Edward Fennell’s LEGAL DIARY
Diary news plus insights, commentary and appointments from the legal world
May 1st 2026
Editorial contact: fennell.edward@yahoo.com
SHORT THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK: Is This A Good Deal I See Before Me?
The court-room in the USA where Elon Musk is toe-to-toe with Sam Altman in a dispute over a ‘for profit’ arm of OpenAI is throwing up some curious ironies.
Musk has admitted that he did not read the ‘fine print’ of a key document at the original set-up of the operation. But, nonetheless, he is seeking $150bn. in damages from OpenAI, while acknowledging that he was a fool for backing it in the first place.
That there has been a ‘hallucination’ (believed to be true, turned out not-so) in a foundation AI story which took in one of the smartest guys on the planet says everything about where we are. And also about how it all ends up in the court-room. The way US law resolves it remains to be seen. But it would be good to have AI predict the outcome.
The LegalDiarist
In this edition
+ LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
New Vice Chair for the Bar
Breakthrough for CILEX into Crown Prosecution
Fraud – The Latest Figures
Anaqua Take Over of Patrix® Creates Powerful Combo
+ LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
Freedom of speech in universities, the Crime and Policing Act 2026, Cyber Security breaches, the David Haye ‘reputational damage’ case, Taylor Swift’s voice, fighting finfluencers.
+ APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK
Devonshires and Three Points Law
LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
New Vice Chair for the Bar
The Bar Council has a new Vice Chair. Claire Davies KC (above) a criminal silk and Leader of the South Eastern Circuit, has been elected to the role for 2027 when she will be alongside the Chair Heidi Stonecliffe KC.
Davies practises in serious and complex criminal law, specialising in allegations of homicide, organised crime, fraud and sexual offences, often in multi-handed trials. She is a member of Farringdon Chambers in London and was called to the Bar by Middle Temple in 1999. She is now a Bencher at Middle Temple where she delivers advocacy and ethics training. She is also a qualified facilitator for vulnerable witness training. She took silk (became King’s Counsel) in 2022.
“It is an honour to be Vice Chair of the Bar Council for 2027,” she commented. “It is a critical time for the publicly funded Bar and, now more than ever, the whole Bar must remain united in influencing the decisions that shape our future to continue our international reputation.
“I am committed to continuing the vital work already being undertaken to oppose the curtailment of jury trials. We must ensure we have a justice system representative of the society it serves and one which increases access to justice for all. I welcome the planned initiatives to improve efficiency within our criminal justice system. By embracing the increased use of technology to modernise the way we work we can deliver better outcomes for justice while improving practitioner wellbeing.
“A focus of mine will be retention of practitioners, encouragement of the talent already at the Bar and recruitment into our profession. This is central to our future and that includes ensuring a properly funded public Bar.
“During my career at the Bar, great strides have been made concerning equality, diversity and inclusion, and following the publication of the Harman Review efforts have been made to eliminate bullying. We cannot be complacent. There is more still to be done, and I look forward to continuing the work I have already undertaken in these vital areas.”
Breakthrough for CILEX into Crown Prosecution
Restrictions which have stopped CILEX Lawyers from becoming Crown Prosecutors have been removed by the Victims and Court Act which received Royal Assent this week.
Crown Prosecutors need a ‘general qualification’ granting a right of audience in relation to any class of proceedings in any of the senior courts or all proceedings in county or magistrates’ courts. However, Chartered Legal Executives do not automatically hold this because of their specialised route to qualification
The new Act has the effect of removing the need for the ‘general qualification’. This means that the 111 CILEX members currently working as Associate Prosecutors now have the opportunity to progress further in their careers, while other CILEX criminal lawyers have the option to join the CPS in Crown Prosecutor roles for the first time. Given the diverse backgrounds of the CILEX membership, the change will significantly advance equality and diversity in the CPS.
The new legislation, which follows a long campaign by CILEX (The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives) means that senior roles in the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will now be opened up to a wider and more diverse range of talent, increasing the pool of lawyers available to deploy on reducing court backlogs.
“This change will widen the pool of specialist criminal lawyers eligible for senior CPS roles, helping to alleviate shortages and tackle the massive backlogs we are facing in the criminal courts,” said Sara Fowler, the CILEX President. “Removal of the general qualification requirement is recognition of the key role CILEX members play in our justice system and their specialist skills and expertise. It will open up career opportunities for CILEX members, encourage recruitment and retention and enable the CPS to attract more lawyers from backgrounds traditionally underrepresented in the legal profession.”
Fraud – The Latest Figures
No great surprise, probably, that according to anew report from Stewarts, the all-litigation firm, ‘Trends in fraud litigation 2026’ (conducted in partnership with litigation analytics platform Solomonic) ‘ fraud remains persistently high in England and Wales’.
According to theOffice for National Statistics’ latest crime statistics (running to the year ending September 2025) there wasan estimated 4.2 million fraud incidents with banking and financial services disputes dominatingthe figures with roughly 33% of the total. Strikingly there was a 19% increase in bank and credit account fraud, the most prevalent category (although there wasno majorchange overall compared with the previous year).
However, not surprisingly – indeed, horrifyingly predictable –new technologies such as AI are having a big impact on fraud as seen in the RedVDS cyber fraud case. Meanwhile future fraud litigation is likely to emerge from the private credit market with wider market corrections due to AI-driven overvaluation, and/or the new “failure to prevent fraud” offence.
Not that this is all bad news from the perspective of the legal profession. “Litigation funding will keep momentum around fraud claims strong, enabling complex, high-value disputes,” says the report.
Nonetheless there is a concern aboutwhere future fraud litigation mightemerge be that in the private credit market, from wider market corrections due to AI-driven overvaluation or from the new “failure to prevent fraud” offence introduced by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, in force since September 2025.
Interestingly, when it came tothe most popular venue for filing claims. the general King’s Bench Division has nowovertaken the Commercial Court.
For the full report go to
https://www.flipsnack.com/6C856866AED/trends-in-fraud-litigation-2026-report
Anaqua Take Over of Patrix® Creates Powerful Combo
It is characteristic of the current reconfiguration of the legal sector that developments in the providers of legal technology make as much news as a major merger of law firms or the appointment of judges. Hence the acquisition in the US of Patrix® (best known for its flagship solution, Patricia® and a long‑standing provider of IP management software) by Anaqua, a major provider of innovation and IP management technology, is turning out to be a big deal.
“Patrix has earned the trust of IP professionals over decades, and we have long admired the business and the team,” said Justin Crotty, CEO, Anaqua. “This combination brings to Anaqua a well-served and loyal customer base along with deep IP technology and law firm expertise. Concurrently, Patrix customers will now have the opportunity to access Anaqua’s broad capabilities, including global hosting and security infrastructure, leading foreign filing, patent & trademark renewals and docketing services, and advanced AI-driven workflow tools, and analytics.”
Almost 400 businesses/firms within the legal sector – including some of the largest IP law firms in the world – use Patricia, one of the most widely used IP management systems in the market.
“Our role is to meet clients where they are today, while giving them support and optionality for the future,” continued Crotty. “As clients navigate the accelerating role of AI in the practice of IP, changes in the regulatory landscape and economic volatility, we want to be there as a trusted partner. When our clients win, we win.”
LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
TOPIC: The High Court case in which the decision by the Office for Students’ (OfS) to issue a fine against a university for failing to secure freedom of speech in a high-profile judgment regarding trans people was overturned
COMMENT BY: Trish D’Souza, Legal Director in the education team, Browne Jacobson
“The judgment is clear that the court considers OfS to have acted beyond its powers in its expansive interpretation of the conditions of registration and the procedure adopted in its enforcement action.
“The High Court has confirmed that not every university policy governs how a provider operates and therefore does not amount to a governing document (unlike charters, statutes and articles). Compliance with free speech obligations must include consideration of a university’s freedom of speech code, even if not expressly referenced within each policy, and the proportionality of any measures which potentially interfere with lawful freedom of expression taken into account.
“Even where the OfS has jurisdiction, it must act fairly, openly and without predetermination. The finding that the OfS acted with apparent bias is striking and this undermined the entire decision-making process. This underlines that enforcement can’t be driven by a desire to ‘send a message’.
“The judgment will have wide ramifications across the sector, for institutions seeking further guidance on what freedom of speech ‘within the law’ means in context, and in how the judgment outcomes are taken into account in the forthcoming regulations to bring the OfS’ complaints scheme into force.
“While the court ruled that academics should not be in danger of losing their jobs as a result of exercising such freedoms, it distinguished this from a university’s right to instigate disciplinary proceedings.
“Beyond the free‑speech headlines, this is a significant public law ruling that reins in regulatory overreach, and confirms the OfS will be held strictly to the limits of its statutory powers and its own published regulatory framework.
“The court’s finding of institutional predetermination and that the OfS proceeded with a closed mind, is particularly striking. This judgment signals that ‘test case’ enforcement strategies can fatally undermine the lawfulness of regulatory decisions.”
The university regulator’s £585,000 fine against the University of Sussex in March last year had been the largest ever and came in the wake of campus protests against gender critical views and the resignation of Professor Kathleen Stock.
OfS had issued the fine based on its view that the university had breached public interest governance conditions, and consequently OfS conditions of registration, in relation to free speech. The OfS based its findings on the university’s Trans and Non-Binary Equality Statement, equating the policy to a “governing document”.
But in today’s ruling, the High Court rejected many of the OfS’ reasons for implementing the fine.”
TOPIC: The news that universities and other higher education institutions paid out around £1.8 million in compensation to students who made complaints in 2025
COMMENT BY: Stuart Matthews, Partner, Reeds Solicitors LLP
“These figures are a red flag for higher education institutions about how they manage their internal disciplinary and complaints processes. As a solicitor regularly representing students facing non-academic disciplinary proceedings, including serious sexual allegations, another year of high payouts reflects a reality that I see regularly: universities failing to follow fair, transparent, and proportionate procedures.
The OIA acknowledges that it only sees the “tip of the iceberg.” For every student who struggles through the full complaints process, many more — including those on the receiving end of often career ending disciplinary proceedings — simply accept unfair outcomes without challenge, often because they lack the resources to instruct a solicitor.
Universities hold a great deal of power over students’ futures. When that power is exercised through poorly drafted, vague policies, inconsistent and irrational decision-making, or inadequate support for all parties, the consequences are serious and costly.
Institutions must invest in procedurally robust disciplinary frameworks that genuinely protect all students involved. They should encourage students to obtain legal advice and fund it where needed. Better policies and processes mean fewer complaints, fewer payouts, and — most importantly — fairer outcomes for everyone.”
COMMENT BY: Ane Vernon, Dispute Resolution Partner specialising in the Education sector, Payne Hicks Beach
“The case highlights two wider regulatory and constitutional points. University governance and internal policy are not insulated from judicial scrutiny. Equally, the decisions of a regulator such as the Office for Students are subject to legal challenge. The judgment serves as a reminder to all public decision‑makers that their powers must be exercised lawfully, fairly and with an open mind, and decisions must never be predetermined.”
TOPIC: The news from the Department for Science Innovation and Technology in Cyber security breaches survey 2025/2026 that more than four in ten businesses (43%) and around three in ten charities (28%) had experienced a cyber security breach or attack in the last 12 months
COMMENT BY: Wayne Cleghorn, Data Protection and Cybersecurity Partner, Excello Law
“Focus on phishing – all types of phishing, is the resounding message to businesses and security teams. Phishing attacks are currently the most common and disruptive types of cyber attacks.
“Impersonation attacks have fallen. This may be because of the rise in Zero Trust IT architectures, more multi-factor authentication and better staff training and awareness.
“Much more work is needed on supply chain cyber risk management. Less than 10% of businesses and charities report ongoing improvement work in this area. This is a major gap.
“Work on AI systems cybersecurity is also lagging, across the board. This should rise as businesses move from AI as innovation-add-on to AI are core business enabler.”
TOPIC: The Crime and Policing Act 2026 which has significantly expanded corporate criminal liability through the introduction of a broad “senior manager test”
COMMENT BY: Tom McNeill, Partner at BCL Solicitors specializing in corporate crime and investigations
“The Act will introduce the controversial ‘senior manager test’ which makes organisations criminally liable for any offence committed by a senior manager while acting within the actual or apparent scope of their authority. ‘Senior manager’ is so broadly defined as to potentially include department heads, for example.
Much commentary has focussed on the surprising ways in which corporate criminal liability will be expanded for a range of offences in areas as diverse as competition law, modern slavery, and data protection. The drafting even leaves open the possibility of organisations being prosecuted for driving or sexual offences albeit that such prosecutions can be expected to fail.
The more fundamental criticism is that the reform is unprincipled and will increase costs and burdens for businesses while doing little to tackle crime. Going even further than the ‘failure to prevent’ model, the senior manager test removes any pretence that the organisation is being found liable for its own culpable failings, namely for failing to prevent someone else’s wrongdoing. This is simple vicarious liability for wrongdoing by a ‘senior manager’.“
TOPIC: Taylor Swift to trademark her voice and image
COMMENT BY: Stuart Casey, Partner, Spencer West LLP:
“More than a decade ago Taylor Swift sung about the distinctive “long hair, slicked back, white T-shirt” look that is always associated with James Dean. But can she prove that her voice alone is distinctive enough to be registered as a trade mark?
Applying to register particular sounds as trade marks is not new. Think of the distinctive “Ta-Dum” each time you stream Netflix or the roaring lion associated with MGM. Taylor’s team will need to show that her voice – as a sound trade mark – is distinctive and is capable of distinguishing her goods and services from others. In short, that sound must be her brand identifier.
Whilst that may appear to be a relatively easy hurdle for her, there will be challenges not just in accurately describing the sound but also in showing that the phrase is not simply part of her “product”. When it comes to enforcing her rights, in an age of AI created media, showing that the trade mark is being used in an identical or confusingly similar is also likely to be difficult in all but the most clear cut of uses. Relying on copyright may be another part of her strategy to challenge the ever-increasing use of AI.”
TOPIC: Action against FinFluencers as the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has announced that it is spearheading global action to stop illegal finfluencers.
Comment BY: Caroline Black, Consultant, Gherson Solicitors LLP
“It is notable that influencers have become a key target for the FCA and internationally in recent months. Influencers need to be aware that straying into regulated territory is not a way to make easy money – but a quick path to becoming embroiled in criminal legal proceedings. Advice should be sought prior to producing such content.
Social media platforms can also expect greater attention and increased regulation if they continue to fail to meet their own compliance standards.”
TOPIC: The possibility of boxer David Haye suing ITV for up to £10 million for “irreparable damage to his brand” following his appearance on ‘I’m a Celebrity… South Africa’
COMMENT BY: Kishan Pattni, Director specialising in defamation and reputation management, Freeths
“Claims arising out of reality TV editing are notoriously difficult to win in England. The law does not protect contestants from being shown in an unflattering or hostile light: it protects against false statements of fact that cause serious harm to reputation, as required by the Defamation Act 2013.
“To succeed, Haye or Bullard would need to establish that I’m A Celebrity: South Africa conveyed a genuinely false and defamatory meaning presented as fact, rather than a matter of impression, narrative or opinion. Only if that hurdle were cleared would the burden shift to ITV for proving the meaning was true.
“My view? In reality, ITV has almost certainly exercised editorial judgment to present a characterisation of the participants. That type of narrative framing will ordinarily fall within the scope of honest opinion under English law. Describing someone, implicitly or explicitly, as a “pantomime villain” or the “bad guy” is opinion territory, not the assertion of fact, and that creates a significant obstacle for any defamation claim.
“The position is typically reinforced by the contractual framework. Reality TV participant agreements almost invariably grant producers wide discretion over editing and portrayal, which, while not an absolute defence to defamation, further undermines claims based on alleged unfairness of portrayal.
“There is no reported High Court authority in which a defamation claim has succeeded on the basis of reality TV portrayal alone. Where contestants have complained in the past, matters have tended either to settle confidentially or to fall away in light of the legal hurdles involved.
“Against that background, headline damages figures should be treated with caution. English defamation law is compensatory, not punitive, and very substantial awards are rare. Public threats of litigation may serve a reputational or strategic purpose, but they should not be mistaken for a realistic indicator of what a court would award.”
COMMENT BY: Joseph McCaughley, Reputation Management partner, Spencer West LLP
“Reality television contestants typically sign contracts giving producers wide editorial control over how footage is selected, edited and presented, and often restricting their ability to bring claims about how they are portrayed. A claim will only succeed if the programme crosses the threshold into a legal wrong – not simply because it creates a negative impression.
That line may be crossed where editing conveys a false account of what actually happened, for example by suggesting sustained bullying or abusive conduct that did not occur, or behaviour implying dishonesty or aggression that is factually inaccurate.
In contrast, portraying someone as rude, arrogant, or unlikeable, or using selective editing, music and reaction shots to heighten that impression, is part of editorial storytelling and is commonplace in this kind of programme. Typically, this would not be enough on its own for a legal claim. Allegations of ‘irreparable damage to [his] brand’ alone do not give rise to a legal claim – there is no freestanding right to reputation in English law. Reputation is legally protected only through recognised claims such as defamation or breaches of privacy or data protection.”
LEGAL SECTOR APPOINTMENT OF THE WEEK
DEVONSHIRES
Nikki Bowker has been appointed Head of Litigation & Dispute Resolution at Devonshires. She takes over from Philip Barden.
Having joined the firm in 2014 Bowker made partner in 2019. Advising on crisis and reputation management has been key to her career-to-date which has covered complex commercial litigation and involved working on a range of contentious issues including corporate and shareholder disputes, commercial contract issues, professional negligence, defamation and fraud.
Bowker has also represented a large number of soldiers engaged in investigations and prosecutions deriving from the Troubles in Northern Ireland. This forms part of a catalogue of nationally important issues including launching the #TheyKnew campaign with her client Action for Accountability, as well as acting for Hayley Crawford, who created the public safety campaign ‘Ask for Angela’.
She is a Committee Member of the Fraud Advisory Panel and, until recently, was a Non-Executive Director on the Board of Golden Lane Housing, a leading provider of specialised social housing for adults with a learning disability and autistic people.
THREE POINTS LAW
Usman Wahid, has been appointed as Partner at Three Points Law, the innovatory law firm now operating across technology, sport and commercial/data practices.
Previously a partner at KPMG Law, where he was head of the Technology and Data legal team, Wahid has also worked at BCLP. He has been involved in one of the UK’s most significant ‘clean tech’ arrangements as well as multiple digital transformation projects each with contract values in the hundreds of millions. He was also the co-founder of VennSpace, a legal AI platform for procurement, contracting and supply chain relationship management. He will now focus on FinTech and other B2B tech deals as well as digital transformation and complex outsourcing projects.
“Having followed the ground-breaking approach that Three Points has taken to delivering legal services since launch, I am incredibly excited to be joining in this exciting stage of the firm’s journey,” said Wahid. “The firm has a clear mission to combine top-level legal experience with some of the most innovative legal tech tools from around the world, and ultimately deliver a more seamless and cost-effective service for the benefit of its growing list of clients.”
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