3 April 2026 GOOD FRIDAY

Editorial contact: fennell.edward@yahoo.com

SHORT THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK: Blue Sky Thinking?

As events this week have demonstrated, humanity is back in the business of exploring space. Obviously the main focus is on the USA (illustrating that some good things can still emerge from that country) but the UK also has an important role to play not least in the James Webb Space Telescope and, indeed, the Artemis moon missions themselves.

But as Phil Merchant, Principal and Space Technology Team Lead at Marks & Clerk, points out, “As a whole we are currently seeing a gap where UK institutions and companies trail other major economies in patent filings across the space technologies…For the UK space industry to mature, it must move beyond being a “research hub” and become a “commercial hub” that owns its intellectual property.”

So maybe the new Age of Exploration will deliver a shot in the arm to British entrepreneurs.“The UK’s unrivalled academic achievements should not only be celebrated in journals but protected as sovereign commercial successes,” says Merchant.

The problem is that right now they are lost in space. But who knows, maybe they will re-surface on the Dark Side of the Moon.

The Legal Diarist

In this edition

+ LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK

Hogan Lovells Explores Wild West of AI Law

Lawyers Mastering AI Skills to Ensure Who Stays In Charge

Legal Ready Crosses Globe to Scoop HyperLaw

A NEET result for Browne Jacobson

+ CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK

Just Standing By The Russian Shadow Fleets? by Rob Dalling

+ LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK

The Court of Appeal’s decision in the MAZUR CASE, the sacking of Scott Mills by the BBC, the Supreme Court ruling on‘Emotional Perception’ and its implications for the future, the Employment Rights Act, the case of Louise Jogia, compensation for drivers in mis-sold finance deals, children in care being given the right to see their siblings

+ APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK

BRICK COURT and VOLTERRA FIETTA

LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK

Hogan Lovells Explores Wild West of AI Law

If you’ve got half an hour to spare over the Bank Holiday weekend then you could do no better than dip into Data Chronicles, a video series from Hogan Lovells, while tucking into the simnel cake. The most recent title just out on Wednesday is AI disputes and enforcement in the U.S. which is likely to be of interest to any serious-minded person (whether lawyer or not) by delving into where we stand right now regarding the law and AI.

Although the discussion between Scott Loughlin and Brett Cohen in the Washington office and Vassi Iliadis in Silicon Valley is focused on American law it surely has relevance to western society generally. First, it makes clear that this is still very much pioneering territory. Jurisprudence regarding AI is still in its infancy. And as Iliadis points out, AI-inspired cases only started to appear at all three years ago. So in this virgin territory lawyers are being forced to draw on legacy laws from the pre-AI age to try to deal with unprecedented situations in relation to copyright, privacy and wiretapping issues (among many others including consumer protection and discrimination).

To suggest that this is the legal world’s Wild West is no exageration. Two hundred and fifty years ago the US began carving out a new Constitution.It almost needs to do the same again in the presence of AI.

Take a look via ourthinking@hoganlovells.com

Lawyers Mastering AI Skills to Ensure Who Stays In Charge

“Artificial Intelligence is now a foundational capability in modern professional services in the legal industry,” declares LTC4, a group of legal professionals from the US, UK, and Canada who for the past fifteen years have been drawing on their extensive experience to develop a set of legal technology core competencies.

Their Core Competency Learning Plans and Certification programs now serve as industry standards and serve as the basis for law firm training addressing skill gaps, increasing productivity and profitability, as well as reducing security risks. Meanwhile the Learning Plans are described as being ‘application-agnostic, workflow-based, and flexible to accommodate a firm’s internal policies’.

Obviously this field is now moving very fast. So their latest core competency “Working with AI”, which has been developed in collaboration with the organization’s global network, is likely to prove very popular.

Its scope includes the ability to understand, responsibly use, and critically evaluate AI tools to improve efficiency, accuracy, and client outcomes—while maintaining ethical standards and professional judgment. This includes capacities such as understanding the capabilities and limitations of approved AI systems; applying AI to enhance workflows, research, drafting, and analysis and exercising human oversight, verification, and accountability. It also will cover sensitive areas such as recognizing ethical, confidentiality, and risk considerations .

“AI does not replace professional expertise, it amplifies it,” declares LTC4. That may wel be so. But lawyers (and other key professionals) must now put in the hard work to ensure they are capable of such ‘amplification’.

For more go to info@ltc4.org

Legal Ready Crosses Globe to Scoop HyperLaw

Another significant step was taken this week towards the e-transformation of the way legal process works through the acquisition of HyperLaw, which provides the UK legal sector with advanced case preparation and bundling software, by Legal Ready, well-known for its litigation management technology in Australia.

“Litigation Ready’s state-of-the-art AI powered platform with HyperLaw’s industry-leading bundling capabilities, creating an unmatched end-to-end solution designed for UK barristers, law firms, and government legal departments, enabling them to prepare and present cases with greater efficiency and strategic edge,” claimed the official announcement.

Melbourne-based Legal Ready has already established itself as an Australian success story (it serves over 70,000 professionals in the country) and this move is designed to crack – or, you might say, unite with – the UK market.

The suggestion is that by combining the two offers the new technologies will enable legal teams to

– Prepare and Collaborate: Leverage AI-enabled tools to manage complex court materials and collaborate effortlessly across teams

– Transform unwieldy PDF bundles into individual documents that legal teams can analyse and work on, using the recently launched PDFUnbundler tool

-Bundle and Present: Choose between standardised or advanced bundling technology to create court-ready bundles in minutes, not hours

– Argue with Confidence: Access a centralised, intelligent platform that streamlines the preparation and presentation of arguments in any legal setting.

“The acquisition of HyperLaw is a game-changer for the UK market,” says Tony Kinnear, Chief Executive Officer of Legal Ready. “By incorporating HyperLaw’s brilliant bundling tech into our AI-powered litigation management suite, we are providing a toolkit to UK lawyers that is unmatched. Our goal is to ensure that all disputes’ practitioners have the most effective, secure, and collaborative environment possible to prepare their matters, all while maintaining a ‘people-first’, human-in-the-loop approach to technology. We invite all UK practitioners to try out Litigation Ready and PDFUnbundler. “

Next stop, presumably, the moon.

A NEET result for Browne Jacobson

You might not have noticed it but with rising numbers of NEETS (school-leavers not in education, employment or training) the provision of vocational development opportunities for young people is becoming rather controversial. The role of Euan Blair’s company Multiverse, a tech startup changing what’s possible in education and work, has provided a focus for much of this discussion. Mulitiverse is not the only name in town, however, and another contender the Knovia Group, has just been bought by Eureka Education which has its roots in Switzerland and France.

Making this all happen has been a team from Browne Jacobson led by Partner Sandra Wong.

“This acquisition is a great example of what our cross-border private equity practice does best — delivering seamless, multi-disciplinary advice on complex international transactions,” said Wong. “It also underscores the strength of the UK’s skills sector as a destination for ambitious, growth-focused investors.”

Browne Jacobson is right to celebrate its record advising on private equity-backed acquisitions, including cross-border transactions in the education and skills sector. In the sense that the UK’s somewhat under-performing apprenticeship system deeply needs international investment this must be a good thing.

CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK

Just Standing By The Russian Shadow Fleets? by Rob Dalling

Last week the Government announced that UK armed forces and law enforcement may intercept and board vessels that form part of Russia’s so-called ‘shadow fleet’ in UK waters. The phrase refers to ships that are engaged in circumventing sanctions, specifically international restrictions on the transportation of Russian-origin oil. Many of these vessels have been designated under UK, EU and/or US sanctions regimes.

The development underscores the UK’s continued commitment to enforcing sanctions imposed against Russia in response to its invasion of Ukraine in 2022. It follows a raft of new designations implemented by the UK in February, many of them targeting entities and vessels operating in Russia’s oil and liquefied natural gas sectors, including 48 oil tankers in the shadow fleet.

Issues of maritime law will inevitably be engaged by the Government’s decision. Even if interceptions are limited to the UK’s territorial waters, there may be a legal question as to whether the fact that a vessel is sanctioned provides a legitimate basis for an intervention at sea (rather than being detained in a harbour or port, which is a more established enforcement technique).

The timing of the announcement is also noteworthy, coming just days after the US introduced a temporarily relaxation of restrictions on the trade in Russian crude oil. The relaxation took the form of an authorization, found in OFAC General License 134, permitting transactions that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the sale, delivery, or offloading of crude oil or petroleum products of Russian Federation origin loaded on any vessel on or before 12 March. This waiver, which lasts until 11 April, was introduced in order to mitigate the economic impact of rising oil prices caused by the US’s military action against Iran, and the consequent closure or near closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Other sanctions authorities, including the UK and EU, have indicated they will not be implementing similar waivers.

It remains to be seen how soon the UK’s announcement will translate into actual interceptions, or interdictions as they are formally known. On 26 March, just one day after announcement, a sanctioned Russian oil tanker, the VAYU 1, was tracked sailing through the English Channel just six nautical miles off the coast of Dover, reportedly with a full cargo. It appears to have passed through the Strait without intervention.

Rob Dalling is a partner with Jenner & Block

LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK

TOPIC: The Court of Appeal’s decision in the MAZUR CASE which finds that unauthorised persons are entitled to provide reserved legal activities under supervision

COMMENT BY: CILEx Regulation (the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives)

“We understand the considerable distress and uncertainty the September 2025 Mazur judgment caused for many Chartered Legal Executives. We therefore welcome the Court of Appeal judgment and the clarity and reassurance it brings for those affected.

“In our role as regulator, our priority continues to be supporting Chartered Legal Executives to be able to continue delivering high-quality legal services with confidence. Since the original Mazur ruling, over 750 CILEX Fellows have successfully secured litigation practice rights. These rights enable Chartered Legal Executives to litigate without the need for supervision.

“We will now be working with regulators and stakeholders to update guidance to reflect the full implications of the appeal judgment in due course.”

COMMENT BY: Jennifer Coupland, chief executive,  CILEX

“This is the most consequential judgment for legal services in recent history: It is a victory for CILEX members but also for access to justice, the interests of consumers and the encouragement of a thriving, diverse and competitive legal sector. 

CILEX is delighted that this common-sense judgment recognises our solutions, bringing much needed clarity to the conduct of litigation, and the role of authorised and unauthorised professionals. It means the profession can now operate effectively, maintaining high standards and consumer confidence whilst opening up legal services to alternative business models and providers. 

CILEX professionals play a critical role in the justice system; they are well qualified, highly skilled, hugely experienced and, given they are more likely to come from groups traditionally underrepresented in the legal profession, bring different perspectives to their work. 

Many have been profoundly impacted by the uncertainty created by the Mazur judgment and we hope that they are now able to move forward with their careers.

We also hope that this judgment offers a moment of reset for legal services where we can work collaboratively with the rest of the sector to ensure a consistent and clear response to the judgment that supports ordinary people seeking justice.   

CILEX joins the voices of others in the sector, including the Legal Services Consumer Panel, in calling out the regulatory failure the Mazur judgment and its consequences represent. We will now look to lobby the government to address some of the regulatory shortcomings of the Legal Services Act. In the meantime, we await updated guidance from our regulator, CILEx Regulation. 

Finally, CILEX is grateful for the support of our outstanding legal team – Nick Bacon KC, Helen Evans KC, Teen Jui Chow and Faye Metcalfe of 4 New Square, Iain Miller, Stephen Nelson and Phoebe Alexander at Kingsley Napley and Greg Cox of Simpson Millar. All have acted pro bono in this important case.”

COMMENT BY: David Bailey-Vella, chair of the Association of Costs Lawyers

“This decision should calm the legal market. It also stresses the responsibility of authorised persons – such as Costs Lawyers – to supervise the conduct of litigation. We welcome that responsibility and believe we have a key role to play in ensuring law firms’ compliance.”

COMMENT BY: Tim Johnston, Brick Court Chambers

“The Court of Appeal handed down its widely anticipated judgment today following an accelerated appeal in the case of CILEX v Mazur and others.

The judgment follows a third appeal (District Judge to Circuit Judge, to High Court to Court of Appeal) in relation to the meaning of the words “carry on the conduct of litigation” in the Legal Services Act 2007 (“the Act“). 

At its core, the case concerns whether unauthorised persons can lawfully conduct litigation under the supervision of an authorised person. The Judge below found that the Act allowed unauthorised persons to assist in the conduct of litigation but not to carry it on under supervision (carrying on under supervision brings with it a considerably lighter regime of oversight by the authorised person).

The Court of Appeal has come down decisively in favour of CILEX, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, which argued that there was a long history of carrying on the conduct of litigation under supervision. Unauthorised persons may undertake any of the steps that amount to the conduct of litigation and may do so acting for and on behalf of an authorised person, without express instructions or direction in an individual case.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that ultimate responsibility for the actions of the unauthorised person remains with the authorised person (usually a solicitor). The precise nature of the necessary supervision, that is required to make the unauthorised person’s actions lawful, is a question for the frontline legal regulators.

Those frontline regulators had vigorously resisted this outcome. Both The Law Society and the Solicitors Regulation Authority argued that the actions of an unauthorised person must be specifically approved by an authorised person in order to be lawful. The Court has robustly rejected that position.”

COMMENT BY: Richard Eaton, Head of Property Litigation at Birketts LLP

“The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur will be welcomed by employers across the legal sector. By confirming that non-authorised staff may lawfully carry out litigation tasks under the supervision of an authorised professional, the court has restored long‑established delegation models that many organisations have long relied upon on to operate efficiently.

From an employment perspective, the ruling provides welcomed certainty for firms that employ paralegals, trainees and other junior staff in fee‑earning roles. The High Court’s earlier decision created real risks for role scope, and potential disciplinary exposure where employees were carrying out work in good faith that had long been accepted as lawful. The Court of Appeal has now confirmed that it is supervision and retained responsibility rather than the individual status of the employee that is critical.

That said, the judgment should not be read as a green light for informal or poorly documented supervision arrangements. Employers remain responsible for ensuring that delegation is properly structured, that supervision is meaningful, and that staff are clear on the limits of their roles. From an HR perspective, this is a timely reminder to review job descriptions, supervision policies and training frameworks, particularly where regulatory compliance and reserved activities apply.

The case also highlights the wider employment law risk of regulatory uncertainty. Sudden shifts in interpretation can have significant consequences for workforce planning, employee relations and staff morale. Clear internal communication and robust governance is essential where regulatory obligations impact on day‑to‑day employment practices.”

TOPIC: The Employment Rights Act (effective 6 April) 2026 and its reform of statutory sick pay (SSP)

COMMENT BY: Sarah King, employment partner, Excello Law

“The move to day-one sick pay and expanded eligibility is likely to change absence patterns. Employers may see more short-term and ‘odd day’ absences, particularly in lower-paid roles and sectors such as hospitality and manufacturing.

“We are also likely to see more employees staying at home with minor illnesses where they may previously have come into work. As a result, return-to-work meetings will become increasingly important in managing absence effectively.”

TOPIC: Compensation payments for drivers mis-sold car finance

COMMENT BY: Richard Humphreys, Member of the Forum of Insurance Lawyers

“Reaction to the FCA’s amended redress scheme is likely to be mixed. 

For the motor finance industry, substantial changes to the operational aspects will greatly reduce the administration costs and firms will also welcome the new implementation period. However, the core approach to redress is broadly unchanged. The motor finance industry will still regard the required payments to be well in excess of actual loss suffered by the majority of consumers. On the other hand, claims management companies will continue to argue that payments should be considerably higher.

Given the impact if redress goes ahead on this basis, the prospect of a challenge to the scheme by either side of the divide must remain high. The result is likely to be further uncertainty and delay for those consumers who are entitled to reasonable compensation.”

TOPIC: The sacking of Scott Mills by the BBC

COMMENT BY: Jo Mackie, employment law partner, Michelmores

“The BBC has not said on what grounds it has sacked Mills at this time except that it’s a “personal conduct” issue, however we can assume it must be a very significant issue for them to dismiss him immediately like this given he is one of their biggest stars. The BBC has faced criticism for several years for not making immediate and robust decisions and so this could be the start of the new look of their HR and employment regime.”

COMMENT BY: Chloe Grant, Associate, Bellevue Law

“A famous face is once again under scrutiny for allegations about their personal conduct. With another high‑profile BBC scandal unfolding in real time, it’s hard not to feel a sense of déjà vu. The organisation’s recent history is scarred by situations where concerns weren’t addressed with sufficient speed, clarity or procedural compliance. The question now is whether this time will be different.

It’s not yet clear what Scott Mills has been accused of and/or what the “personal conduct” that has led to his removal might entail. Whenever serious allegations emerge in a workplace context, however, an employer’s job is clear. Move quickly and follow procedures. Secure the situation; protect those who may be affected (on all sides); and create the conditions for a fair and credible investigation. Documenting all steps taken – and the rationale behind them – will serve everyone’s best interests in the longer term.

Where risks are significant, early neutral steps like suspension are often not just defensible but advisable. Safeguarding and organisational integrity must take priority over anyone’s stardom. And as the BBC will know all too well from historic missteps, resisting the siren song of celebrity will be key.

The fact that the BBC has responded with greater urgency here than they have done in the past may finally reflect lessons learned from previous catastrophes. A cleaner, more confident approach suggests an organisation beginning to understand that consistency and care is needed to rebuild trust in its procedures.

Ultimately, credibility is earned when the rules apply to everyone — superstar DJ or not.”

COMMENT BY: Jamie Hurworth, Senior Associate, Payne Hicks Beach:

“This development comes at a time when the BBC has faced several high‑profile issues involving presenters, which naturally heightens public scrutiny.  There was a relatively short period between the presenter being taken off air and the termination of his contract which suggests the organisation has acted promptly and decisively this week.  However, reports simply state that the decision relates to matters of personal conduct and attention or speculation will likely now focus on the presenter’s alleged conduct and what further information, if any, will be made public.”

TOPIC: The Supreme Court ruling on‘Emotional Perception’ and its implications for the future

COMMENT BY: Matt Jefferies, partner, Marks & Clerk

“This examination report provides the first practical indication of how the UKIPO intends to apply the Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling. The UKIPO’s approach marks a definitive shift in AI patent strategy. By implementing a new ‘intermediate filter,’ the Office now strips away non-technical training methods, such as those based on semantic similarity, before evaluating if an invention is truly ‘obvious’. This alignment with EPO standards on ‘mixed-type’ inventions, contrasted with the continued use of the UK-specific Pozzoli test for assessing inventiveness of technical features, creates a unique hybrid landscape. Success for AI innovators going forwards depends on proving that their machine learning models solve a specific technical problem, rather than a mathematical or subjective one.”

TOPIC: The case of Louise Jogia, who was sentenced to seven months in prison, and disqualified as a company director for 10 years for obeying orders from Bharat Jogia, a disqualified company director

COMMENT BY: Steve Thomas, insolvency partner, Excello Law

“This sentence highlights the danger of acting on the instructions of someone who is banned from running a company. The law is clear that by doing so you run the risk of also being guilty of a criminal offence, as was the case here with Louise Jogia.

“The Insolvency Service does monitor matters after disqualification, and so directors and their connected parties should not treat a Disqualification Ban or Undertaking as a paper exercise – subsequent breaches can mean a criminal record.

“Where a shareholder or senior individual at a company is a disqualified director, the company’s director should seek expert advice at the earliest opportunity to ensure they are not at risk of committing an offence.”

TOPIC: Children in care being given the right to see their siblings

COMMENT BY:  Tom Wright, Senior Associate, Birketts LLP

“When children enter the care system, separation isn’t just from parents. All too often, it also means losing regular contact with siblings – the very people who provide continuity, shared history, and emotional safety.

For many children in care, siblings are their anchor in a system defined by change – they often have to deal with new placements, new schools, new professionals, and changing care plans. Therefore, maintaining those relationships can improve emotional wellbeing, strengthen identity, reduce feelings of isolation, and support placement stability. Adults with care experience consistently describe sibling relationships as among the most protective factors throughout their lives.

Sibling contact shouldn’t be treated as a logistical afterthought or a ‘nice to have’. It’s a core part of safeguarding a child’s welfare and respecting their right to family life. The better question is not why siblings should see each other – but what would justify breaking that connection?”

APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK

BRICK COURT

Charles Hollander of Temple Chambers (in Hong Kong) and Brick Court (in London) is to be appointed ‘Senior Counsel’ in Hong Kong, the equivalent of King’s Counsel. With a very wide ranging international practice as a commercial litigator – whether at interlocutory, trial or appellate level or in arbitrations – Hollander has appeared in court in the UK, Cayman, Bermuda, Bahamas, BVI, Gibraltar and Brunei. He also sits as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Commercial Court and Chancery Division. (His books Documentary Evidence and Conflicts of Interest are also known to be well-thumbed).

VOLTERRA FIETTA

Florentine Vos, a qualified Dutch lawyer, has been promoted to Counsel at Volterra Fietta, the firm which is best known for its public international law credentials.

Prior to entering private practice Vos worked in the international dispute departments of two major international law firms. She also had experience at an international court and in international human rights organisations.

Since joining Volterra Fietta in 2019, Vos has worked for the firm’s clients across a wide range of public international law, including land and maritime boundary disputes, climate change, international organisations law, the law of the sea, international investment law, space law, sovereign immunities and the laws of war and reparations. She has represented clients in a variety of cases before the International Court of Justice. 

“Florentine’s promotion to counsel reflects the trust that our clients place in her leadership in complex investment treaty disputes,” said Partner Ahmed Abdel-Hakam . “Florentine brings a rare combination of strategic acumen and technical expertise that delivers real results for States and investors alike.  Businesses and States navigating investment treaty disputes will find in Florentine a formidable advocate.”

WE hope that you have found this edition of the LEGAL DIARY interesting (and even useful). If so, please circulate it to colleagues.

In any case, please continue sending your diary-type stories, legal comment and insights plus latest appointments to fennell.edward@yahoo.com

And best wishes for a Happy Easter (and another wet Bank Holiday Weekend)!