Edward Fennell’s LEGAL DIARY

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

3 July 2026

Editorial contact: fennell.edward@yahoo.com

SHORT THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK: Man with a Plan?

The Starmer era may be coming to an end but as today’s announcement from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government makes clear it aims to go out with a bang. “Britain is set to build wind and solar farms, nuclear plants, reservoirs and new transport links at the fastest pace in a generation under major infrastructure planning reforms,” ran the official statement which scraps mandatory pre-application consultation requirements for nationally significant infrastructure projects. “Instead, developers will receive earlier technical support from the Planning Inspectorate and examinations streamlined,” the Government proclaimed.

If this heralds a change of direction in UK governance and a step towards ‘getting things done’ then it should surely be welcomed?

‘Not necessarily’ bit back Fergus Charlton, planning partner with Michelmores.

“This is a bad-news sandwich announcement, without the good news filling,” he said. “Putting cuts to infrastructure funding to one-side, cutting the ability of the public at large and more importantly the local inhabitants (with their special connections to the land and knowledge of their milieu) to inform the design of nationally important infrastructure will further disenfranchise them from the planning process leading to embedded resentment to the system as a whole and the proposed development in particular.”

In short the new regime poses the perennial question confronting democracy – how can anything get delivered if everyone has an opinion and can spin out the decision-making?

Of course, it has to be added that a ‘belt and braces’ planning system is also good for the planning lawyers. But if investment can be unblocked then they will thrive anyway – just wait ‘til Manchesterism gets going.

The LegalDiarist

In this edition

+ LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK

Foot Anstey First for Rugby Football

March with PRIDE?

Ashurst Perkins Coie Ties the Knot

Red Flags Over Motor Racing IP Rights

+ CONTRIBUTED ARTICLES OF THE WEEK

Why the Solicitors Act 1974 Costs Regime is No Longer Fit for Purpose by Nick McDonnell

New PM, New Digital Regulation? by James Clark

+ LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK

on the Amos report, the Crime and Policing Act 2026, Trump v. Slaughter, ‘Right to Work’, ‘The Cockney Bard’, the Beckhams’ planning application, renewable energy

+ APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK

at STONE KING and WEDLAKE BELL

LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK

Foot Anstey First for Rugby Football

The world might be going ’round’ football mad right now but down in the West Country they have a ball of another shape on their mind. In Bristol in particular rugby is what sets the pulse pounding so it makes sense for a leading firm with strong local credentials to pack down with the top local club. Hence Foot Anstey has just announced a ‘landmark, long-term partnership’ with Prem Rugby Club Bristol Bears, with a view to ‘a new era of collaboration both on and off the pitch’.

As part of the deal the firm will become the club’s new Principal Partner from the fortcoming season. The perk is that they get shirt branding for both the men’s and women’s teams. And on top of that, of course, Foot Anstey will also becomes the club’s ‘preferred exclusive provider of legal services’ something which should also benefit the players over the term of the partnership.

“This is a groundbreaking moment for the club and we are delighted to welcome Foot Anstey into the Bears family,” said Tom Tainton, the Bristol Bears Chief Executive. “From the beginning of this process, Foot Anstey has been an excellent partner – collaborative, engaging and genuinely excited about using the power of sport to leave a lasting legacy.

‘Having Foot Anstey’s name on our shirts is about far more than a business agreement; it is a statement of intent about our aligned growth journeys. This authentic partnership represents a shared set of values and a long-term commitment to driving success across our men’s, women’s and community programmes.

“Foot Anstey’s support of the Bristol Bears Foundation is particularly significant, enabling us to expand our reach and deepen our impact within the communities we serve. We look forward to achieving great things together over the coming years.”

March with PRIDE?

Stonewall is going to be on the streets with PRIDE in London tomorrow – Saturday 4 July – and while there has been a certain amount of backing away by some organisations from Stonewall of late there are still many people who feel the need to tell their own personal stories at this time of year.

Evidence of this is given by Sophie Ashcroft, left, a Technology Disputes Partner at Stevens & Bolton. She came to the law relatively late – in her 30s – and, in a way, that applied to her sexuality as well. “I was in my late 30s when I came out, though I was still at a relatively junior stage of my career, having qualified when I was 34,” she explains. “I had been married to a man, with whom I share two children, and we’d been divorced for several years by the time I qualified.”

Having been a stay-at-home Mum for some time was the first hurdle to overcome as she sought a training contract – but she made it. “ As a single mother, I didn’t want to be perceived as less committed than my peers, and consciously downplayed the fact that I had children. Had I thought about my sexuality then, I would not have felt comfortable being ‘out’ at work. I observed colleagues whom I knew to be LGBTQ+ presenting as straight at work and deflecting any questions about their partner, which seemed completely understandable in the working environment as it was at that time.”

But time moved on. “Over time, as the profession focused more on diversity and inclusion initiatives, I met more people who were ‘out’ at work, and by the time I came out myself, it felt less “risky” to do so. I was well supported by the firm I was at then, though I remained cautious for some time about what I would disclose to clients. However, just as the legal profession has focused on diversity and inclusion, so have our clients, who want and expect their law firms to demonstrate diversity in the teams of lawyers working for them. This has moved from being a “nice to have”, to a central requirement of many invitations to pitch for a place on a panel.”

Something to reflect upon for those marching tomorrow.

Ashurst Perkins Coie Ties the Knot

Another week, another transatlantic merger. This time it is the creation of Ashurst Perkins Coie – interestingly different because Australia is also in there as part of the mix.

One has sympathy though for the people who have to mount the compellinly plausible promotional material. The motives for these mergers is probably pretty much the same so the challenge is to explain why A has got together with B and why A+B is going to be a radical improvement on what went before. But, as noted before in the LEGAL DIARY, there is reluctance to say too much specific about the track records of the newly weds.

To his credit Brian Eiting, the new firm’s Global Co-Chair based in New York, braved up to say, “From the early foundations of the aerospace industry, to establishing the blueprint for NewLaw, innovation is our tradition. With our experience and insight at the forefront of technology, Ashurst Perkins Coie will continue to build upon a centuries-long legacy of enabling progress.”

While they may now be happily and blissfully together the small print reminds us that for all the branding there is still a bunch of separate organisations involved here. “Ashurst Perkins Coie is a global group of separate legal entities, some providing legal services and some non-legal services,” we are told. “Different legal entities in the group may operate in the same jurisdictions.”

Anyway, good luck to them. We’ll see how they fare one year on.

Red Flags Over Motor Racing IP Rights

What a weekend of sport lies ahead! Wimbledon, cricket and, of course, the footie. But amidst all that also awaits the biggest day in UK motor racing with Formula 1 getting back to Silverstone for the British Grand Prix.

The course is remarkable for being one of the longest in F1, stretching over 5.891km. So to complete the race requires 52 laps of what is called ‘pure endurance and skill’. Alongside that, however, the commercialisation of motor racing has become much more complex and lengthy as well. “Formula 1 has evolved far beyond traditional team sponsorship,” says Millie Bradshaw of Clarke Willmott.

“Brands now engage with the sport through a combination of team partnerships, driver endorsements and wide sponsorship arrangements. While this approach increases brand exposure, it also creates legal and commercial complexities that require careful management.”

Naturally everyone wants a share of the action so that can mis-align the drivers with the team or the team with its sponors.“In addition, host cities, circuits and the surrounding race day infrastructure, may also have their own separate commercial arrangements,” says Bradshaw. “As a result, multiple companies can hold numerous different rights within the same race weekend. Alongside these arrangements sit Formula 1’s own global commercial partnerships. Championship sponsors are typically granted extensive and exclusive rights, creating another layer of commercial obligations that teams, drivers, circuits and their sponsors must navigate.”

Obviously the Holy Grail is securing ‘exclusivity’ but in the hugely competitive world of motor sport that might be a near-impossibility. “Sponsors frequently invest on the basis that they will be the only brand within a particular category during race weekend,” says Bradshaw, “[and they] may wish to use team branding, driver imagery or Formula 1 references in marketing campaigns – but ownership of these rights often sits with different parties.”

In other words tougher to negotiate than Brooklands, the hardest corner on the circuit, on a super hot day in July.

CONTRIBUTED ARTICLES OF THE WEEK

Why the Solicitors Act 1974 Costs Regime is No Longer Fit for Purpose

by Nick McDonnell

The Civil Justice Council’s consultation on reform of the solicitor and own-client costs regime under the Solicitors Act 1974 presents a rare opportunity to modernise an area of law that has remained largely unchanged for more than fifty years. As time goes on, it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that the current framework remains fit for purpose in a modern legal market.

The Solicitors Act was drafted for a very different profession, and today’s legal landscape bears little resemblance to that of 1974. Fixed recoverable costs, conditional fee agreements, DBAs, litigation funding, legal technology and alternative business structures have fundamentally changed how legal services are delivered and charged.

The legislative framework has failed to keep pace with these changes. The distinction between contentious and non-contentious business (and their respective agreements), once a logical dividing line, now often produces unnecessary complexity and uncertainty, as illustrated in the Court of Appeal case of Broadfield Law UK LLP v Barnes. Determining the applicable regime can distract from the substantive dispute itself.

The legislation also creates procedural inefficiencies. Outdated provisions that sit uneasily alongside the Civil Procedure Rules generate satellite litigation, increase costs and delay resolution. A system designed to protect clients should not itself become a source of disproportionate expense.

The Law Society’s response to the consultation rightly supports a simpler framework, but it leaves several important reforms unaddressed, including a streamlined assessment procedure, fixed or capped assessment costs, standardised solicitors’ bills and clearer rules governing modern funding arrangements. Reform presents an opportunity to create a coherent and unified framework. Any new regime should prioritise clarity, accessibility and proportionality while reflecting modern legal practice and simplifying the assessment process. Removing the distinction between contentious and non-contentious business would reduce unnecessary jurisdictional arguments while improving certainty for both solicitors and clients.

Modernisation need not come at the expense of consumer protection. Robust safeguards against excessive charging remain essential. However, those protections can be achieved through legislation that is simpler, more transparent and easier to apply than the current statutory framework.

The CJC’s review represents a rare opportunity to undertake meaningful reform rather than piecemeal amendment. If the objective is to ensure that the regulation of solicitor and own-client costs remains effective for the next generation of legal practice, incremental change is unlikely to be enough. What is required is a modern statutory code that reflects how legal services are actually delivered in 2026, not how they were delivered in 1974.

Nick McDonnell is Director and Costs Lawyer at Kain Knight

New PM, New Digital Regulations?

By James Clark

With Andy Burnham expected to become Prime Minister, the attention of technology lawyers is turning to how a new administration might reshape the UK’s approach to digital regulation. Whilst things remain hazy at this very early stage, there are some signals which suggest a potential departure from the current “light-touch, pro‑innovation” model towards a more interventionist and state-led framework.

Burnham has previously indicated a more sceptical stance towards leaving emerging technologies entirely to market forces. In a May 2026 interview, he warned that AI cannot simply be left unchecked and emphasised the need for “strong public control”. Whether or not to regulate on AI has been a long-running debate in the UK, and the Starmer administration did suggest that targeted regulation of the most powerful foundational models was a possibility.  However, this never materialised.  Burnham’s comments, and his perceived political position to the left of Starmer, indicate that stronger regulatory intervention might be deployed in a area of high public consciousness and concern.  For businesses, this could translate into firmer regulatory expectations, particularly around transparency, accountability and societal risk.

Alongside AI, cyber resilience is likely to remain a central pillar of the UK’s digital agenda. The Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, introduced in late 2025, continues to progress through Parliament with broad cross-party support. While a Burnham government may have limited scope to alter its substance at this stage, ensuring its timely passage will be critical. The UK is already perceived to lag behind the EU, which has implemented the more expansive NIS 2 Directive. In an environment where AI is amplifying cyber threat capabilities, maintaining momentum on this legislation will be essential to avoid further divergence.

Online safety – particularly in relation to children – also appears to be a settled direction of travel, and an example of one area where Starmer was already taking firm regulatory action in the final days of his administration. The outgoing government’s announcement of a ban on social media access for under‑16s, alongside wider restrictions under the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, is unlikely to be reversed. However, significant uncertainty remains around implementation. Key questions include the precise scope of platform obligations, enforcement mechanisms, and the balance between protections and digital participation rights for young users.

Taken together, these developments suggest that the UK may be entering a phase of more assertive digital regulation. For organisations operating in AI, online platforms and critical infrastructure, close monitoring of legislative developments will continue.”

James Clark is a Partner at Spencer West LLP

LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK

TOPIC: The Amos report into medical negligence in NHS maternity services

COMMENT BY: Emma Beeson, a medical negligence lawyer, Penningtons Manches Cooper (who represents families who received negligent treatment at the trusts investigated)

“The scale of human suffering and trauma described in this report is beyond horrific, but unfortunately something we see day after day. The sad thing is that this isn’t only happening in the trusts Baroness Amos investigated, but in trusts across the country on a depressingly regular basis.

The maternity system in the UK is fractured and desperately needs a revolution to save it. Putting a plaster on it after yet another report into failings is no longer enough and we need to go back to basics and start all over again. Chronic understaffing needs to be addressed so that the NHS staff who are doing their best have a fighting chance. Mothers, midwives and doctors are consistently ignored when they raise concerns, often resulting in catastrophic consequences and ruined lives. This cannot be allowed to go on. Resolutions need to be brought in immediately, and not in 18 months when hundreds more mothers and babies may have been injured or died, no matter who is in Downing Street and the Department of Health.”

TOPIC: The new Crime and Policing Act 2026 which makes it much easier for law enforcement to hold UK corporates criminally liable for offences committed by their senior management.

COMMENT BY:  Chris Roberts, Partner and Head of White Collar Crime and Investigations,  Grosvenor Law.

“This legislative development is significant because it enables prosecutors to hold companies criminally liable for the actions of their ‘senior managers’, a term which is deliberately broadly drafted. It does not create a new offence, but it does mean businesses can now find themselves facing prosecution for conduct they may not even have known about.

“Senior managers will face greater scrutiny from both prosecutors and their own organisations.

“Unlike failure to prevent bribery, there is no defence based on having adequate or reasonable procedures in place. This is simply a mechanism for attributing a senior manager’s criminal conduct to the company.

“The reform has arrived with little fanfare and remains under the radar for many businesses. But prosecutors will be keen to deploy it as part of a broader effort to make full use of everything in their ‘toolbox’.”

TOPIC: The US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter that the US Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) may not be independent anymore with major implications for transfers of data between the US and EU.

COMMENT BY: Dr. Ilia Kolochenko, lawyer practicing in cybersecurity and data protection and founder of cybersecurity company ImmuniWe

“While the US Supreme Court ruling on the FTC status will probably have no immediate impact on the EU-US transfer of personal data, in the long-term, it is poised to have huge consequences and even create a point of no return.

This milestone ruling gives numerous European data privacy watchdogs and advocates an unprecedented strong argument that any transfer of personal data to the US is now illegal. For instance, the formidable NOYB and Max Schrems have already announced their plans to invalidate the current EU-US Data Privacy Framework, which enables and empowers the current cross-Atlantic PII data transfer regime, on the grounds of blatant illegality under EU law.

However, whether the EU-US data transfer regime will again fall for the third time, as had already happened after the Schrems I and Schrems II decisions in the past, is far from being certain. Today, even the European Commission has openly acknowledged that the EU is overregulated, namely in the complex realm of digital law. A proposal for the Digital Omnibus Regulation is thus looming on the horizon, aiming at simplifying the regulatory burden on businesses, including numerous amendments to the EU GDPR.

The current US administration has already made it clear that any further mega-fines or other penalties by the EU against American companies doing business in Europe will have painful consequences. Therefore, the question is not only legal, but also political: if the EU now acts imprudently, its own businesses may suffer a perceptible and long-lasting damage from a swift deterioration of the EU-US commerce and economic collaboration.

In sum, another overhaul of the current EU-US data transfer regime is inevitable, however, hopefully, this time it will be less radical and painful for businesses on both sides of the Atlantic.”

TOPIC:  The latest ‘Right to Work’ scheme update

COMMENT BY: Emma Brooksbank, Partner and Head of Immigration, Freeths

“These changes represent the most significant expansion of the UK’s right to work regime in decades. Until now, right to work compliance has been primarily focused on employees. From October 2026, liability will extend much further across the workforce, capturing a wide range of arrangements including agency workers, casual labour, self-employed contractors, subcontractors and individuals engaged through platform-based working models.

“For many businesses, particularly those operating in sectors that rely on flexible labour, this will fundamentally change how immigration compliance is managed. Right to work checks will no longer be seen as an employment issue alone; they will become a supply chain and workforce risk issue.

“The challenge for employers is that many organisations may currently have limited visibility over the immigration status checking processes applied to contractors and other non-traditional workers. Businesses should use the time before implementation to review workforce structures, audit supplier arrangements and assess where compliance responsibilities sit.

“Those that wait until the legislation takes effect risk finding themselves exposed to significant civil penalties and reputational damage. The message from government is clear: right to work compliance is no longer confined to traditional employment relationships.”

TOPIC: New PM should prioritise development of Freeports

COMMENT BY: Peter Ware, Partner and Head of Government, Browne Jacobson

“Freeports are one of the most underappreciated tools available to any incoming Prime Minister serious about regional growth and inward investment, and Andy Burnham should make an important part of his economic vision.

“Across the 12 designated English, Scottish and Welsh freeports, the evidence has been quietly accumulating with billions in landed investment, thousands of hectares of brownfield land brought back into productive use, and a pipeline of clean energy, advanced manufacturing and logistics projects that would have seemed implausible a decade ago.

“The government’s extension of the tax relief window to 2031 in England, and 2034 in Scotland and Wales, was an acknowledgement that the model works.

“Burnham’s instincts around place-based growth, devolution and levelling up the regions make him a natural champion of freeports. The alignment between freeport governance structures and the emerging local growth plans under the devolution framework is an opportunity to hardwire long-term investment ambition into regional spatial planning.

“Burnham should bring freeports back into the centre of the growth conversation, and articulate a joined-up vision in which freeports, devolution, planning reform and public infrastructure investment reinforce one another.”

TOPIC: The case of a ‘psychic poet’ with the television persona of “The Cockney Bard” who has been handed a legal bill of more than £200,000 after losing a court battle over his father’s estate

COMMENT BY:  Amanda Smallcombe, Partner and Head of Private Wealth Disputes,  Birketts LLP

“This case is a stark reminder of the significant financial risks involved in challenging the validity of a will without compelling evidence. Claims based on lack of testamentary capacity and not knowing or approving the content of a will are inherently fact-specific and require robust medical and contemporaneous evidence to succeed. Where such claims are unsuccessful, the adverse costs consequences can be devastating.

Of particular note in this case, is the order for a payment on account of £150,000. Such an order was clearly made on the basis that the court was satisfied that Mr Pammen was likely to be liable for a significant proportion of the other side’s costs, to ensure that they were not kept out of pocket while detailed assessment of costs takes place. This case will serve as a powerful deterrent against weak or speculative claims, reinforcing the need for careful, early evaluation of both the merits of the case and the potential costs exposure.

Mr Pammen represented himself and so did not incur the costs of being legally represented during the trial, at least, but this appears to have been a false economy. Had he engaged lawyers specialising in this type of case, he would have been advised there was insufficient evidence to persuade the court that his father’s will was invalid and, if he had followed that advice, would not have continued with the claim and been left paying his sister’s legal costs, the level of which are not unusual.”

TOPIC: The Beckhams’ planning battle over a new balcony at their Cotswolds home (following their own previous objections to a neighbour wanting one and the 44th application they have made since renaming the home they bought a decade ago).

COMMENT BY: Fergus Charlton, Planning Partner, Michelmores

“A core strength of the planning system in England is that it is agnostic to wealth, status and celebrity. Planning policy protects amenity impacts and listed building control protects our heritage building. These apply to all. If the development in their application evidences adherence to the amenity protection policies and shows how it enhances the building’s heritage status it should be approved.”

TOPIC: Statistics from the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero suggest a new record for renewable power generation for January-March 2026.

COMMENT BY: Steve Gummer, Partner, Sharpe Pritchard

“This is a remarkable record and one that should be recognised as the result of sustained Government commitment and the work of a huge number of dedicated people across the public and private sectors.

“But it is not job done. At best it’s half time or a first half hydration break! Demand for power is going to rise, not least from data centres, electric vehicles and the wider electrification of the economy. That means we need to keep expanding renewable generation, but also move faster on the legal, planning and regulatory frameworks that allow the grid, storage and interconnection to be built at pace.

“The fact that more than 10 TWh of renewable power was curtailed in Great Britain last year shows the next challenge very clearly. We are increasingly able to generate clean power, but we also need the infrastructure to move it to where it is needed, when it is needed, so that renewable electricity is not wasted. The clean power transition is now as much about delivery, consenting and system integration as it is about generation.”

LEGAL SECTOR APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK

STONE KING

Laura McHugh (left) is joining Stone King  as an employment partner in the firm’s growing Manchester office. Formerly with Forbes Solicitors, McHugh has almost 17 years’ experience in employment law, having also been at Eversheds Sutherland and JMW Solicitors.

In addition to employment law McHugh has also worked with the education sector regularly advising colleges, schools, academy trusts, and higher education institutions. She has also has experience acting for local authorities and housing associations, particularly in the North West. She explains that she was attracted to Stone King’s social values and commitment to growth, alongside its deep understanding of the issues and challenges facing public sector organisations,

“I am delighted to welcome Laura whose experience and understanding of the sector, and passion for making a difference, really stands out and I know will be a huge asset to the firm and our clients,” says Jamie Otter, partner and head of the Manchester office, “This significant appointment reflects not only our commitment to providing the best service to clients, but also our continuing commitment to growth in Manchester.” 

WEDLAKE BELL 

Dan Dodman has joined Wedlake Bell as a Partner in the Commercial Disputes team. Formerly with RWK Goodman, Dodman has extensive experience specialising in complex, high-value litigation, frequently involving an international dimension. He has acted on on strategically significant disputes, including those involving fraud and asset recovery, and has led multi-jurisdictional matters across a range of sectors, with a particular focus on financial services.

Dodman’s arrival is designed to strengthen the firm’s capability in civil fraud and complex disputes, building on the firm’s existing Legal 500-recognised practice. He will also work closely with the wider litigation team, supporting clients on complex contentious matters in the UK and internationally, particularly those with a financial services dimension.

“We are really pleased to have welcomed Dan a to the firm whichadds further strength to our litigation practice bringing outstanding technical ability and a strong track record advising on high-value, multi-jurisdictional matters,” said Ed Starling, Head of Disputes.

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