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

25 September 2026

Editorial contact: fennell.edward@yahoo.com

SHORT THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK: NO SLAPP ON THE WRIST

In what might turn out to be a landmark judgment with profound implications for the Solicitors Regulation Authority, Carter Ruck Solicitors/Amersi succeeded this week in fending off the regulator’s attempt to examine documents which were subject to professional privilege.

Unsurprisingly the Carter Ruck/Alersi side was jubilant. “The greater certainty provided by the decision benefits all clients by helping solicitors identify and safeguard privileged information while engaging constructively with regulatory requests,” said Oliver Schneider-Sikorsky, partner at BCL Solicitors, who had acted for them.

By contrast Jonathan Peddie, SRA Executive Director (Investigations, Enforcement and Litigation) expressed deep concern. ‘It is vital that we have access to all relevant evidence when investigating potential wrongdoing,” said Peddie. “This enables us to fulfil our regulatory role to protect the public and uphold the integrity of the legal profession‘”

Concern was also expressed by Susan Coughtrie, Co-Founder and Co-Chair of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition. “Stripping the regulator of one of its most important tools for establishing breaches, will inevitably have a negative impact on its ability to ensure that solicitors are not only upholding their duty to act in their client’s interest, but also their duty to the courts and to uphold the rule of law, which as the SRA states ‘should take precedence should these come into conflict’,” she said.

Chances are that there is still some way to go to reach a definitive outcome. But anyone interested in the way that solicitors conduct their business should keep a sharp eye on what happens next.

“After decades of complacency about a power assumed to exist, this judgment should be a real wake-up call for Parliament to urgently put these powers beyond challenge,” said Helen Taylor, Deputy Director, Spotlight on Corruption.

The LegalDiarist

In this edition

+ LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK

Aching for More Space

Foot in the Door

Is Nothing Sacred?

Short-Cutting the Court

+ CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK

Occupational Health Awareness Week: What employers need to remember by Rena Magdani

Blake Lively’s $8m costs claim: what would an English court have done? asks Nick McDonnell

+ LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK

on Shein versus TEMU, specialist courts for sexual offences, the latest ONS statistics on divorce and a new Weddings Law

+ LEGAL APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK

at CARPMAELS & RANSFORD and DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON

LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK

Aching for More Space

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. which prefers (maybe for obvious reasons) to just go under the name of Akin, is making a welcome statement about the importance of London through an office move to the prestigious 155 Bishopsgate.

Already being touted as one of the block’s most important tenants Akin joins the likes of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, Marex (the prominent financial services platform) and Steamship Mutual (the international marine protection and indemnity insurer). Interestingly, Barings used to be there – but has now quit the scene.

“London is a cornerstone of Akin’s global platform,” said Akin co-chair Dan Walsh.“As one of the world’s leading financial and commercial centers, the City is a critical hub for our clients. The move to 155 Bishopsgate follows a period of significant investment in London, including strategic partner additions, and reflects both the strength of our platform and our long-term commitment to serving clients across Europe, the Middle East, Asia and the United States.”

At a time when business seems to be two-minded about the importance of actually bringing people physically together to work it is interesting to hear the firm’s take on why the office still matters. “The space combines modern technology, enhanced collaboration areas and first-class amenities to support the way we work and serve clients,” said Ezra Zahabi, the partner in charge of the new space. “It is a significant investment in our future and reflects our commitment to providing an exceptional workplace in the City.”

So London – a cornerstone still. Well at least a good ‘collaboration space’ (see image above) for a while.

Foot in the Door

However desirable the South West of England might be as a tourist destination it is commonly recognised that the opportunities for the locals are pretty limited. And while school leavers in London might feel the buzz of high hopes that is not so in Cornwall and its neighbouring counties which has the lowest progression rate into higher education in England. And not surprisingly it is especially difficult for children from less well-off backgrounds to aspire to careers with which their families have had no contact.

So step forward Foot Anstey which has become the first law-firm employer partner of the Colyton Foundation’s Your Future Story programme. The Foundation brings together a range of educational partners – including the Universities of Cambridge, Exeter and Bristol – to help young people better understand the pathways available to them through higher education and professional careers. Foot Anstey is now joining this elevated group to host employer insight visits which aim to provide students with first-hand experience of a professional services environment and introduce them to the wide range of careers available in the legal sector.

“Foot Anstey’s commitment to supporting young people makes the firm a natural partner for Your Future Story, and we’re excited about what we can achieve together,” said Nick Wakeling, Director of the Colyton Foundation. “As our first law-firm employer partner, Foot Anstey will give young people valuable insight into the legal profession and first-hand experience of a professional-services environment – helping to build their confidence, broaden their horizons and keep future choices open.’

Bola Gibson, Executive Director for Responsible Business at Foot Anstey explained that the partnership with Colyston forms part of Foot Anstey’s 1% investment of net profits into its Responsible Business programme and reflects the firm’s commitment to creating positive social impact in its local communities. ‘We’re proud to become the Colyton Foundation’s first law firm employer partner and contribute to the important work being delivered through Your Future Story,” she said.

Is Nothing Sacred?

Now here’s a curious state of affairs. After years of doing what seems to be a pretty good job as the only ‘prescribed charity’ entitled to receive undistributed damages or settlement sums, the Access to Justice Foundation’s unique status is coming under threat.

Shock and horror indeed.

So why, you might ask, is the Department for Business, Innovation, Science & Trade currently consulting on changes to the Collective Actions regime with the possibility that the funds might, instead, be split with the Consumers Association (Which?) or, indeed, directed exclusively to the Consumers Association instead,

Now no-one would deny that the Consumers Association is a pretty good outfit which reliably comes up with worthy and wise insights for journalists on consumer matters. But there is a question over whether it is right for taking on a role under the Collective Actions regime. After all, as Sara Fowler, President of CILEX (Chartered Institute of Legal Executives) points out, the Consumers Association operates primarily on a commercial model.

By contrast, says CILEX, the Access to Justice Foundation has “a proven track record of ensuring that the funds generated from undistributed damages go where they will have the greatest possible impact, reaching low-income communities and plugging the growing gap between legal need and the provision of legal aid.”

On this basis, reckons CILEX, it would be a “High-risk strategy to, at this stage, consider changing the current arrangement to an untested, unevidenced alternative.”

No doubt there are arguments on the other side but, so far as we can tell, they have not been aired as yet. What does seem to be the case is that just a quarter of the Consumers Association’s income related to consumer research and promoting consumer interests.

It will be all-consuming to see how this debate plays out.

Short-Cutting the Court

Interest is growing in why there has been a spike in applications for Specific Issue Orders in the courts.

As Sebastian Burrows, Partner in the family team at Birketts LLP, points out, there is often more to it than meets the eye. “A parent seeking the court’s permission to take the children on holiday to Cyprus might hide a real fear of a possible hop over the boarder to abduct the children into Turkish Cyprus, which is not a Hague Convention country – causing an absolute nightmare legally.”

 People are looking for a level of certainty that they feel only the courts can provide. “There is a strong sense among those that have involved the courts before, that they are the only forum to decide future disputes,” says Burrows. “The courts can decide such matters but they’re too busy and therefore slow (but getting quicker).”

What is very striking, however, is that 33% of the court applications do not result in a court order. Instead, they are withdrawn and/or agreed between the parents. What is happening in these cases , probably, is that the parents, guided by the courts, are actually able to resolve their disputes or are pushed to resolve them by using other means such as mediation.

All of which suggests that it would be better if it would be better if parents had access to alternative methods for resolving these tensions earlier on. It would save time, worry and stress. Courts may be revered but they are not necessarily the best way for resolving every problem.

CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK

Occupational Health Awareness Week: What employers need to remember

by Rena Magdani

This week’s Occupational Health Awareness Week (21-27 September) is a timely reminder that occupational health reports can be invaluable when managing sickness absence and workplace health issues, but employers should be careful not to place blind reliance on them.

Many employers mistakenly assume that an occupational health opinion is the final word on whether an employee is disabled under the Equality Act 2010. However, case law has shown that employers can face criticism for simply “rubber-stamping” an occupational health assessment without properly considering the employee’s circumstances and the impact of their condition for themselves.

It is common for an employer to ask an occupational health expert whether a worker is disabled because the answer determines what obligations the employer owes: do they have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for example?

In Gallop v Newport City Council, for examp,e the Tribunal criticised the employer for accepting a medical opinion that an employee was not disabled, without applying their own thought to the issues. The Tribunal recommended that, rather than asking a generic question as to whether the “employee is disabled”, the employer should ask practical questions about the impairment and its effects, so the employer could form its own view as to whether the definition of disability is satisfied.

There are other points employers must remember. Decisions about health issues need to be based on expert medical evidence so employers should involve occupational health, whether that’s an internal OH team or an external provider. Allow enough time; an occupational health report can be a lengthy process, especially if it involves obtaining GP records.

Employers should always act promptly on any steps within their control, including seeking the referral and acting upon outcomes to reduce the risk of being criticised for any delay. The referral is an opportunity to seek clear, practical guidance on next steps, so make sure that you ask the right questions. Although employers should not accept medical opinions without question, they should also be aware that tribunals generally ascribe considerably more weight to occupational health opinion on medical issues than to an employer’s own views: employers should not disregard advice without very good reason.

Finally, employers must ensure that the personal data of employees is dealt with appropriately throughout the process. Managed right, occupational health can help both employer and employee.

Rena Magdani is National Head of Employment, Pensions and Immigration, Freeths

Blake Lively’s $8m costs claim: what would an English court have done?

asks Nick McDonnell

Blake Lively sought more than $8 million in legal fees and expenses arising from her litigation with Justin Baldoni, but was ultimately awarded just over $400,000.

Would an English court have imposed an equally dramatic reduction? Possibly. But the starting point is not whether $8 million was too much. It is what costs Lively was entitled to recover.

The costs award arose from proceedings brought by Baldoni and the Wayfarer parties against Lively, Ryan Reynolds and others, including a defamation claim. Following dismissal of that claim, the court granted Lively an entitlement to reasonable legal fees and costs under California Civil Code §47.1 in respect of successfully defending herself against it. It was not a general order reimbursing her for the costs of the litigation as a whole.

That distinction would be familiar to an English costs judge. The first question is what the costs order entitles the receiving party to recover.

The complication was that the actions overlapped. Work undertaken in Lively’s own action could also be relevant to defending the defamation claim. English courts face the same difficulty where recoverable and non-recoverable work is intertwined. The High Court recently revisited the issue in LM1 Ltd v Seacroft Film Investments Ltd [2026] EWHC 2212 (Ch), applying principles concerning the attribution of costs between overlapping claims and counterclaims.

The hourly rates would attract attention. Willkie charged rates of up to $2,795 (approximately £2,090) per hour for partners and $1,573 (approximately £1,175) for associates. Yet Judge Liman expressly found that “Counsel’s rates were not unreasonable”, given the complexity and reputational risks.

His concern was the hours claimed. Lively’s claim involved 82 timekeepers across two firms, alongside vague billing entries, administrative work charged at lawyer rates and work not adequately connected to the recoverable defamation defence.

An English costs judge would recognise those issues. The size and seniority of the legal team, hours claimed, duplication and nature of the work undertaken would all be scrutinised when assessing reasonableness.

Proportionality would also provide a further control, but that is not simply about the money. Complexity, importance and wider non-monetary factors can also be relevant. The exceptional reputational stakes could therefore justify expenditure that might appear extraordinary in a more conventional case.

The $8 million to $400,000 reduction does make for a striking headline, but risks conflating two questions: which costs were recoverable in principle, and whether those costs were reasonable and proportionate.

Nick McDonnell, is Director and Costs Lawyer with legal costs firm Kain Knight

LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK

TOPIC: Shein granted permission to appeal against its competitor Temu in a ‘first-of-its-kind’ copyright battle in the UK

COMMENT BY: Robecca Davey, a Trade Mark Attorney, Marks & Clerk

“The decision to grant SHEIN permission to appeal is a significant development in this case, raising an important question about where the line should be drawn between an online marketplace acting as a passive intermediary and becoming sufficiently involved in the presentation of third-party content to attract liability itself.

The original judgment appeared to strengthen the position of marketplace operators, providing greater certainty around when they can rely on the hosting defence where they lack knowledge of specific infringing content. SHEIN’s appeal now puts the boundaries of that protection back under scrutiny.

For rights holders and traditional retailers, the outcome will be particularly important. If the Court of Appeal provides further guidance on when a marketplace moves beyond a merely technical, automatic and passive role, it could have significant implications both for how online marketplaces structure and present third-party listings and where brands direct their online enforcement efforts.”

TOPIC: Specialist courts for sexual offences

COMMENT BY: Nathan Seymour-Hyde, Criminal Defence partner, Reeds Solicitors LLP

“Specialist courtrooms and fixed trial dates are sensible reforms that could improve the experience of everyone involved in rape and serious sexual offence cases. Long delays place an enormous strain on complainants, defendants and their families. The uncertainty created by floating trial dates, which are often moved at short notice, only adds to that stress.

However, improved courtroom facilities alone will not address the problems that have plagued the preparation of these cases and frequently resulted in adjournments and further delay. Cases can involve extensive phone downloads, social media material, medical evidence and third-party records. Too often, relevant material is obtained or disclosed late, leaving insufficient time for it to be analysed.

Trauma-informed practice is important, but it must operate alongside the presumption of innocence and a defendant’s right to challenge the evidence. Real improvement will require earlier preparation, prompt disclosure and sufficient court capacity, as well as better facilities.”

TOPIC: The Office of National Statistics latest figures on marriage and why divorces are less common and happen later in relationships

COMMENT BY: Julian Ribet, Partner & Founder, Ribet Myles

“Divorce is increasingly coming at the end of longer marriages, with the median marriage ending in divorce reaching 13 years in 2025 – the longest recorded by the ONS. That is a significant shift in the shape of divorce and has important implications for how couples approach their financial separation.

Longer marriages can mean greater financial complexity. Couples may have spent more years building up property, pensions, savings and investments, meaning there can be considerably more to untangle when a relationship ends. It reinforces the importance of taking a holistic view of finances rather than treating divorce simply as the division of the most obvious assets.

The figures also point to a changing pattern among newer generations. Just 16.3% of couples who married in 2015 had divorced by their 10th anniversary, compared with 24.7% of those who married in 1995. While the reasons for this shift are likely to be varied, it suggests that early divorce is becoming less common among more recent marriage cohorts.

Four years on from the introduction of no-fault divorce, 74.1% of divorces and dissolutions under the new legislation were sole applications. This remains an important insight into how couples are choosing to navigate the end of their relationships under the new system.”

COMMENT BY: Vanessa Friend, Head of Family Law, Hodge Jones & Allen

“We have seen a shift in the behaviour around divorce in the last few years, predominantly driven by economic uncertainty. With less disposable income due to higher tax rates, mortgage rates and school fees, for example, couples are spending more time trying to calculate how they can feasibly afford to separate, which may account for why marriages are lasting longer before divorce. 

“We are having more conversations around separation agreements, which acknowledge that a couple have separated but are not yet ready to officially call time on the marriage, legally. This, alongside post-nuptial agreements – financial agreements in the event of divorce – demonstrates that people are mindful of how hard it is to split one pot into two.

“We have also seen more individuals articulate their experiences of abusive behaviour in their marriages. Five years ago, this reason for divorce would not have been cited as frequently, demonstrating that the societal shift towards who should carry the shame of abuse and education around this issue is positively empowering those being abused.

“However, predominantly we are seeing the exhaustion of life, particularly money issues, driving divorces as opposed to one dramatic event such as infidelity, which used to be a key reason for marital breakdown.”  

COMMENT BY: Lisa Pepper, partner and specialist divorce lawyer, Osbornes Law

“Divorce is now more accessible than it ever has been in the past 60 years yet these incredible figures show that couples are staying together for a record amount of time. You can start the guillotine of divorce by simply going online and logging into a portal, yet there is an amazing dichotomy in that marriages are lasting longer. This could show that marriage is alive and kicking, which is also illustrated by the number of couples signing pre nups going through the roof. The less romantic reason is likely to be that couples can’t afford to get divorced and face the financial hand grenade that it results in. Couples are more hesitant to get divorced and trying things like mediation or couples therapy before going for the nuclear option as the consequences are often perceived as worse than continuing with their marriage.”

COMMENT BY: Jo Edwards, Head of Family, Forsters

“The marriage rate is decreasing.  This suggests that those who do make the commitment, do so carefully (usually after a period of cohabitation) and are therefore more likely to stay the course for longer. 

“Many of those who have taken time out of the workplace to raise children may also want to re-establish some earning capacity before starting divorce proceedings (especially as the courts are increasingly likely to expect someone in that position to exploit their earning capacity on divorce and work towards financial independence).

“It feels as though, more than ever, people are more financially savvy and think carefully about the financial picture before starting divorce proceedings.  With the growth in the number of pre- and post-nuptial agreements in England, there is ever more financial openness between couples and they may decide to wait to divorce until the financial picture is more favourable.  This is especially the case in times of economic uncertainty and it may well be that the post-pandemic/cost of living crisis factors are driving people waiting to divorce.”

COMMENT BY: Sarah Green, Family Partner, Michelmores

“This is surprising given the introduction of no-fault divorce, and a new online process making divorce applications easier. However, alongside this couples have to reach a financial settlement, which in itself can be a difficult, protracted process. This is not helped by the tricky economic climate, with splitting assets and running a household on a single income being increasingly challenging.  This may mean that people are staying together longer and finding alternative solutions to divorce, because it is simply unaffordable to go their separate ways.”

COMMENT BY: Susie Barter, partner at Burgess Mee

“There was real concern that no-fault divorce would make it too easy to walk away from a marriage. The figures show that has not happened. There were 105,961 divorces and dissolutions in 2025, almost unchanged from 105,664 in 2024 and 103,816 in 2023, and well below the 150,000 a year seen in the 1980s and 1990s. This reflects the reality that couples do not take the decision to divorce lightly.  In practice the 20-week reflection period gives couples valuable time to start to address financial arrangements.  The application for the final divorce order is commonly delayed until a financial order is in place.”  

COMMENT BY: Sital Fontenelle, Head of the Family & Divorce team, Kingsley Napley

“Our view of the divorce market at the moment is that the prolonged uncertain economic outlook is meaning some couples are now just getting on with it and not delaying in the hope of a better financial situation ahead. We are seeing more and more couples opting to resolve the division of their finances away from a court setting given the long delays in the Family Courts and many are achieving a resolution of finances based on pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements. Recorded divorces are also typically happening later and after longer marriages with the so-called silver splitter cohort being a very real trend.

Given co-habitation is now the most popular relationship model and the norm for many younger families today it is good news that this Government has consulted on reform of rights and protections in this area and it must be hoped their proposals progress swiftly. There are many different ways that partners choose to commit in society today but relationship breakdown is a theme common to all sadly, hence we need adequate protection for the vulnerable regardless of the formality of relationship they find themselves in.”

TOPIC: The Law Commission’s 2022 report, Celebrating Marriage: A New Weddings Law, and the government’s commitment to legislate when parliamentary time allows.

COMMENT BY: Emma Leavesley, Family Partner, B P Collins

“The proposed reforms appear to place greater responsibility on the person conducting the ceremony. The officiant will now need to play a central role in ensuring not only that the ceremony is properly conducted, but also that both parties are entering into the marriage freely and willingly.

“They could also be expected to identify and guard against issues such as forced marriage, while also making sure the ceremony itself is sufficiently clear and properly overseen so that its validity cannot later be called into question. Practical matters, such as whether the parties could hear and understand what was being said, may become more significant if there is greater flexibility around where and how ceremonies take place.

“The reforms will also make it easier for couples to marry in a wider range of locations, without the venue itself needing to hold a specific civil licence. That will be welcomed by many couples, but it must be matched by clear system for registration to avoid any oversights and not create uncertainty about whether a marriage is legally valid.”

LEGAL SECTOR APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK

CARPMAELS & RANSFORD

Christopher Stothers has joined the specialist intellectual property firm Carpmaels & Ransford as a Partner in its Litigation practice in London and Dublin.. Previously with Freshfields, Stothers has more than two decades’ experience managing complex, cross border disputes in life sciences and technology. He is particularly known for his work in the intersection between IP, antitrust and pharmaceutical regulatory law and is regarded as one of Europe’s leading patent litigators in the UK courts, the UPC and the EPO, Alongside his commercial practice Stother is also a Visiting Professor at UCL and wrote the leading legal textbook: Parallel Trade in Europe: Intellectual Property, Competition and Regulatory Law.

“Our Litigation group is growing rapidly in response to increasing demand from our clients to act on their most technically and legally challenging cases,” said Jennifer Antcliff, Head of Litigation at Carpmaels & Ransford.”With decades of experience, and an enviable track record at the EPO and UPC, Christopher is a fantastic addition to our team and perfectly placed to steer our clients through complex, multi-jurisdictional litigation.”

DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP

Mary Lavelle is joining Debevoise & Plimpton LLP as a partner in its Private Fund Transactions and Investment Management Groups in London. Previously Global Co-Head of Private Funds and Secondaries at Freshfields, Lavelle originally gained a B.A. in Modern Languages and Philosophy at the University of Oxford.

She will now advise both sponsors and investors on complex secondary transactions and related liquidity solutions, including continuation vehicles, LP portfolio sales, co-investments and recapitalizations. Her reputation in the secondaries marketplace is reflected in her industry awards plus her role as a commentator on European secondary trends and developments.   

 “Our client relationships are global, and Mary’s arrival will further enhance our ability to offer integrated, market-informed advice across geographies,” said Rebecca Silberstein, Global Chair of the Investment Management Group, “She possesses a unique combination of experience and judgment that her clients understandably hold in high regard and we welcome her to firm.”  

Presiding Partner Peter Furci added, “Mary counsels many of the market’s most sophisticated participants, and she will enhance our ability to advise clients on their most complex liquidity 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