improvements to the design and operation of their services" and implemented perceptual hash matching technology, which Ofcom recognises in its Codes of Practice as the recommended measure to detect and remove CSAM.

Also under Ofcom's CSAM enforcement programme, Ofcom has ceased enforcement activity into four file-sharing services for a failure to prevent UK users accessing their sites. The services implemented geo-blocking of UK users which Ofcom noted "significantly reduced" the likelihood UK users would be exposed to harmful content. However, a similar investigation remains ongoing in respect of an online suicide forum. Whilst the platform has implemented geo-blocking and re-designed its service to prevent access by UK users, the investigation remains open whilst Ofcom monitors the impact of the measures.

Digital Services Act: enforcement of rules on protecting minors online

In other online safety related updates, on 10 October 2025 the European Commission (EC) announced the steps it has been taking to protect minors under the Digital Services Act.

The EC has sent information requests to certain service providers regarding their age verification measures and their prevention measures to stop minors accessing illegal products and certain content on their services. For example, the EC has requested information from Snapchat on how it enforces its terms of service which prevent use by under-13s and on features it has implemented to prevent the sale of illegal goods to children on the platform. Similarly, the EC has requested information from (1) YouTube in respect of its age assurance and recommender system and (2) the App Store and Google Play in respect of their app age ratings and their measures implemented to prevent users downloading illegal or harmful apps.

Smaller online platform compliance will be monitored by the European Board for Digital Services' Working Group alongside national competent authorities. Such platforms will be categorised in accordance with the risk they pose to children and monitored using tools which are yet to be developed to ensure consistent enforcement approaches across the EU.

Separately, the EC has published its second EU age verification blueprint, which builds on the earlier blueprint published in July 2025, designed to assist platforms with developing age-verification measures. The revised blueprint includes the use of passports, identity cards and eIDs to establish proof of age. The blueprint is set to be developed with further privacy measures by the end of 2025, which will be followed by Member State specific implementation guidance.

Quote of the fortnight

"One of the precious rights that affords us is to express our own views and read, hear and consider ideas without the state intervening to stop us doing so. The price we pay for that is having to allow others to exercise the same rights, even if that upsets, offends or shocks us.”

R v Hamit Coskun (Southwark Crown Court, 10 October 2025, Bennathan J) at [3].

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 10 October 2025

Fri, 10 Oct 2025 13:51:00 +0100

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Headline development

FCA publishes proposals for motor finance consumer redress scheme

The FCA has published its consultation paper on a motor finance Consumer Redress scheme under s.404 of FSMA. The FCA estimates that the total redress payable will be £8.2 billion. The sums at stake are considerably lower than some of the previous estimates but the potential exposure is still significant. The proposed scope of the Scheme is very broad, covering all motor finance agreements taken out between 6 April 2007 and 1 November 2024. A relationship will be considered unfair if there is inadequate disclosure of one or more of the following:

A discretionary commission arrangement.
A high commission arrangement (being one with commission equal to or greater than 35% of the total cost of credit and 10% of the loan).
Tied arrangements that gave the lender exclusivity or a first right of refusal.

Whilst the FCA states that not all consumers who took out motor finance will be owed compensation, they still estimate that 14.2 million agreements (44% of those taken out since 2007) will be considered unfair. Overall, the average redress payment is anticipated to be £700. The deadline for comments is 18 November.

To read more about the Consultation, please click here. To read RPC's blog please click here.

Accountants and auditors

HMRC introduced new tool for R&D tax relief claims

HMRC has published a new online tool that assists users in determining qualifying R&D for tax purposes. The tool takes the user though a number of the key tests that define qualifying R&D. It will also provide explanations and links to further guidance. According to HMRC, once all of the questions have been answered, the tool will give the user a clear indication of whether the work carried on is qualifying R&D.

HMRC has stated that a competent professional will be required to answer all of the questions. It is recommended that the user saves their result and keeps a record of the information used to answer each question as this will assist in making a claim for tax relief. HMRC has also stated that they are unlikely to disagree that a project involves R&D activities if the answers provided to the tool are based on the facts of the project and can be clearly supported and explained.

To read more, please click here.

FRC to develop technical guidance for pension scheme actuaries

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has announced it will issue guidance for pension plan actuaries following the landmark 2024 Court of Appeal ruling in Virgin Media Ltd v NTL Pension Trustees case.

The judgment clarified that changes to contracted-out pension benefits require written confirmation from a plan’s actuary for future rights, not just past benefits. This precedent could have forced defined benefit schemes to review historic amendments, potentially increasing liabilities by billions if changes were found to be void due to missing actuarial certification. In response, the government has proposed legislation allowing retrospective actuarial approval where certification was absent.

The FRC’s forthcoming guidance aims to support actuaries and trustees in navigating these changes, with publication expected alongside the new legislation. The move seeks to resolve legal uncertainty for pension schemes affected by the Virgin Media decision.

To read the FRC's announcement, please click here.

Pensions

Pensions Ombudsman finds no evidence of maladministration as SIPP operator complies with FCA guidance for non-standard investments

The Pensions Ombudsman has recently dismissed two complaints from pension scheme members (the Members), who suffered losses after their SIPP investments defaulted. Both Members were part of the Westerby Private Pension, administered and independently managed by Westerby Trustee Services Ltd (Westerby). The Members alleged that Westerby failed to conduct adequate due diligence on their chosen investments. They also criticised Westerby’s communication after their investments had failed.

However, the Ombudsman found Westerby had complied with the FCA's due-diligence guidance for non-standard investments, specifically, the FCA's “Dear CEO” letter issued in 2014 which outlined the robust checks required for non-standard investments. Westerby carried out sufficient due diligence by reviewing company records, verifying identities, and confirming investment structures and repayments. Both Members signed documents acknowledging their status as high-net-worth or sophisticated investors – accepting personal responsibility for their own investment choices. The Ombudsman criticised Westerby for its delayed communication concerning the investment defaults. However, it concluded this did not warrant compensation, as the distress mainly arose from the investment failures themselves.

The ruling highlights the importance for SIPP operators to follow FCA due diligence standards to protect themselves from claims further down the line.

Click here to read more.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

Consumer Duty in Focus: FCA's set priorities for 2025 – 2026

The FCA plans several projects to assess how firms are embedding the Consumer Duty across sectors and improving customer outcomes. These include:

Reviews of product and service design, especially for vulnerable customers.
Reviews of firms' outcomes monitoring.
Considering customer journey design (including applied friction); and
Considering how firms support consumer understanding.

The regulator may request data when needed and will provide feedback to assist firms. It emphasises proportionality, acknowledging that smaller firms may need tailored approaches. In Q1 2026, further guidance will be issued on vulnerability, data sharing, and data protection. The FCA will also focus on fair value, particularly for wealth and advice firms, urging them to use robust analysis to ensure value and prevent unsuitable advice. Upcoming priorities include a market study into pure protection insurance - examining consumer engagement, competition, and firm practices- and reviews of unit-linked pensions, long-term savings, and premium finance. These efforts aim to promote better outcomes and transparency across financial services.

To read more about FCA's priorities for 2025 - 2026, please click here.

Watchdogs target unfair motor finance claims practices

The FCA in collaboration with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), and Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), is targeting inadequate disclosure, misleading advertising and excessive client fees in the motor finance claims sector.

The FCA's recent interventions have compelled nine law firms to disclose their exit fee structures, and the SRA is investigating 76 law firms for high-volume claims activity, having closed five firms in order to safeguard the public. Two Claims Management Companies (CMCs) have also suspended their exit fees, whilst others are not taking on any further clients or advertising until they can comply with the relevant regulations.

Since January 2024, the FCA states its enhanced monitoring has resulted in the removal or amendment of over 740 misleading motor finance adverts. focus from regulators intensified following the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank. This judgment clarified that unfair relationships in motor finance are fact-specific, reducing the incentive for meritless claims. Moreover, since the start of 2025, the ICO has received over 230,000 complaints via its spam reporting service regarding unsolicited marketing practices linked to motor finance claims; this has prompted further investigations and could result in regulatory action against certain organisations. Meanwhile, the ASA is reviewing advertising standards in this sector. Finally, the FCA has launched a £1m campaign to inform consumers they can seek compensation independently, without instructing law firms or CMCs.

Click here to read more.

The Week That Was - 10 October 2025

Fri, 10 Oct 2025 08:16:00 +0100

Limitations under collateral warranties - a cautionary reminder

Collateral warranties are often heavily negotiated, but the recent Scottish case Legal & General v Halliday Fraser Munro highlights just how important the wording of limitation clauses can be.

In their latest article, Arash Rajai and Claire Wilmann of RPC explore:

Why a “no greater duty” clause does not automatically import limitation defences from the underlying contract;
How courts have distinguished between “no greater duty,” “no greater liability,” and “equivalent rights in defence” clauses; and
Practical lessons for employers, contractors and consultants when negotiating warranties.

Read the full analysis here.

Important decision on remediation orders

On 16 September 2025 the First-Tier Tribunal Property Chamber (Residential Property) handed down an important decision on the correct interpretation of s123 (Remediation Orders) of the Building Safety Act 2022 (the Act) in the matter between Kieft and Other v Hyde Housing Association Limited (case ref. LON/00AE/BSA/2024/0503).

The Tribunal concluded "that s.123(2) empowers us to make a remediation order that contains a schedule of specified defects that need to be remedied, but not one that requires compliance with a particular specification of works. How the landlord goes about remediation must be a matter for it" (at paragraph 59). In other words, a remediation order can only specify the 'relevant defects' to be remedied, it cannot specify the remediation scheme to repair those defects. It identifies what needs to be remedied but it cannot say how those defects should be repaired.

In coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal held that 'relevant steps' in relation to a 'relevant defect', as defined at subsection 140 4A of the Act, are distinct from the remediation of defects. The Tribunal said an example of 'relevant steps' is a 'waking watch' whilst fire safety works are being carried out. However, the remediation works themselves, are not 'relevant steps' for purposes of the Act.

Building Safety Regulator streamlines Gateway 2 approvals

The Building Safety Regulator (BSR), chaired by Andy Roe, has announced ambitious measures to reduce gateway 2 approval times for high-rise residential schemes. Currently, firms wait an average of 43 weeks for approval across the UK, rising to 48 weeks in London. Roe aims to cut this to 12 weeks by batching up to 20 applications for review by multi-disciplinary teams and recruiting up to 10 dedicated account managers for major developers and regions.

Roe acknowledged, “it’s a system that’s not been working for the regulator or for you in the industry,” and committed to overhauling the BSR’s IT system, stating, “data, digital, access [all] has to be better.” Presently, 156 new-build applications are at gateway 2, with 26 in the batching process, alongside 276 remediation and over 400 refurbishment schemes awaiting approval.

These changes are expected to accelerate project delivery, reduce delays, and strengthen regulatory engagement, benefitting developers and the wider construction sector.

You can read the full article here.

CIOB sets out blueprint to fix UK construction volatility

The Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) is urging structural reforms to address volatility in the construction sector, warning that instability undermines the industry’s ability to meet government housing and infrastructure targets. The report highlights that the sector may need to expand by up to 40% to deliver Labour’s 1.5 million homes pledge and support decarbonisation, but persistent labour shortages, frequent insolvencies, and fragmented delivery models present major obstacles. CIOB recommends five key reforms: 1. reducing boom-bust cycles through consistent pipelines and transparent funding; 2. improving real-time data for planning; 3. aligning national policy goals with delivery mechanisms; 4. creating a unified government strategy; and 5. incentivising innovation through procurement reform. The report stresses that without lasting change to the business environment and better coordination across government, the industry risks repeating past failures and will struggle to scale up to meet future demand.

Read the Construction News here or access the CIOB Report here.

Fragile recovery: PMI reveals mildest construction in months

The SP Global UK Construction Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) rose to 46.2 in September 2025, up from 45.5 in August, signalling the slowest rate of decline in three months. Although still below the neutral 50 mark, the reading indicates a mild contraction and some easing in sector downturn. Residential building improved to 46.8, commercial activity slipped to 46.4, and civil engineering lagged at 42.9, though its rate of decline softened. New work fell for the ninth consecutive month, mainly due to subdued client demand, economic uncertainty, and delays ahead of the Autumn Budget. Employment dropped for a ninth month, with hiring freezes and reduced workloads, though apprenticeship recruitment saw a modest rise. Input cost inflation accelerated, driven by wage, transport, and energy costs. Experts noted fragile conditions, persistent skills shortages, and planning delays, but expressed hope for recovery through infrastructure investment and adoption of modern construction methods.

Read the full article here.

With thanks to Jonathan Carrington, Oliver Clarke, Amraj Biring and Brendan Marrinan

Tribunal serves decision on cooking alcohols which leads to HMRC policy change

Thu, 09 Oct 2025 10:00:00 +0100

In Gourmet Classic Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 00256 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal ruled that Gourmet's cooking wines (and other similar products), with a strength of 4.8% abv, qualify as foodstuffs and are exempt from excise duty.

Final destination – FCA publishes proposals for motor finance consumer redress scheme

Wed, 08 Oct 2025 15:48:37 +0100

After a long and tortuous process, covering pauses to complaint handling timeframes, FOS decisions, judicial reviews and Supreme Court decisions, the FCA has finally published its consultation paper ("the Consultation ") on a motor finance Consumer Redress scheme ("the Scheme") under s.404 of FSMA. The sums at stake (£8.2 billion) are considerably lower than some of the eye watering previous estimates but the potential exposure is still significant. The deadline for comments is 18 November.

Navigating the ISSB’s sustainability disclosure standards: practical insights

Wed, 08 Oct 2025 14:39:00 +0100

The global sustainability reporting landscape is evolving fast. In 2025, the UK government will consult on new sustainability reporting standards for large and listed companies based on the ISSB’s sustainability disclosure standards.

Awaab's Law: what is it and what property managers and surveyors must know by October 2025

Wed, 08 Oct 2025 11:12:00 +0100

Awaab's Law is named after two-year-old Awaab Ishak who tragically died in 2020 due to a respiratory condition caused by prolonged exposure to damp and mould in his home, despite repeated complaints from his family and health professionals to the housing association.

The inquest into Awaab’s death exposed flaws in existing legislation and prompted the government to introduce better protection for tenants and hold landlords to account for failing to address dangerous living conditions.

The Work Couch Live - Employment Rights Bill: What do employers and leaders need to know?

Mon, 06 Oct 2025 12:21:00 +0100

In our second live episode, recorded before a special audience of RPC clients, host Ellie Gelder is joined by three leading voices in employment law to dissect - and make sense of - the transformational and ground-breaking Employment Rights Bill.

Insurance Covered: A look at a Lloyd's Managing Agent (With Lorraine Harfitt)

Mon, 06 Oct 2025 08:21:00 +0100

In this episode, Peter Mansfield interviews Lorraine Harfitt, CEO of Asta, to explore the role of Lloyd's Managing Agents.

The Week That Was - 3 October 2025

Fri, 03 Oct 2025 15:56:00 +0100

Building Safety Regulator consultation on competence management standards

The Building Safety Regulator’s Industry Competence Committee (ICC) has launched a consultation on its draft guidance, “Setting Expectations for Competence Management”. This guidance addresses statutory obligations under Part 2A of the Building Regulations 2010 and the Higher-Risk Buildings (Management of Safety Risks etc) (England) Regulations 2023, requiring organisations to establish systems and processes that ensure the competence of all individuals working under their control.

The draft outlines principles for proportionate application, taking into account organisational size, complexity, and risk profile. It is relevant to organisations of all sizes involved in development, construction, and property management.

The consultation closes on 6 November 2025. While there is no confirmed date for publication of the final guidance, stakeholders are expected to refer to the draft in the interim.

Read the full article here.

UK construction sector shows signs of stabilisation amid insolvency concerns, says Gleeds

Gleeds’ Q3 2025 UK Construction Market Report describes the sector as “fragile but stabilising”, with output rising for a second consecutive month in August after new orders fell 8.3% in Q2, driven by downturns in infrastructure, industrial and commercial work. Insolvencies continue to affect the sector, accounting for 16.3% of company failures, with specialist subcontractors most affected.

Persistent challenges include inflation, rising labour costs, subdued demand, and unpredictable supply chain production. Nevertheless, Gleeds identifies opportunities in public housing, healthcare, education, infrastructure, and office development. The report calls for faster procurement, improved supply chain resilience, and clearer risk allocation between project partners to support sector recovery.

Read the Construction News here or access the Gleeds Report here.

12 potential new towns across England

On 28 September, the government confirmed it had shortlisted 12 destinations in England as potential locations for new towns, as recommended by the New Towns Taskforce. The Taskforce's recommendations include building at least 10,000 homes in each town, with a minimum of 40% affordable housing. The government plans to begin development in at least three new towns during this Parliament (i.e before May 2026).

The government's response to the Taskforce's recommendations suggests that sites at Tempsford (Bedfordshire), Crews Hill (Enfield) and Leeds South Bank look most promising for early development. The final locations and funding are expected to be confirmed in spring next year.

Whilst these plans appear promising for the industry, there has been pushback from some environmental charities and residents of the proposed new towns in relation to countryside and greenbelt areas being lost to development.

For more information see here and here.

A new 31-storey office tower coming to Fenchurch Street

The City of London Corporation has granted planning permission for a 31-storey office tower at 130 Fenchurch Street. The development will replace an existing tower currently known as Fountain House.

The new building will feature a stepped “jewel-like” design intended to blend with the surrounding skyline while protecting sightlines to heritage landmarks including St Paul’s Cathedral and the Tower of London. It will adopt a low-carbon structural frame, a prefabricated facade system, and a restrained material palette aimed at enhancing performance and long-term durability.

Building materials, including recycled aluminium, glass with solar control coatings, and precast concrete elements at podium level, have been selected for recyclability and weather resistance.

Completion of the new tower is expected in 2030.

For more information see here.

Radius launches major social housing tender for West Belfast

Radius Housing Association has launched a tender for the second phase of the Hannahstown development in Belfast, aiming to deliver 140 new social homes - including 73 houses, two wheelchair-accessible bungalows, and 65 apartments - on a greenfield site off Glen Road.

The £60 million scheme will feature communal spaces for older residents, landscaping, a children’s play area, and other amenity works. The contract is scheduled to begin in March 2026 and run for approximately 36 months, with tender documents expected in late 2025.

Procurement will follow the Competitive Flexible Procedure under the Procurement Act 2023, involving multi-stage tendering, negotiation, and evaluation based on price, social value, and quality. There is potential for a third phase, adding up to 120 further units, subject to successful delivery and agreement on value for money. The deadline for requests to participate is 23 October 2025.

For more information see here.

Fenchurch Street’s medieval tower soars above new skyscraper site

At 50 Fenchurch Street in the City of London, the grade I-listed Tower of All Hallows Staining (c.1320) has been suspended on 45ft stilts to enable Keltbray to carry out piling and excavation works beneath, while the grade II Lambe’s Chapel Crypt (c.1200) will also be restored.

The site will be transformed by a £400m, 36-storey tower designed by Eric Parry, featuring office and retail space, a public roof garden, winter garden, and a new public area centred around the restored church tower.

The development will include a replacement underground livery hall, vertical green wall, bespoke ceramic cladding, and more than 40 planted balconies and terraces with over 70 plant species.

The project team comprises developer Axa IM Alts, contractor Multiplex, development manager Yard Nine, project manager Third London Wall, QS Core Five, and ME consultant Arup. Completion is expected in 2028.

For more information see here.

With thanks to Emily Snow, Bodene Robertson-Wright and Brendan Marrinan.

Take 10 - 3 October 2025

Fri, 03 Oct 2025 12:00:00 +0100

The Spectator succeeds on serious harm and truth

On 5 August 2025, Mr Justice Johnson comprehensively dismissed a defamation claim issued by Mohammed Hijab (a YouTube content creator with over 1.3m subscribers) against The Spectator and Douglas Murray.

The claim related to an article published in September 2022, authored by Douglas Murray, in which the Claimant's conduct during the 2022 civil unrest in Leicester was criticised. The unrest was largely between the local Hindu and Muslim communities of Leicester and escalated after a cricket match between India and Pakistan in August 2022. The article – which describes the Claimant as a man who rotates between presenting himself as a reasoned interlocutor and a street agitator – alleged that he whipped up his followers on the streets of Leicester by, among other things, making derogatory comments about Hindus by reference to their belief in reincarnation. The Claimant argued that he was not talking about Hindus generally but specifically the "Hindutva" who he says were responsible for the violence in Leicester.

After a four-day trial in July 2025, Johnson J found that the Claimant failed to establish that the article had in fact caused, or was likely to cause, serious harm to his reputation. In rejecting the Claimant's case on serious harm, Johnson J referred to various factors including the significant views of the Claimant's own YouTube video of his speech in Leicester, which exceeded the number of readers of the article as well as the lack of credible evidence to substantiate his claim.

Johnson J further held that the Defendants succeeded in their truth defences. He found that the Claimant's speech, which he determined was aimed at Hindus generally and was made to a "large group of excitable and engaged masked men", exacerbated the tensions in Leicester and that the Claimant's "innocent" explanations for his conduct did "not withstand scrutiny". RPC acts for The Spectator.

Noel Clarke loses libel claim against The Guardian

On 22 August 2025, following a six-week trial earlier this year, Mrs Justice Steyn dismissed Noel Clarke's libel claim against the Guardian. The claim concerned 8 articles between April 2021 and March 2022 reporting allegations of sexual harassment, bullying, and misconduct made by 20 women.

The Guardian admitted that one of the articles met the threshold for serious harm. However, Steyn J agreed with the Guardian that, by making his case on serious harm on a collective basis across the articles complained of, Clarke failed to properly plead his case or adduce evidence of harm attributable to each article. As a result, he did not satisfy s.1(1) Defamation Act for the seven other articles so his claim failed in respect of those.

For the remaining article, the Guardian's defences of truth and public interest succeeded and the claim was dismissed. Steyn J found that the allegations the Guardian had reported on were substantially true, having regard to the extensive witness and documentary evidence. In respect of the public interest defence, Steyn J accepted that the article concerned matters of public interest, including the abuse of power in the television and film industry to subject women to sexual harassment, mistreatment and bullying. Steyn J found the Guardian's belief that publication was in the public interest was "undoubtedly reasonable". The allegations were presented in a "measured and accurate way", with Clarke's individual responses to each allegation positioned in the article so as to allow readers to draw their own conclusions. The Guardian's investigation was found to be thorough, including careful measures to prevent source contamination and "going to great lengths" to test the credibility and verify the allegations. While Steyn J accepted some of Clarke's evidence, she concluded that he was not a credible or reliable witness overall and found that his allegations of an unlawful means conspiracy against him "lacked any proper foundation".

Bukhari v Bukhari: Ex-Pakistani politician wins libel and harassment claim against cousin

Last month, Deputy High Court Judge Aidan Eardley KC gave judgment in favour of former Pakistani politician, Zulfi Bukhari, in the libel and harassment claim brought against his cousin, Tauqeer Bukhari.

The claim concerned 249 tweets posted by the Defendant between September 2019 and March 2020. 40 of the tweets were relied on in the libel claim, having been found to be defamatory statements of fact following a preliminary issues trial. The tweets alleged that the Claimant (and his father) were corrupt and had taken part in theft, fraud and other illegal activities. The Claimant advanced an inferential case on serious harm based on his existing reputation, high profile in the UK Pakistani community, the seriousness of the allegations and extent of publication.

Eardley DHCJ accepted the "serious" nature of the allegations and that readers would understand the Defendant to be a close relative of the Claimant with privileged access to inside knowledge that formed the basis of the allegations. However, the "repetitive and obsessive" nature of the posts and the "fast-moving, conversational world" of social media meant some readers would be reluctant to rely on the bare assertions. The Judge also considered the Defendant's low follower count, the limited engagement (likes, reposts, views) with most of the posts and the uncertainty on whether readers were within the jurisdiction or abroad. In these circumstances, only 8 of 40 publications were ultimately found to satisfy the threshold for serious harm. The Judge also found liability in harassment. While the Claimant should have "broader shoulders than others" given his public profile, the Judge said no-one could reasonably be expected to tolerate "this relentless torrent of abuse".

The Judge awarded £40,000 in damages in respect of the 8 libelous publications and a separate award of £3,000 for harassment, given the "limited overlap between the distress caused" by each cause of action. The harassment award was limited to reflect that the court could only award damages for the distress the Claimant experienced during the limited time he was in the jurisdiction. The Judge refused to grant an injunction as the Defendant was found to have ceased his posting about the Claimant.

Court of Appeal considers the threshold for viable data protection claims

On 22 August 2025, the Court of Appeal unanimously handed down its appellate decision in Farley and Ors v Paymasterrepresenting a significant departure from earlier authorities by lowering the bar for a claimant to bring a viable data protection claim.

At first instance, Mr Justice Nicklin had dismissed the vast majority of the 432 claims brought in response to annual benefit pension statements being sent to outdated and incorrect addresses (see our summary in a previous edition of Take 10).

The key issues on appeal were the "Compensation Issue" and the "Jameel Issue".

The Compensation Issue concerned whether the Court could require the Appellants to overcome a “threshold of seriousness” to recover compensation for non-material damage, such as distress (derived from the Supreme Court decision in Lloyd v Google). With reference to recent CJEU decisions, the Court of Appeal rejected the Respondents' submissions that such a threshold is an essential ingredient of a viable data protection claim. The Court distinguished the proceedings from Lloyd v Google whichspecifically concerned the interpretation of "non-trivial" in order to assess damages under s.13 of the former legislation (the Data Protection Act 1998), in respect of which the GDPR was not in issue. The Court found that claims for non-material damage can be brought for "various forms of emotional harm". However, a claimant's fears must be (a) "well-founded" as opposed to based on hypothetical risk, and (b) not merely represent "fleeting…reactions" such as "irritation or "annoyance".

In respect of the Jameel Issue i.e. whether the claims constitute an abuse of process of the Jameel variety, the Court held that the modest scale of likely recovery in a claim cannot by itself be sufficient to justify dismissal of the claim. Instead, the court must consider all the circumstances of the case in determining whether it amounts to an abuse, including the issues in the case, the procedural context in which it is brought, the claimant's conduct of the litigation, their objectives in pursuing it, and the equality of arms (or lack thereof).

Court of Appeal clarifies derogations to open justice

On 28 August 2025, the Court of Appeal granted an appeal in PMC v Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board. The appeal concerned an application made by the Appellant, who is a disabled child, for an anonymity order in personal injury proceedings brought against the hospital with conduct of his care. Prior to making the application, the Appellant's identity had previously been published.

At first instance, Mr Justice Nicklin refused to derogate from the principle of open justice in order to grant the requested anonymity order. Nicklin J relied on the dictum of Lord Sumption in Khuja v Times Newspapers Limitedholding that the Court lacks the "inherent power" to impose restrictions on what takes place in open court, particularly given the Appellant's identity was already in the public domain.

The Court of Appeal held that Khuja should not be the preferred authority to determine the necessity of derogations to open justice in this instance. Importantly, the Court considered that it does possessed an inherent power to depart from the principle of open justice in civil or family court proceedings where "strictly necessary" in the interests of justice. The Court cited the structured approach the Supreme Court devised in Abbasirequiring it to (a) consider the balancing of rights, (b) whether the restriction in question pursued a legitimate aim, and (c) whether the interference is necessary in a democratic society, against the backdrop of open justice being the starting point.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that granting a prospective anonymity order was "clearly and strictly necessary" in light of, in particular, the Appellant's "extreme vulnerability" and the "serious infringement"to his Article 8 rights if his medical details, family and financial circumstances were reported in the media alongside his name. The Court noted that the prospective anonymity order would not prevent the media reporting on future open hearings altogether, including on public interest matters such as the Defendant's conduct and the events which led up to the injury. Prior reporting was also not considered to be "a reason to refuse the Claimant a modicum of protection at this crucial stage of his personal injury claim".

Court of Appeal dismisses jurisdiction argument as "an affront to common sense"

On 22 September 2025, the Court of Appeal unanimously held that the court is able make a range of orders in respect of an injunction, including to award costs, even in the absence of a claim form being issued by the applicant.

The Appellant (the founder of a nationwide cosmetic surgery chain, Signature Clinic) took issue with statements made about Signature on social media, which he alleged were defamatory and were made by the Respondent under an alias. In July 2023, the Appellant filed a defective Form N16A in the County Court for an interim injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. In spite of the Respondent (who was self-represented at the time) providing evidence denying that she was the alias and that the injunction sought would damage her business, an interim injunction was granted "forbidding" her from posting "or…encouraging others to post" or being "involved in any social media groups actively posting comments or remarks considered to be defamatory against [Signature] or its staff present or past". No claim form was issued at the time the injunction was granted or subsequently.

The injunction lasted for 7 months, until the Respondent applied to discharge it, and sought damages and costs. On receipt of that application, the Appellant accepted that the injunction should be set aside but argued the court lacked jurisdiction to deal with consequential matters because of the lack of "proceedings" in the absence of a claim form. The decision was unsuccessfully appealed. The Court of Appeal, hearing the second appeal, also dismissed the Appellant's position, concluding that an application for an injunction issued under CPR Part 23 prior to a claim form constitutes "proceedings". Alternatively, CPR r. 3.10 would allow the court to "remedy" the "error of procedure" in relation to the type of application form used (in this case treating Form N16A as a Part 8 claim form).

The Court of Appeal also described the underlying injunction itself as "deeply misconceived" given (a) it was "well-established" that an interim injunction is unavailable in defamation actions where a defendant seeks to defend the defamatory imputation, (b) the County Court does not have jurisdiction to hear any action in libel or slander unless the parties agree otherwise, (c) the terms of the injunction were "vague and almost certainly unworkable", and (d) the Appellant lived in Scotland so the English court lacked jurisdiction under the PfHA 1997. RPC acts for the Respondent.

Disclosure of criminal suspects' ethnicity and nationality details

On 12 August 2025, interim guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing came into force, which allows police forces to confirm information related to the ethnicity and/or nationality of suspects in certain circumstances at the point of charge (the Interim Guidance).

The Interim Guidance permits the publication of ethnicity and/or nationality information of the suspect or defendant, where this information is known or recorded in "high profile or sensitive investigations or operations" and there is:

a "policing purpose" in publishing such information;
relevant risks including impact on public safety i.e. increased community tensions (in particular, where attributed to misinformation); or
"significant" media or social media interest.

The Interim Guidance also requires forces to "proactively release" information where: (a) the crime or incident is of a serious nature, (b) the incident has already been reported in the media or on social media, or (c) for public reassurance, albeit the information will only be provided contemporaneously with tiered decision-making requiring approval from the most senior investigating officer.

This marked increase in the types of information police forces are directed to disclose at the point of charge has been prompted by previous incidents where inaccurate details of a suspect's nationality and/or ethnicity have circulated online. Final guidance will be included in the revised Media Relations guidance, expected in Autumn 2025, coinciding with the expected publication of the Law Commission's review of contempt of court.

OSA update

Two US-based tech companies operating the online platforms, 4chan and Kiwi Farms, have filed a legal challenge against Ofcom in the US federal court. The heart of the challenge is the extra-territorial scope of the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA). Specifically, the Claimants allege Ofcom has "committed unlawful acts by sending threatening communications to US-based internet companies" and that Ofcom's enforcement of the OSA infringes their rights under the US constitution. Both providers assert that they have "no presence, operations or infrastructure" outside of the "territorial limits" of the US. The companies seek declarations that Ofcom's attempts to serve the companies were invalid and that Ofcom's orders are unenforceable in the US, as well as a permanent injunction to prevent Ofcom from attempting to enforce the OSA in the US. Ofcom has said it's aware of the lawsuit and that "under the [OSA], any service that has links to the UK now has duties to protect UK users, no matter where in the world they are based".

Meanwhile, in July and September 2025 Ofcom launched investigations into 56 pornography websites across a number of service providers to consider whether the companies have implemented "highly effective age-assurance" measures for UK users. It has issued information notices to a number of companies (including several incorporated outside of the UK) and on 18 September, issued a provisional notice of contravention to Itai Tech Ltd after concluding there were "reasonable grounds to believe" it was failing to comply with the age assurance requirements under section 81 of the OSA.

New legal duties in force to protect freedom of speech in universities

On 1 August 2025, the government announced new measures to promote freedom of speech and academic freedom within universities. The measures include an enhanced legal duty on higher education providers to '"actively promote" freedom of expression, including by safeguarding academic staff's jobs, privileges and opportunities for promotion. The duty is, however, limited to steps which are "reasonably practicable". Other measures include banning non-disclosure agreements in respect of university misconduct.

The measures are introduced as further provisions under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, which already require higher education providers to implement "robust" codes of practice and give the Office for Students fining powers for complaints over free speech (see our discussion in an earlier edition of Take 10 here).

Supreme Court weighs in on the public interest balancing exercise for Freedom of Information Requests

On 23 July 2025 the Supreme Court handed down judgment in Department for Business and Trade v Information Commissioner, a case concerning the "public interest" balancing exercise under s.2(2)(b) Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) applied by public authorities receiving freedom of information requests. The right to receive information is subject to a number of exemptions e.g. where disclosure would be likely to prejudice the UK's international relations or ongoing government research. Certain exemptions require the public authority to weigh up the public interest in maintaining the exemption against the public interest in disclosing the information. The Supreme Court was asked to consider whether, if a public authority relies on more than one qualified exemption, the public interest in maintaining each exemption could be aggregated, or if the balancing exercise must be conducted separately for each exemption. The Department for Business and Trade argued in favour of the aggregated approach whereas the ICO favoured the independent approach.

By a 3-2 majority, the Supreme Court concluded that where multiple qualified exemptions apply to the same piece of information, the cumulative approach should be followed. It reasoned that these exemptions were intended by Parliament to reflect various aspects of the public interest in disclosure so they should be viewed holistically. The majority Judges found this was the more workable and effective approach which saved the "mental gymnastics" and "minefield" of potential errors when taking the independent approach. The dissenting judges argued that the complexities of the FOIA's wording and exemption structure favoured the independent approach. They expressed concern of the "real risk" of decision makers taking a "broad view" of the need to disclose information rather than carefully weighing up the individual interests and how, if at all, that affected the overall balance.

Quote of the fortnight

"This judgment is a deserved victory for those women who suffered because of the behaviour of Noel Clarke. Going to court is difficult and stressful, yet more than 20 women agreed to testify in the High Court, refusing to be bullied or intimidated…It was important to fight this case. This was a deeply researched investigation by some of the Guardian’s best reporters, who worked diligently and responsibly. The judgment is clear that our investigation was thorough and fair, a template for public interest journalism."

Katharine Viner, Editor-in-Chief of the Guardian on Noel Clarke v Guardian News judgment

Legal 500

We are very pleased to say that we have maintained our top-ranking across the media categories, along with receiving a brand-new ranking for 'Media: Film & TV' in this year's Legal 500. We're grateful to our clients and contacts who took the time to speak to Legal 500 for the rankings and for the very kind feedback about the team.

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 3 October 2025

Fri, 03 Oct 2025 11:12:00 +0100

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Headline development

RPC publishes latest FOS complaints newsletter

Our latest FOS complaints newsletter has recently been published. The newsletter is prepared quarterly and analyses data released by FOS to identify trends and spot emerging issues.

To read the newsletter, click here.

Auditors

FRC issues 4 new consultations

The FRC has released 4 new consultations this week, covering enforcement tools, auditing standards related to fraud and going concerns, auditor reporting standards and a proposal not to make any changes to the current FRS 101 Reduced Disclosure Framework. We explain more on each below

Audit enforcement tools

The FRC proposes adding three new ways to address breaches of auditing and ethical standards to the two methods which already exist.

The first proposal is public constructive engagement, which will allow the FRC to publish the details and outcomes of how a company will address auditing breaches. The hope is that the availability of information will both educate other audit firms and deter future breaches.

The second proposal introduces an accelerated procedure for resolution where a company has made a clear admission of failings.

Thirdly, the FRC is seeking to implement an early admission process that will allow companies to conduct their own review under FRC oversight.

Richard Moriarty, the FRC's Chief Executive, stated that these additional measures will enable the FRC to 'take more proportionate and timely action while maintaining [its] ability to conduct thorough investigations where needed.'

To read more about the consultation, including links to a webinar on the topic, click here.

Auditing standards

The FRC is also consulting on ISA (UK) 240 and 570, which deal with auditors' responsibilities regarding fraud in financial statements and evaluating going concerns. The proposed changes would bring the standards in line with standards issued by the International Audit and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB).

To read more about this consultation, click here.

Auditor reporting standards

A further consultation has been launched on the following auditor reporting standards:

ISA (UK) 700 – Forming and opinion and reporting on Financial Statements
ISA (UK) 701 – Communicating Key Audit Matters in the Independent Auditor’s report
ISA (UK) 720 – The Auditor's Responsibilities Relating to Other Information

Proposed changes are aimed at simplifying report, reducing boilerplate language and providing more relevant information for investors. As with the audit standard proposals above, these are intended to bring the standards in line with the IAASB standards.

To read more about this consultation, click here.

FRS 101 Reduced Disclosure Framework

Finally, as part of an annual review, the FRC has proposed no changes to the FRS 101 Reduced Disclosure Framework. The FRC carries out an annual review to ensure that the FRS 101 Reduced Disclosure Framework is in line with IAASB standards, and this year, it found that no changes were required to meet those standards.

To read more about this consultation, click here.

FRC Finds Multiple Financial Reporting Failings in Review

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC)'s Annual Review of Corporate Reporting revealed certain reporting issues that were prevalent across the market, though the FRC states that overall, the quality of reporting is stable as compared to last year.

The top three issues identified were impairment, cash-flow statements and the reporting of financial instruments.

Impairment refers to a permanent fall in the value of an asset. Should this happen the depreciation of the asset must be recorded down on the balance sheet.

Reports from 10% of reviewed companies failed to demonstrate the requisite clarity. The FRC has highlighted that 'clearer [and] more comprehensive impairment disclosures or better connectivity between disclosures and other areas of the balance sheet' would have prevented the reporting issue.

Furthermore, the reporting of financial instruments was a particularly serious issue requiring the restatement of three company's financial reports.

The FRC warned companies that combining dissimilar items into a single amount is inappropriate as it can mask the risks to assets and/or liabilities.

Overall, the FRC noted that there is a significant quality gap in reporting between FTSE 350 companies and smaller companies and confirmed that it is undertaking a thematic review of reporting standards for smaller companies to address this.

To read more, please click here.

Insolvency practitioners

Updated Insolvency Code of Ethics now in effect

A new version of the Insolvency Code of Ethics came into force on 1 October 2025, bringing in updates to standards around professional behaviour, ethical mindset, and responsible use of technology.

The update, approved by the Joint Insolvency Committee and published by ICAEW for its members in England, reflects changes to the international IESBA Code and sets out clearer expectations for insolvency practitioners (IPs) – not just in formal appointments but across all areas of professional conduct.

Key changes include:

A stronger focus on acting in the public interest and maintaining integrity under pressure.
A requirement to apply an inquiring mind when interpreting and applying the Code.
Clearer expectations around online behaviour, particularly where professional identity is visible (i.e. LinkedIn).
An explicit stance that bullying, harassment, victimisation, and unfair discrimination are unacceptable and risk bringing discredit to the profession.
New guidance on the use of technology, including responsible use of AI, maintaining data confidentiality, and assessing whether digital tools are suitable for professional decision-making.

There remains an overarching requirement for IPs to avoid any conduct – whether in a professional or personal capacity – that could damage public trust in the profession. The Code reinforces the principle that behaviour outside of formal appointments can still have professional consequences.

References to the Republic of Ireland have been removed as none of the issuing bodies now operate as regulators of insolvency work in that jurisdiction.

To read more, please click here.

Tax practitioners

HMRC Restarts Direct Recovery of Debts

HMRC has confirmed the restart of direct recovery of debts (DRD) powers as an option to reduce tax debt.

Under DRD, a bank or building society can be required to pay sums directly from an individual's account or cash ISA to HMRC where an individual has a minimum tax debt of £1,000. Individuals have thirty days from the start of the recovery process to lodge an objection and potentially appeal against the decision to a county court.

HMRC has implemented certain safeguards to ensure that these powers are used appropriately. Firstly, DRD powers will only be applied where an individual has established tax debts, has passed the deadline for appeals and has repeatedly ignored HMRC. Secondly, affected individuals are guaranteed a face-to-face meeting with HMRC to discuss alternative proportionate solutions and are assessed for vulnerability prior to DRD recovery.

To read more, please click here.

ICAEW announces revised version of Professional Conduct in Relation to Taxation (PCRT)

The ICAEW have published an updated version of the PCRT which is to become effective from 1 January 2026.

The PCRT has been updated to ensure that it is compliant with current international standards. This follows from the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA) publishing an updated code in relation to tax planning. The ICAEW, as part of their membership rules, must adopt IESBA codes.

The new PCRT provides sharper guidance on what constitutes responsible tax guidance to ensure transparency with consumers. Key changes include:

Members being transparent with consumers regarding their relationship with a third-party provider of tax planning services.
Members informing consumers that PCRT applies where a member is providing a second opinion on tax planning arrangements
Members setting out actions they must take where there is disagreement with a consumer as to whether proposed tax planning is credible.

It is important that all ICAEW members consider the revised PCRT and ensure they understand their obligations to avoid disciplinary action.

To read the updated PCRT, click here.

Regulatory developments for accountants

Revised Actuaries' Code and Guidance now in effect

The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) released an updated version of the Actuaries' Code (the Code) to reflect the growing emphasis on diversity, equity and inclusion considerations.

The Code has six core principles: integrity, competence and care, impartiality, compliance, speaking up, and communication. These principles aim to clarify the existing requirements that IfoA members need to adhere to and highlight the mandatory nature of speaking up against unfair exclusion and/or treatment of others.

The hope is that the revised Code will be able to balance the inclusion and protection of all its members, while respecting the full range of member perspectives on diversity, equity and inclusion.

The revised Code is support by the non-mandatory guidance and the IfoA has advised its members to familiarise themselves with the guidance to better understand their obligations under the revised Code.

To read more, please click here.

IFAs and wealth managers

FSCS confirms claims against collapsed firm who took over £1m in loans from clients are valid

Trust Financial Planning, an IFA firm, collapsed in August this year after the FCA found that its plan to repay over £1m in loans it took from clients were not credible. The FSCS has confirmed this week that, following investigation, it considers there are likely to be valid claims against the firm, though it has stressed that it cannot guarantee whether it will be able to pay compensation for any claims at this stage.

The FSCS explained that valid claims are most likely to be related to the sale of £840,000 of preference shares to clients of the firm and confirmed that clients are now able to make claims for to the FSCS. The remainder of the £1m in loans is composed of direct loans to the firm's director, Dan Brittenden, and other client loans to the firm.

To read more, click here.

Pensions

Society of Pension Professionals (SPP) warn pension professionals regarding proposed tax rules

The SPP has warned members that they could get swept up under HMRC's new proposed tax advisor rules following the proposed drafting of the Finance Bill.

The proposed legislation provides that any person aiding with documents "likely to be relied upon by HMRC" may need to follow HMRC tax rules. The concern is that those who do not provide tax advice, but undertake pension administration tasks, could become regulated by default as they would fall within the scope of the legislation. This means that advisors and firms who are not tax advisors may need to register with HMRC, meet their minimum requirements and regulatory obligations.

In light of the risk, the SPP has called for an explicit exemption for pension scheme administration and asked for clarification of the definition of a tax advisor.

The SPP has warned that the current proposals could have a significant impact on pension professionals throughout the country who may now have to register with HMRC and comply with their rules and regulations.

To read more, click here.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

FCA Stopped Firms Charging Ongoing Advice Fees to Dead Clients

Lucy Castledine, the Consumer Investment Director at the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), revealed that the FCA had stopped firms from charging ongoing advice fees to deceased customers while their estates were being administered.

The revelation was made to highlight the FCA's ongoing focus on the suitability of ongoing fees following the introduction of the Consumer Duty and highlights the FCA's ongoing focus on ensuring fees are not charged unless advice is actually provided.

Advisory firms should note that continuing to charge advice fees after a client dies or becomes incapacitated can increase their risk of liability for mismanagement of their former client's estate, and lead to financial consequences.

To read more, please click here.

Aegon Cautions FCA over targeted support rollout timing

Aegon has warned that the FCA's proposal to require firms to highlight “targeted support” to consumers from March 2026 could cause confusion if the regime isn’t fully established by then.

The FCA’s proposed changes would allow banks, advisers, and other financial firms to direct groups of customers to tailored support without offering regulated advice. Updates to the regulator’s handbook were also put forward to support the shift.

Steven Cameron, pensions director at Aegon, said the plan is premature. He noted that while raising awareness of available support is sensible, introducing signposting before firms are ready could lead to misunderstanding and frustration.

Aegon believes that initially only a small number of firms will offer targeted support in limited cases, with broader adoption expected over time. Requiring signposting before this happens could mislead consumers, especially if their provider isn’t yet offering the support.

The company also raised concerns about including signposts in documents like annual pension statements, suggesting it could create unrealistic expectations for customers unable to access support elsewhere.

The FCA is accepting feedback on the proposals until 17 October, with final rules expected in December. You can read more about this in the next article. The regime is due to begin in early 2026.

To read more, click here.

FCA propose handbook amendments

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) have published consultation paper CP25/26. CP25/26 is a follows on from consultation paper CP25/17 which provided suggested amendments to the rules in the Handbook for targeted support in the pensions and retail sector.

The purpose of CP25/26 is to consult on the various amendments to the rules in the Handbook to "ensure that our proposals work with existing requirements".

The FCA's proposals are summarised below

Ensure targeted support for pension and retail consumers co-exist with the existing rules and regulations.
Refinement of the rules in relation to commission and fees firms charge.

The consultation is open until 17 October 2025.

To read the consultation and respond, click here.

Emerging risks

Solicitor Fined £17,000 for failings in Off-Plan Property Investment Schemes

A solicitor has been fined over £17,000 by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for failings linked to off-plan property investment schemes in a case that raises wider concerns about how solicitors engage with high-risk property arrangements, including those that may resemble Unregulated Collective Investment Schemes (UCIS).

Ming Fai Tam (also known as Matthew Tam) admitted to failing to adequately advise clients on the risks associated with buying properties that were still in development. The SRA found that Tam also failed to supervise a part-time consultant who was allowed to advise clients on these investments without the necessary training or oversight.

The SRA said clients had lost money in schemes where investor funds were used to finance developments that were either significantly delayed, never completed, or failed to deliver the promised returns. Tam was fined £17,083 and agreed to pay £1,350 in costs as part of a regulatory settlement.

The case forms part of a broader set of concerns about how legal professionals may be used to give credibility to investment-style property schemes, some of which involve fractional ownership, pooled investor funds or special purpose vehicles – all features that may carry UCIS-like risks, even if the schemes are not formally recognised as such.

Tam had operated under Batchford Solicitors, which closed in 2018, and later under MFT Solicitors, which ceased trading in 2021. According to the SRA, his involvement in the schemes included property transactions across 10 developments involving 312 properties between 2017 and 2020.

The matter also led to a High Court claim being filed in September 2024 by five Hong Kong-based investors, alleging that Tam and others – including UK-based developer Iqbal Bhatti and legal consultant Khalil Hosenbux – failed to warn investors about the risks. The claim describes the scheme as a fraudulent investment operation, involving the misuse of client funds.

The SRA said investors had paid legal fees of around £1,300 per property, and deposits ranging from 30% to 100% of the purchase price. In many cases, developments were never completed or failed to produce the anticipated rental or capital returns.

Tam was also criticised for failing to explain to clients that some of the structures used carried risks not typical of standard conveyancing. The watchdog found similar failings across a broader sample of client files involving other developments.

This case reinforces the SRA’s long-standing warning to solicitors about involvement in property schemes that blur the line between regulated conveyancing and investment promotion, particularly where solicitor services may be used to give false reassurance to retail investors. Firms are expected to conduct due diligence, identify when a scheme might carry UCIS-like risks, and avoid involvement unless the regulatory framework is fully understood and appropriate safeguards are in place.

To read more, please click here.

ML Covered - October 2025

Fri, 03 Oct 2025 08:43:00 +0100

Court upholds rule that disclosure overrides prosecution fears

The High Court recently ruled in Aabar Holdings S.A.R.L & Others v (1) Glencore PLC and (2) Mr Ivan Glasenberg & Others [2025] EWHC 2243 (KB) that the First Defendant, Glencore, must disclose documents relating to a bribery investigation, as part of a claim by shareholders, despite Glencore's contention that disclosure risked prosecution overseas.

Background

In 2022, Glencore (a global natural resources company) pleaded guilty to bribery charges over its operations in several African countries. Proceedings, filed on behalf of shareholders a year later, alleged that senior staff knew about misconduct in the Glencore group and made untrue statements in past share prospectuses to cover up corrupt activities.

Glencore and its former Chief Executive Officer, Ivan Glasenberg (being the Second Defendant), attempted to block Glencore's shareholders from having access to documents linked to a Dutch criminal investigation in their claim, which accused the company of failing to disclose that it had arranged a worldwide bribery and corruption scheme relating to oil trading and related activities.

Decision

The High Court ruled that Glencore must disclose the documents obtained from the Dutch investigation.

The Court used the balancing exercise set out in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2019], where it was decided that Bank Mellat must produce unredacted documents, despite claims that doing so would breach Iranian law and risk prosecution in the country. Since then, in deciding such cases, courts have considered whether compliance with an English disclosure order could breach foreign criminal laws. They have also considered whether there is a risk of prosecution abroad and whether that risk of prosecution outweighs the importance of the documents to fair English proceedings.

Looking at the documents that were generated by the Dutch investigation, the Court concluded that they did not mention that there would be any risk of committing a criminal offence and/or that criminal proceedings would be brought if these were disclosed. The Court also noted that it was unimpressed with the inconsistencies in Glencore's position, noting that its two expert reports appeared "lawyered" and/or attempted to increase the perception of a risk of a prosecution.

Key takeaways

The decision illustrates the difficulties companies and directors face when trying to resist disclosure in civil proceedings by pointing to the risk of prosecution overseas. This decision follows similar decisions against companies such as Standard Chartered and EuroChem.

To read the case, please click here.

Covid voluntary repayment scheme launched

On 12 September 2025, the Government launched a time-limited Covid repayment window, allowing individuals and businesses to voluntarily repay financial support received during the Covid-19 pandemic, without consequence. The initiative forms part of the Government's broader efforts to recover over £10bn lost to Covid-related fraud.

The repayment window closes in December 2025. After that date, those businesses and individuals found to have made improper claims may face civil or criminal investigations, recovery actions, director disqualification and/or potential personal liability for directors. Beyond the legal implications, there is also a significant risk of reputational harm, particularly if enforcement actions become public.

Who can use the voluntary repayment scheme?

The scheme can be used by anyone who received financial support during the pandemic, including through the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, Bounce Back Loan Scheme, Self-Employment Income Support Scheme, Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme or sector-specific funding. It is particularly relevant for individuals or businesses that may have misunderstood the eligibility criteria at the time, or who now believe that some of the support was wrongly claimed or retained. Company directors should also take note, especially where support was accessed on behalf of their business.

Key Takeaways

This window offers an opportunity to proactively manage and reduce the risk in relation to Covid-19 financial support that was wrongfully claimed. From 2026 onwards, HMRC and other Government bodies are expected to intensify scrutiny and enforcement efforts across all Covid-related support schemes.

In terms of next steps, all businesses and individuals are encouraged to review all Covid-related support received across all schemes. Eligibility criteria should also be revisited to assess whether historic claims were made in accordance with the relevant criteria. Should any claims be identified as having not been valid, D&Os should attempt to quantify any potential exposure and seek legal and tax advice.

To read the case, please click here.

Employment Rights Bill update

In this month's edition, we highlight developments regarding the Employment Rights Bill (ERB).

Between 14 and 23 July 2025, the ERB passed through the House of Lords’ Report Stage, where a series of non-Government amendments were introduced, including significant changes to the Labour Government’s manifesto pledges. When the Bill returned to the House of Commons on 15 September, MPs rejected all but the straightforward technical changes and those proposed by the Government.

Key outcomes from the Commons

Day-one protection upheld

The House of Commons rejected the Lords’ proposal to introduce a six-month qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims. The reason given was that it is appropriate for this protection to apply from the start of employment. The Bill is now expected to proceed on the basis of day-one protections – a major shift from the current two-year qualifying period.

Duty to offer guaranteed hours contracts retained

The Commons overturned the Lords’ proposal to replace the duty to offer a guaranteed hours contract with a right for zero-hours workers to request one. Their reason was that it is appropriate for qualifying workers to be offered such contracts automatically. As it stands, the provision is likely to retain its original design, requiring employers to proactively offer guaranteed hours contracts to zero and low-hours workers (including agency workers).

"Short notice" definition to be determined

The Lords proposed defining “short notice” as 48 hours for the purpose of requiring employers to pay compensation when workers’ shifts are cancelled at short notice. The Commons rejected this proposal on the grounds that prescribing a fixed period at this stage would pre-empt consultation and limit the Government’s discretion. Instead, the definition of “short notice” will be set out in regulations following consultation.

Right to be accompanied unchanged

The Lords proposed broadening the right for employees to be accompanied at disciplinary or grievance hearings to include a “certified professional companion”. The Commons rejected this amendment because it would likely increase the cost, complexity, and length of these hearings. The Bill is expected to keep the right to be accompanied limited to a trade union representative or a colleague.

50% turnout threshold set to be removed

The Commons refused to adopt the Lords’ proposal to keep the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots, taking the position that it is appropriate to remove it. The ERB is now set to abolish the 50% turnout threshold.

No further changes to whistleblowing regime

The Lords proposed requiring employers to take “reasonable steps” to investigate protected disclosures and to extend the circumstances in which an employee is considered unfairly dismissed after making a protected disclosure. The Commons found these proposals inappropriate. No changes are likely to be made to the current whistleblowing framework.

"No ifs, no buts"

The Commons' opposition to the amendments reaffirms the Government's commitment to keep the Bill largely intact. Nonetheless, doubts about the future of the ERB still remain following the resignation of Angela Rayner, the former Deputy Prime Minister and a key champion of the legislation. Her departure was accompanied by a ministerial reshuffle that removed Justin Madders, one of the Bill’s main architects, from his role and redeployed Jonathan Reynolds, another supporter of the Bill.

These cabinet changes prompted strong reactions from stakeholders. Unions voiced concern that the dismissal of the entire ERB team reflected Government capitulation to employer pressure, while business groups took the reshuffle as their last hope that the new ministerial team would take a more business-friendly approach. However, Starmer reassured MPs that the legislation would proceed “with the same substance and timetable as before”, while Education Secretary Phillipson, a potential successor to Rayner, pledged: “No ifs, no buts", "forward with the Employment Rights Bill in full".

What’s next?

The Bill will now return to the House of Lords for consideration of the Government’s reasons for rejecting their amendments. Royal Assent will only be granted once both Houses reach agreement, which means there is a possibility of delay. Even so, parliamentary precedent suggests that the Commons’ position is likely to be upheld, and the Bill remains on track to become law.

That said, much of the ERB’s detail has been left to secondary legislation. The recent Cabinet reshuffle may indeed be an indication that the Government will be open to considering employer concerns more closely at a later stage. While the core of the ERB is unlikely to change, there may still be opportunities to refine how its provisions are implemented following further consultation.

Takeaways for insurers

Assumptions and precedents, however, offer little certainty to insurers. The legislative tug-of-war, deep stakeholder divide, and cabinet reshuffle make precise risk assessments increasingly difficult, complicating coverage pricing, product positioning, and communication with brokers and policyholders about future coverage needs. Insurers are being forced to make strategic decisions about whether to price defensively or risk being caught off-guard.

What remains almost certain is that there will be no major retreat by Parliament at this stage. Many policyholders are likely to be unprepared to comply with the new obligations immediately, with 92% of small businesses expressing concerns about the ERB, according to the Federation of Small Businesses. An increase in claim volume is practically inevitable, particularly with measures such as day-one unfair dismissal protection exposing employers to risk two years earlier than before and the duty to offer guaranteed hours contracts significantly affecting policyholders with large seasonal workforces, especially in the retail and hospitality sectors. Insurers that can adapt quickly once implementation details emerge will be best positioned to capitalise on what promises to be a fundamentally transformed employment liability landscape.

Government proposes fix to Virgin Media pensions fallout

In July 2024, the Virgin Media Ltd v NTL Pension Trustees ruling threw contracted out defined benefit (DB) pension schemes into uncertainty, and the Government has now proposed a legislative fix. On 1 September, Pensions Minister Torsten Bell tabled amendments to the Pension Schemes Bill aimed at resolving the so-called “Virgin Media issue.”

The Virgin Media decision raised concerns that historic changes to contracted-out benefits, some made decades ago, could be invalid if they lacked formal actuarial certification. This left many schemes in limbo, facing the possibility of significant additional liabilities if those changes were deemed void.

The Government’s proposal allows trustees to retrospectively validate “potentially remediable alterations”, so long as key conditions are met. If trustees can obtain written confirmation from their actuary that an amendment would not have caused the scheme to fail the reference scheme test, assuming it had been validly made, the alteration will be treated as valid, with no need to dig through incomplete historical data.

While this is welcome relief for many schemes, there are limitations. Amendments that are already the subject of legal proceedings before 5 June 2025, or where trustees have taken “positive action” to treat them as void, are excluded from the draft legislation as it stands.

To read RPC's recent article on this topic, please click here.

TPO clarifies trustee duties for pre-2021 statutory transfers

The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) has published a determination (CAS-81940-Z2S8) addressing trustee duties in relation to statutory transfers from occupational pension schemes before the 2021 transfer regulations came into force.

The case involved a member who transferred from the British Steel Pension Scheme to a small self-administered scheme in 2014. Years later, the member claimed that the trustee failed to carry out sufficient due diligence to identify potential scam risks, resulting in a loss of retirement benefits. However, TPO did not uphold the complaint.

TPO concluded that, at the time of the transfer, trustees had no legal obligation, whether by statute, regulation, common law or equity, to carry out additional due diligence beyond what was required under the Pensions Schemes Act 1993 (PSA 1993). Specifically, trustees were not required to follow guidance such as the Pensions Regulator’s 2013 “Action Pack” or the “Scorpion Leaflet,” and in this case, the trustee had not assumed any responsibility that could give rise to a higher duty of care.

This determination confirms TPO’s position that for statutory transfers made between February 2013 and November 2021, trustees’ duties were limited to meeting the legislative criteria under PSA 1993. It also sets a clear legal framework that will guide TPO’s approach to similar complaints in the future.

Further TPO decisions are expected, covering transfers from personal pension schemes (regulated by the FCA and possibly within the Financial Ombudsman Service’s jurisdiction) and discretionary or non-statutory transfers. Trustees and administrators should monitor these closely, but for now, the ruling provides much-needed clarity on historic transfer obligations.

To read TPO's press release, please click here.

TPR urges pension schemes to tighten security amid rise in impersonation fraud

The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has issued a warning to pension schemes following a rise in impersonation fraud, urging trustees and administrators to "act now" to protect members.

In particular, TPR found that fraudsters are hacking email accounts, intercepting correspondence, and impersonating scheme members to access or redirect pension funds. Some are even using stolen data to set up fake pension accounts, exploiting weak or unsecured login credentials.

TPR’s analysis, which was conducted via its Pension Scams Action Group (PSAG), revealed that 55% of reported victims were aged between 50 and 69. In a blog post, PSAG’s business lead, Paul Sweeney, stressed the urgent need for schemes to strengthen account security, report suspicious activity, and raise member awareness.

Fraudsters are also impersonating trusted brands, including the FCA and the Fraud Compensation Fund. PSAG has already helped take down over 30 high-risk scam sites and is working with City of London Police to issue alerts across the industry. Sweeney stressed that “schemes must tighten security and take action now” and that "every report counts”.

TPR 2025 DB Funding Report shows stronger scheme positions and shorter recovery plans

TPR has published its 2025 annual funding analysis of UK DB and hybrid pension schemes, showing significant improvements in funding levels and shorter recovery plans across the sector. The report covers tranche 18 valuations with effective dates between September 2022 and September 2023, based on data from 1,640 schemes. These valuations pre-date the new DB funding regulations, which take effect from 22 September 2024.

Key findings show that 62% of schemes reported a surplus, more than double the 27% seen in tranche 15. The average funding ratio (assets to liabilities) rose from 89% to 104%, indicating healthier scheme finances across all sizes. Recovery plans have also shortened considerably – only 38% of schemes in this cycle needed to submit a recovery plan, compared to 73% in the previous cycle. Among schemes still in deficit, the average recovery plan length fell from 6.3 to 4.4 years. Notably, 86% of schemes with deficits in both cycles shortened their plans, with over half bringing forward their end dates by more than three years. The median recovery plan end date is now 2027.

Overall, the report reflects stronger funding positions and accelerated journeys to full funding for many DB schemes – this leaves many schemes in a position to look to buy-out or whether to "run on" their investments whilst in a strong funding position – and this in turn means a new risk for PTL insurers to factor in.

To read the report, please click here.

TPR proposes smarter, risk-based enforcement strategy

On 16 September 2025, TPR launched a consultation proposing a refreshed enforcement strategy designed to make its regulatory approach more targeted, strategic and outcomes-focused. While the consultation doesn’t seek to amend TPR’s existing powers, it outlines key changes to how those powers may be used in future.

TPR currently holds wide-ranging enforcement powers which span regulatory notices, financial penalties, criminal prosecution, and civil litigation. Under the proposed strategy, the focus would shift to earlier, risk-based interventions aimed at preventing harm before it escalates, with a greater emphasis on protecting saver outcomes and building public trust.

Key themes include prioritising the most serious threats to savers and the pensions system, enhancing collaboration across teams and with external stakeholders, and using data analytics to drive smarter decision-making. Transparency is also a priority, with TPR promising clearer communication and publication of enforcement outcomes.

While the proposals have been criticised as somewhat vague and lacking alignment with the Pension Schemes Bill, they signal a move towards a more prudential and proactive regulatory approach. The consultation is open until 11 November 2025, with a final enforcement strategy expected in early 2026. Industry stakeholders, particularly PTL insurers, should pay close attention as this strategy evolves given the risk to increased enforcement activity.

To read RPC's recent article on this topic, please click here.

False scam flags causing unnecessary pension transfer delays

Thousands of pension transfers are being delayed unnecessarily due to the overuse of scam warning flags, according to new analysis from XPS Group and PensionBee.

Data from XPS shows that 94% of pension transfers reviewed raised at least one red or amber flag under the Conditions for Transfers Regulations 2021. However, Government data from 2023 paints a different picture: out of 290,000 pension transfers, only 2,700 (1%) raised a scam risk flag, and just 300 resulted in a red flag. Most amber-flagged transfers (96%) eventually completed, with the delay often only due to missing information, not scam concerns.

A common reason for amber flags is the presence of overseas investments, which are standard across many UK pension funds. Red flags are frequently triggered by incomplete documentation or failure to confirm MoneyHelper guidance, rather than evidence of fraud.

Despite the rise in red and amber flags, actual fraud cases remain low, with Action Fraud reporting 559 pension fraud cases in 2023 (up from 420 in 2022) yet most were unrelated to transfers. PensionBee warns that current anti-scam legislation, while well-intentioned, is being misapplied.

The focus on the speed of transfers is a risk for trustees trying their best to comply with their transfer due diligence obligations, whilst at the same time wanting to make sure transfers are actioned quickly so there is no criticism that a potential investment opportunity has been lost.

Limitations under collateral warranties

Fri, 03 Oct 2025 08:31:00 +0100

Collateral warranties are typically drafted on bespoke terms. There is no inherent rule that a warrantor will benefit from limitations in the underlying contract as against the beneficiary under any collateral warranty; warranties are subject to their specific terms.

Sports Ticker #137 - Amazon's AR revolution and UFC unleashed at the White House - a speed read of commercial updates from the sports world

Thu, 02 Oct 2025 11:51:00 +0100

From Pitch to Pixels: Amazon shifts the Goal Posts with Augmented Reality
Prime Vision, an alternative live football feed, has debuted in the UK on Amazon Prime during the first round of the UEFA Champions League games. The feed uses augmented reality to display live data, tactical pop-ups, and visuals during the game, with the aim of increasing viewer engagement among Gen Z. YouGov reported in 2023 that only 31% of 18-24 sports fans were watching live matches, compared to 75% of over 55s. The study found that young people prefer to watch highlights, follow athletes on social media or play sports video games. The live visual “enhancements” offer younger viewers a sense of familiarity, with the real-time insights and statistics offered similar to those in popular games. Prime Vision was successfully trialled in 2022 outside of the UK with the NFL, receiving overwhelmingly positive feedback. We're still at kick-off in the UK, but augmented reality may be the future of sports viewing.

Seven Disciplines, One Dispute
An offer to mediate has been floated in an attempt to resolve the ongoing dispute between heptathlete Nafissatou Thiam and Belgian Athletics over the World Athletics Championships in Tokyo last month. The issues began due to conflicts over image rights as Belgian Athletics' code of conduct clashed with Thiam's personal sponsorships. Specifically, the code required athletes to wear the official team kit provided by Asics, but this was inconsistent with Thiam's sponsorship with Nike. Belgian Athletics permitted Thiam to compete without signing the code but allegedly prevented her from joining the pre-camp, which negatively affected her Championship preparations. These events culminated in Thiam pulling out of the heptathlon, deeming the Championships a “real black cloud.” Following Thiam's withdrawal from the competition, Sports Minister Jacqueline Galant has offered to mediate the dispute and plans to meet with officials from Belgian Athletics, aiming to start constructive dialogue between the parties.

Striking Out in London: MLB Benches 2026 Games
Major League Baseball (MLB) has cancelled plans to stage two games in London between the New York Yankees and Toronto Blue Jays. The games, scheduled for June 2026, could not go ahead due to difficulties converting the London Stadium into a baseball field in time. MLB attempted to reschedule for later in the month, but US broadcaster Fox was unable to air the fixtures because of clashes with its coverage of the men’s FIFA World Cup. The last London MLB games, held in 2024, delivered an economic benefit of £56.5 million to the capital. Despite the setback, MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred confirmed that the league “remain interested in Europe”, though also indicated intentions to grow in Asia and Mexico.

Mercury13 kicks off English Era with Bristol City Women
Mercury13, the multi-club women's investment fund, has acquired a majority stake in Bristol City Women in what has been deemed a “pivotal moment” for the football club's future. Bristol City Women is currently owned by Stephen Lansdown, who will retain a minority shareholding in the club along with control of the men's side and the Bristol Bears rugby teams. The deal remains subject to league approval. Commenting on the recent events, Lansdown stated, “we have always said we would look at investment if it was the right partner at the right time, and I believe now is that time for City Women.” Mercury13 has echoed this sentiment, stating that their entry into English football is a major milestone and that Bristol City Women represents everything they look for in a club.

Politics & Punches: White House to host the UFC

US President Donald Trump has said that he is keen to host the UFC in Summer 2026 to celebrate Independence Day and commemorate 250 years of the USA. The official government X page posted a mock-up of the UFC Octagon on the South Lawn of the White House, showing an epic scene with a large arch over the cage, multiple viewing screens, and fireworks. The event is set to seat 5,000 people and will use wide angle cameras to capture the fights, scenes of the White House and Washington Monument. The UFC CEO Dana White, a long-time supporter of Donald Trump, has promised to “build the greatest card of all time for the White House.” Conor McGregor has confirmed his return to face long-time rival Michael Chandler, requesting $100 million and “100 U.S. Golden Visas” as his comeback fee, though UFC has not yet revealed the official card. For UFC and sporting fans alike, this event is not to be missed – watch this space for updates!

Extra time...

…and finally, fears that the World Conker Championships will be cancelled have emerged due to the unsuitable nature of this year's conkers. Organiser Charles Whalley theorises that the summer's heatwaves have caused trees to shed their conkers before reaching their full size. The measurably smaller conkers have resulted in concerns that they may crack when prepared for use in the competition, a delicate process involving drilling a hole through the centre of each chestnut. The Championships have taken place each autumn since 1965, and approximately 3,000 conker enthusiasts are expected to attend on 12 October. Attempting to save this year's competition, organisers have been resorting to desperate measures including freezing any useable conkers or preserving them in buckets of water. The fate of the event is set to be announced by 3 October, leaving fans and participants anxiously awaiting to hear whether the organisers' efforts have saved the day.

Tribunal grants taxpayer's application for disclosure against HMRC in Kittel appeal

Thu, 02 Oct 2025 10:00:00 +0100

In CIS-Pay Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 00751 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) granted the appellant's application for disclosure of all material within HMRC's possession that might assist the appellant's case or undermine HMRC's case.

Tax Bites - October 2025

Wed, 01 Oct 2025 09:39:00 +0100

News

HMRC has published Guidance on what to do if you owe money to HMRC

HMRC has published Guidance on the steps taxpayers should take if they owe tax or penalties.

The online tool provides guidance, support, and information on:

checking if a letter received from HMRC is genuine;
getting extra support due to health or personal circumstances;
making a payment;
disagreeing with a tax decision or penalty;
getting help with signing in to HMRC online services;
what help is available if a taxpayer cannot pay their tax on time; and
what will happen if a taxpayer does not pay their tax bill.

HMRC has published Guidance on reporting Pillar 2 Top-up Taxes in the UK

HMRC has published Guidance explaining the reporting requirements for Pillar 2 Top-up Taxes in the UK (the Domestic Top-up Tax and Multinational Top-up Tax).

A group must register for Pillar 2 Top-up Taxes if it has:

at least one entity located in the UK; and
a consolidated group annual revenue of 750 million euros or more, in at least two of the previous four accounting periods.

If these criteria are met, the group needs to register with the service regardless of whether any Top-up Tax is payable.

Further practical guidance on registering to report Pillar 2 Top-up Taxes is available here.

HMRC has published guidelines that assist in ensuring documents filed with HMRC are correct and complete

HMRC has published guidelines outlining what steps should be taken to ensure that documents submitted to HMRC are correct and complete.

The guidelines can be found here and cover:

HMRC’s view on how to choose an interpretation of the law that is, on balance, most likely correct;
the importance of all facts and views of the law being correct and complete to the best of a taxpayer's knowledge;
recommended approaches when taking professional advice;
help to resolve any remaining uncertainty;
HMRC’s expectations of advisers; and
practical examples of how to handle tax uncertainty.

HMRC has published Guidance and an online tool in respect of overpayment relief for Corporation Tax

HMRC has published Guidance and an on-line tool to assist taxpayers in deciding whether to apply for Corporation Tax overpayment relief.

The online tool enables taxpayers to ascertain if they should make a claim for Corporation Tax overpayment relief. It also outlines how to make a claim and explains reasons why a claim may not be successful. The time limit for making a claim is four years from the end of the relevant accounting period.

Case reports

Tribunal refuses HMRC permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal against two case management decisions

In BGC Services Holdings LLP v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 700 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) refused HMRC permission to appeal against its earlier decisions whereby it refused HMRC's application seeking further and better particulars from the taxpayer and granted the taxpayer's application that HMRC properly particularise its case.

Given HMRC's failure to provide reasons, it is surprising that HMRC sought further and better particulars from BGC and maintained this position in its application to the FTT for permission to appeal. HMRC are expected to make an application to the Upper Tribunal (UT), which was acknowledged by the FTT, for permission to appeal to the UT. It will be interesting to see whether HMRC proceed with such an application and if it does, whether it will receive a more sympathetic hearing before the UT. Given the circumstances, one would hope not.

You can read our commentary on the decision here.

Tribunal allows taxpayers’ appeals in principle private residence and trading dispute

In R Eyre and another v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 461 (TC), the FTT allowed the taxpayers' appeals against HMRC’s decision to assess income tax on the sale of a residential property. The FTT rejected HMRC’s argument that the transaction was an 'adventure in the nature of trade' and found that the property qualified for principal private residence (PPR) relief.

This decision provides useful guidance on two recurring issues in property tax cases, namely, whether a transaction amounts to trading and whether short-term occupation can attract PPR relief. The decision reinforces the principle that:

PPR relief is available where a property is genuinely occupied as a main residence, even for a relatively short period of time; and
the redevelopment and resale of a property, even at a substantial gain, does not necessarily imply the existence of a trade.

This case also highlights the importance of contemporaneous evidence demonstrating residential intention and use. It illustrates the challenges HMRC can face when attempting to re-characterise property transactions as income-generating trades. Taxpayers engaged in high-value property development or refurbishment should ensure that the nature of their use and intentions are well documented and consistent with their tax position.

You can read our commentary on the decision here.

Upper Tribunal allows taxpayers' appeals in EIS case

In Hugh Edward Mark Osmond and Matthew Charles Allen v HMRC [2025] UKUT 00183 (TCC), the UT allowed the taxpayers' appeals, concluding that the FTT had erred in law and that the main purpose of crystallising Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) relief was not the obtaining of an income tax advantage, even though this may have been its effect.

This decision has prevented HMRC from extending the scope of the Transactions in Securities regime beyond its intended purpose and reinforces the importance of examining a taxpayer's actual subjective intention - something the UT noted aligns with how practitioners have long understood the rules to operate.

The decision also serves as a reminder that taxpayers should clearly document their commercial intentions at the time the relevant transaction is entered into. It will be interesting to see if HMRC seek to appeal this decision to the Court of Appeal.

You can read our commentary on the decision here.

And finally …

In collaboration with Temple Tax Chambers, our latest Tax Take webinar series explores the UK tax landscape and key considerations for professionals and business leaders seeking insights into the often-complex world of tax.

Through a series of webinars hosted by tax experts from RPC and Temple Tax Chambers, we will be exploring the following topics:

Research & Development tax reliefs | Thursday, 2 October, 1200–1300
Hosted by: Stephen Morse, Barrister at Temple Tax Chambers and Alexis Armitage, Senior Associate at RPC

HMRC's information powers | Wednesday, 5 November, 1200–1300
Hosted by: Keith Gordon, Barrister at Temple Tax Chambers and Daniel Williams, Associate at RPC

Register here

Spotlight on Private Wealth - September 2025

Tue, 30 Sep 2025 09:24:00 +0100

This update is designed to keep you on top of developments in the private wealth world. In this edition, we explore "the Moth Case", reforms to the law on wills, and secret trusts.

We hope you find this update helpful and interesting. As always, if you would like to find out more about the issues covered or discuss anything else, please do get in touch.

The big question

The Moth Case: buyers and sellers beware?

Caveat emptor or "buyer beware" is one of the oldest principles in English law and it has recently been examined by the court in a case known as the "Moth Case"[1].

The basic facts are these. A mansion in Notting Hill was sold for £32.5m. After moving in, the buyers discovered a massive moth infestation in the wool insulation between the walls of the house. The problem was so bad that, at times, the buyers were exterminating 100 moths each day. To remove all traces of the infestation would have required a huge scheme of remedial works costing millions of pounds. However, instead of trying to remedy the infestation themselves, the buyers sued the seller and asked the court to force him to take the property back.

Unravelling the court's decision

The buyers were successful. The court decided that the usual principle of caveat emptor did not apply because the seller had made false representations to the buyers during the sale process.

When asked whether the property had ever been affected by a "vermin infestation" the seller answered "no". Similarly, he asserted that he had never obtained any reports in relation to "vermin infestation" at the property, and that he was not aware of any defects that would not have been apparent to the buyers upon inspection. These statements were all found to be false.

A buyer who has relied on a false representation by a seller when entering a contract is entitled to have the contract rescinded, and for the parties to be restored to the position they were in before the contract was completed.

In the Moth Case, the court found that the seller had known that his statements were untrue – and it transpired that he had previously made various attempts to eradicate the infestation before he sold the property.

The seller tried to raise various defences during the trial. For example, he asserted that: (a) moths were not "vermin"; (b) he did not make the statements to the buyers (but rather their solicitors); and (c) the claim should fail because the parties could no longer be restored to their original positions. However, the court had little sympathy for these arguments.

After the dust settles

The case is a reminder that pre-acquisition enquiries are an important part of the conveyancing process. Whilst it may be tempting in certain circumstances, the provision of misleading responses to a buyer's questions, or stretching the natural meaning of language to suit one's own purposes, is unlikely to be in a seller's best interest. As the Moth Case illustrates, sellers who adopt this approach are exposing themselves to serious legal and financial consequences.

What's new?

Rethinking wills: new protections and freedoms proposed by the Law Commission

The Law Commission of England and Wales has published its long-awaited report which proposes sweeping reforms to the law governing wills, marking the first comprehensive review since 1837. The recommendations aim to ensure the law remains fit for purpose in modern society, balancing testamentary freedom with increased protections for vulnerable individuals.

Supporting testamentary freedom

Measures supporting testamentary freedom - the right for individuals to decide how their estate is distributed - are central to the reforms. Key proposals include a new “dispensing power”. This would allow courts to validate wills that did not meet the strict formal requirements, if the testator’s intentions were otherwise clear. The report also recommends allowing children under the age of 18 to make wills, lowering the minimum age for from 18 to 16, with courts empowered to authorise will-making by younger children in exceptional circumstances.

Protecting vulnerable testators

To counteract the risks of undue influence and financial abuse, the Law Commission recommends that courts have the power to infer undue influence when there is evidence which provides reasonable grounds to suspect it. This would shift the evidentiary burden from those seeking to challenge the will to those seeking to uphold it. The rules invalidating gifts to witnesses are to be extended to include their cohabitants and those signing on behalf of the testator, further safeguarding against conflicts of interest. Notably, the Commission recommends abolishing the rule that marriage or civil partnership automatically revokes an existing will, addressing concerns about "predatory marriage" (marrying someone knowing that will revoke a will they have made leaving property to their children from a previous relationship).

Increasing clarity and certainty and embracing technology

The report advocates for adopting a statutory presumption of and test for capacity. A code of practice for assessing capacity is also proposed. Provision for electronic wills is recommended, provided robust security measures are in place, reflecting the digital evolution of legal documents.

The report is accompanied by a draft bill. If enacted, these reforms will bring about greatest change in wills law in nearly 200 years. The Law Commission's recommendations now sit with the government - watch this space!

HMRC may be underestimating tax avoidance by the wealthy

A recent report by the National Audit Office (NAO) indicates that tax avoidance and evasion among wealthy individuals in the UK may be more prevalent than previously estimated by HMRC.

In 2023–24, individuals earning over £200k annually or with assets exceeding £2m, contributed £119bn in personal taxes, representing 25% of total personal tax receipts. However, HMRC's compliance yield, the additional tax collected through enforcement efforts, has doubled from £2.2bn in 2019–20 to £5.2bn in 2023–24.

This increase suggests that the tax gap among the wealthy could be significantly higher than the previously estimated £1.9bn. The NAO report also highlights concerns over offshore tax evasion, noting that HMRC's 2018–19 estimate of £300m in lost revenue likely understates the full extent of offshore non-compliance.

The NAO urges HMRC to improve transparency and develop a clear strategic vision to ensure that all tax legally due is collected.

The NAO's report can be viewed here.

RPC asks

What is a secret trust?

A secret trust is one of those intriguing quirks of English law. Someone writes a will, apparently leaving everything to a particular person. But behind the scenes, there’s an understanding: the recipient is actually meant to hold the property for someone else’s benefit. The trust is “secret” because it isn’t mentioned in the will itself.

For a secret trust to be valid, three things must be established: (1) the testator’s clear intention to create a trust (using imperative, not just wishful, language), (2) communication of this intention to the person they are leaving the property to, and (3) acceptance of the trust by the recipient of the gift.

In a recent case[2], the Court of Appeal decided that allegations that a secret trust had been created should be determined at a court hearing, when a judge had previously decided that the claim was too vague to go ahead. The testator had left his entire estate to his civil partner. His brother claimed that the testator had left property to his partner to avoid inheritance tax, on the understanding that she would then make gifts to his siblings. He claimed that there was a secret trust and that the civil partner held half of the estate on trust for the testator's siblings.

The court noted that the evidence was patchy, but that documents hinted at a "plan" between the testator and his partner. The partner and witnesses had not yet provided detailed evidence which would be needed to decide if there was a secret trust. It ordered the hearing of the claim to go ahead.

The statutory residence test and exceptional circumstances - what are they?

A court recently allowed a taxpayer's appeal and agreed that the "exceptional circumstances" exemption for the statutory residence test was satisfied. Read all about it here.

How can you get rid of a trustee?

Most professionally drafted trust deeds include express provisions for the removal of trustees. If no such provisions exist, or the trust has arisen other than by a deed, the law provides other routes to remove trustees, and the court can intervene.

In a recent case[3], the Earl of Yarmouth brought a claim to remove and replace two trust corporations. Following a breakdown in family relations, the Earl alleged that the trustees were siding with his parents which posed a risk to the proper administration of his family's £85m estate.

The court ultimately dismissed the claim on the basis that it was not "well founded" and decided that the trustees had acted in accordance with both their duties and the trust deed. The court said that the Earl's view of the trustees was simply a "feature of the damaged and fractured" relationship with his parents which was not sufficient to justify their removal. It reiterated that the trustee's removal from office must be required for the welfare of the beneficiaries generally or necessary for the protection of the trust. It emphasised that there must be evidence of misconduct by the trustee, which is a high threshold for an applicant to meet.

And finally in the art world…

Art dealer prosecuted under the Terrorism Act: a warning signal for the art market

The recent conviction of art dealer Oghenochuko Ojiri under the Terrorism Act 2000 is the first prosecution of its kind in the UK and has sent shockwaves through the art world. Ojiri a familiar face from BBC’s Antiques Road Trip, was sentenced to two and a half years in prison for failing to declare sales of artwork to Nazem Ahmad, a suspected financier of Hezbollah, an organisation proscribed as terrorist by UK authorities.

Ojiri’s case is a stark reminder of the risks facing art market participants in today’s regulatory landscape. Despite being aware that Ahmad was sanctioned by US authorities in 2019, Ojiri proceeded with multiple secret sales, even omitting Ahmad’s name from paperwork. The judge found that Ojiri’s actions undermined efforts to detect terrorist financing, highlighting the critical role of due diligence in the sector.

Since January 2020, art dealers, galleries, and intermediaries trading in works of art valued at €10k or more have been brought into the regulated sector under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017. This means they are now subject to stringent anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing measures including customer due diligence, record keeping, and mandatory reporting of suspicious activity. Ojiri, as a regulated art dealer, was found guilty of offences of failing to disclose information during the course of business in the regulated sector when knowing, suspecting or having reasonable grounds for suspecting another person has committed or attempted to commit an offence under sections 15 to 18 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

The case underscores the importance of “knowing your client” in the art market. Art dealers must be vigilant, not only to protect their businesses but also to avoid inadvertently facilitating criminal or terrorist activity. In February last year, the National Crime Agency issued an amber warning highlighting the use by criminals of art storage facilities to store art, as a capital asset, that can appreciate over time and be liquidated when required.

With law enforcement increasingly focused on the art market, robust compliance is no longer optional. Regulated individuals in the art market must familiarise themselves with anti-money laundering guidelines and ensure all staff are trained to spot red flags. To assist art dealers in complying with their regulatory requirements the British Art Market Federation published these guidelines which have been approved by HM Treasury.

FOS Complaints Newsletter - September 2025

Mon, 29 Sep 2025 14:36:00 +0100

Download the full PDF including graphs at bottom of page.

FOS complaints data runs from 1 April to 30 March. This newsletter focusses on the first quarter covering 1 April to 30 June 2025.

We look at total complaints at FOS but also drill down to specific areas – pensions (SIPPs and pension transfers), investment advice, residential mortgages and complaints against claims management companies.

Trends

The complaints data in this newsletter covers FOS Q1 (April to June) but the developments we have seen for the period March to August 2025 include:

FOS reforms – The Chancellor presented a package of reforms with the intention of stopping the FOS from acting as a 'quasi regulator' and returning it to its original role, being that of a simple, impartial dispute resolution service. The key proposals were covered in an FCA press release and include:
- FOS' 'fair and reasonable' test is to be retained but, in circumstances where a firm complied with the FCA's rules, this will mean FOS is required to determine that the firm has acted fairly and reasonably. This may add a greater degree of certainty for financial services firms. However, this ties in with a requirement that the FOS refers an issue to the FCA for determination where there is uncertainty about the application of FCA rules. In our experience, the FCA tends to take a fairly consumer friendly interpretation and so it is questionable if this change will mean a substantively different approach.
- A proposal to introduce an 'absolute' limit of 10 years from the conduct complained of to bring complaints to the FOS. This is a welcome proposal, as it has long been a criticism that FOS complaints were not subject to a 'longstop' in the same was as a civil claim, albeit there are likely to be carve outs to any longstop.
- It has also been confirmed that the interest rate applicable to some FOS awards will be changed from 8% to Bank of England Base rate +1% - this is another welcome change given that the standard 8% rate could feel punitive.
Charges for professional representatives – FOS has decided to introduce charging for professional representatives who bring more than 10 complaints per year. This measure is intended to discourage claims management companies from wasting FOS' finite resources on dealing with poorly articulated complaints. It will be interesting to see whether this change has a bearing on complaint levels going forward.
Vehicle Finance Commission – the Supreme Court handed down judgment in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Limited. In a landmark ruling, and much to the delight of the consumer finance industry, the Supreme Court ruled that finance brokers (who in this case were motor dealers) do not owe a fiduciary duty to consumers and consumers are not entitled to claim back commission paid to a broker from the lender. The Financial Conduct Authority has confirmed that it will consult on a consumer redress scheme, with the consultation due in October this year. However, following the Supreme Court Judgment, the estimated level of redress has now reduced drastically to £9-18 billion.

What to look out for in the next quarter

CMC case fees – it will be interesting to see whether the introduction of CMC case fees results in fewer complaints being brought to FOS by professional representatives.
Vehicle Finance Commission – following the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision, we await the FCA's consultation on a consumer redress scheme.
Pure Protection Products – the FCA has published a study into the pure protection market, but by the end of the year we are expecting the FCA's review of the pure protection market where its looking at the market through the consumer duty lens including issues such as the distribution model for pure protection products.

Total Complaints Data 2018 to 2025

There has been a drop in complaints received by FOS between Q4 2024/2025 and Q1 2025/2026, but if current complaint volumes continue, they are on course to be higher than in 2023/2024. Across all financial products and complaint issues, the latest data set shows FOS upheld 31% of all resolved complaints in favour of consumers, which is slightly lower than the previous quarter.

In first quarter of 2025/2026 FOS saw:

Total new complaints: 68,029 (down from the 87,692 total new complaints made in the last quarter (in Q4 2025/2026) but significantly more than the 43,953 total new complaints made during the same period in 2023/2024 (in Q1 2023/2024).
Average uphold rate: 31%
Most complained about products: The most complained about issue – motor finance commission – albeit the number of complaints dropped from 37,200 cases in Q4 of 2024/2025 to 24,300 cases in Q1 of 2025/2026.

Pensions

SIPPs

In Q1 of 2025/2026, there were 182 new cases (down from 275 new cases in Q4 of 2024/2025) with an average uphold rate of 60.9% (up from 56% in Q4 of 2024/2025).

In the same period in of 2023/2024 (Q1) there were 363 new cases with an average uphold rate of just 11%.

The number of complaints about SIPPs in Q1 of 2025/2026 has dropped considerably from the average of 328.5 per quarter in 2024/2025, however, the average uphold rate has increased from 50.33% per quarter for 2024/2025 to 60.9% for Q1 of 2025/2026).

Occupational Pension Transfers

In Q1 of 2025/2026, there were 78 new cases (up from 98 new cases in Q4 of 2024/2025) with an average uphold of 66% (up from an average uphold rate of 50% in Q4 of 2024/2025).
In the same period of 2023/2024 (Q1) there were 219 new cases with an average uphold rate of 48%.
This category does not necessarily capture all occupational pension transfer complaints being that complaints regarding advice to transfer out of defined benefit schemes may fall under the advice complaint category.

Advice Complaints

In Q1 of 2025/2026, there were 194 new cases (down from 264 new cases in Q4 of 2024/2025) with an average uphold of 30% (down from 47.5% in Q4 of 2024/2025).
In the same period of 2023/2024 (Q1) there were 358 new cases with an average uphold rate of 29%.

Residential Mortgages

In Q1 of 2025/2026, there were 1,206 new cases (down from 1,288 new cases in Q4 of 2024/2025) with an average uphold of 26% (down from 30.2% in Q4 of 2024/2025).
In the same period of 2023/2024 (Q1) there were 1672 new cases with an average uphold rate of 27%.
This category relates to all complaints regarding residential mortgages, to include bridging loans, first charge mortgages, help to buy loans and second charge loans. It has remained broadly consistent over the years generating a high number of complaints.

Claims Management Companies

FOS has not yet published its complaints data relating to Claims Management Companies for Q1 of 2025/2026 (possibly because of low complaint volumes).
In Q4 of 2025/2026, there were just 41 new cases with an average uphold of less than 30%.
In the same period of 2023/2024 (Q1) there were 61 new cases with an average uphold rate of 45%.
Numbers are relatively low with a sharp year on year decline from over 1,300 in 2019/2020 to just 113 in 2024/2025 (there was no data published for Q2 of 2024/2025).

Other FOS Developments – March to June 2025

Whilst FOS continue to see a high level of complaints brought by professional representatives particularly regarding hire purchase, credit cards and current accounts, they are on the decline and there are likely to be even fewer complaints brought through this channel in the next quarter as a result of the CMC charging rules.

FOS' data shows that the number of new cases concerning fraud and scams relating to authorised push payments has significantly dropped and anticipate that they will continue to do so.

Complaints about motor hire purchase continue to be the most complained about product although there has been a significant reduction this quarter.

Relevant RPC Blogs

Download the full PDF including graphs below.

Lawyers Covered - September 2025

Mon, 29 Sep 2025 11:55:00 +0100

Access to justice or consumer harm? The SRA targets risks in bulk claims

In August 2025, the SRA concluded its thematic review of the high-volume consumer claims sector, highlighting widespread compliance failings that pose risks to consumers. The move follows a series of firm collapses, most notably SSB Law, which went into administration after defaulting on litigation funding obligations tied to thousands of cavity wall claims. Clients who believed their cases were protected under no-win, no-fee arrangements were instead left exposed to adverse legal costs, in some cases up to £40,000, due to inadequate insurance cover.

The SRA identified systemic weaknesses across the sector, including poor client communication, inadequate due diligence on funders, insufficient information on costs and funding options, weak oversight of referrers, and failures in arranging appropriate ATE insurance. Financial overextension was flagged as a particular concern, with some firms taking on unsustainable levels of litigation funding relative to turnover, jeopardising both financial viability and regulatory compliance. Of 25 firms visited during the review, nine are now under investigation.

The regulator also drew attention to the expansion of bulk-claims firms, closely tied to growth in the litigation funding market. When SSB Law collapsed, it held 43,000 claims and owed £200 million to six funders, illustrating the scale of exposure for both clients and investors. Wider regulatory concerns have been echoed by the Civil Justice Council, which in June 2025 recommended new consumer protections in litigation funding, and by joint SRA–FCA warnings around bulk claims in the motor finance sector.

In response, the SRA has taken the unprecedented step of requiring firms that it perceives as high-risk to complete a mandatory declaration confirming that they understand their regulatory duties and that they are following them. The value of such a move is uncertain, as what firm is ever going to answer "no, we don't understand our regulatory duties"? And what will be the implications of answering "yes I understand" and then later reporting or being found not to have complied? Will this prompt the SRA to add a dishonesty charge on the basis of the declaration?

Meanwhile, the SRA is progressing 89 investigations and has raised its 2025/2026 budget by 19% to tackle rising complaints and replenish an increasingly strained compensation fund. With regulatory scrutiny intensifying, bulk-claims firms can expect sustained oversight and robust enforcement. See our article here for a deep dive into the SRA's review and risks arising out of the growth of the bulk-claims and litigation funding markets.

Law Society calls for urgent improvements on SRA's part

As the approved regulator of the solicitors' profession under the Legal Services Act 2007, the Law Society (via its Council) delegates its regulatory functions to the SRA – an independent body.

In January 2025, the Society wrote to the SRA to request information and assurances of the SRA’s compliance with its statutory duty under section 28 of the Act – ie the duty to promote the regulatory objectives.

The request invited the SRA Board to provide information and assurances relating to aspects of the Legal Services Board's review of the regulatory events leading up to the SRA's intervention into Axiom Ince. The LSB had previously concluded that, in respect of that intervention:

The SRA did not act adequately, effectively and efficiently.
The SRA did not take all the steps it could or should have taken.
The SRA’s actions and omissions necessitate change in its procedures to mitigate the possibility of a similar situation arising again.

Following receipt of the SRA's responses, and following subsequent Council meetings called to assess the adequacy of the SRA’s responses, the Council concluded that the information provided was insufficient to confirm compliance with its section 28 duties during the critical period before and during the intervention of Axiom Ince, citing serious shortcomings in the SRA’s operational efficiency, decision-making, and governance —particularly regarding the protection of client funds and timely reporting. To quote the Society's concerns about the intervention:

"It is difficult to think of a matter more urgent and important than the protection of consumer and public interest in the specific circumstances that prevailed at the time, and to ensure the prevention of foreseeable consumer losses amounting to tens of millions of pounds."

The Council partially accepted the SRA’s commitment to improve its governance and operational processes, and it hopes to rebuild trust in the ability and commitment of the SRA. However, the Council notes that ongoing evidence will be required to demonstrate effective implementation of action plans and to demonstrate progress towards compliance with its regulatory duties.

The Council will continue to monitor the SRA and has reserved its right to request more information from the SRA and expects ongoing engagement and updated assurances at future meetings (the first of which is scheduled for October 2025).

The Society's letter should provide some comfort to the profession at large that the statutory regulator is taking its duties seriously by holding its independent bodies to account. This may also spell a step change in the regulators' approach to mergers, acquisitions, and interventions.

New failure to prevent fraud offence now in force

The recent introduction of a new "failure to prevent fraud" offence under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) will look to add greater repercussions for large organisations who fall short of their duty to maintain updated compliance and anti-fraud measures. The new offence applies to organisations that meet at least two of the following criteria: 250 or more employees, a turnover of £36m or more, and/or assets of £18m or more.

The offence covers a broad range of conduct, including false accounting and tax evasion, and applies to overseas companies with links to the UK. Organisations that fail to comply with ECCTA may face exposure to prosecution, regulatory sanctions, and unlimited fines. Further, the legislation will simplify UK authorities' ability to hold organisations liable if they have failed to maintain updated compliance procedures. In addition to the risk of undermining any defence an organisation may wish to plead in response to prosecution, failure to maintain adequate compliance procedures may also attract exposure to claims of professional negligence, especially if such failure results in criminal liability or regulatory action.

Accordingly, the ECCTA emphasises the heightened expectation and importance of law firms being able to demonstrate preservation of stringent, up-to-date, anti-fraud procedures, which aim to identify and tackle risks of circumstances in which fraud could occur through the course of the firm's business operations. These antifraud procedures include:

Reviewing and updating anti-fraud policies and procedures.
Conducting regular risk assessments and documenting findings.
Implementing and maintaining effective whistleblowing and reporting mechanisms.
Providing ongoing training to staff and relevant third parties.
Monitoring and refreshing compliance provisions in contracts.

Law firms should be able to show that they have clear anti-fraud procedures in place and that these are regularly reviewed. It is important to keep improving these measures to address new types of fraud as criminals are constantly evolving, especially as technology such as deepfake and generative AI becomes more sophisticated and widely available. Taking these steps can help protect firms and may support their position in the event that fraud occurs.

Use of data to identify patterns of fraud is a legitimate use under GPDR

In a decision likely to be particularly relevant to insurers and defendant firms, the High Court recently dismissed a data protection claim brought by three claimants against law firm DWF Law LLP. In Yesim Kul & Ors v DWF Law LLP [2025] EWHC 1824 (KB) it was claimed D had breached the individuals' rights as data subjects in using their data for an application to dismiss personal injury claims for fundamental dishonesty.

The claimants' names and health data had been included in a spreadsheet exhibited to a witness statement as a means to identify patterns in groups of road traffic accident claims, including those brought by the claimants' own solicitors. D denied that any breach had occurred.

In judgment, Mrs Justice Eady determined D had undertaken the data processing "for a specified, explicit and legitimate purpose" and as part of D's professional obligations to its clients, to ensure the proper administration of justice and in furtherance of the legitimate interests of its clients.

The hearing also included evidence given for the claimants from a solicitor who appeared to have been hired purely for the purpose of dealing with the litigation and, as such, could not give evidence from his own knowledge; but rather only from documents that he had seen or about what he had been told. Mrs Justice Eady described the situation as "extraordinary" following his inability to explain why he was giving evidence other than because he had been paid to do so.

The judgment serves as a helpful guide for lawyers on the scope of lawful processing of personal data in the course of litigation and as a reminder to ensure that witnesses called are individuals who can give evidence on the substance of the dispute from their own knowledge, where possible.

The claim is reportedly under appeal and the Court of Appeal's judgment will be essential reading, especially for defendant firms.

Legal advice privilege as between company and shareholder (HK)

The landmark judgment of the Judicial Committee of the UK Privy Council (UKPC) in Re Jardine Strategic Ltd [2025] UKPC 34 has attracted much attention in England and Wales and Hong Kong. In short, the UKPC decided that the "shareholder rule" – that a company generally cannot claim legal advice privilege to withhold documents from a shareholder except where the advice relates to litigation with the shareholder – is not part of Bermudan common law, and nor should it be recognised as part of English law. Therefore, the "shareholder rule" has been abolished in England and Wales.

The considerable interest in Hong Kong is in large part explained by the following:

for now, Hong Kong common law recognises the "shareholder rule": Re NDT (BVI) Trading Ltd [2009] 2 HKLRD 409 (a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the High Court);
disputes between companies and shareholders are prevalent in the Hong Kong courts and arise in all manner of circumstances, including (for example) – unfair prejudice petitions, derivative actions and shareholder access to corporate documents; and
the historical treatment of UKPC and UK Supreme Court (UKSC) judgments in Hong Kong before and after Hong Kong's "reunification" with the People's Republic of China in 1997.

All this begs an important question: how likely is it that the Hong Kong courts will follow the reasoning in UKPC's judgment in Re Jardine Strategic Ltd and abolish the "shareholder rule"?

For now, the safer course for a first instance court may be to follow Re NDT (BVI) Trading Ltd and apply the "shareholder rule" – thereby, applying local common law – in the knowledge that the issues raised are deserving of appellate court deliberation. The issues raised – against a background of legal advice privilege – are of fundamental public importance (to clients and lawyers) and, in the right case, would make their way to Hong Kong's "top court" (the Court of Final Appeal to which eminent overseas non-permanent judges are appointed).

Since 1 July 1997, judgments of the UKSC and UKPC are accorded great respect by the Hong Kong courts, but they are not binding; their persuasiveness depends on relevant and local circumstances. However, in the apparent absence of any local circumstances that detract from the UKPC's reasoning in Re Jardine Strategic Ltd and given similar positions in Australia and Canada, it appears the survival of the "shareholder rule" is on rather shaky ground in Hong Kong – a jurisdiction in which legal advice privilege has a rock-solid (granite) foundation.

With thanks to our additional contributors: Dan Lewis, Aimee Talbot, Sally Lord and Cat Zakarias-Welch.

The Week That Was - 26 September 2025

Fri, 26 Sep 2025 15:42:00 +0100

Green light for Gatwick's second runway

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander has granted development consent on 21 September for Gatwick Airport to bring its northern runway into regular use. The project, valued at £2.2bn, will realign the standby runway 12 meters north, enabling it to handle departing aircrafts only. The project will also include improvements to existing infrastructure, such as to the terminal building and taxiways. Some observers were concerned that the development project amounted to building a new runway, which would be a breach of national policy. However, Secretary Alexander disagreed and found the programme to be compliant with the Making Best Use policy, concluding that this project is reconfiguring existing infrastructure. The project is forecast to increase Gatwick's annual passenger capacity to 75.6 million by 2038.

The full article can be found here.

Mace to begin work on £200m Bankside office in 2026

Mace will begin work in early 2026 on the Row One office complex, previously called Red Lion Court, in Southwark. A new joint venture between Stanhope (minority investor) and Cheyne Capital has bought the Row One site from Landsec. Stanhope will manage delivery of the scheme with completion scheduled for 2028. The site will deliver approximately 235,000sq ft of office space and 15,000sq ft of retail and food space. Additionally, the site will have 724 bike spaces, 54 showers as well as a new public realm. Other companies involved in the scheme include cost consultant Gardiner & Theobald, project manager CPC, M&E engineer Hilson Moran and sustainability engineer Arup.

The full article can be found here.

Meet the new Building Safety and Construction Ministers

The Government has carried out a minister reshuffle following Angela Rayner's resignation as Housing Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister after it came to light that she had underpaid stamp duty on a property purchase.

The Government announced Samantha Dixon as the new Building Safety Minister. Dixon is the MP for Chester North and Neston and was first elected as an MP in 2022. Her new role encompasses all areas of building safety, which includes handling the Grenfell Inquiry responses plus implementing building safety reforms and regulations.

Chris McDonald has been appointed as the Construction Minister. McDonald is the MP for Stockton North and is a Fellow at the Royal Academy of Engineering. His responsibilities include overseeing the construction sector and developing policies and strategy across the Department for Business and Trade and the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero.

You can find out about other government appointments here.

Eden Project Visionary Sir Nicholas Grimshaw Dies at 85

Sir Nicholas Grimshaw, renowned British architect best known for designing the Eden Project in Cornwall, has died aged 85. Founder of the Grimshaw architectural firm in 1980, he was celebrated for innovative, sustainable designs like the Eden Project’s iconic biomes, inspired by soap bubbles and built in a former clay pit.

Grimshaw also designed the International Terminal at London’s Waterloo Station, which won the RIBA Building of the Year Award in 1994, and The Ship building in Plymouth.

Knighted in 2002 for services to architecture, he served as president of the Royal Academy (2004–2011) and later established the Grimshaw Foundation to promote creativity and sustainability among youth. Known for his curiosity, collaborative leadership, and dedication to purposeful design, his work seamlessly blended architecture with landscape.

Tributes praised his visionary contributions and enduring impact on the built environment. He is survived by his wife, Lady Lavinia, and daughters, Chloe and Isabel.

Find out more here and here [may require subscription].

Government Green-Lights Unprecedented Infrastructure Boom

The UK government has approved a record 21 major infrastructure projects in the first year of the current Parliament, surpassing previous records and marking significant progress towards its target of 150 decisions under the Plan for Change. Key projects include the Lower Thames Crossing, Mona and Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farms, Simister Island road development, and Gatwick Airport’s runway expansion. These initiatives are expected to create tens of thousands of skilled jobs, particularly in clean energy and construction, and deliver benefits such as cleaner power, faster commutes, and enhanced trade routes. Legislative reforms in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, such as streamlining consent processes and reducing legal challenges, are accelerating approvals. The government remains committed to further reforms, including new towns and brownfield development, aiming to remove barriers to building 1.5 million homes and supporting continued economic growth and inward investment across the UK.

Find out more here and here.

LRPM Expands in London to Meet Rising High-Rise Management Demands

Block management specialist LRPM has launched a new office in Camden, London, aiming to capitalise on surging demand for expert management of high-rise residential blocks amid a tightening regulatory landscape post-Grenfell. The expansion includes four new hires, notably a dedicated property manager and a high-rise specialist, reflecting the firm’s commitment to navigating the complex requirements introduced by the Building Safety Act 2022 and related fire safety legislation. LRPM is targeting substantial growth, up to 400% over three years, by focusing on blocks with 100 to 300 units (a segment facing heightened compliance and management challenges) and seeks to address a market “perfect storm” of regulatory complexity, increased liability, and a shortage of qualified managers.

The full article can be found here.

With thanks to Harry Langford-Collins, Ella Green, Aleksander Polaszek and Brendan Marrinan

If you have any queries please do get in contact with a member of the team below, or your usual RPC contact.

Regulatory Radar: quick takes September 2025

Thu, 25 Sep 2025 11:01:00 +0100

Highlights include new guidance on press reporting of children, changes in merger control and construction insurance, and the introduction of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. Other developments span financial services reforms, medical device surveillance, sustainability reporting, and strengthened enforcement in tax and financial crime, reflecting evolving priorities across the legal and regulatory landscape.

Click here to access.

If you would like to discuss any of the topics highlighted or have any requests for themes to be covered in future editions, please do not hesitate to contact me, or your usual RPC contact.

HMRC fails to establish "practice generally prevailing" in top-slicing relief dispute

Thu, 25 Sep 2025 10:00:00 +0100

In Roger Joye and David Sumners v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 664 (TC), HMRC failed to establish that its flawed method of calculating top-slicing relief was the "practice generally prevailing".

Insurance Covered: Insurance-linked securities, catastrophe bonds and the convergence of the insurance and capital markets (With Steve Evans)

Thu, 25 Sep 2025 09:48:00 +0100

In this episode, Peter Mansfield dives into the intricate world of insurance-linked securities and catastrophe bonds with expert Steve Evans. They explore the convergence of insurance and capital markets, discussing how these financial instruments provide protection against major natural disasters.

Cyber_Bytes - Issue 76

Wed, 24 Sep 2025 12:11:00 +0100

RPC Cyber app: Breach counsel at your fingertips

As cyber-attacks and follow-on litigation continue to be a board-level issue for organisations worldwide, the RPCCyber_ App provides a one-stop-shop resource for cyber breach assistance and pre-breach preparedness. As well as information about RPC's cyber-related expertise, the app also contains guidance on prevention against common incidents and access to our ongoing cyber market insights.

RPCCyber_ can be downloaded for free from the Apple Store or Google Play Store.

Judgment Alert: Farley & Ors v Paymaster (1836) Ltd (t/a Equiniti) [2025] EWCA Civ 1117 (22 August 2025)

On 22 August 2025, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in the case of Michael Farley v Paymaster (1836) Limited trading as Equiniti [2025] EWCA Civ 1117.

This is a potentially significant case for data subject litigation claims. It challenges existing case law regarding the need for claimants to demonstrate that a minimum threshold of seriousness has been met to claim compensation for breaches of the UK GDPR, and provides guidance on what constitutes “non-material damage” under Art 82, UK GDPR.

The administrator of the Sussex Police pension scheme sent annual benefit statements containing personal data to over 750 out-of-date residential addresses. As a result, claimants reported experiencing "anxiety, alarm, distress, and embarrassment", fearing their personal information may have been accessed by unknown third parties. The affected individuals sought compensation.

The Court of Appeal concluded that there is no minimum threshold of seriousness for a successful data subject claim under the UK GDPR. Allegations of “were not essential for such claims either. Loss recoverable in data subject claims “includes” but is not limited to distress and a successful claim can be made in respect of “annoyance or irritation caused by fear of third-party misuse”.

The Court of Appeal did clarify that losses based on distress or irritation would need to be “well-founded” and based on more than a “purely hypothetical risk”. However, overall, the judgment is beneficial for data subject claimants and provides some potential ammunition for claimants in data subject litigation.

Click here to read the judgment.

Jaguar Land Rover's cyber-attack: Automative supply chain to a halt

As widely reported, Jaguar Land Rover (JLR), one of the UK’s largest automotive manufacturers, has recently been affected by a significant cyber incident. This has forced the company to suspend operations across multiple British factories for nearly three weeks. The incident, first discovered on 1 September, prompted JLR to deliberately shut down its IT systems to contain the breach.

The prolonged incident has caused severe economic repercussions across the supply chain. JLR is reportedly losing up to £50 million per week due to suspended production. Hundreds of suppliers, many operating under “just-in-time” manufacturing principles, have faced immediate disruption. Some companies have reconfigured production with reports of reduced or zero pay for workers while others have begun redundancies. The interconnected nature of the automotive sector means that a severe incident can destabilise the entire supply network, with smaller businesses and their workforces facing immediate threats. The scale of disruption has prompted calls for the UK Government's intervention, including furlough support for affected workers.

This incident has highlighted the financial toll on businesses targeted by a cyber-attack and their partners. The fragility and vulnerability of the automotive supply chains during this incident calls will inevitably be the subject of further consideration as the fallout from the incident continues. In addition, experts warn that such attacks could become more frequent and severe, especially amid global tensions. Government and industry collaboration is therefore important to tackle escalating threats of cyber-attacks.

You can read more here from Wired.

Innovation at speed: Are businesses still addressing Cyber Risks?

According to Unisys' report published last month, organisations are accelerating their adoption of Cloud-based and AI tools, with 78% planning to increase AI investment in the coming years. However, the report found that business leaders did not appear to be investing in cyber security measures at the same rate.

Despite the surge in new technologies, 85% of organisations admit their cyber strategies are “too reactive”, leaving them exposed to well-known threats. Many organisations are prioritising investment in new technologies such as AI over strengthening defences against established cyber threats, as well as emerging risks.

Unisys reports a disconnect in the assessment of risks and investment priorities within companies. 63% of the executives who responded to the study believe security protocols hinder data analysis, compared to 35% of IT leaders. Similar conclusions were drawn in respect of Cloud services as 68% of business executives see cloud security as an impediment to innovation versus 37% of IT leaders.

This divergence has a potential impact on the adoption of security measures. For example, Unisys observed identity-based attacks being a major concern for IT professionals. However, fewer than half of organisations had prioritised identity-verification technologies as a security mechanism.

You can read more about Unisys' report here and here.

ICO launches consultation on UK GDPR recognised legitimate interest guidance

On 21 August 2025, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) launched a consultation on its draft guidance regarding "recognised legitimate interests" as a new lawful basis for processing personal data under The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUA).

A "recognised legitimate interests" is a specified purpose for handling personal data that is in the public interest, separate from the existing "legitimate interests" lawful basis set out in the UK GDPR. Under this new lawful basis, the processing must meet one of five pre-approved purposes that are the public interest:

Disclosure to a controller that requires the personal data to carry out a public interest task or to exercise its official authority where the controller has requested that data
Safeguarding national security, protecting public security and defence purposes
Responding to an emergency defined in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004
Detecting, investigating or preventing crime, or apprehending or prosecuting offenders
Safeguarding vulnerable individuals

The ICO's guidance on "recognised legitimate interest" aims to inform and support large organisations and data protection officers in the application of amendments made by DUA by providing details on this new legal basis for processing, including the benefits of using it and how it differs from the existing "legitimate interests" lawful basis. Its introduction will require organisations to review and update their data governance frameworks to the extent that they intend to rely on the new basis.

The ICO invites feedback to help finalise guidance and address queries through the consultation open until 30 October 2025.

You can access the survey here and the draft guidance here.

Cyber insurance tipped as commercial brokers’ biggest opportunity

Cyber insurance has emerged as the commercial insurance product with the greatest growth potential, according to a recent UK broker survey, securing 53.6% of the votes. Market reports indicate that cyber insurance premiums rose by approximately 68% in 2023, reflecting increased demand and evolving risks.

The frequency and severity of cyber incidents are driving demand, with the UK Government’s Cyber Security Breaches Survey 2023 reporting that 32% of businesses experienced a cyber breach or attack in the past year, with average costs exceeding £15,000 for medium and large firms. Brokers are expanding their cyber insurance offerings, and 75% identified cyber insurance as their biggest portfolio growth opportunity in 2024.

These trends highlight the importance of proactive cyber risk management and specialist insurance advice. As the market matures, brokers are increasingly called upon to interpret complex policy wordings and exclusions. Meanwhile legal advisers play a crucial role in supporting regulatory compliance and incident response. Collaboration between brokers, insurers, and legal professionals will be essential to ensure clients are equipped to manage cyber risks and benefit from comprehensive insurance protection.

Click here to read more about cyber insurance market trends.

Ransomware Group Exploits Hybrid Cloud Gaps, Gains Full Azure Control in Enterprise Attacks

Recent reporting by SecurityWeek details how sophisticated ransomware groups are targeting hybrid cloud environments, exploiting gaps between on-premises infrastructure and cloud platforms, such as Microsoft Azure. Attackers are leveraging compromised credentials, misconfigured identity management systems, and insufficient network segmentation to escalate privileges and gain full administrative control over Azure tenants. Once inside, threat actors can deploy ransomware, exfiltrate sensitive data, and disrupt critical business operations across both cloud and on-premises resources.

The risks associated with these attacks are significant for organisations relying on hybrid cloud models. Beyond immediate operational disruption and financial loss, compromised Azure environments can expose confidential client information, intellectual property, and regulated data to unauthorised access. The complexity of hybrid architectures can make it challenging to detect lateral movement and respond swiftly, increasing the likelihood of prolonged exposure and greater impact.

From a legal and regulatory perspective, such incidents may trigger mandatory breach notification requirements under the UK GDPR and other data protection regimes if personal data is affected. Organisations must also consider contractual obligations to clients and third parties.

Click here to read the full SecurityWeek article.

Access to justice or consumer harm? The SRA targets risks in bulk claims

Tue, 23 Sep 2025 16:06:00 +0100

In August 2025, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) concluded its thematic review of the high-volume consumer claims sector against a backdrop of mounting concerns over consumer risk.

Taxing Matters: Wealth management for creatives – navigating financial planning in the entertainment industry

Tue, 23 Sep 2025 13:27:00 +0100

In this episode, our host and Senior Associate at RPC, Alexis Armitage, is joined by Simon Reed, Director and wealth manager at RBC Brewin Dolphin, and head of the Entertainment, Media & Sports client segment in London. Together, they delve into the unique financial challenges faced by clients in the creative industries, including actors, musicians, and digital creators.

The Pensions Regulator: a prudential approach to enforcement?

Mon, 22 Sep 2025 15:50:00 +0100

In recognition of the evolving pensions landscape, on 16 September 2025, the Pensions Regulator (TPR) issued a consultation regarding the proposed changes to its enforcement strategy (the Consultation). The Consultation contains 10 questions tailored around TPR's new proposed strategy and welcomes responses by 11 November 2025. The developments will be of interest to PTL insurers in particular.

Clarifying Trustees' Duties: The Pensions Ombudsman's Determination on Statutory Transfers

Mon, 22 Sep 2025 15:00:00 +0100

On 26 August 2025, the Pensions Ombudsman (POS) issued a significant determination that goes some way to clarifying the duties of pension scheme trustees for pre-2021 statutory transfers from occupational pension schemes.

Generative AI – addressing copyright

Mon, 22 Sep 2025 14:48:00 +0100

When it comes to the interaction of AI and IP rights, bar a flurry of activity surrounding the inevitable outcome by the courts in the Thaler, Dabus case (see here) and the Court of Appeal's ruling on the potential for exclusion from patentability of artificial neural networks in the Emotional Perception case, most attention has been focused on copyright issues. The main potentially thorny issues have all been extensively covered by the mainstream media.

As a quick recap, the issues are whether:

the way foundation models (FM) are trained using works from the internet infringes the copyright in the works of content creators such as authors, artists and software developers
the outputs of FM infringe the copyright of content creators
AI generated works are protectable

The problem with training data

Copyright is a right that in the UK and EU subsists automatically when certain requirements are met. Copyright infringers must be found to have copied the whole of the copyright work, or part of it where that part is regarded as ‘substantial’. Both proof of copying from a copyright work and similarity are required to prove infringement.

Content creators such as news providers, authors, visual content agencies and other creative professionals allege that their work is being unlawfully used to train AI models. Some use of this material is expressly authorised, for example, Associated Press has previously announced that OpenAI has taken a licence of part of its text archive. However, the main thrust of the allegations by content creators is that millions of texts, parts of texts and other literary material and images have been scraped from publicly available websites without consent. This scraped content used as an input to train and develop AI models is alleged to infringe their copyright and often their database rights.

The case of Getty Images (US) Inc v Stability AI Ltd, which went to trial in June 2025, is the most prominent case making these kinds of allegations in the UK (there is also a corresponding US action). Setting aside the arguments on territorial extent raised in that case (i.e. whether the training and development of Stable Diffusion took place within the UK or in another jurisdiction), the allegations of copyright and database right infringement relevant here were that Stability AI:

has downloaded and stored Getty Image's copyright works (necessary for encoding the content and other steps in the training process) on servers or computers in the UK during the development and training of Stable Diffusion
infringed the communication to the public right by making Stable Diffusion available in the UK, where Stable Diffusion provides the means using text and/or image prompts to generate synthetic images that reproduce the whole or a substantial part of the copyright works.

These claims of copyright and database right infringement formed a sizable chunk of the proceedings. They were withdrawn during the trial which ultimately ended up focusing on trade mark infringement. However, the copyright and database right allegations provide information on how these types of claims can be argued. In its claims, Getty alleged that Stable Diffusion was trained using subsets of the LAION-5B dataset, a dataset comprising 5.85 billion CLIP-filtered (Contrastive Language-Image Pre-training) image-text pairs, created by scraping links to photographs and videos, together with associated captions, from the web, including from Pinterest, WordPress-hosted blogs, SmugMug, Blogspot, Flickr, Wikimedia, Tumblr and the Getty Images websites. The LAION-5B dataset comprises around 5 billion links. The LAION subsets together comprise approximately 3 billion image-text pairs from the LAION-5B dataset. At the time of filing its original claim, Getty had identified around 12 million links in the LAION subsets to content on the Getty Images websites.

The training and use of FM has resulted in intense debate on the infringement questions and the adequacy of legislation and/or guidance on licensing. Other similar ongoing legal actions (all US based) include:

the New York Times action against OpenAI and Microsoft in the US, for unlawful use of journalistic (including behind paywall) content to train LLMs
a class action filed against OpenAI by the Authors Guild (now consolidated with two other actions) and some big-name authors including George RR Martin, John Grisham, and Jodi Picoult, alleging that the training of ChatGPT infringed the copyright in the authors’ works of fiction
in September 2025, AI company Anthropic agreed to pay $1.5bn to settle a US copyright class action over its use of pirated texts to train its AI model, Claude. The action was brought by authors who claimed that Anthropic had downloaded 465,000 books and other texts from “pirated websites." The settlement is awaiting court approval.

One of the issues for publishers and content creators is that they are not being rewarded for the use of their content to train AI models and that use of LLMs such as ChatGPT disrupts the business model of consumers who search online via a search engine for content, no longer being directed to publications on their websites where the traffic attracts revenue made through digital advertising. This is because a search for digital content on many AI systems results in a direct response that stays within the LLM or image generation platform even though that response may be drawing from the same content that would have been revealed in search results in the search engine example.

In 2023, OpenAI provided written evidence to a UK committee inquiry into large language models including an explanation of its position on the use of copyright protected works in LLM training data. It explained that its LLMs, including the models that power ChatGPT, are developed using three primary sources of training data: (1) information that is publicly accessible on the internet, (2) information licensed from third parties (such as Associated Press), and (3) information from users or their human trainers. OpenAI acknowledged because "copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression – including blog posts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents – it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials". OpenAI stressed that it was for creators to exclude their content from AI training and that it has provided a way to disallow OpenAI's “GPTBot” web crawler access to a site, as well as an opt-out process for creators who want to exclude their images from future DALL∙E training datasets. It also mentioned its partnerships with publishers like Associated Press.

In January 2024, in what might be interpreted as the beginning of a shift by AI providers, OpenAI's CEO Sam Altman at the World Economic Forum, Davos said that OpenAI was open to deal with publishers and that there's a need for "new economic models" between publishers and generative AI models. Licensing deals now appear to be becoming more prevalent. Examples include collaborations between OpenAI and each of: Condé Nast, Guardian Media Group and the Financial Times.

When licensing negotiations break down there is a risk of legal action being taken, such as that reportedly being taken by Mumsnet against OpenAI. In its complaint against OpenAI, Mumsnet claims "scraping without permission is an explicit breach of our terms of use, which clearly state that no part of the site may be distributed, scraped or copied for any purpose without our express approval." As one of the few cases involving allegations of unlawful website scraping by AI developers in the UK, the outcome will be important in developing the law in this area – if the case reaches trial.

Training data issue resolution – UK government

Since our March 2023 Generative AI and intellectual property rights piece covering the UK's current position and reforms relating to a proposed commercial text and data mining exception, there has been no significant legal milestone reached on text and data mining in the UK:

In January 2024, the previous government's Culture, Media and Sport Committee confirmed that the government is no longer proceeding with its original proposal for a broad copyright exception for TDM.
A voluntary code of practice (promised by the Intellectual Property Office "by summer 2023") to provide guidance to support AI firms in accessing copyright protected works as an input to their models and to provide protections (e.g. watermarking) on generated output, did not materialise.
In the February 2024 response to its consultation on the 2023 AI whitepaper, the previous government acknowledged that the stalemate between AI companies and rights holders on the voluntary code of practice led the IPO to return the task of producing the code to the Department for Science Innovation and Technology (DSIT). DSIT and DCMS then reengaged with the AI and rights holder sectors without resolution of this complex global issue.
In December 2024, the government launched a consultation proposing as a "preferred option" a new commercial data mining exception to support use at scale of a wide range of content by AI developers where rights have not been reserved. The exception would provide a mechanism for right holders to ‘opt-out’ (individually or collectively) and supporting measures on transparency to ensure developers are transparent about the works their models are trained on. Rights reservation would be by accessible and, where possible, standardised machine-readable formats (examples include "robots.txt," TDMRep, the International Standard Content Code (ISCC), and C2PA). The consultation closed on 25 February 2025 and the government is reviewing more than 11,500 responses.
In January 2025, the House of Lords introduced a series of detailed amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, during the bill's Report stage. During the debate, the amendments were described by Baroness Kidron as designed to set out how a copyright regime would work: "Amendment 61 would ensure that all operators of web crawlers must comply with UK law if they are marketed in the UK. Amendments 62 and 63 would require operators to be transparent about their identity and purpose, and allow creatives to understand if their content had been stolen. Amendment 64 would give enforcement powers to the ICO and allow for a private right of action by copyright holders. Amendment 44A would require the ICO to report on its enforcement record. Finally, Amendment 65 would require the Secretary of State to review technical solutions that might support a strong copyright regime." [Hansard]
The Data (Use and Access) Bill was subject to a considerable amount of Parliamentary ping pong between the Lords and the Commons with the revised amendments each time being stripped out by the government. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, as enacted, does not set out a copyright and AI regime, however Part 7 of the Act requires the government to publish an economic impact assessment considering each of the four policy options described in the Copyright and AI consultation (s 135). The assessment must consider the impact on both copyright owners and AI system developers and users. The government must also prepare and publish a report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems. The report must include proposals on technical measures and standards that may be used to control the use of copyright works to develop AI systems and the accessing of copyright works for that purpose eg by web crawlers (s 136).

Since March 2023, for large developers, collaboration through structured voluntary licensing agreements has continued to grow steadily and it has been reported that the government, as part of its plan, is looking to provide support to licensing markets for all sizes of developers.

In the EU

The EU AI Act entered into force on 1 August 2024 and is largely applicable by August 2026. The text provides for general-purpose AI (GPAI) systems such as ChatGPT, and the GPAI models they are based on (such as OpenAI's GPT-4), to have to adhere to transparency requirements. These include drawing up technical documentation explaining how the model has been trained, how it performs, how it should be used and its energy use, complying with EU copyright law (in particular to obtain authorisation from or enable content owners to opt out from the text and data mining of their content as provided for under the EU DSM Copyright Directive) and disseminating "sufficiently detailed" summaries about the content used for training GPAI including its provenance and curation methods. A voluntary code of practice designed to help GPAI model providers who sign up to demonstrate compliance with their obligations under the EU AI Act, was published and approved in the summer of 2025. The code consists of three chapters: Transparency and Copyright, both addressing all providers of general-purpose AI models, and Safety and Security, relevant only to a limited number of providers of the most advanced models.

Notably, on the question of GPAI model providers identifying and respecting opt out rights, this will be done under the EU AI Act using methods including "state of the art" technologies and: "Any provider placing a general-purpose AI model on the Union market should comply with this obligation, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the copyright-relevant acts underpinning the training of those general-purpose AI models take place. This is necessary to ensure a level playing field among providers of general-purpose AI models where no provider should be able to gain a competitive advantage in the EU market by applying lower copyright standards than those provided in the Union." (EU AI Act, Recital 106)

The detailed summaries should be comprehensive enough to allow rights holders to be able to exercise and enforce their rights, for example by listing the main data collections or sets that went into training the model, such as large private or public databases or data archives, and by providing a narrative explanation about other data sources used. The EU AI office, responsible for the implementation and enforcement of the EU AI Act, will provide a template.

The EU AI Act obligations relating to providers of GPAI models' compliance with EU copyright laws are applicable from August 2025 (for new models, and August 2027 for GPAI models placed on the market before 2 August 2025). However, the exception for text and data mining provided for under the EU DSM Copyright Directive that allows content owners to opt out from bulk scraping of their online content is proving challenging to apply in practice. There is currently no standard protocol to enable machine readable "opt out" or to expressly reserve rights.

To assist with this issue, the European Commission is currently working on developing a licensing market for the training data used to train AI systems like ChatGPT. Some copyright owners such as Sony Music, the Society of Authors and the Creators’ Rights Alliance are pre-empting the EU AI Act (while providing a warning within the UK) by publicly reserving their rights in relation to text and data mining via a statement on their website and/or in a letter to various companies including AI developers.

The output of FMs – works created by users

As well as the possibility of training data related copyright infringements explained above, the outputs of AI FM models such as ChatGPT or Midjourney generated as the result of user prompts may also provide grounds for copyright infringement of third party original works.

For example, if you are the author of an artwork and find a markedly similar copy has been generated by a user of a FM model without your permission, you will have to make your case on copyright infringement. In showing infringement, as a first step, proof of copying of features from the protected work is required. Then the question is whether what has been taken constitutes all or a substantial part of the copyright work. A challenge with user generated works will be to show that the output work was derived from the original copyright protected work (did the AI provider introduce it in its training data, was it introduced during the fine tuning process or did a user provide it as one of its prompts). The EU AI Act somewhat provides for this (see above) by allowing the copyright owner to see if their work is contained in a particular data set. The UK has also indicated that transparency requirements are likely to be coming.

In this scenario the users of FM (and/or AI providers) face potential liability for copyright infringement. These claims may be low value, and challenging to prove for rights holders so this might be a low risk, but it nevertheless produces risk for AI users and providers. Consequently, a number of key players (Microsoft, Google and OpenAI) now provide offers to indemnify certain (mainly enterprise) users if they are subsequently sued for copyright infringement. Microsoft's Customer Copyright Commitment states that if a third party sues a commercial customer for copyright infringement for using Microsoft’s Copilots or the output they generate, they will defend the customer and pay the amount of any adverse judgments or settlements that result from the legal proceedings, as long as the customer has used the guardrails and content filters built into their products. OpenAI's "Copyright Shield" promises to step in and defend their customers, and pay the costs incurred, if they face claims of copyright infringement. This applies to generally available features of ChatGPT Enterprise and their developer platform. Note: some of these indemnities may include carve-outs and liability caps.

Protection for the outputs of AI FM models

Most public facing generative AI models are accessed via a platform or website and are therefore subject to website terms and conditions. ChatGPT states that: "Ownership of Content. As between you and OpenAI, and to the extent permitted by applicable law, you (a) retain your ownership rights in Input and (b) own the Output. We hereby assign to you all our right, title, and interest, if any, in and to Output."

What is actually being assigned is an important consideration for businesses and individuals. For example, there seems to be high use of AI FM in the advertising sector. If you, as a user, have produced marketing materials with the assistance of a FM you are likely to want to prevent their unauthorised use by third parties as a normal part of your business' brand/content protection strategy. This would not normally be problematic if they are created without AI FM assistance – then the copyright likely belongs to the company concerned as the employer of the employee author. However, most jurisdictions, including the UK, require that copyright protection only applies to works created by human authors and if the work is solely computer generated there may be a subsistence issue. This is because authorship and ownership of copyright is tied into the concept of "originality", that is, protection is only extended to works categorised as "original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works". The work may of course be attributed to the developer of the FM in circumstances where the user's role is confined to a single simple prompt and the FM has been finely tuned to produce marketing materials – in this situation there are likely to be terms that assign the developer's rights in works to the end user.

In this scenario, the section of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) that grants protection to computer-generated works (CGWs) is often raised. Section 9(3) states that the author in the case of CGW is the person by whom "the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken". The problem with this section relates to the date of the Act: 1988. What the legislators may have had in mind at this time is something like the use of computers as digital aids in cartography. Now, however, this section is being applied to GenAI models.

However, since 1988, there have been some developments when it comes to "originality". The test for originality has changed and now to be an original work, works must be "the author's own intellectual creation" whereby an author has been "able to express their creative abilities in the production of the work by making free and creative choices so as to stamp the work created with their personal touch…" That definition is not very CGW/AI friendly. Where works are created by entering prompts into a GenAI system (i.e. using it merely as a tool) there would be room to apply the "author's own intellectual creation" originality test. However, literary, dramatic, musical or artistic CGW are more problematic under this originality test if a work has no human author. Therefore, in order to claim authorship and ownership, squeezing out the human element may be the best approach until clarification is provided from the UK government or the courts. The position is not clear cut though and if you are creating content for a client, the Ts & Cs relied on historically for human authored work may not be effective in transferring absolute ownership.

In November 2023, a Chinese court did find that an AI generated image, created using Stable Diffusion, satisfied the requirements of "originality" and was capable of copyright protection. The Beijing Internet Court found that the image had been created (using AI as a tool) in a way that reflected the ingenuity and original intellectual investment of human beings. In February 2023 in a US case concerning authorship of the images contained within Kristina Kashtanova's work: Zarya of the Dawn, the US Copyright Office took a different approach. The images were developed using the generative AI tool Midjourney. By its own description Midjourney does not interpret prompts as specific instructions to create a particular expressive result (Midjourney does not understand grammar, sentence structure, or words like humans) it instead converts words and phrases “into smaller pieces, called tokens, that can be compared to its training data and then uses them to generate an image. The US copyright office decided that the images claimed were not original works of authorship protected by copyright because they were produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author (the designer modifying the images produced by the AI model using subsequent prompts and inputs was not sufficient to fulfil the requirement for human creativity). They were therefore removed from the U.S. Copyright Office register as not copyrightable. Because of the significant distance between what a user may direct Midjourney to create and the visual material Midjourney actually produces, the U.S. Copyright Office found that Midjourney users are deemed to lack sufficient control over generated images to be treated as the “master mind” behind them.

In January 2025, the US Copyright Office registered "A Single Piece of American Cheese", an image created entirely with AI generated material via a technique called “inpainting” (the process of selectively modifying or regenerating parts of an image while maintaining consistency with the surrounding elements). The work was initially rejected but was later registered on the basis of active “selection, coordination, and arrangement of material generated by artificial intelligence” into a unified composition. In part the decision seems to reflect the amount and quality of evidence of creative decision making in creating the image. In its application, the registrant highlighted: the multi-stage process, iterative refinement and creative decision making elements in creating the work.

How might these issues impact those developing and interacting with FM?

This is a complex area and tricky to navigate in a commercial setting given that the UK and many other jurisdictions are failing to reach a position and provide guidance. However, it is worth keeping up to date on and in mind the following live issues:

the risk surrounding the use of data sets
that there may be a need to disclose the contents of data sets under the EU AI Act and the UK framework
who owns FM outputs? Is an AI output as protectable as a human created work?

Discover more insights on the AI guide

Sports Ticker #136 - WRU scrum for survival and Women's Cricket World Cup prize boost - a speed read of commercial updates from the sports world

Mon, 22 Sep 2025 11:13:00 +0100

Boundary Breakers: Women's Cricket World Cup sees a boost in prize pot
The ICC Women's Cricket World Cup has seen a huge rise in prize funding, with the winners of the 2025 edition taking home over £300,000 more than the previous winners of the 2023 Men's World Cup. The prize for the champions of the competition now stands at £3.3 million, a 297% rise from the £980,000 that the current Women's champions Australia won in 2022. The tournament co-hosted by India and Sri Lanka will kick-off on 30 September, with the co-hosts going head-to-head in the first match. Eight teams will compete for a share of the new bumper prize pot. The 2025 edition will offer a £10.26 million prize fund overall, a raise that ICC Chairman Jay Shah described as a reflection of the Council's “clear commitment to its long-term growth”.

Enhanced Games enters legal arena with $800 million antitrust lawsuit
The Enhanced Games, a sporting event allowing athletes to use performance enhancing substances, has filed an $800 million lawsuit against World Aquatics, The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), and USA Swimming. The Games accused the bodies of attempting to discourage participation in the 2026 event in Las Vegas. World Aquatics President Husain al-Musallam stated in June that athletes participating in the Enhanced Games, “are not welcome at World Aquatics” events. A ban on competing in both events may limit the number of stars willing to participate. The Enhanced Games will offer $1 million bonuses for breaking world records in certain events. At the 2024 World Aquatics Championships, the highest prize was $30,000. The Enhanced Games' president, Aron D’Souza, believes anti-doping rules are “outdated” and stressed the appeal of “natural” and “enhanced” athletes competing against each other. The WADA criticised “promoting the abuse of powerful substances,” which could harm athletes' health.

Netflix nets tennis royalty with exclusive rights to Six Kings Slam
Netflix has confirmed exclusive broadcast rights for the 2025 Six Kings Slam, taking place between 15 - 18 October in Saudi Arabia. The exhibition involves six of the biggest stars in men's tennis competing for a reported $6 million prize for the winner, and $1.5 million for each participant. During last year's inaugural edition, a live stream of the Nadal-Alcaraz match on the official Riyadh Season X account attracted as many as 428,000 views. Reigning champion Jannik Sinner could face fellow US Open finalist Carlos Alcaraz, after their dramatic match earlier this month. Other stars include 24-time Grand Slam champion Novak Djokovic, and former world Number 3 Stefanos Tsitsipas - replacing injured British Number 1 Jack Draper. The tournament is a significant addition to Netflix's growing live sports offering, after the streaming giant recently broadcast the Canelo vs. Crawford boxing contest to a total of 41.4 million viewers, at no extra cost to subscribers.

Try or Die: Welsh Rugby Union continues consultation on team cut plans
The Welsh Rugby Union (WRU) gave all four Welsh professional rugby union clubs the chance to participate in the consultation period on its plans to cut two regional teams to help secure the future of the game in Wales. Cardiff, Dragons, Ospreys and Scarlets individually met with the WRU at the beginning of September to give their opinions on why two teams should not be cut from Welsh Rugby. Chief Executive Abi Tierney said in August that the Union must do “something radically different” to save the game. If cuts happen, there are likely to be job losses for players, coaches, and staff. The Union has stated that they are considering other options, and nothing has been finalised, with a report to be sent to the WRU board in October. Potential options include forming two new entities from the existing four clubs or keeping all four clubs but two becoming development sides.

More NFL games to touch down on Sky Sports
Sky Sports has agreed a new three-year deal for NFL coverage, enhancing its broadcasting of the sport in the UK. The agreement consists of exclusive live coverage of the NFL's regular season, games held in Europe and some playoff matches. The remaining games, including the Super Bowl and games in London and Dublin will also be shown for free on Channel 5. The new deal will allow the broadcaster to increase the number of American Football games it broadcasts by almost 50%. Sky Sports will also continue to broadcast NFL RedZone in the UK, a special live NFL programme airing on Sundays which focuses on the most exciting moments of multiple simultaneous games as they happen. Head of NFL International Gerrit Meier said, “Sky Sports has been a significant part of the NFL’s growth story in the UK over the years…and we are delighted to see our expanded partnership continue.”

Extra time...

…and finally, the 2025 Toe Wrestling Championships. Tracing back to the Neolithic period, toe wrestling has evolved from a pub activity to a competitive sport, holding World Championship competitions for both men and women. The sport boasts several stars, with Alan ‘Nasty’ Nash winning a Guinness World Record for “Most Toe Wrestling World Championships won” by a man in 2019. The rules are simple; players place their feet on a low platform (the ‘toedium’), lock big toes and attempt to pin down the opponent's foot. Matches last three to four minutes, and scoring uses a best two out of three system. The sport seems low risk, but battles have been known to result in broken toes, cracked ankles, or even a broken kneecap. Prospective toe wrestlers require skill and a high pain tolerance! As women's champion Lisa ‘Twinkletoes’ Shenton said, “your feet can take you wherever you want to go.”

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 19 September 2025

Fri, 19 Sep 2025 15:47:00 +0100

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Headline development

FRC Launches Programme to Support Smaller Audit Firms

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has launched the Scalebox Programme. The programme will support the growth of smaller audit firms by developing their audit quality and systems of quality management. Participating firms will be provided with workplans along with regulatory oversight and resources to enable them to overcome market constraints in the public interest entities (PIE) sector and enter this market more readily.

Scalebox is the latest FRC initiative to combat the "Big Four's" market dominance of the PIE sector. The concern is that the current market state will "threaten confidence, undermine choice and pose a systemic risk to investment in the UK."

The FRC are keen "to support the growth of those firms that want to establish a greater presence in the PIE audit market who commit to delivering high quality and safeguarding the broader public interest that audit supports"

The programme also addresses industry concerns that UK's auditing standards are unfairly geared towards large complex corporate audits. The FRC hopes to gain insight into what constitutes proportionate oversight of less complex PIEs and better support smaller companies that struggle to scale standards for SME audits.

To read more, please click here.

Tax Practitioners

HMRC tighten tax rules for umbrella companies

HMRC has announced new rules to take effect from April 2026 to tackle non-compliance in the umbrella company market.

An umbrella company is typically used to temporarily employ self-employed contractors and act as an intermediary between contactors and their clients. The company is supposed to handle administration, including pay roll and tax responsibilities, however HMRC's analysis between 2022 and 2023 show a significant failure to comply with tax obligations.

The new rules are intended to ensure that taxpayers are protected from large tax bills later down the line due to the umbrella company's non-compliance with tax rules. The rules will apply to all new and existing entities (including the end client and the umbrella company) for all payments made to employees on or after 6 April 2026.

Compliance with the rules will sit with the umbrella company, the end client or any agency involved with the supply of workers. In the event of non-compliance, HMRC will be entitled to recover any underpayment of PAYE tax from the end client directly.

To read more, please click here.

Pensions

Pension Transfer Delay Complaints to Financial Ombudsman Service Fall

According to a Freedom of Information request by the FT Adviser, complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service about pension transfer delays have fallen by seven percent in the last tax year.

This statistic comes as quite a surprise given the industry concerns over the length of delays for pension transfers. PensionBee has reported that one in six advisors experienced lengthy pension transfer times of over one year, even in spite of providers being able to switch funds in under ten days.

There is widespread concern from pension advisors that poor switching experiences were harming the reputation of the financial services industry, and that immediate legislative reform is necessary to protect the wider public from "the hands of a broken system." The push for legislative reform has garnered widespread industry support with ninety-six percent of advisors supporting legislation that would mandate a reasonable transfer timescale for pension switches.

To read more, please click here.

Pension withdrawals rise by 36%

According to the FCA's latest Retirement Income Mark Data on 2024/25, pension withdrawals have surged by 36% with savers taking out £70.9bn compared to £52.2bn the previous year.

The data reveals that 1 million pension plans were accessed for the first time, an increase of 8.6% on 2023/24 and sales of drawdown policies have risen by 25.5%.

Broadstone's head of personal financial planning Rob Hillock is of the view that "reforms such as the inclusion of pension assets in inheritance tax may be encouraging more savers to spend their pension or front-load withdrawals".

The highly anticipated autumn 2025 budget is of considerable concern with many taking steps now to reduce its impact.

This also links to the FCA's targeted support which is likely to result in pension providers telling customers that it is a bad idea to take such high withdrawals from their pensions.

To read more, please click here.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

FCA Releases Paper on Pure Protection Market

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has published a paper on the UK pure protection market for retail customers.

Pure protection products are long-term insurance products designed to help individuals or their dependents with their existing financial commitments or lifestyle adaptions where the policyholder suffers an insured event. The paper focuses on whether the distribution of these products aligns with the FCA's operational objectives.

In the paper, the FCA outlines the structure of the UK pure protection market and notes that the market is highly concentrated. The top five insurers accounted for roughly 80% of the new business premiums in 2023, while distribution remains fragmented and heavily reliant on intermediaries. There are concerns that the commission structures, panel arrangements and re-broking practices associated with the industry's reliance on intermediaries may affect consumer interests, particularly given the increased consumer vulnerability in the market.

To read more, please click here.

FCA Proposes Integration of Cryptocurrency Firms into Regulatory Framework

The FCA has released a consultation paper outlining its plans to integrate cryptocurrency firms into its regulatory framework.

The paper highlighted that "traditional finance rules" will not be effective for the sector. However, the FCA has promised that the new standards will be "proportionate", without compromising on the agency's guiding principles.

The FCA is not aiming to "remove the risks of investing in crypto" but to ensure that firms meet the minimum standards on crime prevention, resilience and governance. So far, the proposals will largely mirror the operational and safeguarding requirements imposed on consumer credit providers rather than banks, given the sector's lower systemic risk profile with limited carve-outs in the FCA's high-level standards.

Additionally, the FCA is inviting views on the application of the FCA's Consumer Duty to the sector, and whether complaints can be escalated to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

To read the FCA's consultation paper, please click here.

FCA takes no further action over £135m collapsed property scheme

The FCA has announced that it will not take any further action against the property investment group, Wellesley & Co Limited (WCL), which collapsed in 2020 with sums owed to creditors of over £134m.

Throughout their 3-year investigation, the FCA noted WCL's promotion of high-risk investments relating to property development and acknowledged the fact that some investors suspected wrongdoing due to the value of the investments involved. The FCA found that WCL made investors aware of the risks involved, including that the investments would not be covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, and did not find any evidence suggesting the funds were misused or fraudulently obtained.

To read more, please click here.

Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR) change

The FCA have proposed a change to SDR to provide softer and more flexible requirements for index-tracking funds to qualify for sustainability labels.

The announcement, set out in CP25/24, aims to provide clarity on labelling rules and to ease annual reporting obligations in relation to sustainability products. The proposed changes are in response to industry feedback and concerns that the current SDR are complex and have a heavy compliance burden.

The proposed changes intend to reduce compliance burdens for firms whilst also maintaining consumer protection. The FCA will complete a further review in three years to see whether the proposals have met it's intended outcome.

To read more, click here.

The Week That Was - 19 September 2025

Fri, 19 Sep 2025 10:52:00 +0100

A new era for surveyors: RICS launches global standard on responsible use of AI

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) has taken a decisive step into the future, publishing its first global professional standard for the responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) in surveying. Released on 10 September 2025 and due to take effect from 9 March 2026, this landmark guidance aims to steer surveyors through the rapidly evolving landscape of AI technologies, seeking to balance innovation with accountability.

For more information, please click here.

Government responds to Commons committee on building safety issues

Following questions posed to the government in May 2025 by the House of Commons Housing, Communities and Local Government committee regarding its response to the Grenfell Tower fire, building control and remediation of unsafe buildings, the government has now responded.

The government's response provides a useful summary of government policy in relation to building safety matters including:

Confirmation that the Building Safety Independent Panel will report on the building control sector before the end of 2025 and the government will respond to that report in early 2026.
In late 2025, the government will publish a "prospectus" on regulation of the built environment. This will include information of its plans for a single construction industry regulator and will cover the scope, functions and accountability of the proposed new regulator.

For further information, please see the following link.

Rydon's judicial review challenge rejected by High Court

Rydon Group Holdings Ltd, the parent company of Rydon Maintenance Ltd (the main contractor for the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower prior to the tragedy in 2017), has had its judicial review challenge dismissed by the High Court.

Rydon sought to challenge decisions made by the then Secretary of State under the Self-Remediation Terms regarding a series of buildings developed by Rydon in East London. The decisions found Rydon unfit to undertake remediation works at the buildings in question and instead required Rydon to reimburse the Building Safety Fund for the cost of the remediation.

Mr Justice Choudhury found that the decisions were taken under a commercial contract rather than statutory powers, and therefore judicial review is limited to a claim on the grounds of fraud, corruption or bad faith, and that none of those grounds applied in the circumstances.

For more information, please click here.

Kingspan insulation back in profit

Kingspan Insulation, one of the companies that supplied cladding products to the Grenfell Tower, profits appear to be increasing despite the criticism levied against Kingspan Insulation as part of the Grenfell Inquiry.

However, Kingspan may face challenges ahead if contractors seek to recover from Kingspan any losses incurred remediating buildings following the Grenfell Tower fire. Recently, developer Watkin Jones has issued proceedings against a number of Kingspan entities on this very basis.

Find out more here and here [may require subscription].

JCT promotes culture shift in construction risk-sharing

In an effort to combat insolvencies, inflationary pressures, and supply chain fragility the new Target Cost Contract (TCC) 2024 from the Joint Contracts Tribunal provides a 'risk sharing' contractual mechanism that allows contractors to spread risk more evenly. The proposal encourages contractors' collaboration by the sharing of any savings made, and any additional costs.

Find out more here [may require subscription].

RICS launches consultation on global construction standards

The Royal Institution for Chartered Surveyors is seeking input from construction professionals globally on new global construction standards for quantity surveying practice. RICS issued 32 guidance notes between 2009 - 2021 and is now looking to prepare a combined professional standard incorporating global principles of quantity surveying and project management practice.

The consultation will be live from 16 September to 24 October 2025. RICS is aiming to launch the final version of the new standard in Q1 2026.

For more information please click here.

London housing projects failing to start due to regulatory delays

The Local Authority Building Control, speaking before the House of Lords' industry and regulations committee on 2 September, noted that out of 20,000 housing projects expected to start in London last year, only 900 happened. The LABC highlighted that delays with the Building Safety Regulator approving high-risk buildings had impacted the construction supply chain "enormously". Staffing issues in local authority building control were also identified as one contributor to the issue, as private sector salaries in building control were double local government salaries.

To read more, click here.

Westminster City Council seeking contractor to deliver £80m Harrow Road housing scheme

Westminster City Council has begun procurement for its £80m Harrow Road housing scheme, to build 144 homes across three buildings. The council is targeting a 70% sitewide carbon reduction through a fabric-first approach using passive design principles. The 70% figure is double the 35% carbon reduction required by the Greater London Authority. The contract will run for just over four years, from March 2026 to July 2030.

To read more, click here.

With thanks to Annabel Gallocher, Saskia Mautner and Kasia Ginders

If you have any queries please do get in contact with a member of the team below, or your usual RPC contact.

Insurance Authority "takes aim" at referral fees

Thu, 18 Sep 2025 11:16:00 +0100

Insurance Authority "takes aim" at referral fees

Upper Tribunal allows taxpayers' appeals in EIS case

Thu, 18 Sep 2025 10:00:00 +0100

In Hugh Edward Mark Osmond and Matthew Charles Allen v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 00378 (TC), the Upper Tribunal has reversed the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, concluding that the main purpose of the taxpayers in crystallising Enterprise Investment Scheme relief was not the obtaining of an income tax advantage, even though this may have been its effect.

A new era for surveyors: RICS launches global standard on responsible use of AI

Wed, 17 Sep 2025 15:17:00 +0100

VAT update September 2025

Wed, 17 Sep 2025 10:36:00 +0100

News

Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has confirmed she will present her Autumn Budget on 26 November 2025. Labour pledged in their manifesto not to increase VAT for 'working people' but there has been some speculation around imposing higher rates of VAT for luxury goods or adjusting the VAT threshold.

The Chancellor's press release can be viewed here.

HMRC has updated VAT Notice 700/45, which explains how to correct VAT errors and make adjustments or claims.

The updated Notice can be viewed here.

HMRC has published new guidelines aimed at helping taxpayers ensure that the documents and returns they submit are correct and complete. The guidelines also explain what taxpayers should do if they are uncertain about their tax affairs or are considering novel interpretations of the law.

HMRC's guidelines can be viewed here.

Case reports

Motorplus Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 931 (TC)

Motorplus Ltd (Motorplus) submitted an error correction notice to HMRC to recover input VAT on payments made to two of its suppliers. The suppliers believed their supplies to be VAT exempt and so did not charge VAT separately or provide Motorplus with a VAT invoice. Motorplus argued that the supplies were properly subject to VAT and so the price paid should be deemed to include VAT.

HMRC rejected the error correction notice on the basis that "at the time the supplies took place, both the supplier and the customer accepted that the supplies were exempt from VAT". HMRC relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Zipfit v HMRC [2022] UKSC 12, in which HMRC's refusal to allow a deduction for VAT was upheld, even though the supplies in question were subsequently found to be standard rated, because both parties believed they were exempt at the time of supply.

Motorplus appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT). HMRC applied for the appeal to be struck out on the basis that it had no prospect of success.

The FTT noted that, contrary to the statement in HMRC's decision, both parties did not agree that the supplies were VAT exempt. Motorplus had always been of the opinion that the supplies were standard rated. The FTT dismissed HMRC's strike out application and held that Motorplus had a reasonable prospect of success. The key issue which remains to be determined at the substantive hearing, is whether the supplies were in fact exempt, and whether an amount equal to VAT formed part of the purchase price.

The decision can be viewed here.

Why it matters:

This case emphasises the importance of analysing HMRC's reasoning as well as its conclusion. The FTT criticised HMRC for not taking the time to consider whether the supplies were exempt, and proceeding to make their decision (and apply for the appeal to be struck out) solely on the mistaken basis that both parties agreed the supply was exempt at the time it was made.

Airline Placement Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 00894 (TC)

Airline Placement Ltd (APL) sponsored, i.e. paid for, training for trainee pilots and placed them with commercial airlines on qualification. The commercial airlines (British Airways, Virgin, and EasyJet) paid APL a placement fee equal to the cost of that training and accounted for VAT.

Separately, trainee pilots were asked to provide APL with a 'bond' also equal to the cost of the training. Upon placement, APL would pass the bond on to the commercial airline and the newly qualified pilot would agree to a salary sacrifice, over several years, equal to the amount of the bond.

HMRC argued that, when viewing the contractual position as a whole, it was the trainee pilot who actually paid for the training and therefore the payment of the bond to APL should be viewed as consideration for the supply of training, and subject to VAT. APL argued that the consideration for the training was the placement fee, and the purpose of the bond was simply to ensure trainees remained committed to the airline.

The FTT rejected APL's arguments and dismissed its appeal, highlighting the continuity between the trainee pilot's payments and the training received. However, the FTT did allow the appeal in part, recognising that HMRC had previously agreed the VAT liability should exclude services provided outside the UK.

The decision can be viewed here.

Why it matters:

This case clarifies the VAT treatment of training schemes involving multiple parties and complex payment structures. The case highlights the importance of properly identifying the recipient of the training and the consideration for that training. The FTT held that the trainee pilots, rather than the airlines, were ultimately the ones financing the training, and thus, the bond payment was considered part of the consideration for the training services and subject to VAT.

Colchester Institute Corporation v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1017 (TC)

Colchester Institute Corporation (CIC) provides vocational further educational courses to students. The courses are provided free of charge and are partially funded by government grants.

In 2008, CIC embarked on a major building project. It initially recovered VAT on costs incurred on the building project and accounted for output VAT pursuant to the rule in Lennartz. That rule allows a taxpayer to deduct input tax up front and then account for deemed output tax on the provision of education and vocational services, which were thought to be non-business supplies and attract a tax charge.

CIC subsequently concluded that the grants received from the government should properly be construed as consideration for an exempt supply, on the basis it related to further education, with the result being that output tax was not due.

CIC applied to HMRC for the overdeclared output VAT to be repaid but HMRC rejected the claim on the basis that education and vocational training was a non-business activity when government-funded. CIC appealed to the FTT.

The FTT agreed with HMRC's interpretation and dismissed CIC's appeal.

CIC appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT), who overturned the FTT's decision and allowed CIC's appeal. In its view, the government grants were consideration for an exempt supply.

The decision can be viewed here.

Why it matters:

There are several other sets of proceedings before the tax tribunals which deal with materially the same facts and issues. HMRC has reserved its arguments on the key issues for the Court of Appeal hearing set to take place in June 2026 (the Court of Appeal case concerns CIC but is a separate appeal concerning different tax years).

The underlying legal issue in this litigation will have a significant impact on the education sector and organisations which receive government agency grants.

The Work Couch: Disability at work (Part 1)

Wed, 17 Sep 2025 10:20:00 +0100

Host Ellie Gelder is joined by consultant employment lawyer Victoria Othen to explore the government's proposed changes to welfare and disability benefits and how this may impact the duty on employers to make reasonable adjustments.

First of a kind: High Court grants injunction restraining enforcement of an English Court judgment

Tue, 16 Sep 2025 14:11:00 +0100

Recent High Court judgment clarifies the scope of the English court's powers to grant anti-enforcement injunctions and the applicable legal test for granting anti-suit injunctions

Insurance Covered: The Great Fire of London and the birth of fire insurance (With Howard Benge)

Tue, 16 Sep 2025 11:20:00 +0100

In this episode, Peter Mansfield is joined by Howard Benge, Director at the Insurance Museum, and they delve into the Great Fire of London, exploring its origins, the conditions leading up to it, and its devastating impact on the city and its inhabitants.

COVID voluntary repayment scheme launched – last chance to resolve liability before tougher sanctions apply

Mon, 15 Sep 2025 15:56:00 +0100

On 12 September 2025, the UK Government launched a time-limited COVID repayment window, allowing individuals and businesses to voluntarily repay financial support received during the COVID-19 pandemic, with no questions asked.

Government tables amendments to address Virgin Media fallout

Mon, 15 Sep 2025 10:49:00 +0100

In June, we reported on the Government's intention to legislate in response to the judgment handed down in Virgin Media Limited v NTL Pension Trustees II Limited [EWCA Civ 843]. On 1 September 2025 the government tabled amendments to the draft Pension Schemes Bill (the Bill) setting out how trustees can retrospectively validate historic amendments that would otherwise have been deemed void following Virgin Media.

The Week That Was - 12 September 2025

Fri, 12 Sep 2025 15:25:00 +0100

Botched insulation under government scheme

More than 30,000 UK homes have been affected by poorly fitted insulation under government schemes, ministers have revealed. This marks the first official documentation of widespread issues linked to ECO4 and the Great British Insulation Scheme since 2022. Energy Consumer Minister Miatta Fahnbulleh described the situation as a “systemic failure” in parliament. While some households have received remedial work, the government advises anyone concerned to contact Ofgem for support.

To read more, click here.

Robertson’s £30m Newcastle Cancer Centre Project Advances

Construction work is progressing on the £30 million cancer centre in Newcastle, led by contractor Robertson. The development, situated at the Newcastle Freeman Hospital, is designed to enhance cancer care facilities in the region. The new centre will provide state-of-the-art treatment spaces and support services for patients, aiming to improve both capacity and quality of care. Robertson has reported that the project is moving forward on schedule, with key structural milestones recently achieved.

The scheme is part of a broader investment in healthcare infrastructure across the North East, reflecting ongoing efforts to modernise hospital environments and expand specialist medical services. Local stakeholders and NHS representatives have welcomed the development, emphasising its potential positive impact on patient outcomes and regional healthcare provision. The cancer centre is expected to be completed in 2026, offering advanced resources for both staff and patients.

To read more, click here.

Construction administration

This week, Creditsafe released its data showing that 21 UK construction firms entered administration in August 2025 — just one more than July and 4% higher than August 2024. This marks a reduction from August 2023, when 44 firms collapsed. Year-to-date, 191 firms have failed, compared to 184 at this point last year.

Expert commentary suggests that, despite headline economic growth, underlying distress remains due to weak pipelines, tight margins, and regulatory delays. “Things aren’t great, but crucially they’re not getting noticeably worse,” said Gareth Belsham of Bloom Building Consultancy.
Persistent challenges affecting the construction industry include rising costs, supply chain disruption and ongoing economic uncertainty.

You can read the full article here.

£72m tender floated for Portadown Flood Scheme

The Department for Infrastructure (DfI) Rivers Directorate in Northern Ireland has floated a tender for The Portadown Flood Alleviation Scheme (the Scheme) for £72m (including VAT). The Scheme will provide 8km of flood defences in County Armagh. Proposals include embankments and flood gates, amongst other flood preventative measures. The Scheme also encompasses temporary works, drainage, and service diversions with construction plans divided into three phases over six years from November 2026.

Bidders for the Scheme will be shortlisted through a dedicated NEC Participation Stage, after which selected companies will be invited to tender for Phase 1. Tender submissions will be assessed using a 60:40 price-to-quality ratio, and all shortlisted organisations will be awarded a place on a framework to bid for future phases. The award decision is expected in July 2026.

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 12 September 2025

Fri, 12 Sep 2025 14:34:00 +0100

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Headline development

Barclays drop appeal against the FOS in respect of motor finance commission

Barclays' appeal of the Financial Ombudsman (FOS) decision was based on the FOS' interpretation of the FCA rules and Consumer Credit Act (1974) as to whether a lender and car dealer met the required standards (in place at the relevant time) in respect of disclosing commission.

Following the FOS decision and subsequent High Court Judgment - both in favour of a compensation payment to the consumer - Barclays had been set to proceed to the Court of Appeal in September. However, following the Supreme Court ruling in August (to read more, please click here), Barclays have withdrawn the Court of Appeal proceedings in favour of awaiting the outcome of the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) consultation into a redress scheme.

To read more, please click here.

Accountants

Reports that firm faces criminal prosecution for alleged tax repayment fraud

The ICAEW has published an article, amongst growing media reports, that a firm is being criminally prosecuted in relation to research and development tax credit repayment fraud. If the reports are correct, it is understood to be the first criminal prosecution under the Corporate Criminal Offences (CCO) rules.

It is understood that a trial will take place in 2027.

To read more and to read the regulator's warning on the CCO rules, please click here.

Tax practitioners

HMRC name and shame barrister as a promoter of tax avoidance schemes

HMRC, for the first time, have chosen to name a practicing barrister as a promoter of tax avoidance schemes. The barrister (Mr Setu Kamal) designed four arrangements though umbrella companies which were designed to reduce workers' Income Tax and National Insurance liabilities.

The schemes, which allow workers to 'keep more of their pay' through a system of complex corporate and contractual structures, have been slammed by HMRC as being 'nonsense and doomed to fail'. In the event of the scheme failing, individuals will then face significant tax bills, interest and potential penalties.

The public naming and shaming by HMRC signals HMRC's intention to tackle tax avoidance by not just targeting the companies that market the schemes, but the individuals and advisors behind them.

To read more, please click here.

Brokers

FCA to cut reporting requirements of brokers

The FCA is proposing to make further cuts to the data reporting requirements of the Retail Mediation Activities Return (the Return). The Return currently requires brokers who provide advice on mortgages, insurance and other retail products to consumers to report quarterly and bi-annually, depending on the size of the firm.

Under the proposed changes, brokers in scope would only have to report annually on professional indemnity insurance cover, training/competence and pension transfer specialist advice. This streamlining and reduction of regulatory reporting requirements will be good news to retail intermediary brokers, benefitting up to an estimated 11,000 firms.

To read more, click here.

Financial institutions

High Court considers state of APP fraud cases post-Philipp

In the recent case of Barclay-Ross v Starling Bank Limited, the High Court have refused to strike out claims against a bank in relation to authorised push payment (APP) fraud cases.

By way of reminder, in Philipp v Barclays Bank UK plc [2023], the Supreme Court dismissed the notion of the existence of an independent "Quincecare" duty, holding that it existed merely as an extension of the general obligation to exercise reasonable skill and care in 'interpreting, ascertaining, and acting in accordance with' a customer's instructions'. In other words, APP fraud cases did not require a distinct legal framework for their determination.

Barclay-Ross entailed a customer requesting payments out of jurisdiction from the defendant bank. She subsequently notified the bank that the recipients were fake and sought to recover the sums paid from the bank. The High Court held that it was at least arguable that, upon being notified of fraud by a customer, the bank had a duty to seek its customer's instructions to recover said payment.

You can read more here.

FCA to target misleading motor finance claim advertising

Regulatory action against misleading motor finance compensation advertising has escalated, with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) confirming the removal or amendment of approximately 400 promotions by claims management companies (CMCs) since last year.

Advertising intensified following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Johnson v FirstRand Bank in August, which clarified that car dealers do not owe a fiduciary duty to consumers, although claims could still be pursued where the agreements were 'unfair'.

The FCA’s chief executive, Nikhil Rathi, told the House of Commons Treasury Committee that CMCs continue to promote inflated compensation figures (often suggesting payouts of thousands of pounds) despite the regulator’s estimate that most payments will be much smaller. Mr Rathi emphasised that the FCA will be firm and assertive with regulated entities making inaccurate or exaggerated claims to consumers.

Consumers concerned about motor finance agreements are advised to contact their lender directly, rather than engage CMCs or solicitor firms (which may deduct up to 30% of any compensation awarded under a 'no win no fee' agreement). The FCA is preparing to consult on a new compensation scheme designed to provide direct redress to eligible consumers, aiming to streamline the process and minimise reliance on legal intermediaries. The regulator expects most of the 14.6 million affected car finance agreements to result in compensation, with further details on the scheme due to be published in the coming weeks.

You can read more here.

Pensions

DB transfer reporting obligations to be cut back

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has introduced proposals to cut back reporting obligations for advisors on pension transfers. As referenced in the article for brokers above, similar proposals include a move from biannual to annual reporting.

This move comes on the back of a reduction in the FCA's perception of the risk levels in the DB transfer market. Notably, whereas the obligation to report every 6 months was originally introduced on the back of the British Steel Pension Scheme scandal in 2019, regulatory changes since then (including a ban on contingent charging and tighter requirements relating to advice being taken before a transfer is effected) have resulted in greater consumer safety, albeit at the cost of approximately 900 firms leaving the market.

The FCA believes the measures will save £1.8m annually across the industry.

You can read more here.

FOS developments

Regulator provides assurance over FOS concerns

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has confirmed that they are working closely with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), to address growing concerns around complaints firms may face for providing targeted support.

Specifically, concerns have been raised regarding redress liabilities firms may face for providing targeted support for consumers - in line with their regulatory obligations. This has led to uncertainty from firms as to how the FOS will deal with complaints.

Speaking at a 'Boring Money Conference', the FCA’s head of department for asset management and pensions policy, Nike Trost, has confirmed that the regulator is liaising with the FOS to provide clarity on FOS complaints for firms providing targeted advice. It is hoped that this will provide confidence for firms to provide targeted support to consumers.

To read the quotes from the FCA, please click here.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

FCA considers AI regulation

In an update from the FCA on 9 September 2025, it has been confirmed that existing frameworks will be utilised to support adoption of AI into the UK's financial markets.

The FCA emphasised that their focus is on supporting firms with using AI in order to drive innovation, benefit customers and support growth.

The FCA remains mindful of the risks to consumers whilst wanting to ensure that firms have the ability to implement adaptive technologies.

To read more please click here.

Government consults on consolidating Payment Systems Regulator with the FCA

Earlier this year the government announced its intention to merge the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) with the FCA as part of the Regulatory Action Plan.

On 8 September 2025 the government released its PSR consultation paper which sets out its proposals for consolidating the functions of the PSR with the FCA which would result in the FCA taking on the PSR’s responsibilities.

The objective behind the proposed merger is to reduce the number of regulatory bodies and simplify the regulatory landscape for firms and stakeholders to provide for a more streamlined regulatory environment for payment systems.

The consultation closes on 20 October 2025.

To read more, please click here.

Emerging risks

The UK continues to broaden the complexity and scope of compliance enforcement.

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) provides for a new corporate criminal offence of failing to prevent fraud.

This is a change in the enforcement landscape as prosecutors no longer have the burden of proving that a 'directing mind and will' of the company, had involvement in the fraud.

Compliance issues in the UK regulatory and enforcement space remains focused on bribery, money laundering and tax evasion and particular attention is being paid to corporate criminal enforcement and serious compliance breaches.

To read more about the current UK enforcement space please click here.

Allegations of arbitrator bias fall flat in the recent case of V and N v K

Fri, 12 Sep 2025 10:14:00 +0100

In the recent case of V and N v K[1] the High Court confirmed the high threshold required for establishing arbitrator bias and considered the extent of an arbitrator's duty to disclose previous appointments in arbitrations under the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) Rules. The judgment provides a useful review of the principles and serves as a reminder for parties to ensure that any challenges to arbitrator independence are properly particularised, considering the relevant practice for arbitrator appointment in the relevant field.

Tribunal refuses HMRC permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal against two case management decisions

Thu, 11 Sep 2025 10:00:00 +0100

In BGC Services Holdings LLP v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 700 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) refused HMRC permission to appeal against the FTT's earlier case management decisions whereby the FTT refused HMRC's application seeking further and better particulars from the taxpayer and granted the taxpayer's application for HMRC to properly particularise its case.

Private credit, increasingly public problems

Tue, 09 Sep 2025 11:45:00 +0100

Broadly defined, private credit covers commercial loans extended by non-bank financial institutions, chiefly investment firms such as Apollo and Blackstone. These firms typically obtain capital from institutional investors and extend loans on a long-term basis, directly to borrower companies . However, private credit's ongoing growth has been coupled with increasing diversification of fund strategies, structures and investor-base.

Notwithstanding this diversification, loans usually involve high, floating interest rates and a privileged position in the borrower's capital stack: an attractive combination for lenders of superficially low risk and high reward. The debt is not usually traded - although a significant secondary market has developed in recent years - but rather held by the lender from issuance to maturity. The lender/borrower relationship is therefore usually close, with bespoke terms common. This balances lender interests with the unique needs and risks of the borrowers, who are typically unable to access traditional bond markets and in need of more patient funding than that provided by a bank .

The financial alchemy which advertises high returns for limited risk relies on an in-depth assessment of each borrower's financial position. For outsiders this is complicated by the lack of mark-to-market valuations of this largely untraded asset class: rather than periodically revaluing the loans based on the likelihood of recovery, a private credit lender can keep them on their books at full value until it accepts them as non-performing.

Flexibility or Short-Termism?

Any novel and rapidly expanding asset class will give rise to emerging risks. Private credit is no different. The most obvious risk is of a lender-borrower dispute, although there is also significant scope for disputes with investors. The very attributes which make private credit attractive to investors, lenders and borrowers can also cause serious difficulties.

While insulated from public markets, the lack of mark-to-market valuation over the life of a long-term debt instrument creates opacity. If a borrower becomes distressed, it is relatively easy for a private credit lender to ignore. The lender is largely insulated by its typically privileged position in the capital stack and the lack of immediate impact (such as on its AUM) that would be created by a periodic mark-to-market revaluation. Meanwhile, investors will need to consider the reliance that can be placed on pre-subscription information, the scope of their own due diligence and the contractual representations, warranties and/or undertakings provided by the fund.

If the interest burden on the borrower becomes too great to service, payment-in-kind (PIK) notes are a temporary solution . Pejoratively known as 'extend and pretend', issuing PIK notes allows the borrower to defer interest payments by taking on additional debt. A generous view is that this gives fundamentally strong, high-growth companies the chance to weather short-term cashflow issues or adverse macroeconomic conditions. In return for this patience, the lender receives a greater return on maturity. A bearish commentator would be concerned that this increases both the lender's (and, ultimately, investors’) exposure to the borrower and the borrower's overall debt burden, while doing nothing to alleviate the underlying issues. An inevitable default may be delayed and ultimately intensified. Recent reporting by the Financial Times on so-called Business Development Companies (BDCs), which are publicly traded and therefore required to disclose more information on the performance of their portfolios, shows that BDCs' impressively low default rates become significantly less so once non-payment events such as the issuance of PIKs are taken into account[1]. There are also suggestions that BDCs may be relying on PIK notes to enhance accrued income.

Until relatively recently, private credit's boom has been in a period of historically low interest rates and benign macroeconomic conditions . As benchmark interest rates have increased globally, so has the interest burden on floating-rate private credit borrowers. Despite the use of PIKs and similar solutions, we would expect to see an increase in counterparty disputes over issues such as covenant breaches and other events of default. These disputes are likely to be intensified where a borrower (or fellow creditor) perceives, rightly or wrongly, that the lender is pursuing a 'loan to own'-type strategy, potentially in conjunction with the lender's private equity arm.

Across a diversified loan portfolio, a private credit lender would expect to see variably performing borrowers, with their underwriting standards hopefully ensuring that the overall picture remains healthy. The systemic risks of such disputes should therefore be limited. However, a widespread macroeconomic shock may place a wide range of borrower companies under stress beyond the worst-case scenarios envisaged by the lenders' underwriting policy . This could give rise to strains on liquidity and related tensions with investors - particularly in open-ended funds.

The pressure to deploy the industry's vast stocks of dry powder, estimated to be in the trillions of dollars, and the often-unusual characteristics of borrowers resorting to the private credit market will not have helped. Sudden aggressive enforcement of covenants driving a wedge between lender and borrower would be no surprise. Equally, wrapping private credit deals into ETFs (itself an interesting recent innovation) which may be subject to heavy redemption requests in a downturn, will place great pressure on liquidity providers to avoid triggering covenants where a longer, more forgiving view might have been taken in a more traditional private credit structure.

Take it to the (Non-)Bank

Despite private credit's fundamentally non-bank nature, banks are increasingly seeking exposure to the asset class. Typically, this has come by entering into origination partnerships with private credit managers, allowing banks to combine their client relationships with investment firms' massive undeployed capital reserves.

Disappointing results, such as in the case of Barclays' partnership with AGL Credit Management, which reporting suggests has struggled to attract investors[2], show the limits of this approach. However, banks' appetites remain undiminished. Going a step further, they are also seeking to gain exposure to the transactions themselves by back leverage, where the private credit provider borrows money from the bank, combines this borrowed money with investor funds and then lends it on in a private credit transaction. As with all leverage, this increases potential returns to investors while magnifying the (considerable) risks. It also introduces a further relationship with the potential to sour if the underlying loan defaults.

Conclusion

Private credit is not the one-size fits all, low-risk and high-reward panacea that its most enthusiastic proponents promote. It is an asset class with a key role to play in the global economy going forward, but also an asset class with increased scope for friction and disputes. Economic headwinds will take private credit into uncharted territory, placing stress on the bilateral relationships which are key to it. Market participants should seek advice to protect their positions in any emerging disputes which will set precedents and norms for this new era.

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/db8fcc7a-ef7b-475c-b1c2-df57631d21ff

[2] https://www.ft.com/content/7e2b0485-b0b8-4696-bcca-1ec20edd49be

Sports Ticker #135 - Women's Rugby World Cup final sells out and UEFA says no to surge pricing - a speed read of commercial updates from the sports world

Mon, 08 Sep 2025 08:34:00 +0100

UEFA shows dynamic ticket pricing the red card ahead of Euro 2028
Europe’s governing body of football has ruled out dynamic ticket pricing for Euro 2028, which is set to take place across England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland. Unlike the dynamic and surge pricing structures adopted for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, fans can rest assured that ticket prices shall remain stable and predictable for the Euros – even if the performances of the Home Nations’ teams do not. UEFA’s decision is a welcome change from what many have come to see as a pricing status quo in football and other major sporting events around the world in recent years. Though often hugely profitable for organisers (the average cost of a single ticket to this year’s dynamically priced NFL Super Bowl surpassed a staggering £5,000), the structure can often leave fans feeling scorned; tickets for the semi-final of this year’s FIFA Club World Cup between Chelsea and Fluminense dropped to around £10 the day before the game, despite having been on sale for almost £350 the previous week, severely penalising those who had bought tickets in good time to attend the match. UEFA’s approach, which has been widely supported by the Home Nations’ FAs, hopes to deliver a tournament that works not just for the nations themselves, but the scores of devoted fans who make the beautiful game what it is.

Cue the controversy: Court rejects trans pool player’s discrimination claim

Professional pool player Harriet Haynes has lost a discrimination claim brought against the English Blackpool Pool Federation (EBPF) following its decision to exclude transgender women from its women’s competitions and teams in August 2023. Sitting in the Canterbury County Court, His Honour Judge Parker was asked to consider whether the EBPF’s decision constituted unlawful discrimination on the grounds of gender assignment pursuant to the Equality Act 2010 (the Act). The complaint arose following the EBPF’s announcement (via Facebook) that it had decided to revise the eligibility criteria for its ladies’ events so as to only include “biological women”. As the trial concluded just days before the UK Supreme Court’s recent judgment in the widely reported For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers (FWS), both parties were exceptionally permitted to file post-trial submissions regarding the perceived effect of the Supreme Court’s judgment on their claim, not least given the decision defined “biological women” for the purposes of the Act. In view of the decision in FWS, HHJ Parker ultimately concluded that the EBPF’s decision did not constitute gender reassignment discrimination but was instead a matter of sex discrimination. On the basis that sex discrimination in this instance could be justified under two exceptions to the Act, namely to “secure fair competition” between players, the court ruled in favour of the EBPF and dismissed Ms Haynes’ case outright. You can read the full judgment here.

Try and beat that: Women’s Rugby World Cup eyes record attendance

The Women’s Rugby World Cup final, which will take place at London’s Twickenham Stadium at the end of September, is set to be the most attended women’s rugby match of all time after selling all of its 82,000 tickets. It’s success across the board for the much-anticipated tournament, which has sold around 80% of seats across the rest of the tournament so far (with fans expected to snap up the remainder in the coming weeks). The figures, which dwarf the 13,000 sales attributed to the last final hosted by England during the Women’s Rugby World Cup 2010, demonstrates the increasing public interest in, and following of, the women’s game. The sales also top the 66,000-strong crowd in attendance at the Paris Olympic rugby sevens matches only last year, which were themselves lauded for their successful figures. Tickets, which remain modestly priced (beginning at just £10 for adults and £5 for children) are continuing to sell quickly, so hopeful fans should take this as fair warning to act fast if you hope to see the Red Roses in action this month!

Michael Johnson’s Grand Slam Track postponed as event runs into trouble

Four-time Olympic Champion and founder of Grand Slam Track Michael Johnson has been forced to issue an apology after it was announced that the upstart track and field league has failed to pay its athletes following its inaugural season this year. The controversy, which has seen the former athlete suspended by the BBC ahead of its World Athletics Championships coverage, sees Johnson's Grand Slam Track owe millions of dollars in appearance fees and prize money to its roster of competitors. “It is incredibly difficult to live with the reality that you've built something bigger than yourself while simultaneously feeling like you've let down the very people you set out to help. However, I have to own that”, said Johnson, “and yes, the cruellest paradox in all of this is we promised that athletes would be fairly and quickly compensated. Yet, here we are struggling with our ability to compensate them”. Organisers say they are working on solutions and new safeguards, but questions remain.

Game over: Beckham-backed Guild Esports runs out of lives

Guild Esports, the UK esports organisation once backed by footballing hero David Beckham, has confirmed it will cease operations this month in an announcement citing “financial challenges” amidst the “current economic climate”. Despite hopes that the entity could be revived following its insolvency listing in August, a failure to secure new ownership means the business, founded in 2020, will be shutting up shop for good. Guild once looked destined for the top, boasting partnerships with Sky and Subway and making history as the first esports organisation to be listed on the London Stock Exchange. Despite efforts to bolster its early successes with various rounds of funding, it was not a victory royale to be for the one-time victors of the Fortnite Champion Series: Grand Royale – Europe. “To everyone who became part of the Guild family, from our fans and players to staff and partners – thank you”, the organisation said in a farewell statement.

Extra time...

…and finally, the world’s first professional ‘bogsnorkeller’ has secured a record sixth win at the Wales-based World Bogsnorkelling Championships 2025. With Hollywood executives surely lining up to buy the rights to the next Academy Award winning tale, Neil Rutter’s story is one of both struggle and success amongst the peat bogs of Llanwrtyd Wells, Powys. Rutter, a two-time cancer survivor from Somerset, had previously retired from the offbeat tournament, which sees competitors race across 120 yards of peat bog to be crowned ultimate champion of the world. According to the titan of the sport, the “bog bug” brought him back, not only in aid of securing his record sixth title but also to become the sport’s first ever ‘professional’ competitor, a milestone achieved after the bog-GOAT was signed by car brand Dacia following his victory. Next year’s tournament is certainly not one to be missed – and neither is the ‘Bog Bread Pudding’ which can be snapped up by hungry spectators for a steal at just £2 a pop.

Construction disciplinary trends analysis #4: inadequate professional services

Mon, 08 Sep 2025 08:33:00 +0100

This is the fourth article in our series analysing trends in disciplinary decisions involving construction professionals, with insight from our specialist disciplinary team. This time we consider failures to act with skill & care which amount to unacceptable professional conduct and lead to regulatory consequences.

Money Covered: The Week That Was – 5 September 2025

Fri, 05 Sep 2025 13:11:00 +0100

To listen to this and all previous episodes, please click here.

Headline development

Autumn Budget to be delivered on 26 November

The Treasury confirmed this week that Chancellor Rachel Reeves will deliver the Autumn Budget on 26 November.

While Labour have reiterated their promise not to raise taxes on working people by raising income tax, national insurance, or VAT, it is nevertheless expected that the budget will be focused on increasing taxes to fill the £40b 'black hole' in the budget.

Rumours are swirling that there are plans to apply national insurance to rental income. It has also been speculated that a wealth tax could be implemented, though it has also been rumoured that the chancellor will refuse to implement this, despite pressure from Labour MPs.

Pension professionals, IFAs, and tax professionals will also be interested to note that there is also speculation about reducing the tax-free pension lump sum. The same theory arose last year but was ultimately not implemented.

To read more about possible policies we will see in the Autumn Budget, click here.

Accountants

Regulator warns accountants of emerging money laundering threats

The regulator has warned the accountancy profession that they face new money laundering threats amid a complex landscape with emerging technologies, evolving criminal methodology and international risk profiling.

Whilst the 2025 National Risk Assessment (NRA) has confirmed that the overall risk level has not changed since 2020 - the landscape of money laundering has changed with the emergence of fintech, crypto and gambling – which are considered high risk sectors. There are also further emerging risks with the re-rating of casinos, trust and company service providers and the football industry.

The NRA and regulator have therefore warned the profession to enforce vigorous risk-based compliance processes – with client due diligence, ongoing client monitoring, internal training and sufficient internal processes noted to be of particular importance.

To read more, click here.

Mortgage brokers

Incorporating lifetime mortgage advice into IHT planning

Inheritance Tax receipts hit £2.2 billion in the first quarter of the 2024/25 tax year - £100 million more than the same period last year. With thresholds frozen until at least 2028 and asset values continuing to rise, more estates are being dragged into charge.

People previously outside the scope may now be subject to IHT. For clients with property-heavy estates and limited cash, early planning is key. Traditional routes like gifting, exemptions and trusts still have a role, but lifetime mortgages should now be part of the conversation.

When used appropriately, equity release can reduce the value of the taxable estate without forcing a sale or downsizing. They can be a practical option – especially where rising property values are driving the IHT exposure. They need to sit within a proper estate planning strategy, with tax and legal input.

It is clear that more estates will face IHT in the coming years. Raising these options early gives clients time to act and gives advisers more control over the outcome.

To read more please click here.

Pensions

Pension Scheme Bill to be amended following the Virgin Media fall out

Following the Court of Appeal ruling in the Virgin Media case last year, the pension industry was left in limbo in respect of defined benefit schemes being contracted out of the state pensions scheme between 1997 and 2016.

The UK Government are now intervening to provide certainty to the industry by tabling several amendments to the Pension Scheme Bill. The amendments will enable schemes to retrospectively obtain written actuarial confirmation of compliance with the necessary standards for contracting out.

It will be for scheme trustees to engage with actuaries in addressing any Virgin Media issues in a pragmatic way for the benefit of the members.

To read more, please click here.

Regulatory developments for FCA regulated entities

FCA urged to reconsider targeted support annuity rules

The FCA's consultation on the introduction of "targeted support" closed on 29 August and whilst the framework has been welcomed in the main, industry commentators have urged the FCA to reconsider simply signposting consumers to MoneyHelper's annuities comparison tool.

In accordance with the current targeted support framework, firms are unable to specifically refer to a particular annuity in client conversations. Rather, they are limited to signposting consumers to MoneyHelper's comparison tool. There are concerns that this will reduce the effectiveness of the targeted support service as MoneyHelper is unable to help consumers with the actual product purchase.

It remains to be seen whether the FCA will take this feedback into account - the FCA will aim to publish a policy statement with their final rules by the end of 2025.

To read more on the FCA's consultation, please click here.

FCA urges caution in Pension Schemes Bill

Giving evidence before a Parliamentary committee regarding the Government's proposed Pension Schemes Bill on Tuesday, FCA Cross-cutting Policy and Strategy Director Charlotte Clark CBE warned that proposed 'safe harbour' exceptions to trustee mandation provisions would need to be addressed in secondary legislation.

In response to questions from Conservative MP and assistant whip Rebecca Smith, Clark emphasised that, while a lack of engagement in pensions investments was an industry-wide issue, whether mandation of trustees was the correct resolution was a political question.

However, she agreed that the level of detail in the Bill as written was insufficient to grant trustees certainty about the level of regulatory oversight. As such, she explained that the FCA would need to respond to the passage of the Bill by creation of more specific rules, the shape of which would be later determined.

You can read Clark's evidence to the committee here.

Case law updates

Arnold Holdings Ltd v Keelys [2025] EWCC 44 (29 July 2025)

An appeal has been dismissed by the County Court to grant a retrospective extension of time for service of a claim form.

The claim form was taken to the court a day before limitation expired and the court issued the claim form nearly two weeks later. The court then attempted to serve the claim form on the defendant, despite the Claimant giving instructions that they would serve the claim form (the parties agreed to treat this service as ineffective).

The Claimant came into difficulty when trying to obtain the sealed claim form from the court and therefore served the unsealed claim form on the defendant. The defendant acknowledged the claim and indicated a jurisdictional challenge. The Claimant therefore applied for a retrospective extension, but this was not granted.

The issue here was whether the Claimant had taken all reasonable steps in the circumstances, which the court did not think they had done.

To read more please click here.

The Week That Was - 5 September 2025

Fri, 05 Sep 2025 08:55:00 +0100

McLaren secures £280m Contract to build Cardiff Arena and hotel

The McLaren Construction Group has been confirmed as the main contractor for the £280 million Cardiff Bay Arena, formally approved in August 2025, with construction estimated to begin this year. The arena, to be located in Atlantic Wharf near the Wales Millennium Centre, will feature a 16,500-capacity multi-purpose venue.

Designed by Populous and HOK, the project is part of a larger regeneration plan that includes a digital arts theatre, a 182-room hotel, multi-storey car park, offices, and housing. Construction is projected to span four phases, with the arena expected to open around 2028.

To read more, please click here.

Graham appointed as main contractor

Construction group, Graham, has been appointed to act as principal contractor in respect of the Central Docks neighbourhood within Peel Waters' £5bn Liverpool Waters development. According to its website, Graham 'deliver complex multimillion pound projects in construction, civil engineering, interior fit-out, facilities management and investments'.

Central Docks, which is 10.5 hectares, is the largest brownfield plot in Liverpool. Intending to unlock land for around 2,350 new homes, it is the biggest of five neighbourhoods planned within the wider scheme.

To read more, please click here.

Court rejects appeal over construction damage and costs - Azizi v Dama Construction Ltd [2025] EWHC 2213 (TCC)

In this case, the central issue revolved around damage to the flank wall of Mr Azizi’s property, which was allegedly caused by Mr Azizi's refusal to grant Dama Construction access. Mr Azizi appealed a ruling by HH Judge Saggerson, who concluded that Azizi was responsible for the damage.

In this appeal, Mr Azizi contended that the judge had misinterpreted an expert report and failed to properly consider his submissions regarding costs and VAT.

However, the court disagreed, affirming that the judge’s decision was well-reasoned and supported by the evidence. Mr Azizi’s arguments regarding causation, the expert’s report, and the denial of access were found to be either inconsistent or lacking factual support.

The court also confirmed that the judge had appropriately received Mr Azizi’s submissions and had reasonably ordered a separate hearing to address costs. Mr Azizi's challenge regarding VAT was rejected. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

For the judgment, please click here.

RIBA Urges UK Parliament to prioritise high-quality design in public projects

The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) has called for a greater focus on high-quality design in the UK Parliament's agenda, urging lawmakers to prioritise well-designed buildings and public spaces. RIBA's campaign highlights the importance of integrating design excellence into planning and construction, with a focus on sustainability, health, and well-being.

The institute emphasises that good design is essential in creating spaces that are both functional as well as visually appealing. In its call to Parliament, RIBA advocates for policies that encourage better design in both the public and private sectors, urging the government to lead by example by ensuring high-quality design in its own projects.

This move is in alignment with RIBA's efforts to elevate design standards across the UK and to position architecture as a driver of social, environmental, and economic benefits.

To read more, please click here.

Updates to Government's ACM Cladding Remediation Fund

In May 2019, the UK government committed to funding the removal and replacement of unsafe ACM cladding on private sector residential buildings over 18 metres, estimating a cost of £200m.

However, from 1 September 2025, the Fund will no longer be accepting new applications. For buildings over 11 metres in England, applicants will need to apply through the Cladding Safety Scheme (CSS), managed by Homes England.

New applicants can begin their applications via the Building Remediation Hub. The Fund will continue to process and support existing applications, and the current guidance document will remain relevant for those already in the application process.

This transition ensures that buildings under 18 metres are still able to receive funding through the CSS, while ongoing support is provided for those already engaged in the remediation process under the original ACM Fund framework.

To read more, please click here.

With thanks to Emma Donovan, Emrys Moore and Hannah McDonagh

If you have any queries please do get in contact with a member of the team below, or your usual RPC contact.

The Work Couch: Judicial mediation: What is it and what can employers expect? With Charlotte Reid and Brodie Walker

Thu, 04 Sep 2025 15:59:00 +0100

As the Summer holidays draw to a close - and the backlog in employment tribunal cases continues - the Work Couch is going back to school with a lesson on judicial mediation (JM).

The Competition Appeal Tribunal provides further guidance on "standard requirements" in CPO Applications

Thu, 04 Sep 2025 12:32:00 +0100

Please note this article is focussed on the "standard requirements" identified by the Tribunal and does not look in depth at the underlying claims, the certification arguments or the legal analysis in either judgment. For further information, please review the judgments in full, or contact the publisher.

The landscape surrounding the certification by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the Tribunal) of applications for Collective Proceeding Orders (CPOs) (the necessary first step before a collective action can proceed to trial in the Tribunal) continues to develop as more claims proceed through the certification process and judgments are published. Now the legal principles underlying the certification of a collective action are better established, the Tribunal appears to be turning its mind to more forensic procedural management of this process, and establishing a series of standard requirements it expects proposed class representatives (PCRs) to meet in CPO applications.

In the recent joint CPO judgment of Robert Hammond v (1) Amazon.com, Inc. & Ors (the Hammond Claim); Professor Andreas Stephan v (1) Amazon.com, Inc. & Ors (the Stephan Claim) (the Amazon Judgment)[1], the Tribunal ruled on a number of procedural points that it said should be standard practice for all opt-out proceedings. The Tribunal in Professor Barry Rodger v (1) Alphabet Inc. & Ors[2] added to this guidance.

The "standard requirements" arising from those decisions are:

1. Publication of the Litigation Funding Agreement ("LFA")

The Tribunal has made it clear that it should now be "standard practice" in opt-out proceedings that a (non-confidential) copy of the PCR's LFA should be posted on the claim website.

This approach was endorsed in the Stephan Claim, where the LFA had already been published, and ordered with respect to the Hammond LFA. It has been further endorsed in Rodger.[3] In terms of confidentiality, it is acceptable to redact ATE insurance premiums on the basis that they give an indication of the risk allocated to the case.[4] That being the only redaction addressed by the Tribunal continues the trend towards reducing confidentiality protection for LFAs in collective action proceedings.

This new publication requirement, combined with the recent raft of published CPO judgments in which the Tribunal (and superior courts) have ruled on points of dispute in existing funding agreements, appears likely to lead to an increasingly standardised form of funding agreement in the opt-out collective action space, particularly for those funders backing a number of collective action proceedings and whose LFAs have consequently already been subject to judicial scrutiny.

2. Evidence on funding terms

Whilst the Tribunal has no intention of going behind privileged communications at the certification stage, it has made it clear that in order to certify a claim the Tribunal must be satisfied that the PCR has made proper efforts to secure favourable funding terms, and that it should be standard practice for the PCR to address in their evidence the steps they took to do so.[5]

Beyond the baseline question addressed above, challenges to the funder's actual remuneration / return and related provisions of the funding arrangements are increasingly likely to be delayed until settlement or distribution of damages, at which point the Tribunal considers it will be more able to look at the reasonableness of the funder's return in view of the outcome of case, which may include privileged negotiations that underlie it.[6]

3. Engage an independent costs specialist to advise on (and challenge, if necessary) the PCR's legal fees and disbursements

The Tribunal has also shown increasing concern about the PCR being in a position to subject their legal team's fees and disbursements, as submitted to the funder for payment, to "proper scrutiny".[7] In particular, the Tribunal has held that, given the scale and complexity of collective action proceedings, certain PCRs may not be in a position to effectively review and challenge bills for their own legal costs without assistance.

To allay this concern, the Tribunal indicated that it should be the standard approach in collective proceedings for the PCR to be assisted by an independent costs specialist, who may provide ongoing advice on legal fees as well as providing assistance in approving costs arrangements and fees.[8]

While the level of assistance each PCR will require will differ, it is therefore likely to be prudent for PCRs to engage costs specialists from the outset of their claims to advise on the initial structure of funding and costs arrangements, as well as to consider retaining costs lawyers to assist in overseeing of the incurred fees and disbursements on an ongoing basis. This begs the question as to whether the costs potentially saved on behalf of the class in ever closer scrutiny of the PCR's legal fees and disbursements will be eroded by the cost of engaging an additional legal advisor to undertake the task. The need for such support is also likely to depend to some extent on the background and experience of the PCR.

4. Arrange regular meetings of the Advisory Group / Consultative Panel

The role, constitution and responsibility of the PCR's advisory group or consultative panel (the panel) have been subject to increased focus in recent CPO decisions.[9]

In Rodger, the Tribunal expressed concern at the frequency of proposed panel meetings, at only twice per year, and approved the CPO application on the basis that the panel should meet at least on a quarterly basis.[10] The Tribunal also addressed the timing of the constitution of the panel, concluding that the panel, which had been appointed shortly before the CPO hearing[11], had not been appointed "too late" and that it was satisfied the PCR had received sufficient advice in relation to his funding arrangements from leading costs counsel prior to the panel's appointment.[12]

Whilst it is not a formal requirement that a panel be put in place,[13] and the PCR's need for input and guidance from its panel will likely ebb and flow over the course of proceedings, it is clear the Tribunal now expects to see structures in place to ensure proper assistance and support is provided to the PCR, including by way of regular meetings of the panel or at appropriate junctures.

[1] [2025] CAT 42.

[2] [2025] CAT 45 (Rodger).

[3] Rodger at [73].

[4] Rodger at [73].

[5] Amazon Judgment at [67(1)].

[6] Amazon Judgment at [66].

[7] Amazon Judgment at [45].

[8] Amazon Judgment at [45]; see also Bulk Mail Claim Ltd v International Distribution Services Plc [2025] CAT 19 at [22].

[9] Rodger at [74] - [81]; see also the CAT's judgment on the carriage dispute in Bira Trading Limited v (1) Amazon.com, Inc. & Ors [2025] CAT 6 at [48].

[10] Rodger at [81].

[11] The PCR notified Google of the appointments to the panel on 19 February 2025, which was just over a week before the CPO Hearing.

[12] Rodger at [79].

[13] Rodger at [79].

Tribunal allows taxpayers’ appeals in principal private residence and trading dispute

Thu, 04 Sep 2025 10:00:00 +0100

In R Eyre and another v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 461 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal allowed the taxpayers' appeals against HMRC’s decision to assess income tax on the sale of a residential property, finding that the property qualified for principal private residence relief. The tribunal rejected HMRC’s argument that the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade and found that the property qualified for principal private residence relief.

ML Covered - September 2025

Wed, 03 Sep 2025 14:03:00 +0100

140-year-old shareholder rule abolished by the Privy Council

In Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd & Others [2025] UKPC 34, the Privy Council determined that the longstanding "Shareholder Rule", which previously was thought to allow shareholders to inspect a company’s legally privileged documents by virtue of their status as shareholders, should no longer apply in England and Wales.

Background

On 14 April 2021, two companies within the Jardine Matheson corporate group - Jardine Strategic Holdings Ltd (Jardine Strategic) and JMH Bermuda Ltd – were amalgamated to form Jardine Strategic Limited (the Company). A consequence of the amalgamation was that the shares in Jardine Strategic were cancelled. The Company was required to pay fair value for those cancelled shares to shareholders who voted against the proposed transaction. Some shareholders (the Respondents) were not satisfied that the figure that the Company offered them was the fair value for their shares and invoked a statutory process under Bermuda’s Companies Act 1981 for the court to determine fair value.

During proceedings, the Company claimed legal advice privilege over the legal advice received by the group regarding the valuation of the shares in Jardine Strategic. The Respondents argued that this violated the Shareholder Rule that existed in English law, and which should also apply to Bermudian law. The Shareholder Rule means a company cannot, during litigation between it and shareholders or former shareholders, withhold documents from inspection on the ground that the documents are covered by legal advice privilege.

The Company argued that the Shareholder Rule was outdated and was not consistent with modern legal professional privilege, given that shareholders do not have sufficient proprietary or joint interest to justify an exception. The Respondents argued that shareholders and companies share a joint interest in legal advice that affects the rights of shareholders, and that the Shareholder Rule was well established in English law.

Both the Chief Justice and the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Respondents. The Company appealed to the Privy Council.

Decision

The Privy Council allowed the Company’s appeal, holding that the Shareholder Rule is not part of Bermudian law and should no longer apply in England and Wales. It was decided that the Shareholder Rule had originally come about on the basis that shareholders had their own proprietary interest in the company's money. However, this proprietary rationale for the Shareholder Rule had faded away and is incompatible with the modern understanding of companies as separate legal entities.

It was also decided that an exception from legal advice privilege between a company and shareholders, based on a supposed joint interest, ignores the separate personality of the company and would discourage companies from obtaining candid legal advice in confidence. Therefore, the Shareholder Rule did not justify its application to override legal professional privilege. It was also noted that exceptions to legal professional privilege are narrowly construed and must be compelling.

Key takeaways

The Privy Council's decision provides clarity to companies in respect of whether legal advice is privileged. The decision will also help encourage companies to obtain confidential legal advice without fear of having to disclose it to shareholders at a later date. This will be particularly beneficial to directors engaging in governance matters or corporate transactions where there may be a divergence between the company's interests and that of shareholders, or even between different classes of shareholders.

To read the decision, please click here.

Insolvency Service publishes its latest enforcement actions against directors and its accompanying insolvency statistics

The Insolvency Service has published its enforcement outcomes for 2025-26, detailing the enforcement actions taken against directors. The information covers the period from April 2025 to July 2025.

Director disqualifications and bankruptcy restrictions

During the period, there were 363 director disqualifications resulting from enforcement activity under sections 2, 6 and 8 of the Company Directors Disqualifications Act 1986 (the CDDA), with the mean length of disqualifications being 8 years. The number of disqualifications is lower than 2024/25 to the same date, where 397 directors were disqualified.

There were 334 director disqualifications under section 6 of the CDDA from April 2024 to December 2024. Section 6 relates to unfit conduct in relation to an insolvent or dissolved company. This is a decrease on last year's figure to the same date of 371. Similar to the previous year, the majority of these disqualifications remain related to allegations of Covid-19 financial support scheme abuse, with a mean disqualification of 9.2 years. Of the 334 disqualifications, only 1 related to dissolved companies. The Insolvency Service has had the power to investigate directors of dissolved companies as well as insolvent companies since 2021.

The Insolvency Service imposed 35 bankruptcy and debt relief restrictions during the period, a decrease on the 50 imposed over the same period in the previous year. As with the section 6 director disqualifications, the majority of the restrictions relate to allegations of abuse of the Covid-19 financial support scheme.

During the period, the Insolvency Service also convicted 28 individuals, of which half related to Covid-19 financial support scheme abuse. In terms of civil investigations, the Insolvency Service obtained 37 civil compensation orders and undertakings, totalling £2,050,779.

Insolvency statistics

The Insolvency Service's company insolvency statistics for July 2025 showed 2,081 insolvencies in that month, the majority being creditors' voluntary liquidations. This compares with 2,053 insolvencies in the previous month and 2,078 insolvencies in July 2024.

Key takeaways

Although the number of disqualifications has trended slightly downwards from the previous year to the same date, the number of enforcement actions taken by the Insolvency Service remains high. Many of these are a legacy of abuses of the Covid financial support scheme. With the number of corporate insolvencies reaching a 30 year high in 2023 and remaining high across 2024 and 2025, it can be expected that the Insolvency Service will be investigating the conduct of a larger number of directors, potentially resulting in larger number of disqualifications, particularly under section 6 of the CDDA.

To read more about the Insolvency Service's enforcement actions, please click here and for their company insolvency statistics please click here.

Rights Bill – NDAs update

As you will recall from our August edition of ML Covered, the Employment Rights Bill (ERB) has been with the House of Lords for review as part of the Report Stage which ran from 14 July to 23 July 2025. On 17 July 2025, the Government published an impact assessment entitled "contractual duties of confidentiality relating to harassment and discrimination" which proposes significant changes to non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and how they should, or, more significantly, should not, interact with disclosures of incidents of harassment and discrimination.

What are NDAs?

A non-disclosure agreement is a legally binding contract that establishes a confidential relationship between two parties. NDAs are often used in an employment setting to prevent business-sensitive information being disclosed.

While NDAs initially were intended to protect commercially sensitive information or data (such as intellectual property rights) there have been findings of these agreements being used to include clauses which prevent people speaking out on other parts of their employment, which do not concern sensitive data, such as experiences of harassment.

What the ERB says?

On 7 July 2025, the Government published an amendment to the ERB which restricted the use of NDAs/ confidentiality clauses in respect of claims of harassment and discrimination. The proposed change would make any provision in an agreement between a worker and employer void in so far as it purports to preclude the worker from making an allegation of or a disclosure of information relating to harassment or discrimination, or an employer's response to allegations of harassment or discrimination. Practically, this means that individuals subject to any of the behaviours, or who witness discrimination or harassment in the workplace, can call out such behaviour without the risk of being sued for breach of contract. Disclosures about the response of the employer to complaints of harassment are also covered by the new provision. Complaints about the harassment itself, as well as any action taken and/or not taken (such as investigations, disciplinaries etc) by the employer would also be covered by the protection.

It is worth noting that an NDA is a catch-all/ umbrella term for any agreement which contains confidentiality or non-disparaging clauses that limit what a signatory can say or who they can tell. In other words, an agreement does not necessarily need to be labelled as an NDA or confidentiality agreement for it to be considered void under the new proposal. If there is a clause which breaches the amendment by seeking to silence an employee, for example within an employment contract, the whole agreement would remain valid, but the clause would be void.

The Government's intention

The Government cites the motivation for this change as a desire to instil confidence in workers that inappropriate behaviour will be dealt with, and not hidden, despite attempts by employers to do so. Additionally, the ban on the use of NDAs to prevent employees from reporting experiences of sexual harassment or discrimination, aligns with the Government's impetus for introducing a proactive duty on employers to take "reasonable steps", which seeks to encourage workers to call out inappropriate and unsafe behaviour in the workplace.

Excepted agreements

It is expected that there will be certain "excepted agreements" which will fall outside of the provision. However, it is currently unclear which agreements will be "excepted". It has been suggested that an NDA requested by an employee, where an employee has received independent legal advice, could constitute an excepted agreement.

Settlement agreements

It is important to note the proposed change in confidentiality clauses in the context of settlement agreements. With settlement agreements, the employer typically commits to paying a monetary amount to an employee in exchange for the employee waiving any future claims against the employer. The current position is that confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements cannot prevent an individual from making a protected disclosure of matters of public interest under section 43A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and whistleblowing legislation (the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998). Any provision to do so will continue to be legally unenforceable. Protected disclosures however do not necessarily encompass all allegations of harassment or discrimination as they need to have a wide application beyond just the individual. Therefore, settlement discussions are often carried out on a "without prejudice" basis and the agreements themselves are confidential.

One of the incentives for an employer to settle a claim is to reduce the likelihood of the claim details being on public record, which could lead to reputational damage and/or other employees bringing claims of the same kind. However, with the proposed change, the confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements would be void. This means that while the settlement payment would not be affected, an employee cannot be prevented from making a disclosure (in exchange for payment). In turn, this could mean that employers are less likely to settle claims (resulting in more claims proceeding via formal dispute resolution channels), since they may feel that they lose the benefit of the allegations and/or claim details being confidential.

Settlement agreements offer many benefits to employees (depending on the circumstances). However, there may be a reduction in these agreements if an employer does not feel adequately protected, and so this may not always benefit the employees as the Government intended. Additionally, if employers are less willing to settle claims, employees are more likely to bring claims via the tribunal process, which has historically been criticised as an arena which promotes an imbalance between the parties due to the stark differences in financial circumstances.

Takeaways

NDAs will not disappear in their entirety. NDAs will continue to exist for the purposes of protecting commercially sensitive information and data. The change will solely concern allegations of harassment or discrimination. For employers who intend to request that an employee sign an NDA, for example during the onboarding process, it would be advisable to remove any wording or clauses which prohibit the disclosure of harassment or discrimination.

As with all changes proposed in the ERB, we are yet to see the full effect. It could be said, however, that removing the ability of employers to silence individual claims of harassment and discrimination may lead to more employees feeling empowered to raise complaints and employers being less willing to settle those claims. This in turn could increase the number of overall claims in tribunals, and which proceed to a final hearing.

Pension scheme secures return of £2.55m after TPR action and Tribunal ruling

Over £2.5 million will be paid into the Danapak Flexibles Retirement Benefits Scheme (DFRBS) following enforcement action by the Pensions Regulator (TPR) and a recent ruling by the Upper Tribunal in Pelgrave v TPR [2025] UKUT 00257. This marks the conclusion of a long-running case involving Dundee-based Discovery Flexibles Limited (DFL), which supplied packaging to major household brands.

TPR launched an investigation after the scheme’s independent trustee reported that funds had been extracted from DFL between 2008 and 2019 while its pension scheme remained in deficit. DFL was owned during this period by Chris Wrigley and his wife Elizabeth, having been bought for £1 in 2008 and sold in 2019 for the same amount. TPR found that these actions caused material detriment to the scheme and pursued contribution notices against four individuals: Chris and Elizabeth Wrigley, and Chris’ siblings, Paul Wrigley and Ann Pelgrave.

In October 2023, the Wrigleys agreed to a £2 million settlement, with Paul Wrigley later paying £222,482.83 in line with TPR’s determination. Ann Pelgrave contested her notice, but on 4 August 2025, the Upper Tribunal upheld TPR’s decision, ordering her to pay £245,749 plus around £85,000 in interest. This brings the total recovery to approximately £2.55 million. Despite this, DFRBS remains in deficit, with a £10.5 million shortfall on a technical provisions basis as of March 2023.

TPR’s Executive Director of Regulatory Compliance, Gaucho Rasmussen, said the case reinforces the regulator’s determination to protect savers and to act when employers neglect their responsibilities, noting that “even when a business is still trading, we will intervene where necessary to safeguard pension benefits". Notably, Chris Wrigley had previously been banned as a trustee in 2017 and was convicted in 2018 for failing to provide information to TPR.

The steps taken by TPR will be of interest to PTL insurers given that PTL policies usually cover the defence costs of defending a contribution notice albeit not the sums due in respect of a contribution notice itself.

To read more, please click here.

Pensions Ombudsman limits trustee recoupment of longstanding overpayments

The Pension Ombudsman (TPO) has partially upheld a complaint against the BIC UK Pension Scheme’s trustees, ruling it was not equitable to recover overpayments accrued before 1 April 2020. This decision follows the Ombudsman's lead case approach in Mr E (CAS-55100-G3W9) and highlights how delay and poor communication can undermine trustees’ ability to recoup historic overpayments.

The background

Mr and Mrs D were members of the BIC UK Pension Scheme. They had been overpaid £31,413 and £16,408 respectively over a 21-year period, due to discretionary pension increases made under invalid scheme amendments affecting pre-6 April 1997 service. These increases were later ruled invalid by the Court of Appeal in BIC UK Ltd v Burgess [2019].

Although the trustees suspended future increases in 2013, they did not warn members that previous payments might be subject to recovery. It was only seven years later, in March 2020, that Mr and Mrs D were notified that not only would their pensions be reduced, but the historic overpayments would be recouped over more than 20 years. Mr and Mrs D accepted their pensions should be adjusted going forward but challenged the attempt to claw back past payments, citing financial hardship, deteriorating health and lack of clear notification.

The decision

TPO held that it was not equitable for the trustees to recoup the overpayments that had accrued up to 1 April 2020. TPO accepted that Mr and Mrs D had acted in good faith, had not been clearly or informed in a timely way of the overpayments, and had suffered financial detriment by relying on the inflated pension figures over a prolonged period.

Although a February 2013 announcement alluded to possible deductions, TPO found it poorly drafted and lacking sufficient clarity to put the couple on notice. Payslips continued to show the higher pension amounts, and no further warnings were issued. Consequently, the principles of change of position and laches applied, limiting the trustees’ right to recoup. The only recoverable amounts were those overpayments made after 31 March 2020 – £542.69 for Mr D and £313.34 for Mrs D.

In addition, both complainants were awarded £1,000 for serious distress and inconvenience. After offsetting these awards, the trustees were directed to make net payments of £457.31 to Mr D and £686.66 to Mrs D.

Key takeaways

This case reinforces the principle that trustees may not always be entitled to recoup pension overpayments, even when legally permitted. Equitable defences such as change of position and laches can apply where members have spent overpayments in good faith and without clear notice that the sums were incorrect.

The decision underlines the importance of transparent, timely and sufficiently detailed communications by trustees – particularly where members’ long-term financial arrangements are affected. Ultimately, while trustees have a duty to correct overpayments, this duty must be balanced against fairness to members, particularly where the error spans decades and the members are financially vulnerable.

Court of Appeal clarifies rules on non-material damage in data breach claims

On 22 August 2022, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in the case of Farley v Paymaster (1836) Ltd, providing clarification on the scope of compensation for “non-material” damage under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The decision overturns a High Court ruling that had struck out most of the claims brought by 432 pension scheme members whose annual benefit statements (ABS) were mistakenly sent to outdated addresses. The Court confirmed that compensation for fear of data misuse can, in principle, be recoverable (even if the data has not been proven to be accessed by a third party) provided the fear is objectively well-founded.

The background

The claimants were members of a police pension scheme administered by Equiniti. In August 2019, due to a systems error, their ABS, which contained personal data, were posted to old addresses. Although there was no evidence that the statements were seen by unintended recipients in most cases, the claimants alleged that their data protection rights had been breached, and claimed for anxiety, distress, and in some cases, psychiatric injury. They argued that the prospect of their data falling into the wrong hands caused significant fear and emotional harm.

The High Court struck out most of the claims, reasoning that since the claimants could not show the data had come to anyone’s attention, the alleged breaches could not give rise to compensation. The claimants appealed this decision, arguing that disclosure is not a necessary precondition for a data breach claim under the GDPR.

The decision

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, clarifying several key points:

Disclosure is not required: the Court confirmed that under GDPR, it is not necessary to show that personal data was disclosed to a third party to establish an infringement. Sending data to the wrong address could, by itself, amount to unlawful “processing”.
No seriousness threshold: there is no minimum threshold of seriousness required for compensation under EU data law. Courts must instead assess whether the claimant suffered actual non-material damage.
Fears must be well-founded: compensation is available for anxiety or distress caused by fear of data misuse, if that fear is objectively reasonable. Purely speculative fears are insufficient. Of the 432 claims, only 14 were supported by evidence that a third party had opened the ABS.
Not an abuse of process: the Court rejected the idea that the modest value of these claims made them an abuse of process (known as a “Jameel” abuse). It affirmed that collective actions can be an efficient way to resolve small but legitimate claims.

The case was remitted to the High Court to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether each individual had a reasonable basis for fearing misuse.

Key takeaways

The Court of Appeal's decision makes it clear that compensation for non-material damages, such as anxiety or fear resulting from a data breach, is recoverable under data protection law. Importantly, claimants are not required to prove that their personal data was accessed or viewed by a third party.

However, they must demonstrate that their fear of potential misuse is objectively well-founded rather than purely speculative.

The Court reinforced the broad definition of “processing” under the GDPR, confirming that even mistaken handling of personal data can constitute an infringement. Moreover, it rejected the notion of imposing a minimum threshold of seriousness for claims, ensuring that individuals can seek redress for less tangible, emotional harms. Finally, by upholding the legitimacy of collective actions for relatively modest claims, underscoring the need for pension schemes to prioritise data accuracy and security to avoid costly and reputational risks.

This is an important decision in the pensions context given the fact that trustees hold a large amount of personal data and as a result there is a risk to them of these types of actions if statements or other documents end up being sent to the wrong address. For PTL insurers this is a case to note given that PTL policies are likely to cover the cost of these actions and the damages as well

To read the case, please click here.