Diary news plus insights, commentary and appointments from the legal world

31 October 2025

Editorial contact: fennell.edward@yahoo.com

SHORT THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK: Thrilling news?

No doubt there will be astonishment at today’s news that the number of UK visitors to the Pornhub website has decreased by 77% since the introduction of more rigorous age checks for sexually explicit sites were introduced under the Online Safety Act.

Of course the real impact can only be judged in the longer term once frustrated but smart viewers have managed to find work-rounds to the regime. Nonetheless, cynicism aside, it might turn out to be one of those legislative interventions which ‘change the weather’ within the culture.

“Anything that protects children in the online environment from harmful content is welcome news.,” said Mark Jones, Partner at Payne Hicks Beach and an Online Safety Act expert.

Too true. Welcome news is hard to find these days. Let’s cherish this fragment – and hope.

The LegalDiarist

In this edition

+ LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK

Case Strategy Technology the way forward for AI

Travelling Under a False Flag? No – A False Driving Licence

Courting Reform From CORLA

+ CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK

THE CROSSROADS OF LAW AND POLICY: WHO COUNTS AS AN ‘ENEMY’ UNDER THE OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT? by Joanna Ludlam and Will Jones

REPEAL OF THE PRESUMPTION OF PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT: A MOVE IN THE WRONG DIRECTION by Kim Lehal

WHO PROTECTS THE ‘CHILDREN IN NEED’? by Amean Elgadhy

+ LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK

on the Budget and High Growth Firms and the possibility of a Mansion tax, effectiveness of the Worker Protection Act 2023, the Renters Rights Bill, reform of the Family Courts, Employment Rights Bill,

+ APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK

at Payne Hicks Beach and Browne Jacobson

LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK

Case Strategy Technology the way forward for AI

Another week, another survey which demonstrates how vital and central AI is becoming to legal practice. In this latest case the focus was on litigation management in the USA and was undertaken by analyst firm Ari Kaplan Advisors in conjunction with software provider Opus 2.

The keynote finding was that more than four out of five partners and senior litigators at leading law firms in the USA believe that AI-enabled tech will be required for them to remain competitive in litigation over the next year!

So transition to AI-anchored practice will not be slow but, on the contrary, presents an immediate challenge. Indeed, the findings of the report The Emergence of Case Strategy Technology as a Competitive Advantage in an Evolving Litigation Landscape are startling.

For example, one of the key developments is that case strategy technology is emerging as a distinct and essential category whether that be by speeding up basic tasks or gaining faster access to insights and evidence. A massive 87% of those surveyed agreed that AI-enhanced case strategy technology is going to bring competitive advantage while 84% believed that it could influence positive outcomes. And that is not going to be at some distant point in five-to-ten years time. It is on us almost now.

Analysis in the report suggests that by unifying case management and case strategy workflows into a single platform insights can be accelerated while collaboration can improve and faster decision-making can be accomplished throughout the case lifecycle.

“Litigation teams are facing rising caseloads, growing data volumes, and increasingly sophisticated adversaries,” said Ari Kaplan, principal of Ari Kaplan Advisors. “This research shows that AI-enhanced case strategy tools, like Opus 2, are helping lawyers meet those demands by accelerating insight and enabling more effective advocacy.”

Meanwhile Beau Wysong, the senior vice president of global marketing at Opus 2, observed that, “This research highlights how important AI-enhanced case strategy technology is especially as it relates to crafting winning narratives and gaining a competitive advantage.“

Download the full report here.

Courting Reform From CORLA

Strong words from CORLA (the Collective Redress Lawyers Association) in connection with the current Department for Business and Trade ‘Opt-out’ review for which submissions closed a fortnight ago.

CORLA describes itself as ‘the voice of collective redress representing claimant law firms which bring collective actions in the Competition Appeal Tribunal

‘Th e real issue to address,” says CORLA, “is how to provide access to justice across a broad spectrum of unlawful conduct which is causing significant harm to UK businesses and consumers.”

Put crudely this can mostly be characterized as David and Goliath scenarios – typically, plucky but puny Brits against US behemoths.

The UK businesses and UK consumers involved in these claims are from a cross-cutting section of British society, explains CORLA, from small family run B&Bs to UK children sitting at home playing their PlayStations. “Their ability to participate in these claims and to be compensated as a result of harm caused to them by predominantly US entities which repeatedly show disregard for UK competition law is not dictated by their means.”

One way to remedy this, adds CORLA, is to expand the opt-out regime beyond competition law to other torts with the obvious areas for expansion being claims arising from breaches of consumer protection and data protection legislation. Moreover, there is scope for improvement in each of the current procedural mechanisms for collective redress (i.e. Group Litigation Order, Competition Appeal Tribunal and CPR 19.6 representative actions).

Where the Government goes with this remains to be seen. But, in a small but significant way, it might reveal where the Starmer administration’s loyalties lie.

Travelling Under a False Flag? No – A False Driving Licence

Here’s another sobering tale of fraudsters’ ability to come up with a cunning scam to dupe the insurance industry. But fortunately they don’t always get away with it.

In this case, according to Rick Preston, Partner and Head of Intelligence at specialist insurance law firm HF, the trickery links tothe rising use of fake foreign driving licences in civil claims. 

Since the beginning of this year alone HF’s Intelligence Team has identified over 40 fraudulence licenses including 11 in just the past month. Many of these forgeries are believed to trace back to organised criminal networks whioch are producing counterfeit identity documents at scale. Others are openly sold online, marketed as “novelty items” or “party accessories”. But the truth is that some suppliers are fully aware these products are being used for fraudulent purpose

Because of the severe consequences and the damage done to innocent parties in these cases there is a need for increased awareness and robust verification measures within both the insurance and legal sectors. It also underscores the value of specialist intelligence expertise in identifying the subtle, technical indicators of document forgery, says Rick Preston.

“The sophistication of these fakes varies, but several tell-tale signs often reveal the truth,” explains Preston. Hence common red flags to look out for include:

• Incorrect fonts or misaligned text
• Information positioned in the wrong area of the card
• QR codes that do not revert to the issuing authority
• Issue and renewal dates that breach local licensing rules
• Inaccurate security features, holograms, or card materials
• Formatting and layout errors inconsistent with genuine designs

“As identity fraud continues to evolve, so too must the industry’s methods for detecting it,” concludes Preston.

Drugs Now Dug-In to UK Prison Regimes

Channel 4’s TV programme Uk Prisons – Sex, Drugs & Corruption: Untold presented by ex-prisoner David Navarro and aired back in the Summer started to unveil to the general public the extent to which the drug culture has penetrated our prisons. Now a new report published today (October 31) by the Justice Committee has given us the official detail.

‘Crisis’ barely does credit to what has been exposed with the use of illicit drugs and the trade in them across prisons reaching ‘endemic’ levels. And accompanying that is the insidious effect on attitudes and the fostering of a ‘dangerous culture of acceptance.”

The result?

“The ability of HM Prison and Probation Service to maintain safety and control, and offer effective rehabilitation, is being ‘critically undermined’ by the scale of the drugs crisis,” according to the cross-party Committee chaired by Labour MP Andy Slaughter.

“Fuelled by inflated profits, the supply of drugs by organised criminal gangs into prisons is a constant pressure. This is compounded by failure to address and reduce the underlying demand for drugs and combat the alarming rise in the use of sophisticated drone technology,” said Slaughter

.Particularly worrying is that potent New Psychoactive Substances are driving increases in violence, debt, and fatal overdoses. The current testing regime cannot keep pace.

“Without urgent reform and investment that tackles the profitable supply networks, the discrepancies in treatment provision and purposeful activity, plus the poor physical condition of the estate, prisons will remain unstable, unsafe and incapable of gaining control over the drugs crisis,” concluded Slaughter ominously.

CONTRIBUTED ARTICLES OF THE WEEK

THE CROSSROADS OF LAW AND POLICY: WHO COUNTS AS AN ‘ENEMY’ UNDER THE OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT? by Joanna Ludlam and Will Jones

The row over the collapse of the China spy case has generated significant column inches in recent weeks. At the heart of the story is a relatively narrow question on the meaning in law of the term “enemy”.

The DPP indicated in a letter to the Home Affairs and Justice Select Committees that the decision not to pursue the prosecution to trial was driven by the CPS’s inability to obtain the evidence it considered necessary to satisfy the legal test articulated in the 2024 Court of Appeal ruling in R v Roussev. That decision considered the meaning of the term “enemy” for the purposes of the Official Secrets Act 1911, which is the legislation in play here. The phrasing of the DPP’s letter suggested that the court’s decision narrowed the test of what constitutes an “enemy”. That appears to be at odds with the court’s analysis, which suggests a broad interpretation of this term.

Specifically, the Court of Appeal’s judgment indicates that the term “enemy” for the purposes of the 1911 Act could include “a country which represents a current threat to the national security of the UK” or “a country with whom the UK might some day be at war”. It also noted that “friendly powers would fall outside this definition”.

Interestingly, the court also stressed that whether the test is satisfied in any given situation will depend on the jury’s assessment of the evidence in question. The debate playing out between ministers and the opposition as to whether government policy on China (under both Labour and the previous Conservative administration) has been sufficiently robust therefore seems to be beside the point.

A number of high-profile and distinguished legal experts have questioned whether the DPP may have got the law wrong in deciding to drop the case. The CPS has shot back that legal experts were entitled to offer an opinion “based on published documents and media reports”, while prosecutors made decisions “with full view of the facts”.

There seems to be some force in the CPS’s position; before a trial commentators will inevitably only have sight of fragments of the evidence on which the prosecution is based.

It will be interesting to see whether the ongoing inquiry of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which is due to hear oral evidence from the key players in the coming days, will shed further light on the facts on which the CPS’s decision was predicated.

Joanna Ludlam is a Partner and Will Jones a Special Counsel at Jenner & Block

REPEAL OF THE PRESUMPTION OF PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT: A MOVE IN THE WRONG DIRECTION by Kim Lehal

The Government’s decision to repeal the presumption of parental involvement is, in my view, a concerning step that risks creating more problems than it solves.

The current principle is that generally it is in a child’s best interests to have a relationship with both parents. The issue is not with the presumption itself, but with a system that does not provide robust enough checks to risk assess cases where abuse is alleged in a timely manner.

Repealing the presumption of parental involvement risks tipping the balance in a way that may make it easier for one parent to marginalise the other. As a family lawyer who specialises in child law, I have seen first-hand how false allegations, manipulation and obstruction can be used to sever parent-child relationships and the damage this causes. Removing the presumption could, in many cases, hand greater power to a parent intent on cutting the other out of a child’s life, to the detriment of the child.

At the same time, it is right that the system must protect victims of abuse and children. The protection of children’s welfare has always been a central principle within Family law. The problem is the lack of robust risk assessment, as opposed to the presumption itself. Domestic abuse perpetrator programmes no longer exist, risk assessment tools are inconsistent, and there is currently little meaningful intervention between a finding of fact and decisions on contact. Without proper tools, it is difficult to distinguish genuine safeguarding concerns from strategic accusations.

Consideration must be given to:

• Fixing the risk assessment process so the courts can properly identify and manage genuine risk.
• Providing effective intervention programmes for perpetrators where change is possible.
• Resourcing CAFCASS, Local Authorities and the Family courts properly so that assessments are thorough and timely.

Children benefit from safe, meaningful relationships with both parents but where there is abuse, the system must intervene swiftly and decisively. Abandoning a principle intended to support children’s right to family life due to shortcomings in the surrounding system may have significant risks.

Kim Lehal is Family Partner and child law specialist, RWK Goodman

Who Protects ‘Children in Need’? by Amean Elgadhy

The duties of family and children’s practitioners under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 are clear: every local authority must promote and safeguard the welfare of disabled children – recognised legally, as ‘Children In Need’ – in their area, and, as far as they can, promote the upbringing of such children by their families. So, why is the Law Commission backtracking on its previous recommendation to introduce a new legal framework to streamline their social care?

Arguably, this decision reflects caution. By recommending that disabled children should stay within the scope of the current provisions within the 1989 Act, and instead introducing a discrete set of provisions, the Commission avoids creating potential fragmentation, legal uncertainty, and transitional delays in service provision. Such an outcome could have given the impression of a ‘two-tier’ system that reinforced a sense of separateness rather than inclusion for some of the most vulnerable children in society. Instead, the decision to keep disabled children within the core statutory framework affirms their place in the universal legal protection afforded to all children in need. And yet, this reversal still feels like a missed opportunity.

A new legal framework could have embedded a rights-based, needs-focused approach, free from the outdated assumptions that underpin the current provisions. It’s worth remembering that section 17 was not designed with disabled children in mind, so layering on new provisions within the existing framework – as the Commission has decided to do – could potentially obscure rather than clarify legal duties owed to such children (and by extension, their families.)

The Commission’s revised proposal still hinges on effective implementation, a problem identified with the current provisions. Yes, amending definitions, issuing guidance, and listing services, all of which are positive steps in the right direction, fails to address the need for robust enforcement mechanisms, transparent funding, and accountability. Resulting in disabled children and their carers continuing to face the same systemic hurdles.

So, all in all, what are we to make of the Law Commission’s change of direction? Instead of prioritising systemic overhaul, they’ve opted for pragmatic enhancement. Instead of pursuing ambitious reform that risks initial instability, they’ve opted for accepting an imperfect system and building within it.

Whether it’s the right move depends on how far we believe current structures can stretch to meet the distinct needs of disabled children – and whether incremental change can truly deliver the clarity, access and equity that the proposed reforms originally intended.

Ultimately, any reform(s) will no doubt need to be carefully considered to avoid unintended consequences, particularly an increased risk of harm – whether this is caused by abuse or the lack of appropriately tailored services.

Amean Elgadhy is a barrister at 4PB

LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK

TOPIC: Speculation about an impending ‘Mansion Tax’ in the Budget

COMMENT BY: Hilesh Chavda, Partner, Spencer West LLP

 “The mansion tax proposal reflects a growing focus on wealth-based levies. While framed as a fairness measure, it risks creating uncertainty in the housing market and is likely deter investment or distort the market further. A more coherent approach would involve comprehensive property tax reform, such as rethinking SDLT and council tax, rather than isolated levies.”

TOPIC: The Budget and prospects for High Growth Firms

COMMENT BY: Kerry Berchem, Practice Development Lawyer, Financial Sector team, Burges Salmon

 “The Bank of England (the Bank) recently posted about the predicament of high-growth firms (HGFs). These are firms that have the “potential to make a disproportionately large contribution to employment growth”. These sound like the kind of firms that the UK needs more of right now but they currently face significant barriers to the finance they need to scale. HGFs most commonly make use of debt financing (including loans, overdrafts, trade credit, and invoice finance) but face barriers to other forms of lending. The Bank notes the benefits of close banking relationships to HGFs, and the ability of these to soften credit decision making. Unfortunately, the opportunity to have this kind of relationship has significantly diminished with the decline of the branch, reducing borrowing options for smaller, riskier and likely collateral lacking firms. Into this gap, enter non-bank and fintech lenders who can offer lower costs and alternative ways of assessing credit worthiness.

“This is where the Bank gives a thumb’s up for the FCA’s regulatory sandbox initiatives, digitalisation, and customer-focused outcomes. But still weighing heavily, despite regulatory initiatives and tech advances that could assist the unlocking of this growth potential, is “risk aversion and pessimism around the economic outlook”. A big and gnarly question then is why, particularly given that London has a high concentration of finance related start-ups, is the UK constraining its ability to scale innovation?

“Simply put, the markets dislike uncertainty, including uncertainty about where the burden of the next round of tax hikes will fall. The financial services sector cares about sustainable public finances. We talk an awful lot in financial services about balancing, and the balancing that needs to happen here, if the UK’s financial services sector is to play its part to unlock growth, is for the upcoming Autumn Budget to guarantee some form of reduced speculation, stability longevity, and a handle on spending. These factors could empower the financial services sector to use its tools for growth unhindered by continued economic dread.”

TOPIC: The effectiveness of the Worker Protection Act 2023

COMMENT BY: Claire Cole, Senior Solicitor, Employment Team, Harper James

“The new preventative duty [within the Worker Protection Act 2023] was intended to change how employers address sexual harassment, from retrospective crisis management to proactive and ongoing risk assessment. Yet our conversations with HR leaders show many policies are still generic and training is outdated. This isn’t about a one-off compliance exercise. If faced with a Tribunal claim, employers will have to demonstrate that they took proactive steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, including regular risk assessments, preventative measures, and training. Senior leaders need to ensure that there is evidence of action, not just intention.

“Recent data suggests that nearly half of UK organisations have not yet completed a risk assessment for sexual harassment, and a third have not delivered any new training in the past year. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has made it clear that generic policies are not enough; evidence of ongoing prevention is now the standard.

“As frontline professionals, HR teams are uniquely placed to shape workplace culture and safeguard both staff wellbeing and legal compliance. Now is the time to review internal practices, refresh reporting mechanisms, and move away from a tick-box mindset towards active leadership on this issue.”

TOPIC: The Renters Rights Bill which received royal assent yesterday this week

COMMENT BY: David Smith, property litigation partner, Spector Constant & Williams

“The Renters’ Rights Bill gaining Royal Assent is an important milestone, but it’s crucial to understand that most of the new law is not yet in effect. While the Act is now on the statute books, the practical changes for landlords, agents and tenants will only follow once further regulations are made, which cannot happen in less than 28 days.

“Some limited provisions will take effect automatically on 27 December 2025, including new investigatory and reporting powers for local authorities and a new duty not to discriminate against tenants with children or those receiving means-tested benefits.

“That last change will have the most immediate impact. Letting agents and landlords should use the time now to review their policies and ensure staff training is in place before the new rules come into force.”

COMMENT BY: Scott Goldstein, property disputes Partner, Payne Hicks Beach

“Most of the comments on the Renters Rights Act have been on the abolition of no fault evictions. However, another equally important development is the introduction of a tenant’s right to terminate their tenancy on not less than two months’ notice.  This considerably increases the freedom of tenants to end their tenancies if their circumstances change, but it will lead to yet greater uncertainty for landlords faced with the prospect of losing their rental stream before they are able to find a suitable replacement tenant.” 

TOPIC: The Government’s defeat in the House of Lords over the Employment Rights Bill and its return to the House of Commons

COMMENT BY: Vicky Schollar, Partner and Head of the Employment Team, Gardner Leader Solicitors

“It is unlikely that the government will want to go back on any pre-election promises and lose face by making a significant U-turn on key proposals. However, we may see a slightly watered-down version of the Employment Rights Bill if the Government wants to continue to see the Bill progress. The risk is that it could take the same amount of time that it’s taken to get to this stage before any conclusion is reached, with also a risk that the Bill will fail if an agreed compromise is not reached.” 

TOPIC: The need for reform of the family courts

COMMENT BY: Rachel Frost-Smith, Legal Director and Head of Children, Birketts LLP

“On 28 October 2025, the Justice Committee heard evidence about the need for reform of the family courts. This was in response to the crisis the court finds itself in with long backlogs, being worst in Central London. Unfortunately, things have deteriorated significantly in recent years.

So what is needed to improve things? First, to make any decision one needs information. It is clear that those making decisions don’t have all the information they need, and this includes outcomes for children. There needs to be reliable information gathering.

Second, there is no centralised or devolved methodology for planning – in the short, medium and long term. There needs to be a body that has access to the information gathered.

Third, there seems to be little understanding of the impact on society (including financial cost) of children being in the system. Investment NOW will pay off later. As those involved in decision making may not benefit from the outcomes, they may not be interested. There needs to be research about what the impact the system has on the lives of families.

Baroness Hale said that the courts had been ‘starved’ of funding for many years. She is right.

Sticking plasters may be applied, but what is needed is investment for the future including extending the voucher scheme applying to mediation to arbitration, utilising arbitrators to clear the backlogs, and advanced training for the judiciary and professionals about domestic abuse. The 26-week mandatory time frame in public proceedings does not apply to complex private children cases where one parent is carrying the full responsibility of parenting. Resources need to be made available to serve complex private law cases.

The children of today are the adults of tomorrow, and they deserve better.”

LEGAL SECTOR APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK

PAYNE HICKS BEACH

Craig Parrett has been appointed as a Partner within the Insolvency and Restructuring team at Payne Hicks Beach. With more than 16 years’ specialist experience advising on contentious and non-contentious insolvency matters Parrett’s practice spans both corporate and personal insolvency, acting for office holders, creditors, directors, bankrupts and a wide range of other stakeholders.

A highly experienced advocate, Parrett regularly appears before District Judges and Insolvency and Companies Court Judges. He is also a published author, contributing to ‘Tolley’s Insolvency’, where he has undertaken a comprehensive update of the chapter on debtors’ bankruptcy applications.

 “We are pleased to welcome Craig Parrett to the Partnership, further strengthening our commercial litigation offering,” said Robert Brodrick, Chairman of Payne Hicks Beach. “As our client base continues to grow and faces increasingly complex, cross-border challenges, Craig’s expertise in insolvency and restructuring enhances our ability to deliver a comprehensive, full-service solution to both corporate and private clients.”

BROWNE JACOBSON

Colette Withey is joining Browne Jacobson as a Partner in its Commercial and Technology team based in the North West. Formerly at EY Law where she led the UK Commercial & Digital Law team and at Addleshaw Goddard, she has also worked as an Interim General Counsel for an infrastructure business, gaining experience in how legal teams can support operational and strategic goals. 

“I’m thrilled to be joining a firm that has such a strong reputation for client service, sector expertise and commitment to inclusion,” said Withey. “Building inclusive teams and putting the client at the heart of everything has always been central to how I work, and I’m excited to join a firm where those values are embedded in the culture. I look forward to working with the team to deliver outstanding outcomes for our clients.” 

Mark Daniels, Head of Commercial and Partner at Browne Jacobson, commented, “ Colette has a valuable ability to turn legal challenges into commercial advantage. Clients trust her to cut through complexity and deliver outcomes that support long-term growth. Whether it’s business agreements, IP, technology, or supply chain transformation, she brings clarity, pace, and extremely pragmatic thinking with strong industry knowledge.” 

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