Edward Fennell’s LEGAL DIARY
Diary news plus insights, commentary and appointments from the legal world
13 February 2026
Editorial contact: fennell.edward@yahoo.com
SHORT THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK:
CUTTING THE RED ( WHITE AND BLUE ) TAPE
Recent figures indicate a growing number of complaints about law firms. Those involved in house conveyancing seem to be particular targets of frustration. No surprise, maybe, given that house sales in England are fraught with last minute crises. By contrast, having recently had direct experience of a house sale in Italy, this does not need to be the case. Tying purchasers and sellers alike into a disciplined process meant a serene process with no fears of being let down at the last moment – even though there were four different nationalities involved.
The historic confidence that the British way of doing things was intrinsically best has been mightily whittled away in recent years.The English system of buying and selling houses is a prime example. Selectively- and despite leaving the EU – there may still be plenty to learn from our neighbours across the sea.
The LegalDiarist
In this edition
+ LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
Older Legal Apprenticeships Promoted thanks to HF
Growing Social Responsibility One Step at a Time at Foot Anstey
Quinn Emanuel Aligns with Clooney to Support Women
Whatever Happened to Global Justice?
+ CONTRIBUTED ARTICLES OF THE WEEK
The growing importance of jurisdictional challenges in cross-border AI claims by ANDREW WOOLSEY
The Evolution of Litigation Funding by SCOTT SOBCZYK
+ LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
on the Aerotol case, Oatley v. Diary UK, the Co-op, EUIPO v. Nowhere and the Adam Moseri comments.
+ APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK
OSBORNE CLARK
LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
Older Legal Apprenticeships Promoted thanks to HF
The Government might be notionally committed to widening opportunity and facilitating social mobility but it has an odd way of showing it. Take for example the way it has decided to reduce funding towards Level 7 apprenticeships.
Frankly, anyone who knows anything about career development appreciates that those from deprived backgrounds frequently miss out as teenagers and only connect with the importance of gaining qualifications in their early-20s. So kicking away support precisely at that age is about the worst policy to adopt.
Anyway, for a small number of those who might want to enter the law a little later in life, help is at hand from HF which has decided to intervene having been inspired by the idea that there should be more than one way to achieve a successful legal career.
HF’s People Development Team consulted with key SQE apprenticeship providers and has just announced that it is launching a partnership with the University of Law (ULAW) which is offering the SQE qualification at no cost to applicants. In effect this will deliver the same potential for qualification as was previously offered to individuals who chose an apprenticeship route.
“Without this determination to find an alternative, those wishing to qualify would have had to either enter a traditional training contract agreement or self-fund,” comments HF. “ And traditional training contracts will not be available to those who started an undergraduate course later than September 2022 following the Government’s decision to phase out the LPC.”
This new option from HF and ULAW provides the benefit of an apprenticeship format combining work with study days – at zero cost to apprentices.
“This course, alongside our existing offering with BPP, allows HF to keep providing a competitive, alternative route to qualification which most firms in the sector won’t be able to replicate,” says Oliver Bate, Chief People Officer at HF. “We’re proud of our apprentices and the skills, talent and diversity of thought that they bring to our organisation.”
Growing Social Responsibility One Step at a Time
While HF is making its mark in terms of social mobility, Foot Anstey is redoubling its efforts towards becoming a responsible business. As part of a wide palate of initiatives it has set up a new ‘Foot Anstey Foundation’ through which the firm has entered a year-long charitable partnership with The Youth Hostels Association E&W, donating over £50,000 to provide 250 young people from disadvantaged backgrounds access to the YHA Breaks Programme. The programme helps young people, and their carers, build new skills, relationships and confidence.
Looking ahead the plan is to make a greater investment in its local communities, a renewed approach to supplier sustainability and a new offering supporting the ESG related needs of its clients.
“As we continue our firm’s transformation, responsible business is a deliberate and essential part of how we grow,” said Martin Hirst, the firm’s Managing Partner, “The foundations we’ve laid this year are just the beginning, and I look forward to seeing the positive impact we will create in the years ahead.”
Sadly , though, one of the firm’s key commitments would be ill-received at the White House now that sustainable and responsible growth is the target for the firm. The firm has committed to the Science Based Targets initiative and started the process of setting rigorous targets to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Its energy efficiency programme helped drive a 24% decline in ‘scope 2’ emissions from the previous year. President Trump would be appalled.
Quinn Emanuel Aligns with Clooney to Support Women
Women and journalists are currently benefitting from pro bono legal advice courtesy of the Justice Champion Program, an initiative of the Clooney Foundation for Justice (CFJ). And to add more power to its reach it will also be supported by Quinn Emanuel which will support the organisation’s core programmes along with the Oxford Institute for Technology and Justice.
Since its founding by Amal Clooney the CFJ has secured more than 10,000 hours of free legal support for women facing discrimination and violence and journalists unjustly imprisoned for their work. It already works in more than forty countries globally but this latest development will expand CFJ’s network of pro bono attorneys at leading law firms. What’s more there is now a particular emphasis on the use of AI to assist its clients.
“This partnership will help us do even more for the women and journalists we represent,” said Amal Clooney. “We are lucky to count Quinn Emanuel as part of the CFJ family and very grateful for their support as our first Justice Champion partner.”
Kevin Johnson, Partner at Quinn Emanuel observed, “At-risk women and detained journalists around the world have an advocate they can trust in CFJ. We’re proud to support that mission, and this fellowship gives our lawyers the chance to work on consequential human rights matters while making a real difference in people’s lives.”
Julianne Hughes-Jennett, Partner at Quinn Emanuel London commented, “Quinn Emanuel is honoured to be CFJ’s inaugural partner and to support CFJ in its fight for human rights and justice globally. We look forward to using our legal skills to ensure access to justice for all.”
For more information, visit cfj.org.
Whatever Happened to Global Justice?
It will not come as too much of a surprise that the Global Justice 50/50 Report says that a mere 2% of 655 key roles across 22 international courts are held by women from low-income countries. Or that, by contrast, almost a third of the highest offices in the legal world are held by men from the US and UK. Meanwhile just a half of global law and justice organisations have made a public commitment to gender equality. And adding insult to injury, you might say, just 18% of these organisations have policies to collect the gender-related data needed to track progress.
“It matters profoundly who holds power in the justice sector and how decisions are made,” said María Fernanda Espinosa Garcés, former President of the United Nations General Assembly. “Institutions may aspire to neutrality, yet they are rooted in history and culture. When inequality exists within systems designed to deliver justice, their legitimacy and the trust they depend on are called into question.
“The findings highlight how global justice is disproportionately shaped by a small segment of the world. Greater inclusion of leadership and ideas from the global majority are essential to ensure justice that is both participatory and universal.”
Significantly representation from major jurisdictions, such as the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), is almost absent from these roles. (Although, bluntly, some people might have some nervousness about the extensive participation by judges from China and Russia).
“Progressive law firms recognise that gender equality is fundamental,” said Matt Meyer, Managing Partner at Kingsley Napley and member of Global 50/50’s Advisory Council. “Clients demand diversity in the firms and teams they use, inclusive workplaces are more successful at attracting and retaining the best talent and gender equality in leadership drives wider priorities, greater innovation and better decisions.”
Transparency and better data are essential if the legal sector is serious about addressing gender inequality – and that’s what Global Justice 50/50 aspires to deliver.
For more see report by Global 50/50
CONTRIBUTED ARTICLES OF THE WEEK
The growing importance of jurisdictional challenges in cross-border AI claims
by ANDREW WOOLSEY
As AI systems continue to mature and scale globally, jurisdiction has emerged as one of the most contested issues in AI-related disputes.
2025 culminated with the handing down of the much-anticipated judgment in Getty Images v Stability AI – the first major UK ruling to examine how copyright and trademark laws apply to the development and deployment of generative AI models, and one of the first major AI disputes to be litigated generally. While the case is best known for its treatment of copyright and trade mark issues, the jurisdictional findings were equally significant. 2026 will likely bring more IP claims like Getty, and an array of other disputes around how AI models are trained, deployed, utilised, and governed.
In the Getty case, Stability AI successfully defended Getty Images’ claim for secondary copyright infringement, which was largely due to the fact that the model in question was trained outside the UK. This is a significant finding that represents a big win for AI developers. AI developers may strategically locate their training infrastructure in jurisdictions with weaker IP protection to minimise exposure to copyright infringement claims. For non-IP claims, certain actions can only be commenced in the territory where the damage is suffered. This can prove challenging for disputes involving AI systems, as it is not always easy to determine the territory in which certain acts (which caused the damage) are deemed to have been carried out.
The jurisdictional challenges of AI disputes will naturally give rise to fears of increasing levels of ‘forum shopping’ with AI developers potentially choosing to deliberately create and/or train AI models in more lenient jurisdictions before deploying it elsewhere. To mitigate against these jurisdictional challenges (absent any clear, universal legal framework) claimants may be forced to litigate on two fronts and commence proceedings in the jurisdiction where the training took place and the jurisdiction where the model was deployed.
An increase in AI disputes is the natural byproduct of more organisations re-evaluating digital strategies and setting ambitious goals for AI adoption, and jurisdictional issues will increasingly sit at the forefront of litigation strategy. As adoption and utilisation of AI continues, it is essential that jurisdictional risk is treated as a core risk consideration rather than a procedural afterthought. Crucially, organisations must also engage with partners, consultants, lawyers and other experts to help them navigate this ever-changing area.
Andrew Woolsey is an Associate at Cooke Young & Keidan
The Evolution of Litigation Funding
by SCOTT SOBCZYK
The landscape of litigation funding in England and Wales has undergone a seismic shift over the last two decades. Once prohibited by the antiquated doctrines of champerty and maintenance, third party litigation funding (TPLF) has evolved into a sophisticated multi-billion pound industry – growing from £198m in 2011/2012 to £2.2bn in 2022 – and predicted to reach £3.7bn by 2028.
While traditional TPLF arrangements have been permissible since the 1960s, the recent growth has been fuelled by continued erosion of the doctrines of champerty and maintenance by the judiciary (see the recent judgment in Henderson & Jones Limited -v- Tysers Insurance Brokers Limited [2025] EWHC 3155 (Comm)) and statute – including the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 which fundamentally expanded the scope for TPLF via assignment by rendering non-assignment clauses ineffective in certain commercial contracts and by expressly permitting assignments of certain causes of action by insolvency practitioners.
This legislative shift gave rise to a specialised trend – funding by assignment – which provides a more flexible alternative to traditional TPLF which aligns the parties and avoids the conflicts that can arise between traditional funders and claimants. While traditional TPLF involves a funder providing capital in exchange for a return payable upon success, the assignment model allows a funder to step into the shoes of the claimant; not only providing funding but also taking conduct of the litigation and shouldering potential adverse costs liability.
Initially appealing mainly to those lacking funds to litigate, the assignment model (and TPLF more generally) has in recent years become increasingly attractive to a wider range of claimants seeking to insulate themselves from the risks and costs of litigation. No longer is TPLF a solution only for those lacking funds, it is increasingly being used strategically to de-risk claimants in all manner of claims – from relatively modest to complex £multi-million international disputes.
Today, two trends dominate the horizon. First, the use of data analytics and AI to price risk, predict outcomes and optimise portfolio management. Second, the drive toward regulation and oversight. The UK Government signalled in December 2025 that it would introduce proportionate regulation of TPLF and overturn the 2023 PACCAR judgment by statute – creating certainty and transparency in a market that has until now seen funders self-regulate via voluntary participation in the Association of Litigation Funders.
This, coupled with an increased appetite for TPLF from a widening range of claimants, is making TPLF – once considered unlawful interference with justice – a cornerstone of the legal system.
Scott Sobczyk is a Senior Associate at Henderson & Jones
LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
TOPIC: The Aerotol case in the Supreme Court and its impact on patentees considering the UKIPO as a forum for protecting AI now that they are receiving a more in-depth assessment of patentability
COMMENT BY: Ben Husband, Partner at Carpmaels and Ransford
“The UK’s Supreme Court has ruled that the long standing Aerotel approach for assessing the patentability of inventions relating to programs for a computer, as such, in the UK should be abandoned. The Court has ruled that the assessment should follow the approach adopted by the European patent office.
It is clear from the judgment that the first step of the EPO’s approach should be followed to determine whether an invention is excluded from patentability as being a program for a computer (the so-called “any hardware test”). It is also clear that the EPO’s intermediate step should be followed to determine whether each claimed feature contributes to the technical character of the invention as a whole. However, the Court has indicated that the approach to the analysis of inventive step by UK Courts should not be changed, although it may require some modification. Therefore, it does not appear as a wholesale adoption of the EPO’s approach by the UK Courts and the UK Intellectual Property Office.
For the appellant, the Court has ruled that an artificial neural network is a computer program, but that the subject matter of Emotional Perception’s patent application is not excluded from patentability, and the UKIPO’s Hearing Officer must now determine whether the features of the invention which contribute to its technical character can be considered to involve an inventive step.
This is a positive outcome for patentees considering the UKIPO as a forum for protecting software and AI inventions, as patentees should receive a more in-depth assessment of patentability.”
TOPIC: Oatly’s failure in its case against Dairy UK, the trade association for the UK dairy industry, in the Supreme Court regarding whether it can use the word “milk” to describe its products
COMMENT BY: Iain Connor, Intellectual Property partner, Michelmores
“’Milk’ for ‘milk’ does not sound like much of a case to vex the UK’s Supreme Court but when a company is trying to position its dairy-free milk substitute, it does matter.
“The UK Supreme Court ruled against the ‘post milk generation’ (or at least the trade mark to protect that slogan) by strictly interpreting a food standards regulation that prevents the word ‘milk’ being used in the course of trade for non-dairy products.
“The case is significant because it not only prevents the registration as a trade mark of the phrase ‘post milk generation’ but the implication of the decision is that Oatly must stop using the phrase on its oat based drink products completely.
“The Supreme Court has made clear that the relevant food standards regulation properly interpreted means that the word ‘milk’ can only be used for milk or other products derived from milk. Practically this means that Oatly’s product labels, publicity material and advertising cannot use the term ‘milk’ even as part of its strap line ‘post milk generation’.
“’Post Milk Generation’ was deemed insufficiently clear to describe a characteristic of Oatly’s oat drink product as a diary-free product with the Supreme Court confirming that the restriction applied both to the name of the product and also other designations.”
COMMENT BY: Anousha Davies, Associate and Trade Mark Attorney, Birketts LLP
“ Oatly’s Supreme Court decision means plant-based brand owners must be extra careful with using dairy-related terms on products. The Court held that Oatly can no longer use POST MILK GENERATION for oat‑based foods/drinks.
It was confirmed that words like ‘milk’ are legally protected and can only be used for animal‑based products, so plant-based brands shouldn’t use these words in product names, slogans, or brand messaging for alt/plant‑based drinks. Although use of terms such as ‘milk‑free’, ‘non‑dairy’, or ‘dairy‑alternative’ may be allowed (as they directly communicate a characteristic quality), such use must be totally unambiguous. The Court’s decision sets a high bar for any non‑dairy product using dairy‑related language, regardless of consumer perception.
It is worth noting that terms linked to meat e.g. ‘burger’, ‘steak’ and ‘sausage’ are not currently restricted for plant‑based products (yet).”
COMMENT BY: Kirsten Gilbert, Partner and Head of Brand Exploitation, Protection and TM Litigation UK, Marks & Clerk
If you are active in the dairy or dairy alternative drinks sectors then this decision will need to be taken into consideration when considering trade marks for registration or use. If your products are not dairy products you will not be able to use the term milk in relation to your products. If you are in the dairy sector this is another tool that can be used against the non-dairy alternative sector when opposing trade mark applications and the use of trade marks that contain the word milk.
This may be another of these instances where the law appears to be removed from what is actually happening in the consumer marketplace. Consumers frequently refer to “oat milk”, “soy milk” and “almond milk” but the producers of these products are now restricted from using these phrases themselves to communicate to their customers. Something to think about over a nice cup of tea with oat “milk”!”
TOPIC: The allegations of a ‘toxic culture’ at the Co-op
COMMENT BY: Florence Brocklesby, Founder, Bellevue Law
“Claims about ‘toxic’ workplace culture are becoming more common, and for outsiders it can be challenging – if not impossible – to distinguish valid concerns about poor management, bullying and/or unethical conduct from pushback from staff who may be resistant to challenge or change.
Employers can find it helpful to conduct culture surveys to understand the nature and extent of cultural issues and address these in a meaningful way.
Many turn to external support, for example in conducting culture surveys, providing speak up helplines and investigating grievances, to ensure concerns are considered and addressed objectively and credibly.
However, positive workplace culture is only possible if this is set from the top, with clear communication of expectations, and standards applied consistently, including senior management.”
TOPIC: The decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union which confirmed in EUIPO v Nowhere C‑337/22 P that for opposition proceedings before the EUIPO: an “earlier right” cited in opposition must not only pre‑date the EU filing or priority date of the contested application but must also still exist as a valid right on the date of EUIPO’s final decision.
COMMENT BY: Christophe van Zyl, Attorney, Marks & Clerk
“At first glance, one might read the case as a textbook example of why securing a registered trade mark is strategically important. Of course, the Opponent would have been on far firmer ground had its monkey device been registered within the EU, without having to establish and rely on unregistered rights as the principle ground of opposition. But the implications of the judgment reach well beyond the Brexit‑coloured facts. The Court has effectively shifted the decisive moment for assessing the validity of earlier rights from the date of filing an opposition to the date of the decision itself. Earlier rights that are revoked, invalidated, surrendered, or otherwise extinguished during the course of the proceedings will no longer sustain the opposition, even if they were valid when the opposition proceedings commenced.
“In practice, we believe this decision will encourage more post‑registration cancellation actions, especially where earlier rights are nearly at the end of the five year non-use grace period at the time of filing an opposition. More importantly, considering the significance of this decision particularly on revocation and with EU oppositions generally taking a few years to reach decisions, it means that opponents can no longer assume “safety” simply because their client’s registration is still within the five‑year grace period when the opposition is filed.”
TOPIC: The comments made by Adam Mosseri, the Instagram CEO, in the landmark trial in Los Angeles in which social media giants have been accused of creating ‘addiction machines’
COMMENT BY: Mark Jones, Payne Hicks Beach
“Comments from Adam Mosseri suggesting that 16 hours a day on Instagram is merely ‘problematic’, and not addiction, downplay the scale of the issue. These cases are about engineered addiction.
“The legal question is not how companies label excessive use, but whether platforms are deliberately designed in ways that encourage compulsive engagement among children and young people because that model is commercially lucrative.
“Protecting children and young people from online harms simply has to be made more of a priority for tech companies.
“What happens in this US litigation matters globally. The outcome could influence how UK courts, regulators and Ofcom interpret responsibility for product design, and whether the Online Safety Act is enforced as a meaningful child-protection framework rather than a compliance exercise.”
LEGAL SECTOR APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK
OSBORNE CLARK
Miguel Perez Guerra is joining the European competition and antitrust practice of Osborne Clarke’s London Office. Dual‑qualified in EU and English law he has almost 20 years’ experience in competition law primarily working in-house.
He was formerly with drinks business AB InBev, where he was Director and Head of Antitrust, IP and Commercial Law. He also hadan extensive period with household-name tech firms, including Google, where he handled the European Commission’s antitrust investigation into Android and the Google/Fitbit merger clearances; and PayPal, where he was the Head of Antitrust in Europe. As a result he has handled high-profile investigations, merger control, litigation and compliance across the EMEA region, and has been closely involved in the development and application of emerging digital and platform regulation.
“Regulators are sharpening their focus on digital markets, platforms and consumer‑facing businesses, and our clients need advisers who combine technical excellence with a deep understanding of how these issues play out inside global organisations,” said Simon Neill, Partner and Head of UK Competition. “Miguel’s impressive in-house experience, together with his Brussels and EU law background, significantly deepens our competition offering and supports the continued growth of our work in digital markets.”
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