Edward Fennell’s LEGAL DIARY
Diary news plus insights, commentary and appointments from the legal world
15 May 2026 2026
Editorial contact: fennell.edward@yahoo.com
SHORT THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK: Contempt Out of Order
Amidst all the shenanigans going on at the Labour Party those of us who follow the news agenda might imagine that nothing else has happened in the wider world.
Even many of the issues in the King’s Speech relating to how the courts work have been overshadowed by the game-playing at Westminster.
But, as brought to our attention by the Chair of the Bar, Kirsty Brimelow KC, a decision by the Court of Appeal back on Tuesday was also very important for the way justice functions in this country.
It relates to an important point of lack of jurisdiction involving Rajiv Menon KC. In brief, the Court of Appeal stopped Menon’s forthcoming case, saying there was no jurisdiction for the High Court to hear the case. It was Brimelow’s comment which stood out. “I have followed with concern this exceptional attempt to refer Rajiv Menon KC for contempt of court,” she said. “A barrister has a duty to represent their clients fearlessly and Judge-instigated contempt proceedings risk a chilling effect on the profession. The Court of Appeal judgment is welcomed, and it is hoped that this now is an end of this troubling episode.”
Along with his other concerns right now the former Head of the DPP in No. 10 should take note.
The LegalDiarist
In this edition
+ LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
Employment Tribunals Try Patience
Fair Play over Fair Work
Green-Groaning
Good Morning AND Good Afternoon at Disputes Week
+ CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK
The significance of the Government’s proposed European Partnerships Bill by James Clark
+ LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
including Russia-linked sanctions and the King’s Speech (including energy independence, financial services, PACCAR, European Partnership, Courts & Tribunals)
+ APPOINTMENT OF THE WEEK
at Haynes Boone
LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
Employment Tribunals Try Patience
Given that we have a Government that has its roots in representing working people it seems extraordinary that according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and research done by Work Rights Centre, there is now such a massive backlog in hearings before employment tribunals that some cases are being given dates as far away as 2030.
In the light of this it is no surprise that the Labour Party under Kier Starmer is no longer seen as being ‘true Labour’ by its traditional supporters.
Not only is this demoralising and frustrating for both parties it also open the door to unscrupulous employers to continue behaving badly in the confident knowledge that they will be brought to book next year/sometime/never. As commentators have obsrved there is now a ‘bullishness’ amongst some employers that it will be years before their conduct comes under serious scrutiny (by which time there might be a REFORM Prime Minister in NO. 10 in any case).
“Unless a major intervention occurs, the backlog will only get worse,” says Fudia Smartt, Employment Law partner at Spencer West LLP. “I can envisage an increase of employees preferring to bring claims while remaining in employment – colloquially known as ‘suing while standing’. While a number of the Labour Government’s employment law changes have been brought in to increase employee rights, the delays in the employment tribunals will have a contrary effect because what benefit is there in having rights if you cannot enforce them in a timely manner?”
No doubt Andy Burnham will have something to say about this in due course.
Continuing with the theme of what’s going wrong in the workplace, the latest Workforce Survey report produced by RSM UK identified that only a modest 15% of employers felt they were fully compliant with the Employment Rights Act.
On that basis it is no great surprise that the Fair Work Agency and theDepartment for Business and Trade believe that non-compliance and legal issues affect at least 5.4m UK workers.The flaws include failing to observe that National Minimum Wage, payslip inaccuracies, issues with contracts and key information documents, and unfair work-finding fees.
Fair Play over Fair Work
Continuing with the theme of what’s going wrong in the workplace, the latest Workforce Survey report produced by RSM UK identified that only a modest 15% of employers felt they were fully compliant with the Employment Rights Act.
On that basis it is no great surprise that the Fair Work Agency and the Department for Business and Trade believe that non-compliance and legal issues affect at least 5.4m UK workers. The flaws include failing to observe that National Minimum Wage, payslip inaccuracies, issues with contracts and key information documents, and unfair work-finding fees.
“Many believe they are getting it right, but there is a gap between perception and reality, as our own workforce survey showed half of employers rely on payroll software to calculate things like holiday pay,” said Chris Robson, Employment Tax Partner and Fair Pay Lead at RSM UK.“Often these off-the-shelf packages don’t account for the many nuances in pay rules which could now leave employers open to errors, leading to hefty fines as the Fair Work Agency begins enforcement.”
What this illustrates is that along with possibly cynical or negligent practices there are genuine problems out there – especially for smaller businesses – in dealing with complex or nuanced legal requirements leading to employers lacking an understanding of their obligations.
“The Government’s findings demonstrate the importance of setting up HR and payroll systems based on legislation, rather than relying on off the shelf systems and software,” says Robson. “Employers must be very clear on what types of workers they employ, and ensure that all systems are fully aligned to this, to avoid enforcement action including naming, penalties and fines by the Fair Work Agency.”
Andy Burnham will probably have something to say about that too.
Green-groaning
You know that you are in trouble when the saintly Chris Packham is on your case. By chance Packham lives not too distant from The Legal Diarist whose children encountered him decades ago when he was on the primary school circuit. Even back then he was a man not to be under-estimated.
Such is his power that it was partly due to his intervention that two recent advertisements from the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board to promote British beef and milk have been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
It’s a complicated issue touching on the various stages of production and whether claims about carbon footprints cover the whole or just part of the process from farm to supermarket shelf
In the light of this George McLellan, Partner in the Dispute Resolution team at Sharpe Pritchard has stepped in to defend advertisers against similar ‘greenwashing’ allegations in ASA investigations.
“This is a further illustration of just how difficult it is for advertisers to understand advertising red tape in practice. There is no bright line test. This is bad for business, bad for the advertising sector, and disincentivises businesses from investing in sustainability initiatives because they cannot safely use them as a platform for advertising.
“There is now a perverse incentive for advertisers who are making the most serious efforts to reduce CO2 emissions to be silent about given their reasonable fear of the arbitrary scrutiny of trigger-happy regulators. This ‘greenhushing’ does not promote a culture of celebrating success in the efforts of businesses to reduce environmental impacts, and is counterproductive as a matter of policy.”
So will ‘greenwashing’ also be on Andy Burnham’s agenda? Unlikely – more ‘Green-stopping’ one suspects.
Good Morning AND Good Afternoon at Disputes Week
London International Disputes Week is looming in the first week of June and already law firms are splashing out with invitations to their events linked to the annual law-fest.
Amongst those which have caught my eye are the Claimant vs Defence lawyer debate being organised by CORLA (Collective Redress Lawyers Associations) under the title ‘Is the Group Actions framework fit for purpose? Does it provide Access to Justice? on the afternoon of Wednesday, 3 June. at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in Paternoster Square.
Chaired by Alexander Antelme KC the debate will be driven by four high profile speakers including Sarah Abram KC (Brick Court Chambers), Kathleen Donnelly ( Henderson Chambers), Simon Bishop (Hausfeld) and Valerie Kenyan (Hogan Lovells).
Meanwhile Zaiwalla & Co. will be hosting a panel session (also on 3 June but in the morning) in conjunction with 1 Raymond Buildings under the title ‘A Primer for Disputes Lawyers on the Impact of Economic Sanctions on Commercial Transactions: Legal vs. Practical Perspectives’.
The theme will be how risk and compliance decisions within business influence the handling of disputes. (Insert ‘politics’ for ‘business’ and Andy B. would certainly have a take on that.)
CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK
The significance of the Government’s proposed European Partnerships Bill by James Clark
The European Partnerships Bill has the potential to be one of the most consequential changes announced in this week’s King’s Speech. As part of the government’s desire to move closer to the EU in order to recapture some of the economic growth lost to Brexit, the Bill establishes a regulatory “framework“ designed to allow the UK to swiftly implement and adapt to new co-operation agreements reached with the EU.
In simple terms, this means that the government will have the power to fast-track evolving Single Market regulations into UK law without triggering a full, traditional parliamentary vote on every update, though the government has maintained that Parliament will still “have a say” on the overarching agreements.
Initially, the priority areas for alignment are food and drink; energy and emissions trading; and youth mobility. However, other areas of alignment can be expected to emerge in due course. In this context, it will be interesting to see whether data and digital regulation – including cyber security – comes into focus. In the ten years since the Brexit vote, the EU has has moved quickly to regulate in this space, opening up increasing divergence with the UK. As part of its ambitious ‘Digital Decade’ initiative, designed to make the EU’s tech rules fit for the 21st century, the Commission has brought forward new legislation in areas including data sharing (Data Act); artificial intelligence (AI Act); and cyber security (NIS 2 Directive and Cyber Resilience Act).
Whilst it could be argued that the EU’s introduction of additional red tape has created a competitive advantage for the more lightly regulated UK, in reality many businesses operate across both markets, meaning that the shadow of EU regulation still has a material impact on the UK economy. But without full alignment, UK established businesses can find it harder to sell products or services into the EU and may be required to have more costly parallel compliance strategies for the British and European sides of their operations. In an area such as technology, it is a simple truth that most businesses that operate internationally prefer as much commonality as possible in terms of standards.
However, if this is the direction of travel then important questions emerge. For example, how will alignment with the EU on cyber security rules be squared with the government’s own distinct work in this space, most notably the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill that is currently working its way through Parliament? The Bill takes a different (albeit not necessarily incompatible) approach to the cyber security of critical infrastructure versus the EU’s NIS 2 Directive. Meanwhile, there is currently no direct equivalent to the EU’s Cyber Resilience Act, which is a product safety style law requiring hardware and software products to have secure-by-design standards, mandatory updates, and vulnerability management throughout their lifecycle. The closest comparison is the UK’s Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Regulations 2003, although these have a narrower scope and are limited to certain consumer products.
James Clark is a partner Spencer West LLP
LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
TOPIC: The newly announced sanctioning of individuals suspected of being linked to Russia’s alleged forced deportation, indoctrination and militarisation of Ukrainian children, together with information warfare and interference in foreign elections.
COMMENT BY: John Binns, Partner at BCL, a specialist in sanctions and financial crime
“Few would argue with the aims of tackling the forced deportation, indoctrination and militarisation of children, or of preventing governments from interfering in foreign elections.
The question is whether it makes sense to address those practices through a ‘targeted’ sanctions regime whose stated purpose is the protection of Ukraine’s sovereignty from Russian aggression.
Conceivably, some of those designated may hold assets or interests in the UK, in which case these measures may exert genuine coercive or constraining pressure. Experience has shown, however, that the practical impact of such designations is often arbitrary, and that the heaviest burden frequently falls on UK businesses required to implement and comply with the restrictions.
The gravity of the conduct alleged also throws into sharp relief the limited due process available to those designated, whose ability to challenge the measures before they take effect is tightly constrained.
In reality, the UK appears to be searching for visible ways to act – or at least to speak out – against such abhorrent behaviour, and sanctions are increasingly viewed as the easiest tool to hand.”
TOPIC: The King’s Speech
ISSUE: The Courts and Tribunals Bill
COMMENT BY: Kirsty Brimelow KC, Chair of the Bar
“The Bar Council has urged the Government to drop its plans to reduce jury trials and instead introduce specialist sexual offences and domestic abuse courts. Setting up rape courts was in the Labour party manifesto. Removing jury trials was not a pledge.
“Priority listing of cases comprising vulnerable witnesses is an approach that’s already been shown to reduce delays in those cases. There is growing evidence that the Crown Court backlog is being brought down simply by the action of opening up closed court rooms. It is therefore irrefutable that investment, and addressing the inefficiencies plaguing the system, will reduce delays and the backlog of cases, rather than wasting time and resource on an unnecessary changing of the criminal justice system structure.
“If the government doesn’t invest in the lawyers who defend and prosecute cases, we will see them leaving the criminal Bar which will lead to more delays in the system. Delays occur in court when cases are adjourned because of lack of a barrister to prosecute or defend.
“The Bar Council renews its call for investment in the justice system as a vital public service and again underlines the Bar’s steadfast opposition to reducing jury trials and adding to the accelerating backlog in the magistrates’ courts.”
COMMENT BY: Nathan Seymour-Hyde, partner, Reeds Solicitors
“This is the most significant shift in criminal procedure for decades, but it risks being camouflaged under the need to address a backlog in the criminal courts, at a time when the leadership in Whitehall is in disarray.
Speed matters, but criminal courts are not production lines. Many criminal cases are not technical disputes – they turn on credibility and nuance. Those are exactly the kinds of cases where people want a jury, made up of individuals from varied backgrounds and walks of life. Judges, however fair-minded, will inevitably view criminal allegations through the lens of constant exposure to the system.
Another aspect of the proposals which perhaps has not received enough attention is the restriction on the automatic right of appeal from the magistrates’ court. Magistrates are volunteers rather than legally qualified judges, and as practitioners it is not uncommon to see inconsistent and surprising decisions. The ability to appeal these is being hugely narrowed. By simultaneously increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers whilst restricting routes of appeal, the government is fundamentally altering the balance of safeguards within the criminal justice system.”
ISSUE: The European Partnership Bill
COMMENT BY: Kirsty Brimelow KC, Chair of the Bar
“The Bar Council welcomes the Government’s plan to reset UK-EU relations. Many of our expert practitioners have been engaged on EU-related matters over many years, amassing insights into Brexit and its aftermath, on the EU side as well as the UK.
“We have been calling on Government to facilitate the practice of young and future legal practitioners, in whose hands the continuing pre-eminence of the UK’s legal system rests. This class should include members of the Bar, for whom knowledge of EU law, and potentially rights of audience before the EU Courts, will be valuable, especially where UK and EU policy and regulation align.
“The Bar Council supports both the UK’s recent adhesion to the Erasmus+ Programme for 2027-8 and hopes that that adhesion will be confirmed in future years, as well as the Government’s ambition to secure an agreement on an EU-UK Youth Experience Scheme. The Bar Council has called for the eventual agreement to cover young professionals up to the age of 35, and allow them to benefit from work experience, and not merely study, abroad.
“We have also called for UK legal professionals with more than three years post qualification experience to be empowered to give advice to clients in the EU for remuneration, ideally on a fly in-fly out basis, covering EU and Private International Law, as well as UK and Public International Law. Such advice should attract legal professional privilege recognised throughout the EU.
“We also seek to secure representation rights for UK qualified lawyers with rights of audience before the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU and the General Court) in cases arising from EU-UK arrangements which designate those courts as the ultimate arbiter on interpretation of EU law. This would be akin to the representation rights reserved by Article 91 of the Withdrawal Agreement 2019 and follow the same justification.”
ISSUE: The omission of any reference to the implications of the PACCAR judgment (relating to damages-based agreements under section 58AA of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)
COMMENT BY: Jeremy Marshall, Chief Investment Officer. Winward Litigation Finance
“The lack of action by the government highlights its misunderstanding of what increased uncertainty means in practice for the litigation funding industry and our appetite to invest in the UK’s legal economy. Uncertainty is unhelpful for any investor and litigation funding is no different. We take pride in the UK being the Rolls-Royce standard for legal services in the world, but they come with Rolls-Royce prices, which makes the need for funding legal actions brought by consumers and businesses in the UK even greater.”
ISSUE: Enhancing the Financial Services Bill
COMMENT BY: Charles Herbert, partner, Spencer West LLP
“Regulated financial services firms should take note of the reference in the King’s Speech to reforms that support higher growth and legislation that will reduce the burden of unnecessary regulation. The government’s briefing notes provide key further detail on the Enhancing Financial Services Bill. This aims to deliver key parts of the Leeds Reforms set out by the Chancellor in 2025, modernise how the sector is regulated, enable it to grow, lend more to businesses, and make consumer protections fit for the digital age.
Specifically, reform to the Financial Ombudsman Service, where there has been criticism of the consistency, pace and clarity of decision-making, is much needed. The Ombudsman continues to provide a valuable service, particularly in sparing consumers, regulated firms and the court system from volume litigation and its associated cost. There remain valid concerns moving from the Ombudsman’s “fair and reasonable” test to a position where the Ombudsman must find in a firm’s favour where it has complied with FCA requirements might have unintended consequence, particularly pushing more consumers to litigation without initial reference to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
Consolidating the Payment Systems Regulator within the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), meaning firms would deal with fewer overlapping regulators, is certainly welcome and should provide faster decision-making. Regulated firms will also appreciate the reduction of the administrative and cost burden of the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SM&CR) – the framework that holds senior leaders in financial firms personally accountable – by 50%. Changes here will still allow focus on accountability of the most senior figures in financial services. However, reform should lead to far less inconsistency among regulated firms in the application of the SM&CR to Certification Staff, particularly with regard to determination of breaches of the Conduct Rules and regulatory references. Updating the statutory framework underpinning the ring-fencing regime, which requires major banks to separate their UK retail banking services from investment banking activities could also have a profound effect for SMEs particularly.
Of course, on the day of the King’s Speech, the political landscape is unsettled. The current stated direction and focus are however positive for the financial services sector, which accounts for around 8 per cent of UK output and employs more than 1.1 million people across the country.”
ISSUE: The proposal to ban the use of leasehold for new flats, cap ground rents at £250 a year and implement a new process for converting to commonhold
COMMENT BY: Scott Goldstein, Property Disputes Partner, Payne Hicks Beach
“The further loss of earnings from lease extensions could prompt developers to recoup costs by upping the price of new build flats. Developers may also turn their attention towards projects not affected by the leasehold restrictions, such as Build to Rent schemes or social housing.
“Buyers may soon find themselves footing more of the bill as the industry adapts to these sweeping reforms.”
ISSUE: The Energy Independence Bill
COMMENT BY: Caroline Turner-Inskip, partner, Simmons & Simmons
“The Energy Independence Bill, as referenced in the King’s Speech 2026, hopefully marks a pivotal moment in the UK’s clean energy transition. By prioritising measures to reduce planning delays for critical infrastructure, focus on grid reform and security, the Bill has the potential to unlock the viability of clean energy projects and attract much-needed investment into the sector.
However, true progress will require a holistic approach—one that not only streamlines approvals but also brings all stakeholders to the table to ensure deployment and long-term viability are prioritised. Deep experience in navigating the intersection of policy, planning, and investment will be essential to fully realise the opportunities and address the challenges ahead.”
LEGAL SECTOR APPOINTMENT OF THE WEEK
Haynes Boone
Jeremy Cross is joining Haynes Boone in London as part of the firm’s global fund finance practice. Previously with Addleshaw Goddard, where he led the growth of its fund finance practice, Cross has more than 30 years of experience advising lenders and funds across a wide range of financing structures with a practice which spans both lender- and borrower-side representations. This means he can support clients across the lifecycle of fund finance transactions especially important as the market continues to diversify into new products and structures. He had also worked at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft and served as head of finance at SJ Berwin. Prior to that he had gained in-house experience at HSBC.
“Jeremy is a highly respected fund finance lawyer with a sophisticated practice,” said Haynes Boone Global Head of Fund Finance Albert Tan. “His experience across the full range of fund finance products, combined with his strong relationships across Europe, makes him an excellent addition to our global team. Jeremy’s arrival further strengthens our ability to support clients on both sides of increasingly complex and cross-border transactions.”
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