Diary news plus insights, commentary and appointments from the legal world
28 August 2026
Editorial contact: fennell.edward@yahoo.com
SHORT THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK: META AND MIDDLESBROUGH
There’s a long distance between the courtroom in the USA where the malign impact of Meta was being discussed and the fatally ‘racing’ cars in Middlesbrough which brought death to two police officers and a gang of youths. What brings them together is the role of social media in driving – in Middlesbrough’s case, literally – young people to self-destructive behaviour. Admittedly the Middlesbrough lads were slightly older than those featured in the Meta case, but as Shakespeare’s Old Shepherd in The Winter’s Tale observes, between the age of ‘ten and three-and-twenty’ there is pretty much a continuum of crazy conduct.
How much difference will be made by putting in place legally-binding age barriers remains to be seen. Youth is agile and can hop over boundaries. The law can make important statements of values and perils. But changing behaviours is going to take much more.
The LegalDiarist
In this edition
+ LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
A PRINCELY SUM
BETTER ADVICE THAN DOWN THE PUB?
CRIMINAL BAR STILL BEING SOLD SHORT
AND AFTER THE WEEKEND?
+ CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FAILED DOLFIN INVESTORS – COMPLIANCE FRAMEWORKS NEED STRENGTHENING
by Lisa Uttley
+ LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
on the Meta saga and ‘Right to Manage’
+ APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Devonshires
LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
A PRINCELY SUM
As every newspaper reported, the absurd soap opera that is the life of Prince Harry, his family and his partners-in-grievance took a turn for the worse this past week when his case against Associated went sour. The costs issue then took centre stage. Again, not looking too good.
“This could not have gone much worse for Prince Harry and the other claimants,” said David Bailey-Vella, chair of the Association of Costs Lawyers.“The only chink of light is the judge’s comments about the £34m costs claim appearing ‘excessive’ and his ‘real concerns’ about how much of it would meet that test before a costs judge…the claimants will surely try again before the costs judges to try and show they relied on Associated’s original budget when buying the insurance and so should not have to pay more.”
Bailey-Vell went on to point out that unless the two sides can come to a reasonable settlement between themselves the case could drag on for a long time. As he observed, the Wagatha Christie libel case – at a much lower scale – took two years and seven months to resolve.“For lawyers, the ruling is a sharp reminder that indemnity costs remain an exceptional response to litigation conducted outside the norm,” he said.“Serious allegations – especially those carrying reputational weight – must be advanced with proper foundation and maintained responsibly. It also makes clear that parties cannot distance themselves from the conduct of their legal teams or experts when that conduct drives unnecessary cost.”
Costs lawyers rarely get so much attention. But, surely, they are worth it.
BETTER ADVICE THAN DOWN THE PUB?
It’s the story of our era. We don’t entirely trust AI but we come to rely on it nonetheless – maybe even more so than the mate you meet down the pub? That’s the essence of research from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) which shows that while almost three quarters (73%) of people ‘know’ that AI can provide inaccurate information more than one in three (38%) believe it’s fine to make an investment decision based solely on the advice that AI offers.
Even more alarming, however, is the way that more than 40% of people (44%) mistakenly believe AI-generated financial information is ‘regulated’ – while around one third are suffering from the misapprehension that they would be entitled to compensation from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) or Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) if advice from AI sent their investments down the tubes.
Exactly why so many people have got the wrong end of the stick is hard to understand. That making investments is a risky activity appears in the small print – but maybe it should be brought more front and centre. “General purpose AI chatbots are not regulated,” points out the FCA, “although tools which are specifically set up to provide financial advice WOULD be likely to fall within the FCA’s remit.”
Charlotte Hill, Partner at Katten Muchin Rosenman UK LLP, offers her interpretation. “The FCA’s findings highlight an important disconnect between consumers’ growing confidence in using AI and their understanding of the regulatory protections that apply to it,” she observes. “AI can be an extremely useful tool for investors: it can help explain unfamiliar terminology, analyse information and make complex markets more accessible. The concern is not the use of AI itself, but the assumption that an AI-generated answer necessarily comes with the same regulatory safeguards as advice from an authorised firm.”
CRIMINAL BAR STILL BEING SOLD SHORT
It is a bit depressing to hear that a long awaited set of Government proposals on criminal legal aid turns out – on close examination by the Bar Council – to be not just “fundamentally unfair” but also lacking in crucual evidence to support it. “For heaven’s sake,” one is tempted to cry out, “if anyone should be trusted to act on evidence it ought to be the Ministry of Justice.”
So here are the facts. Following a long-delayed Ministry of Justice consultation regarding a government proposal to increase fees for guilty pleas, the Bar’s representative body has dismissed the proposal for an increase in 30% but no lift in daily attendance fees at trials.
What the Bar Council is now demanding, instead, is a government commitment to a 6% increase to guilty plea fees and also a 6% increase to daily attendance fees. After all they say, that was what was recommended by the Criminal Legal Aid Advisory Board Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme (AGFS) working group back in January 2026.
“We urge the Ministry of Justice to follow the recommendation of the expert working group to increase fees for daily attendance at court. These have been decimated by cuts and inflation,” said Bar Council Chair Kirsty Brimelow KC. “The Ministry of Justice’s proposal will disproportionately negatively impact rape and serious sexual offences cases as these cases are usually trials and the Ministry of Justice is proposing reducing investment in trials.
“Generally, barristers act in the most serious, complex and lengthy trials. There already is an issue of insufficient barristers due to the working conditions of practising in criminal law. Criminal KCs alone have decreased by around 25%. This proposal will not attract them back and may drive more away, which means more adjourned cases for complainant victims.Investing in a properly funded criminal Bar and investing in victim support are not competing priorities. It is incoherent to spend hundreds of millions supporting victims to an empty or delayed courtroom.”
ANYTHING BEYOND THE WEEKEND?
School holidays at an end and a rainy Bank Holiday Monday (probably) lying ahead but for many journalists and politicians there will be an eagerness to get back next week to the business of government. And lying ahead on Tuesday will be the much anticipated Backbench Business Debate on the society-wide impact of SLAPPs,
Described as being the ‘next junction in the campaign for anti-SLAPP measures’ the debate offers, suggests its supporters, the opportunity to discuss previously undisclosed case studies from SLAPP victims. So it could be quite a mouth-dropper.
Demand for reform comes from both sides of the House and the Lords too are likely to be supportive. Across the parties and across the chambers there are likely to be powerful calls for legislative reform. They could be on to something big.
CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FAILED DOLFIN INVESTORS – COMPLIANCE FRAMEWORKS NEED STRENGTHENING
by Lisa Uttley
The Dolfin Financial case brings into sharp focus the deeply troubling vulnerabilities that existed within the Tier 1 (Investor) visa route before its closure in February 2022. Through a fee-based arrangement operated by an FCA-authorised firm, 99 individuals were led to believe they had met the £2 million investment threshold — only to find themselves exposed when the scheme unravelled.
The case reveals a systemic failing: the Home Office’s reliance on intermediary-generated documentation to verify qualifying investments, with no independent audit mechanism capable of detecting even sophisticated circumvention by regulated firms. The individuals caught up in this scheme were, in many cases, acting in good faith on the advice of professionals they had every reason to trust.
The government’s decision to close the route — driven by security and money-laundering concerns — may have been vindicated by cases such as this. However, the seven-year enforcement lag between the conduct and the eventual sanction against Dolfin raises serious questions about the adequacy of the regulatory framework that was supposed to protect both the public interest and the individuals who relied upon it. Those individuals now face significant immigration consequences through no fault of their own — a reality that any fair assessment of this episode must acknowledge.
For any successor investor visa scheme now under consideration, compliance frameworks must be materially strengthened, not only to protect the integrity of the immigration system but also to safeguard applicants from exploitation by unscrupulous intermediaries. At a minimum, this should include: real-time, independent verification of qualifying investments by an authority other than the sponsoring intermediary; mandatory source-of-funds checks aligned with AML standards under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017; formal information-sharing protocols between the FCA and the Home Office to close the coordination gap that left migrants vulnerable in the Dolfin case; and regulatory oversight of immigration agents who introduce clients to investment schemes.
Any enhanced due diligence obligations placed on applicants themselves should be proportionate, recognising that many will be relying on professional advisors and may have limited visibility into the underlying investment structures. Where individuals are found to have been unwitting participants in circumvention arrangements orchestrated by regulated firms, the enforcement response should reflect that distinction — prioritising accountability for the architects of such schemes over penalties for those who were, in substance, their victims.
Lisa Uttley is a Partner at Gherson Solicitors
LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
TOPIC: The agreement by Meta to pay up to $17.1bn to settle the action against it in the USA regarding the serious harm done to children by its addictive services
COMMENT BY: Mark Jones, Criminal Partner
“This is surely the first of many such cases against tech companies in the US, but what about the UK?
In the US, several states joined forces to take on Meta. In the UK families and individuals have compelling evidence that their children suffered serious harm, sometimes with fatal consequences, yet we do not see the same type of large civil claims here.
“Ofcom can investigate and issue fines to the platforms, but that is not the same as securing justice or compensation for those families. The recent cases in the US against tech companies for online harms, appear to signal that it is civil claims that affect change more than regulation.”
TOPIC: The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Avon Freeholds v Cresta Court regarding ‘Right to Manage’
COMMENT BY: Mark Foxcroft Partner, Devonshires
“The Court of Appeal’s decision created a powerful tool for landlords, as a single missed qualifying tenant could now invalidate an entire claim. In reversing the Court of Appeal’s decision, the Supreme Court has also removed one of the few procedural weapons available to landlords in right to manage (RTM) disputes. Given that RTM is intended to be a no-fault right, many in the sector would see this reversal as a reflection of Parliament’s original intentions in the legislation and this is expressly referred to in the judgment.
“The decision also reflects the practical reality that many RTM companies struggle to identify each and every qualifying tenant, especially when leases have only been recently granted, ownership structures are complex, or there are a large number of properties involved. With today’s decision, the Court has reduced the risk of RTM acquisitions collapsing simply because of an innocent procedural omission affecting a tenant who suffered no prejudice by not being served.
“In the aftermath of the Court of Appeal’s decision, advisers have become far more cautious about service of Notices Inviting Participation (NIPs). The reversal of the Court of Appeal’s decision has given RTM companies far more certainty about their claims which may contain minor defects, and the need for costly precautions has been significantly reduced.
“The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that the RTM is a statutory right, and should be easily accessible to leaseholders. Today’s decision is further evidence of a movement away from overly technical challenges, and towards substantive justice. It also correlates with the Government’s tenant-friendly approach, as evidenced by the recent amendments to the regime in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act (LAFRA).”
LEGAL SECTOR APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
Kadry Zaghawa has joined Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP as ‘Of Counsel’ in its Dubai and Abu Dhabi offices.
With over three decades of experience representing clients across the Middle East, Zaghawa has acted for high-profile GCC corporates and international clients in shareholder disputes, commercial agency deregistration and commercial litigation before all levels of the UAE courts, and in administrative law disputes before the UAE Federal Courts. He has also advised clients on resolving disputes through arbitration and other litigation alternatives.
“Quinn Emanuel has represented clients in the Middle East for more than 30 years,” said Richard East, Co-Managing Partner of the firm’s London office. “Building our local team brings us closer to our clients in the region and to the local courts that matter to them most. Among the leading Arabic drafters in the UAE, Kadry is sought out for onshore UAE court matters. He broadens the services we offer to corporates, private equity investors, and high net worth individuals with disputes in the region.
“Kadry will be an asset to our existing team in UAE and will support regional work as well,” East added. “We are all excited to welcome him to Quinn Emanuel.”
Devonshires
Andrew Cromb has been appointed as a Partner in the London office of Devonshires with a view to establishing a dedicated tax practice within the firm’s Corporate team. Previously with Linklaters, Cromb has over 15 years’ experience in tax law His arrival reflects Devonshires’ investment in areas where its clients’ needs are evolving and where it aims to strengthen comprehensive and joined-up advice across practice disciplines.
“Andrew’s appointment is an important step in the continued development of our team,” said Gary Grigor, Head of the Banking, Governance, Corporate & Employment department at Devonshires, “Our clients are increasingly looking for advice across different practice disciplines, and having a dedicated in-house tax capability will strengthen the support we can provide. Andrew brings considerable experience and we’re very pleased to welcome him to Devonshires.”
Cromb commented, “Devonshires’ outstanding reputation in social housing and real estate, and the strength and ambition of its finance practice, provide an exciting platform to work with colleagues across the firm to develop a tax practice aligned with Devonshires’ established strengths and sector focus.”
We hope that you’ve been interested or amused by something in this week’s LEGAL DIARY. If so do send on to colleagues.
And please continue sending your ‘Diary-type’ stories, insights legal comment and appointments to
fennell.edward@yahoo.com
p.s Now try to enjoy that BH Weekend!