Edward Fennell’s LEGAL DIARY
Diary news plus insights, commentary and appointments from the legal world
4 September 2026
Editorial contact: fennell.edward@yahoo.com
SHORT THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK:Rulers need to Follow the Rules
It has been a big week for UK politics with the new Prime Minister facing the House of Commons for the first time. And there was also a lesson for him at the British Museum with the Bayeux Tapestry providing a reminder of how quickly new leaders can be swept away by ruthless outsiders with their own interpretation of the law.
Fortunately politics has moved on a little since 1066 and now we operate in a legally-based and detailed rule-led system. This is something that the ‘ruthless outsiders’ in the Greens and Reform need to get used to. Leaders of both parties are being tested on their somewhat casual approach to following the law. In both cases their credibility for Government is being scratched by a lack of due diligence.
The question for both is whether they can really be bothered to change. Or, at heart, do they really prefer to be outlaws?
The LegalDiarist
In this edition
+ LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
Anti SLAPP Action Coming Up Soon
Ovation for Innovators at Stone King
Key Moment Approaching for ‘Ruby’s Law’ to Protect Domestic Animals
New Complaints System Sparks Complaints
+ CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK
Back to school: But will this be a time for family conflict? asks Alistair Myle
+ LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
on Argentine sanctions, IPP sentences, Driverless cars, underpayment of minimum wages, the right to legal parenthood.
+ LEGAL APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK
at Signature Litigation and Crowell & Moring
+ APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK
LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
Anti SLAPP Action Coming Up Soon
The ongoing concern about Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) was aired on the House of Commons’ first day back after the Summer Recess this week when it was the subject of a Backbench Business Debate sponsored by Alex Sobel MP. This follows a pair of anti-SLAPP Private Members’ Bills (PMB) being introduced in both the Lords and Commons earlier this year.
As the promoters of reform point out, although the UK has been identified as a leading source of SLAPPs (almost as frequent a source as the EU and US combined), it lags behind on reform. Professional regulation is regarded as being ineffective, while the limited anti-SLAPP provisions introduced through the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 are “too narrow in scope and flawed by design.” It is now hoped that the cross-party call for comprehensive and universal measures will effectively stamp out SLAPPs.
“I am proud to have sponsored today’s debate on the impact of SLAPPs,” commented Alex Sobel, MP for Leeds Central and Headingley. “The examples we have heard remind us of why legislative and regulatory reform are so urgent. It is unbelievable that in a country that is so proud of our democracy, justice system and free speech, our legal system is being weaponised against our citizens in this way. As a co-sponsor of Sir John Whittingdale’s Private Members’ Bill, I will continue to urge the Government to support him and use this crucial opportunity to stamp out SLAPPs for good.”
Ovation for Innovators at Stone King
At a time when our way of doing almost everything (including even cleaning our teeth) is being radically changed the future will belong to those who are the most successful innovators. Stone King is now institutionalising that truth through developing a new bonus scheme which will reward staff who are willing to ‘try new approaches, test ideas and learn quickly’.
The aim, explains the firm, is to ‘encourage staff – either individually or in teams – to experiment and iterate, rather than wait for the ‘perfect’ idea, and remove the fear of mistakes so teams can think creatively’.
It is certainly true that fear of failure is a powerful brake on ‘breaking the mold’ and doing things differently. Yet most successful inventors have a string of failures before they, finally, get it right.
That is why Stone King already has its own Innovation Network, an informal firm-wide community, of people who want to experiment and put bright ideas to work “What matters most is the curiosity, effort and learning involved, not the size of the idea or whether it ultimately succeeds,” says the firm’s People Director Sam Cook. “Innovation can include small, thoughtful changes that improve how we work, serve clients, support colleagues or deliver social impact. It might come in the form of a big idea, a new product, service line or new technology and we actively encourage this kind of ambition.”
Not surprisingly AI has been the focus for much of the current innovation in the firm. For example, the firm’s AI Lab combines legal, regulatory and technical expertise to ‘explore and create new approaches to client services, improve how legal services are delivered, and help clients and colleagues understand and manage the opportunities, risks and compliance considerations associated with AI.’
“It became clear that there is a significant opportunity to explore how AI, technology and other innovation can help improve ways of working across the firm, particularly within our legal teams,” commented Tim Rutherford, the Partner who is the AI Lab’s executive sponsor.
“These [developments] are an important step in supporting our ambition to be a digitally enabled, future-focused firm that brings people and technology together to improve both colleague and client experience.”
Key Moment Approaching for ‘Ruby’s Law’ to Protect Domestic Animals
This coming Monday (8th September) will see a big push by supporters of ‘Ruby’s Law’ to encourage MPs to immerse themselves in the campaign to advance the Domestic Abuse (Pets) Bill in the House of Commons. Supporters now want the ‘drop-in’ session for MPs next week in Parliament to be a decisive moment in the programme.
The context is the drive to give protection to domestic animals who frequently become the collateral victims of violence in the home. Apparently, 90% of households experiencing domestic abuse in England and Wales also see animals being abused by the perpetrators. In 12% of these households, the pet was actually killed. That is why Ruby’s Law aims to secure three key legal changes to protect pets in domestic abuse situations:
Legal recognition – To recognise pets as household members who can be affected by domestic abuse, just like children and other family members. Protective mechanisms – To ensure that pets are protected and safe during court proceedings, with provisions for their care and wellbeing. Court responsibilities – To establish clear court responsibilities regarding pet-related decisions in domestic abuse cases and family law proceedings.
To achieve this, the cause is proposing the expansion of Non-Molestation Orders (under Section 42 of the Family Law Act, 1996) to explicitly allow non-molestation orders to cover pets; the expansion of Occupation Orders (under sections 33–38 of the Family Law Act, 1996) to include provisions for the court to decide who retains care of the pet and ensure the pet’s safety when determining occupation orders; and a broadening of the understanding of domestic abuse by introducing language which recognises that harm to pets can be used as a form of coercion or control, linking this to the broader understanding of domestic abuse, under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.
“Animal abuse in the context of domestic abuse can take many forms: threats to harm an animal, restricting access to veterinary treatment, withholding food or medication, taking a pet away, or threatening to kill an animal,” explains Christina Warner, the family barrister who established the campaign. “But, while Ruby’s Law is about animal welfare, it is not simply that. It is also about family safety, domestic abuse and access to justice. Ruby’s Law seeks to remove the impossible choice between personal safety and the safety of a beloved animal.”
For more information go to: https://www.rubyslaw.co.uk/
New Complaints System Sparks Complaints
What should the legal sector do about handling complaints? If a system is set up, in effect, to thwart complainants then it would rightly face public opprobrium. But make it too easy to complain and then an industry of abusive complaints will quickly grow.
Currently, the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) charges a case fee of £400 when a complaint goes against the lawyer and they did not take all reasonable steps to resolve it themselves at first tier.
But new proposals aimed at reducing demand for LeO’s services and implementing a ‘polluter pays’ approach would see all cases liable for a case fee (unless a new waiver test is met). Firms would be required to pay £200, £750 or £1,500 depending on the stage at which the complaint is resolved.
However CILEX is worried that the new approach will result in firms paying off some claimants who are without a genuine case simply to avoid further cost and hassle down the road.
“CILEX agrees that those firms providing a poor service and failing to resolve legitimate complaints at an early stage should bear the financial burden of resolving them,” said Sara Fowler, the CILEX President. “That said, CILEX has concerns about firms being driven to make unwarranted payments over fears that a complaint going to the ombudsman will prove even more costly. CILEX would like to see proportionate case fees and a fair process that mitigates against that possibility.“While we expect the proposals to reduce the number of unmerited and vexatious complaints, it is important that we ensure more minor complaints still get a fair hearing and that consumers have the right to complain, even when issues with the service provided do not come to light until many years after the event.”
CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK
Back to school: But will this be a time for family conflict? asks Alistair Myles
As children return to school, separated parents can face a fresh source of conflict over term-time holidays, handovers and the practicalities of getting children to and from school.
The Back-to-School Co-Parenting Report 2026 found that 41% of family disputes during the back-to-school period centre on termtime arrangements and handovers, while a further 25% involve school pick-ups, drop-offs and travel logistics. Another important consideration for separated parents is that attendance fines are issued per parent, per child. This means that if one parent takes a child out of school without authorisation, both parents can potentially receive a penalty notice, even where the other parent did not agree to the absence.
So, what happens when parents disagree about taking their child out of school during term time?
Courts are generally not keen on children missing school for holidays. While there may be circumstances in which a term-time absence is appropriate, a parent’s desire to take a child away is not likely to outweigh the importance of their education and regular attendance.
Ultimately, any decision made by the court has the child’s welfare as its paramount concern. The focus is therefore on what is in the child’s interests, rather than simply which parent’s position should prevail.
Disputes can be particularly difficult where there are no clear provisions in a court order or parenting agreement dealing with how holiday arrangements merge into term-time arrangements. The two can look quite different in practice. Holiday arrangements may involve extended periods of time with one parent, whereas term-time arrangements need to accommodate the child’s school timetable, including precise arrangements for pick-ups, drop-offs and travel.
Without clarity around how those arrangements fit together, parents can have very different interpretations of what has been agreed. A disagreement over when a child should return from a holiday, for example, can quickly become a dispute about school attendance and each parent’s responsibilities.
The best way to avoid these issues is to address the practicalities in advance. Parenting agreements and court orders should, where possible, provide clear arrangements for holidays, handovers and the child’s return to school.
As the new school year begins, clarity can therefore be key to preventing disagreements from escalating. Ultimately, putting workable arrangements in place can help separated parents navigate the transition between holidays and term time while keeping the focus firmly on the child’s welfare.
Alistair Myles is a Partner and Founder at Ribet Myles
LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
TOPIC: Argentina threatens oil explorers in the South Atlantic with sanctions over Falklands row with UK
COMMENT BY: John Binns, Partner. BCL Solicitors
“Argentina’s threat to use sanctions in this context is a reminder that sanctions are a foreign policy tool whose legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder.This was so even in the days when most sanctions (against al-Qaida, Iraq, Iran etc) drew their authority from the UN. Today, most voters in the US, UK, and Europe see sanctions against Russia as morally justified, insofar as they think about them at all. Their use by the US against the ICC and by the UK against Israeli settlements in Palestine are more controversial. In China, Russia and elsewhere, sanctions are used to counter what those countries see as aggressive actions by the West.The truth is that the power of sanctions, especially when they are unilateral, depends not on the merits of the cause but on the power of the state imposing them. The UK may well respond to Argentine sanctions with something of a shrug, at least for now.”
TOPIC: Overcrowding in UK prisons and the controversy over ‘Imprisonment for Public Protection’(IPP) sentences
COMMENT BY: Shirley Debono, Founder of IPP Committee In Action
‘For once a Prime Minister has come along and agreed the sentence is wrong. That has never happened before. The Labour government brought this in, and it is a Labour government that is going to end it.
A lot of these IPP prisoners have mental health problems, all caused by serving an indefinite sentence. If this drags out for months and months, then prisoners are going to start disbelieving the government and think it is a lie.
They have been let down so many times over the years. It will all come back to them. That is why we need a timescale.’
TOPIC: The arrival of driverless cars in London
COMMENT BY: Clare Galo, Senior Associate, Reeds Solicitors
“As vehicles become increasingly capable of making driving decisions themselves, criminal investigations are likely to become less about eyewitness evidence and more about software logs, electronic data and establishing precisely when legal responsibility passed between the vehicle and the person behind the wheel.
Those questions are unlikely to have straightforward answers. Investigators, prosecutors, and defence lawyers will increasingly need to understand vehicle telemetry, manufacturer data and software evidence when determining whether autonomous mode was lawfully engaged and where criminal liability rests.
One thing appears certain: the early cases brought under the new legislation are likely to generate significant litigation and shape the future development of road traffic law for many years to come.”
TOPIC: The ‘Underpayment’ of the minimum wage by high profile employers including B&Q and Five Guys
COMMENT BY: Jo Mackie, Employment Partner , Michelmores
“The government has wanted to ‘name and shame’ employers who underpay the NMW for some time, and has done so robustly. It is proving an effective way to at least nudge employers to check with their HR teams and outsourced payroll providers that calculations are done properly. Employers would be wise to check their indemnities with outsourced providers so that liability and fines can be recovered from them.”
TOPIC: Next week’s Parliamentary debate on whether intended parents in surrogacy arrangements should have legal parenthood upon the birth of a child (where currently this stays with the surrogate until a parental order is granted)
COMMENT BY: Anna Stinton, Stowe Family Law
“On 7th September, Parliament will debate a petition drawn together by In the Style founder Adam Frisby and his partner Jamie Corbett. The petition calls for a change in the law so that intended parents are automatically recognised as the legal parents of a child born through surrogacy.
As the law stands, the woman who gives birth is always recognised as the child’s legal mother, regardless of genetics or intention. If she is married or has a civil partner, they will generally be the other legal parent. For intended parents, this can seem backwards. They may be caring for their new baby from birth without automatic legal parenthood or parental responsibility, and without the full authority to make important decisions about their child.
Of course, the situation can be rectified through obtaining a Parental Order however,
- The surrogate’s consent cannot be validly given until 6 weeks after birth
- The intended parents must apply within 6 months of the child’s birth
- The process can take 4-12 months and involve one or two court hearings
The parliamentary debate will not itself change the law, but it should raise further awareness of the growing calls for reform. The current position can create uncertainty and stress at a time when families should be able to focus on welcoming a new child.
I hope that the debate will help move surrogacy reform further up the parliamentary agenda.”
LEGAL APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK
SIGNATURE LITIGATION
Vincent Desry has joined Signature Litigation in Paris as part of the firm’s plan to expand its white collar and investigations practice. Previously with the Paris office of Cohen & Gresser. the American law firm, Desry has many years experience of work in the white collar criminal law field often involving cases with a cross-border dimension. These have entailed fraud, money laundering, bribery, tax fraud, product compliance, misuse of corporate assets, and embezzlement.
Desry has a track record of intervenng at all stages of criminal proceedings (complaint filing, investigation, trial, international assistance) and, in particular, has developed specialist experience in contesting criminal seizures and foreign forfeiture enforcement requests. Included in his roster of high profile cases is acting as trial counsel for former President Nicolas Sarkozy in the so-called “Bygmalion” case, which related to President Sarkozy’s 2012 presidential re-election campaign.
“It is a great opportunity to be joining Signature with my team at such an exciting stage of its growth,” says Desry. “The firm’s disputes-only platform and the momentum behind its investigations and white collar crime practice made this a natural move for me. I am looking forward to working with colleagues across our offices to build on that offering for clients navigating increasingly complex, multi-jurisdictional investigations.”
Accompanying Desry will be two associates, Alix Crocheton and Alix Meslier de Rocan
CROWELL & MORING
Chiraaq Shah has joined Crowell & Moring as an international arbitration partner in the firm’s London office. Previously with Morrison & Foerster (also in London) where he served as Global Head of International Arbitration and Head of the Africa Desk, Shah has had extensive experience in Africa notably in Kenya where he worked at leading law firms prior to relocating to the UK. He was previously a partner at Kirkland & Ellis.
With more than 25 years of experience advising clients around the world on high-stakes arbitration matters Shah is ranked by Chambers as International Arbitration attorney and is also a Legal 500 Leading Partner in International Arbitration.
“We are delighted to welcome Chiraag to Crowell,” said Meagan Bachman, chair of Crowell’s International Dispute Resolution Group. “Combining his proven excellence as an arbitration practitioner and longstanding relationships across key arbitration markets, particularly Africa and MENA, with our IDR team’s international presence, including in London, Doha, and Brussels, will enhance our ability to support clients in complex cross-border disputes around the world at the superior level of service we pride ourselves on delivering.”
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