Edward Fennell’s LEGAL DIARY
Diary news, commentary, insights and appointments from the legal world
4 July 2025
Editorial Contact: fennell.edward@yahoo.com
SHORT THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK: Any future for legal Human Resources?
“The evidence that entry-level jobs in areas such as law, finance and consulting are becoming scarcer should set alarm bells ringing both in Westminster and in boardrooms,” reported The Guardian earlier this week. Certainly the number of news stories that have appeared in the LEGAL DIARY over the past year have foreshadowed the massive impact that AI is likely to have on the law business with an almost inevitable knock-on effect on the (diminishing) need for human skills.
What is extraordinary, however, is the speed with which this is happening. ‘Technological change’ stories typically have a horizon of about five years ahead. The impact of AI has been almost instant.
It will take a few months for the details to become clear on changes in hiring patterns. But right now it is not looking encouraging for trainees and apprentices.
So what can be done by law firms’ HR departments to mitigate the impact? Should they even bother? Maybe they should just ask AI to give them a (creative) answer.
The LegalDiarist
In this week’s edition:
Legal Diary of the Week
Rouse Champions Joint IP Action on Greenhouse Gases
Doing Bird
Temple Gardens Going Dutch on Red Notices
Once More Unto the Tour Dear Lawyers
Contributed Article of the Week
LOVE ALL? SADLY NOT WHEN SPORTS PEOPLE WED explains Chris Longbottom
Legal Comment of the Week
on exit data for the Skilled Worker system, parental leave and pay plus Standish vs Standish
Legal Appointment of the Week
at Burgess Mee
LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
Rouse Champions Joint IP Action on Greenhouse Gases
Now here’s something rather exciting. Rouse, an international IP services business, and Maersk, a logistics and transportation company, are partnering to launch the IP Charter for Energy Transition (IP4ET).
Rouse is, of course, renowned for its strengths in the copyright, disputes and other IP-related matters in Asia (as well as across most of the rest of the world) but this is quite a step-up to lead what is described as a ‘first-of-its-kind’ cross-industry initiative.
IP4ET aims to bring together a variety of organisations from across the ‘IP ecosystem’ to develop and share practical solutions to help reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and facilitate the transition to solutions with lower GHG emissions.
Inspired by the idea of joint action IP4ET will offer the platform for organisations to “exchange knowledge and experiences, and create, propose and implement practices that lower GHG emissions.”
Rouse has already got a track record for examining the relationships between IP and climate change while Maersk is committed to decarbonising its industry. Practical measures will include assessing the GHG emissions linked to the protection, management, exploitation and enforcement of intellectual property rights, and making informed decisions on how to mitigate said emissions.
“Climate change is no longer a buzzword it is a global, everyday reality that demands action across all sectors, from the creation and protection of intangible assets to the production and export of goods/services,” observes Fabrice Mattei, Global Head of the Patent Group and Climate Change Head at Rouse, “Rapidly evolving sustainability regulations are reshaping both the business environment and the IP landscape. As one of the first firms to integrate the SDGs into IP strategy, Rouse is at the forefront of this transformation. The IP4ET provides public and private sector stakeholders with the knowledge and tools needed to navigate complex SDG-related regulations and unlock opportunities for meaningful integration with IP in an increasingly carbon-constrained economy.”
Given that action on global warming is going cold in some quarters this looks like a significant development right now.
Doing Bird?
Big news amongst the criminal fraternity in South London. Well-known ‘faces’ Birds Solicitors – all 25 of them led by Steve Bird himself – are joining the Hodge Jones & Allen mob in what looks like a smart move on both sides.
As the official announcement put it, “The acquisition cements HJA’s position as one of the leading criminal defence teams in the country and one of the largest in London.” The new recruits will continue to work their old beat of financial crime, serious and complex criminal cases, prison law, and appellate work. Moreover it means that HJA now has the whole of London well-covered – north and south of the river.
Among Birds’ many high profile coups has been the successful overturn of the conviction of Gary Walker, who had served 18 years in prison for the murder of his then partner. Walker was exonerated at his re-trial following a successful submission of no case to answer in 2021.
The firm was also involved on behalf of Sterling Christie, a political activist and one of the ‘Oval Four’, who spent eight months in prison for assaulting a police officer and attempted theft. The conviction was quashed – a mere 47 years later! – after the Court of Appeal found the detective’s evidence was unreliable.
“Whilst relinquishing the firm that we, as a team, have built over 25 years is hard, this move will allow the firm’s legacy to continue,” commented Steve Bird.“It will also allow me to focus on representing clients, which is why I became a criminal lawyer.
For his part Raj Chada, a top partner at HJA, said, “Steve is a phenomenal lawyer and deserves his reputation as a leader in his field. He has built a team full of energy and commitment that will complement our existing staff. It is rare to secure such a reputable and outstanding team.”
Among HJA’s high profile clients have been Greta Thunberg and Just Stop Oil.
Just try stopping HJA now!
Temple Gardens Going Dutch on Red Notices
The vexed issue of Red Notice-based extraditions is attracting increasing concern and will undoubtedly grow in controversy as more international conflicts start to unwind.
To try to unravel the various strands of the toxic topic ‘Red Notice Monitor’ in conjunction with Temple Garden Chambers is hosting a discussion in The Hague on what they call ‘the weaponisation of Interpol systems and the legal challenges facing practitioners representing clients targeted by cross-border persecution’.
Rhys Davies and Ben Keith will examine the practical challenges of identifying and challenging abusive Red Notices, defending against politically motivated extradition requests, and developing strategic approaches to protect vulnerable clients.
“Whether you’re handling extradition cases, defending political dissidents, or advising on international sanctions, this session will provide valuable insights into protecting clients from cross-border persecution,” say the organisers. “We will explore emerging evidence on transnational repression and provide cutting-edge analysis of recent cases and trends that directly impact practitioners working in this rapidly expanding area of law.”
Networking in the garden with specialists in international criminal law and human rights will follow the session on 10th July which opens at 5pm at Temple Garden Chambers, Lange Voorhout 82, The Hague, 2514 EJ, Netherlands.
RSVP: tgchague@tgchambers.com (But get in quickly – official deadline was yesterday!)
Once More Unto the Tour Dear Lawyers
The weather is hotting up so now is the time for all static bike enthusiasts to start getting into shape for this year’s Tour de Law 2025 which takes place on Wednesday 15 and Thursday 16 October.
Well-established on the legal world’s ‘sporting calendar’ (after all it has been going for thirty years!) the annual fund-raiser for Breast Cancer Now is calling on law firms and chambers to sign up and go head-to-head in its annual static bike challenge to raise funds for life-saving research and life-changing support in, what they call, a cycling competition like no other.
Being for legal professionals it is, of course, highly competitive both in terms of cycling performance and in fund-raising achievement – last year’s Tour managed more than £189K so there is already a major collective target to smash. Meanwhile last year’s winning team cycled a total of 869 kilometres. So 1,000 this year?
Participants can book multiple of the 100 15-minute cycling slots available for each firm, cycling as far as they can following a route of UK landmarks, sparking friendly competition within and between firms. The team with the greatest combined distance and fundraising total will be crowned Tour de Law Champion 2025 and will be awarded the much-admired trophy.
For more go to https://tourdelaw.breastcancernow.org to sign up.
CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK
LOVE ALL? SADLY NOT WHEN SPORTS PEOPLE WED explains Chris Longbottom
Divorce is never easy, but when one or both partners are professional athletes, the stakes are higher, the headlines louder and the financial playbook far more complex.
In 2025, sports-related divorces are drawing more attention than ever. Here’s what makes them unique – and what athletes (and their advisors) need to know.
The financial playbook: What makes sports divorces different?
Athletes often earn millions – but over a short career span. This creates unique challenges:
– Short earning windows: A footballer might peak in their 20s, with limited future income.
– Unpredictable income: Bonuses, endorsements, and performance pay vary year to year.
– Image rights: These are tied to personal branding and can be hard to value.
– International assets: Many athletes own property or businesses abroad, complicating legal and tax matters.
Jurisdiction battles: Where your divorce matters
UK courts are known for fairness and transparency, making them a popular choice for high-net-worth divorces.
But in 2025, there’s been a sharp rise in jurisdictional disputes, especially among international athletes.
Why? Because where you divorce can significantly affect what you walk away with.
Full disclosure: No hiding behind the brand
UK courts require full financial transparency. That includes:
– Playing contracts and bonuses
– Sponsorship and endorsement deals
– Property, trusts, and offshore accounts
Trying to hide assets? Courts can impose penalties or reopen settlements.
Prenups: The smartest pre-game strategy
More athletes are turning to prenuptial agreements to protect their wealth. While not automatically binding in the UK, courts increasingly respect prenups – especially when both parties had legal advice and the terms are fair.
Mental health and media pressure
Divorce is tough. Divorce in the public eye? Even tougher.
Athletes face intense media scrutiny, which can affect performance, endorsements, and mental health. Legal teams now often include PR advisors and mental health professionals to help manage the fallout.
The rise of collaborative divorce
Even in high-profile cases, more couples are choosing non-court options like mediation or “One Couple One Lawyer” models. These approaches are more private, likely more cost-effective and often less emotionally draining. In 2025, this trend is growing fast even in the world of elite sports.
Final whistle
Divorce in the sports world isn’t just about money, it’s about legacy, reputation, and life after the final whistle. With the right legal advice and planning, athletes can protect their interests and make the process as smooth and non-combative as possible.
Chris Longbottom is a partner and head of the family and divorce team at Clarke Willmott LLP
LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
TOPIC: The Public Accounts Committee’s (PAC) observations about the failure of the Government to collect exit data regarding the Skilled Worker system
COMMENT BY: Ashley Stothard, immigration lawyer, Freeths
“The PAC’s findings highlight a deeply concerning, although not entirely unsurprising, failure in the UK’s immigration oversight. The Skilled Worker system was meant to be agile and responsive to labour market needs but that’s come at the cost of basic safeguards and accountability.
The lack of exit data and the Home Office’s failure to monitor whether visa holders leave the UK is a dereliction of duty to the UK public. Rather than build a robust enforcement system, the Home Office has outsourced responsibility to employers, landlords and even banks – entities that are neither trained nor equipped to handle the complexities of immigration compliance. Moreover, this delegation of enforcement punishes the innocent due to administrative errors and allows dishonest actors to cheat the system.
The sponsorship system has systemic vulnerability built in. Tying a migrant’s legal status to a single employer creates a power imbalance that is ripe for exploitation. The PAC’s findings of debt bondage, excessive hours, and revoked sponsor licences are not isolated incidents; they are the symptoms of a structurally flawed system. The government’s recent move to end overseas recruitment in social care, while perhaps politically advantageous, does not address the root of the problem. It is vital that immigration policy is not driven by short term political pressures but by long term, evidence-based understanding of workforce needs and human rights obligations. Immigration is a hugely complex system with constantly moving parts – legal, economic and human. It requires careful coordinated management, not piecemeal delegation and reactive policymaking. The Home Office has so far failed to meet that challenge.”
TOPIC: The launch of the Government’s review of parental leave and pay, to better support working families and help children get the best start in life
COMMENT BY: James Hayhurst, founder, The Parents Promise (a group fighting for better systems to ensure the long-term wellbeing of children when parents separate)
“A modernised parental leave approach that embeds equality and enables both parents to bond from birth can lay the groundwork for shared responsibility right throughout childhood.
“For too long, we’ve accepted a model where dads are relegated to ‘every other weekend’ after separation. That needs to change. Early and equal involvement gives both parents the foundation to co‑parent meaningfully, whatever the future holds, because children do best when both their parents are supported to stay present and involved.”
TOPIC: Standish vs Standish Divorce Case Judgment
COMMENT BY: Caroline Holley, Partner, Farrer & Co
“Standish may be a case involving the super-wealthy, but today’s judgment is relevant to everyone.
“Whilst in most divorces, the division of finances will be determined by the needs of the spouses, in those cases where there is more money than is required to meet those needs, the court’s approach is to share the matrimonial assets between the spouses. However, it can be difficult to determine what is in the ‘matrimonial pot’ to be shared, which often leads to costly disputes. In today’s judgment, the Supreme Court has made clear that how the parties deal with an asset during a marriage is the key question when considering whether an asset has been matrimonialised. In essence, have they been treating the asset as shared between them?
“While each case will turn on its facts, pre-nuptial agreements remain the best way to protect non-matrimonial assets on divorce.”
COMMENT BY: Yael Selig,Family Lawyer, Osborne’s Law
“I predict we will now see a surge in enquiries about prenuptial and postnuptial agreements following this landmark judgment, which demonstrates the importance of putting things in writing.
“Whilst such agreements are not yet considered the norm, they are becoming that way and particularly for couples where there are significant assets involved, although the court’s decision will always be grounded in making sure that the financial needs of both parties are met.
“The Supreme Court may have found in favour of Mr Standish, but only after a lengthy and costly legal battle which has taken five years following the end of the marriage.
“Whilst today’s judgment may offer some reassurance to wealthy individuals who fear being forced to carve up their assets if the marriage ends, a pre or post-nup remains the best possible way to protect their wealth.”
COMMENT BY: Will MacFarlane, partner in the Family & Divorce team, Kinglsey Napley
“This decision brings greater clarity to financially stronger parties seeking to undertake IHT planning and helps reduce the risk of them being exposed if their marriages break down.
Until now, there has always been a conflict between IHT planning and wealth protection. This is a green light for those seeking to transfer assets between spouses for IHT planning as it cannot now be assumed that those assets will be matrimonialised.
A stand-out point from today’s judgment is that if transfers taking place within an IHT planning exercise are clearly for the benefit of the next generation or someone other than the recipient of the assets, matrimonialisation is unlikely to have occurred.
Another big lesson from this case for family lawyers and wealthy individuals is that if Mr and Mrs Standish had entered into a postnuptial agreement this litigation could have been avoided. Had they done so the purpose of the transfer of assets to Mrs Standish would have been clearly set out and agreed so respective interests could have been protected.
The Standish decision also endorses the compensation principle for spouses who have given up work in support of the financially stronger party in the marriage.”
COMMENT BY: Peter Burgess, partner, Burgess Mee
“Possession is not nine tenths of the law, according to the Supreme Court. In a landmark decision which will bring welcome clarification for divorce lawyers and their clients, the Supreme Court has, for the first time, confirmed that non-matrimonial property is not subject to sharing on divorce. The judgment brings an end to the legal limbo that has seen some cases deferred pending a decision.
“Following today’s ruling, Mr Standish will retain £77.8m transferred to his wife during the marriage for tax planning purposes and she will not share in the funds – despite being the legal owner of them.
“Tax planners and their wealthy clients will breathe a collective sigh of relief as the Supreme Court has ruled that transferring assets to a spouse to minimise tax does not ‘matrimonialise’ them. The source of funds, rather than their legal title, is key to the court’s enquiry on divorce.
“Although the Supreme Court has provided much needed clarity on the treatment of non-matrimonial assets on divorce i.e. that they are not subject to the sharing principle, the focus was on the intention behind the transfer. Had Mr Standish made an outright gift to Mrs Standish or had the parties treated the funds as shared over time, she might be considerably wealthier today.
“It seems the Supreme Court saw no contradiction in a disclosure to HMRC that an asset no longer belongs to an individual after they have gifted it to their spouse, alongside a successful claim to the Family Court that it remains the property of that individual and shouldn’t be shared.”
COMMENT BY: Emily Brand, Head of Family, Boodle Hatfield
“Today’s Supreme Court judgment in Standish v Standish is a victory of fact over theory.
“The question at the heart of this case was whether assets transferred during the course of a marriage had become “matrimonialised” and therefore capable of sharing on divorce. Today’s ruling makes it abundantly clear that whilst non-marital assets can indeed become “matrimonialised” during a marriage if they are treated as being shared over time, this was not the case here.
“Mr Standish’s transfer of £77m to his wife during their marriage ostensibly as a gift but explicitly for inheritance tax planning was therefore not deemed to have been “matrimonialised” and a 50/50 division of these assets on divorce did not apply. Divorcing couples should appreciate that the provenance of their wealth is material and not assume that the transfer of title from one to the other will automatically “matrimonialise” that asset making it subject to “sharing”. Married couples need to be clear about their intentions when transferring assets between themselves and should record these intentions by way of a nuptial agreement.”
COMMENT BY: Joanna Newton, Partner, Stowe Family Law,
“The judgment handed down today, which saw the Supreme Court dismissing Wife’s appeal, is a significant moment in family law history. Whilst it will certainly not be the last time a divorcing couple battle over assets, there will be more guidance and structure. In light of the judgment, individuals should be conscious of tax and estate planning, and any transfers should be managed by professional wealth experts.”
COMMENT BY: Sarah Norman-Scott, family law partner, Hodge Jones & Allen
“This is a landmark decision that has significant implications for how non-matrimonial assets – usually wealth acquired before a marriage or through inheritance – are treated by the courts. It shows a clear steer towards wealth preservation (as it will enable clients to benefit from tax efficient asset structures), with the original source of wealth and what it was intended to be used for the determining factor when considering whether such assets should be split equally on divorce.
“It will now be harder to demonstrate that an asset has become matrimonial in nature, even if, as in this case, it has been transferred into the other spouse’s name. It no longer rings true that ‘possession is nine-tenths of the law’.
“This doesn’t just affect big money divorce cases – any divorcing couple arguing about non-matrimonial assets could be impacted, and those wanting to take advantage of tax efficient strategies. Those embarking on marriage with existing wealth or the expectation of future inheritance need to understand how these assets are likely to be treated should they divorce, and keep clear records relating to the source of that wealth.”
COMMENT BY: Amy Walpole, family partner, HCR Law
“When you take your vow of “with all my worldly goods I thee endow” on your wedding day, this may not be the case if you can demonstrate assets were not intended to be shared between you and your spouse.
The ruling today by the Supreme Court should provide comfort to people with assets in their sole name who do not have the intention of sharing property with their spouse and can stand the test that the “dealings” of such property has not been “matrimonialised”.
Properly executed pre-nuptial agreements can further help demonstrate parties’ intentions in respect of the division of assets on divorce and help deliver a fair justice to parties involved in such cases.”
COMMENT BY: Adam Maguire, a partner in the family law, Clarke Willmott
“This case will be of importance to many as they undertake estate and other financial planning, transferring assets between spouses or utilising those assets in a way which might render them as matrimonial property, regardless of whether a divorce is anticipated or not.”
COMMENT BY: Nick Gova, partner and head of family, Spector Constant & Williams
“This landmark ruling by the Supreme Court reinforces the principle that not all wealth transferred between spouses during marriage becomes matrimonial property. The court’s emphasis on the intention behind the transfer – in this case, tax efficiency and provision for children – is a critical distinction.
“The judgment provides valuable clarity: unless assets are clearly treated as shared during the marriage, they may retain their non-matrimonial character, even if legally held by the other spouse. This will have a significant impact on high-net-worth divorce cases, especially where asset protection strategies or estate planning measures are in play.
“Couples and their advisers should be acutely aware of how such transfers may be interpreted by courts in future disputes – substance and context matter just as much as legal ownership.”
COMMENT BY: Vandana Chitroda, a Partner in the Family Law, Broadfield
“The court highlighted a ‘conceptual distinction’ between non-matrimonial and matrimonial property. The time has now come to recognise that in divorce cases the sharing principle applies only to matrimonial property, unless, of course, consideration needs to be given to ‘needs’ and ‘compensation’.”
“In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether the transferred asset had been treated as shared. As the transfer was designed to save tax, the court did not find that the funds had been treated as shared and therefore had not been matrimonialised.”
“The conclusion was that the Court of Appeal’s decision that 25% of the assets in 2017 were matrimonial and 75% were non-matrimonial is correct and, therefore, only the matrimonial assets should be shared equally.”
“This decision crystallises the principle that only matrimonial assets should be available for sharing on divorce. It highlights that non-matrimonial funds should be treated as such, even in circumstances where they have been transferred to a spouse, provided that the asset was not treated as shared subsequently.”
“It is likely that following this judgment, couples entering into pre- and post-nuptial agreements will be advised to ensure that non-matrimonial property is concisely defined in the agreement. Further, terms should also be included to ensure that there is no ambiguity as to how non-matrimonial assets should be treated in the event of divorce if they are transferred to a spouse during the marriage.”
COMMENT BY: Jayne Martins, family partner, RWK Goodman
“I think the Supreme Court made the right decision as it was clear that the husband acquired the majority of his wealth prior to the marriage, and the transfer of the assets to the wife was only made for tax efficiency reasons and was never intended to become the wife’s asset.
It is helpful to have clear guidance on what constitutes matrimonial and non-matrimonial property. The judgment makes it unequivocal that the sharing principle does not apply to non-matrimonial assets. This clarity should make it easier for divorcing couples to focus on sharing matrimonial assets only and not to wase time and money arguing over assets that clearly fall outside this category.
Of course, the elephant in the room is needs because the court makes it clear that a couple’s needs will always come first. If matrimonial assets aren’t sufficient to meet those needs, non-matrimonial assets can be shared or relied on to ensure needs are met. However, in cases where needs are already met and there are surplus assets , this guidance will be very useful particularly where there are inherited or gifted assets.”
APPOINTMENT OF THE WEEK
Burgess Mee
Alice Rogers is joining Burgess Mee as a Legal Director. Formerly with Hall Brown Family Law’s London office following training at JMW Solicitors, Rogers specialises in complex financial remedy cases (often involving assets across multiple jurisdictions) and trust disputes. She has had substantial experience in drafting and advising clients on complex pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements as well as cohabitation disputes for non-married couple. She has advised on Family Law Act 1996 proceedings and private children matters (often with an international dimension) and has also represented high-net-worth individuals in Schedule 1 cases and variation proceedings
“I couldn’t be more excited to join the team at Burgess Mee,” said Rogers. “The firm is leading the way with important initiatives such as trauma-informed family law practice. I look forward to contributing to their continuing success.”
Rogers is a member of Resolution and works closely with a variety of professionals, including wealth managers, accountants, tax specialists, private client advisers, and therapeutic support professionals to ensure a collaborative and strategic approach for her clients.
We hope that you’ve found something interesting, useful or even amusing in this edition of the Legal Diary. If so, please circulate to friends and colleagues.
Meanwhile, please continue to send your Diary-style stories, legal insights, comment and latest appointments to
fennell.edward@yahoo.com
And good luck with the heat over the weekend!