Edward Fennell’s LEGAL DIARY

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

25 July 2025

Editorial contact: fennell.edward@yahoo.com

SHORT THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK:

(Another) China Crisis?

However inept the Starmer regime may be in growing the economy and calibrating measures designed to attract and retain wealth in the UK, it can claim some credit for its handling of international relations. By adopting a conciliatory rather than a confrontational tone the UK probably has more friends overseas than it has enjoyed for some time.

But there has to be a point where you must draw the line.

The Government’s latest engagement with China regarding extradition to Hong Kong appears to be now in that zone. Our commentator below, Ben Keith, extradition barrister at 5 St Andrew’s Hill, hits the nail on the head when he writes, “The UK government’s position is nonsense – extradition to a state with no human rights, no rule of law and a hostile plan against anyone who criticises it should not be allowed.”

How the Government handles this will be deeply revealing about how Starmer’s legal mind operates in this politically-critical relationship.

The Legal Diarist

In this edition

+ LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK

Cybercrime: Going Italian?

Pfizer under Legal Attack

Great Result for AXA from Quinn Emanuel

Reading It Right at Reeds

+ CONTRIBUTED ARTICLES OF THE WEEK

Pre-Nups: Timing is everything by Rhiannon Lloyd

US Tariffs on UK Goods: Legal and Tax Risks Amid a Volatile Trade Climate by
Liam McKay

+ LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK

on extradition to Hong Kong, the case of Tom Hayes, sanctions on people smugglers, online safety protection, the water industry, pensions tax relief and the Spencer case

+ APPOINTMENT OF THE WEEK

Dechert and Gibson Dunn

LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK

Cybercrime: Going Italian?

Is this the start of the UK Government’s fight back against cyber criminals?

Following high profile cases of ransom demands made of the NHS, local councils and even school organisations (such as the Harris Academy Trust) the Home Office is now keen to make it mandatory for victim organisations to notify them if they intend to pay up.

This follows the giant hack of Marks & Spencer following which the company would not say whether or not it had surrenders to the criminals’ demands.

“A key difficulty remains with holding the cyber criminals to account,” said Mark Jones, a partner in Payne Hicks Beach dispute resolution team. “Tracking down the cyber criminals is both time consuming and expensive and law enforcement is already over-stretched. More often than not, they are based in foreign jurisdictions with no international cooperation in place. There are often political considerations also at play which can hinder or prevent holding cyber criminals to account.”

Following an Italian model, public sector bodies in the UK would be banned from paying ransom demands in the wake of cyber-attacks. Hence by choking off payments at the victims’ end the government hopes that it will cut off the funding relied upon by the cyber criminals

Alongside this development other bodies, not covered by the ban, will be required to notify the government if they intend to pay a ransom – although it is unusual for victims of a crime to be required by law to report that they have been a victim.

“Banning ransom payments risks criminalising the victims and may push ransomware groups further underground,” said Jones. “ A survey in Italy, where paying extortionists is illegal under existing laws, 43% of organisations still admit to paying ransomware payments.

Pfizer Under Legal Attack

It looks likely that Pfizer is going to be at the sharp end of a global legal assault on the use of their high profile birth control injection Depo-Provera (DMPA). A multi-district Litigation (MDL) is already being brought on behalf of women in the USA who developed meningiomas after receiving at least 4 consecutive injections of the drug while law firms are also considering setting in motion potential class actions across a number of other jurisdictions in Europe, Australia, South Africa and Canada.

Following the publication last month of a new study in the international peer-reviewed medical journal Expert Opinion on Drug Safety by Frey et al. (the Frey study) of the side effects of DPMA, Virginia Buchanan, Partner at US law firm Levin Papantonio (and the court-appointed co-chair of the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee and member of the Trial Committe), said, “This new study reinforces the need for legal action against Pfizer with the hope of bringing justice for the women in the United States who have never been warned about the increased risk of developing a brain tumour from using Depo-Provera and who have gone on to develop meningiomas. Levin Papantonio has taken on Big Tobacco, Big Oil, and Big Pharma for their corporate wrongdoing and now we’re demanding that Pfizer be held accountable.”

It has been estimated that whilst 40 out of every 10,000 30-year-old women in the UK would be diagnosed with a meningioma before the age of 80, this risk increases to approximately 200 per 10,000 among women who have used Depo-Provera. This equates to 2% of Depo-Provera users developing brain tumours. Much more to come on this for sure.

Great Result for AXA from Quinn Emanuel

Quinn Emanuel chalked up another big victory in the High Court THIS MORNING when a £675m judgment was handed down in favour of AXA France following a long running dispute with Santander.

So it’s champagne all round, no doubt, this lunchtime for the Quinn Emanuel lawyers in London acting for AXA namely Richard East (Partner), Gemma Anderson (Partner), Cordelia Rayner (Of Counsel) backed up by associates Juliet Bull, Tom Brockington, Muzhgan Wahaj, Graham Evans, and Jonathan Pond – along, of course, with their briefs Andrew Green KC, Fraser Campbell KC and Timothy Lau .

The cause, it must be said, is pretty ancient. AXA France has been arguing that Santander must indemnify AXA France for all consumer redress and fees paid to the Financial Ombudsman Service arising from a series of mis-selling complaints regarding PPI policies before 14 January 2005.  

The indemnity in question was in an agency agreement between the AXA France and Santander dated 1 December 2000.  A key question for the Court was whether the indemnity applied to PPI policies sold before 1 December 2000.  AXA France argued that on a proper reading of the agency agreement it did. The Court agreed with the result that AXA France is now entitled to recover all redress and FOS fees for the Policies which exceed 600,000 in total.

Santander already has a sore head from the affair but no doubt the Quinn Emanuel team will enjoy their victory in a suitably measured way.

Reading It Right at Reeds

Reeds Solicitors LLP is celebrating the promotion of Emma Ćojder, Andy Lee, and Lucy Tapper  to the firm’s Partnership. It brings the total number of Partners across all offices to 18. A pretty routine development, you might think, but for Reeds the promotions mark what they describe as “an important milestone in the firm’s ongoing commitment to fostering greater diversity and inclusion within its leadership team, reflecting the evolving makeup of both the profession and the communities it serves.”

Reeds works through more than twenty offices across England and Wales, and provides a variety of legal services including Criminal Defence, family law, prison law, mental health and court of protection law. Its strength lies in its team of police station representatives, paralegals, solicitors, solicitor-advocates and barristers.

So what is significant about this latest round of partnership promotions is that two of the three are not solicitors but a barrister and a legal executive.

With more than 23 years of experience, as well as a background working in the Criminal Justice System that spans 30 years Lucy Tapper is the first barrister to be made a Partner at Reeds. Meanwhile Emma Cojder deploys her expertise and substantial organisational skills as a CILEX-member in her role as Team Manager and lynchpin for the firm’s national Complex Crime team.

And to add another dimension to the mix Andy Lee is a fluent Cantonese speaker with a practice which includes an extensive international network with a particular emphasis on Southeast Asia. He now has a trusted client base within the Chinese community.

For the firm the success of the three new partners marks the realisation of the aims of its carefully crafted ‘career pathway’ which provides ‘clear objectives to those who wish to progress at the firm’. With a strong emphasis on fostering diversity, it is obviously working.

CONTRIBUTED ARTICLES OF THE WEEK

Pre-Nups: Timing is everything

by Rhiannon Lloyd

The Wedding season is in full swing but in the rush to finalise last minute preparations many people overlook the fact that proper time and thought may need to be given to any nuptial agreements that the parties may wish to enter into. Best practice informed by Guidance from the Law Commission now dictates that these agreements should be signed in excess of 28 days prior to any ceremony. The reasons are obvious: to enable enough time and space for parties to consider the legal ramifications of these documents before singing them, and to avoid being unduly pressurised into signing them by the impending wedding day on the horizon.

A landmark case in 2010 changed the court’s approach to the enforceability of these agreements, and while they are still not automatically legally binding, they now can, in certain circumstances, be given decisive weight and upheld even where the court may have made more generous provision. The court will give effect to a nuptial agreement if it was freely entered into by each party with a full appreciation of its implications unless in the circumstances prevailing it would not be fair to hold them to it. What this usually means is provided the agreement meets a party’s needs (and those of any children) and there are no ‘vitiating factors’ such as mistake, duress or fraud, the court will give it effect.

The increased legal recognition of these agreements has given rise to a consequent increase in people seeking to use them to attempt to regulate the consequences of marital breakdown, buy themselves an element of predictability and protect assets they may have built up alone prior to their marriage. But these agreements take time to negotiate and consider, legal advice needs to be taken some disclosure of financial circumstances needs to be made so that any future court is assured that parties had a full appreciation of its implications. Ultimately these documents mean one party is going to be giving up rights to more generous provision via the courts than they will be getting in the agreement and that should not be undertaken lightly. Often women who have children and so give up careers to take on caring responsibilities will have the most to lose from these agreements, which ultimately permit a prospective spouse to contract out of a ‘sharing claim’ in preference to a more ‘needs based’ claim. Whether a prenup guarantees more certainty upon marital breakdown is arguable; if a dispute arises about whether it should be upheld the proceedings can be just as long and drawn out. However where the marriage isn’t long and there is no children the application of these prenups does seem more straightforward.

Rhiannon Lloyd is a barrister at 4PB

US Tariffs on UK Goods: Legal and Tax Risks Amid a Volatile Trade Climate

by Liam McKay

UK exporters are continuing to grapple with a turbulent new trade landscape following the sweeping tariff measures introduced by the US earlier this year.

While the UK has fared better than the EU, which currently faces baseline tariffs of 20% and a 25% duty on automobile manufacturers, the baseline 10% tariff that now applies to all UK-origin goods entering the US adds a considerable layer of cost and complexity to transatlantic trade. And although the Economic Prosperity Deal (EPD) signed on 8 May brought some relief, for most UK exporters the deal brought little immediate protection from escalating trade frictions.

The global trade environment remains uncertain. While the US has paused most country-specific tariffs until 1 August 2025 to allow time for new trade negotiations, it has set ambitious conditions that many trading partners may struggle to meet. As a result, the current détente may give way to a full-scale trade war by the end of summer. Indeed, the UK has already missed the 8 July 2025 deadline imposed by the US for reaching terms on UK steel and aluminium, which could see those goods subject to US tariffs of 50%.

Meanwhile, the broader economic ripple effects – from rising costs to slowing demand – are being felt by businesses. UK goods are now more expensive for US consumers, and exporters are seeing compressed margins and reduced competitiveness. Businesses with EU operations are especially vulnerable, facing steeper duties that further complicate cross-border trade.

This ongoing volatility underscores the need for UK businesses to take decisive action to manage risks, recalibrate pricing models, and adjust supply chains. Strategic planning is critical. Legal advisers should support clients to model the impact of tariffs, reassess sourcing and manufacturing arrangements, and identify opportunities for market diversification. Early engagement with customs and tax advisers is also essential to ensure that tariff classification, country-of-origin documentation, and duty mitigation strategies are robust and up to date. Above all, businesses must remain vigilant in meeting their tax compliance obligations to avoid costly and time-consuming compliance action by regulatory authorities.

In an era of unpredictable trade policy, legal compliance, commercial agility, and tax awareness are not optional – they are essential for business survival. UK exporters must stay alert, act swiftly, and plan smart to weather what may be a long season of global trade instability.

Liam McKay is a tax litigator at RPC

LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK

TOPIC:  The UK government’s controversial plans to reinstate extradition cooperation with Hong Kong

COMMENT BY: Ben Keith, extradition barrister, 5 St Andrew’s Hill

 “The UK Government’s reinstatement of extradition arrangements with Hong Kong marks a further integration with Beijing. The ability to extradite to Hong Kong was suspended and is now reinstated. This is a terrifying development. China’s continued misuse of INTERPOL and transnational repression, and the systemic use of torture due to religious or political beliefs should have been enough to prevent this from happening. China spies on journalists and intimidates activists in the UK. The next step will be the use of extradition to intimidate and harass. The UK governments position is nonsense – extradition to a state with no human rights, no rule of law and a hostile plan against anyone who criticises it should not be allowed. They have been duped by Beijing.”

TOPIC: The case of Tom Hayes and his overturned conviction by the Supreme Court in connection with alleged EURIBOR price-fixing

COMMENT BY:  Neil Swift, Partner, Peters & Peters 

On the decision:

“The Supreme Court’s decision confirms the fundamental question of the respective roles of the judge and the jury.

“The role of the judge is to determine questions of law, and that of the jury is to determine questions of fact. This is where the court, and the Court of Appeal, went wrong. 

“Essentially, the jury was told that if Hayes had intended submitters to put forward rates that gave him a trading advantage, that meant the rates did not represent the submitters’ genuine opinions. 

“The Supreme Court noted that there was ample evidence on which a properly directed jury could have convicted Hayes. The point is that the jury was not properly directed, so the trial was unfair. 

On the decision’s impact on the SFO and wider law enforcement:

“This will be a blow to the SFO and the overall law enforcement response to the financial crisis. 

“It may be thought that this shows that such misconduct is better examined through a regulatory rather than a criminal lens. Although not capable of sending someone to prison, when it comes to the esoteric consideration of banking and financial markets, the regulatory system, with its ability to ban and fine individuals, and to do so more quickly, may be preferable.   

“Some may say that this provides support for the proposals made by Sir Brian Leveson.  But the error here was by the judge, not the jury. The jury did as they were told.  As a result of the directions, they had no option but to convict.”

TOPIC: The new UK sanctions targeting people smugglers/illegal immigration

Comment by: Roger Gherson, managing partner and sanctions expert, Gherson Solicitors

“This is a huge step towards the Prime Minister’s pre-election promise to “smash the gangs”.  The choice of sanctions is a dangerous one for two reasons.

Sanctions are widely seen as a political tool which undermines the criminal justice system. These tools allow politicians to overstep the rule of law and in doing so they undermine the entire democratic system where all individuals should be protected by law.

The Russian Sanctions Regulations are illustrative of this. Sanctions are not effective; they have not stopped the war in Ukraine: the sole stated purpose in sanctioning over 1500 people was to force them to pressurise the Russians to retreat. In fact, since their imposition the situation has escalated.

Proposals to use these on people smugglers is nothing more than bluster and an obvious PR exercise for the Government to be seen to be dealing with the problem. Most of these smugglers will no doubt operate outside of normal banking system in any case, and most probably in cash. To divert limited police and NCA resources to this will only stetch our much-needed resources further.

The only way to curtail this is to catch the individuals. Assets and freedom can then be taken away. 

The Government should spend more time and effort into looking to review the immigration categories and stop hiding behind the façade of “a proper effective system” which is not servicing anyone. Immigration laws also need to be vigorously enforced as well as the Human Rights convention and this is clearly not happening.

Perhaps MPs should focus more on developing the UK’s economy by creating employment and growing wealth rather than penalising working individuals and families across the board. They seem to be following an outdated political dogma which has never worked, and always ultimately damages working people.”

TOPIC: The independent Water Commission’s Report and Sir John Cunliff’s final recommendations

COMMENT BY: Natalie Knight-Wickens, Partner, Spencer West

“Here’s the stripped‑down truth: the water sector’s broken because its corporate structure is broken.

The Public Accounts Committee didn’t mince words: companies are raising customer bills with no oversight, while executives get bonuses and shareholders pocket profits. Regulators? “Farcical” and powerless.

Now the Government has confirmed what we’ve known: Ofwat is being scrapped. A single, powerful regulator takes over, and a legally binding ombudsman will stand guard for consumers.

Sir Jon Cunliffe’s 88 recommendations are a step forward. But reports only matter if you tackle the financial plumbing: ownership vetting, dividend ceilings, governance scrutiny and debt rules.

The roadmap goes further: smart meters, social tariffs, mandatory asset‑health reporting. This is not symbolism. It’s a commercial course correction.

But let’s be clear: you can rebrand regulators all you want, until you legislate financial discipline, nothing changes. Boards will still chase quick returns while infrastructure crumbles.

I’ve built businesses. Sat on boards. Advised companies. The first rule of commercial sustainability? Fix your foundations.

Ownership vetting, capital floors, governance oversight, these must be hardwired into the new system. Otherwise, this “root‑and‑branch reform” becomes little more than PR spin.

It’s time to build water companies that are fit for purpose: not just fit for profit.”

TOPIC: The possibility of the Chancellor targeting pensions tax relief

COMMENT BY: Charlotte Sallabank, tax partner, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

“There is much speculation about whether Rachel Reeves is considering slashing pensions tax relief in order to generate more money for the Treasury.

If the Chancellor were indeed to withdraw pension relief at source, this would be a lucrative move and more subtle than increasing tax rates. It seems to me that the continued freeze on tax thresholds is inevitable. Other than these two moves I cannot see that she has many other options available to her, given her stated promise to adhere to the fiscal rules and not increase rates of income tax, employee’s NIC and VAT. Wealth taxes, though on the face of it more acceptable to labour voters,  rarely bring in the projected revenues and often ultimately result in a reduction in tax take.”

TOPIC: The new online safety protections for children through  Ofcom and its Protection of Children Code of Practice, now coming into force on ‘risky’ sites

COMMENT BY: Mark Jones, Partner, Payne Hicks Beach

“More could be done by Ofcom and its Protection of Children Code of Practice. 

“It has taken too long to get to this point. The Online Safety Act came into force in October 2023 and yet it has taken a further 19 months for these Codes to come into force and during that time significant numbers of children have been exposed to harm.

“The Codes set out the measures that service providers need to comply with from 25 July (tomorrow). However, it is for the service provider themselves to decide how they meet those duties. Whilst Ofcom sets out measures that can be applied, service providers can set their own effective measures to protect children from harmful content. This flexibility risks too much power resting with service providers.

“Encrypted messaging services also remain a point of concern with no clarity on whether or not the likes of WhatsApp and Signal should be required to scan private messages for harmful content.”

“Although the Codes cover matters such as the need for algorithms to filter out harmful content, effective age checks and faster action in identifying and removing harmful content, they simply aren’t keeping up with the technology, particularly with the rapid advances in AI, which may not be covered by the legislation.

“The government is already referring to the Codes as the “foundation” for a safer online experience for children and that it does not mark the end of the conversation. In my view this underlines that there is more to be done to protect children and young people from online harms.”

COMMENT BY: Iona Silverman, IP & Media Partner, Freeths

“Although Ofcom has made a start in regulating the highest risk platforms, it needs to move to tackle everyday harms, such as excessive exposure to social media. The suggestion of a two-hour limit is interesting: some might argue that two hours on social media is too long in itself. The real question that springs to mind is, how will this be enforced? Given most young people are using a number of different social media platforms, possibly across a number of different devices, it will be incredibly hard to police any kind of cap. In addition to legislative change and increased enforcement from regulators, we need to see a cultural shift. Parents need to have more open conversations with children and young people about social media and should also try to model the use they want their children to see.”

TOPIC: The Spencer case pitting wife against lover over £2M

COMMENT BY: Lauren Guiler, Associate in the Family Team, Birketts LLP

“Although this matter does not fall squarely within the realm of family law, it underscores the complex interpersonal dynamics that can arise following the breakdown of a relationship, particularly where new partners are involved and tensions may remain. From a family law standpoint, we consistently advise clients to exercise caution in how personal and sensitive information is handled post-separation. This includes being mindful of what is shared with former partners, mutual acquaintances, or through informal channels, especially where health or private matters are concerned. Regardless of the legal framework, parties should do their best to act with discretion and respect, as this case illustrates how private disputes can quickly escalate into costly and highly public litigation.”

LEGAL SECTOR APPOINTMENT OF THE WEEK

DECHERT

 Joseph Dennis has joined Dechert LLP as a partner in London in its corporate and securities practice group with a view to expanding the firm’s global M&A and private equity capabilities.

With a track record running over fifteen years in the field of private equity Dennis has been noted in the various legal directories. Chambers UK 2024 and Legal 500 2025 describe Mr. Dennis as “excellent” and commend his “strong work ethic and exceptional negotiation skills”. His clients have commented that he offers “very strong levels of client service, sophistication and commercial vision”. He has also been been recognised in Legal Week’s 40 under 40: The Rising Stars in Private Equity in 2019 and then, again, in 2023.

“Joseph’s addition demonstrates our clear strategic focus on growing and further strengthening our global private equity practice specifically, and broader asset manager-facing practice more generally, and strongly aligns with our growth strategy focused on attracting top-tier talent and expanding our presence in the key markets and money centres around the world, ” said Mark Thierfelder, Co-chair of Dechert

GIBSON DUNN

Christopher Harris KC is joining Gibson Dunn as Co-Chair of the International Arbitration and the Judgment and Arbitral Award Enforcement Practice Groups.

With over 20 years’ experience in international commercial and investment arbitration as well as extensive advocacy experience before the English (and other) courts, Harris is a Chambers Band 1 ranked barrister who was named International Arbitration Silk of the Year by Chambers UK in late 2024 and is currently shortlisted for the same award from Legal 500 in 2025. He practices principally in the fields of international arbitration and litigation.

“Christopher’s arrival significantly strengthens our international arbitration bench in London and supports our wider growth strategy,” said Penny Madden KC, Co-Chair of the International Arbitration Practice Group at the firm. “English law continues to feature prominently in cross-border contracts and London remains a preferred seat of arbitration, particularly for disputes with links to Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Christopher’s experience and multi-jurisdictional practice fit perfectly with our platform and client base and reflect our global reach and cross-border disputes capability.”

We hope that you’ve been interested or informed 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