Retail & Consumer

In January 2026, the Government published a partial response setting out the consultation outcome on reforms to the Energy Performance of Buildings regime. The response focuses on two areas:

• The first focus considered what reformed EPCs should measure. The Government intends to replace the current single cost metric with four new headline metrics: energy cost, fabric performance, heating system and smart readiness, with the aim of providing clearer and more useful information to consumers and allowing for a more comprehensive assessment of a building’s energy performance.
• The second focus of the response looked at when EPCs are properly required. The Government confirmed its intention to maintain the current ten-year validity period for reformed EPCs, whilst existing EPCs will retain their ten-year validity. The Government intends to deliver new EPCs by October 2026.

Find out more:

• Rockin’ Around the EPC – a new consultation | Foot Anstey
• Reforms to the Energy Performance of Buildings regime – partial government response – GOV.UK

In January 2026, the Government published a draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill with the view to making it easier for existing leaseholders to convert to commonhold should they wish to do so. The Bill seeks to ban the use of leasehold for most new flats, capping ground rents at £250 a year and changing to a peppercorn after 40 years. The draft bill is also looking to abolish the threat of forfeiture, replacing it with a more proportionate lease enforcement scheme and tackling (repealing) harsh enforcement powers to the extent of their application to estate rent charges on freehold estates. The intention of the Bill, as stated by the Government, is to give homeowners much greater security and control over their homes through access to fit for purpose and modern commonhold ownership.

30 April 2026 – this is the final day that a section 21 eviction notice can be served, or an Assured Shorthold Tenancy can be entered into under the old regime.

1 May 2026 – this is the commencement date of the new regime under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. From this date ASTs and no-fault evictions are abolished and no-fault evictions are abolished and replaced by assured periodic tenancies, and the new grounds for claiming possession on a property come into force.

Other legislation

1 April 2026 – new rateable values for more than two million non-domestic properties come into effect 1 April 2026. From April 2026, the government is introducing two lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure (RHL) properties with rateable values below £500,000, set at 5p below the national multiplier, providing some relief for those sectors. This is a permanent tax cut worth nearly £1 billion per year and benefitting over 750,000 RHL properties.

6 April 2026 – new regulations come into force on 6 April requiring certain high-rise buildings to have evacuation plans and identify residents requiring assistance.

7 April 2026 – new regulations have been passed which bring key sections of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022. The regulations bring sections 61-64 of the PSTIA into force from 7 April 2026 and change the valuation of Code rights in lease renewals under the Landlord and Tenant 1954 Act to a “no network” valuation model in line with the Code.

Spring 2026 – the Law Commission is expected to publish its second consultation paper on the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 during spring of 2026, focusing on the details behind how the 1954 Act may be modernised in its application to business tenancies.

The Court of Appeal is expected to hear the appeal in Almacantar Centre Point Nominee Ltd v De Valk and others during Q3. This case centred on the meaning of key terms under the Building Safety Act, including what constitutes “cladding”, when said cladding is “unsafe”, and when the landlord can (or cannot) recover the costs of works through the service charge.

1 June 2026 – the information sheet required under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 must be given to tenants before this date. Any landlord that fails to do so risks a fine of up to £7,000.

UK government charge on new residential developments in England, designed to fund cladding remediation and fire safety repairs, set to commence on 1 October 2026.

The charge is designed to fund the remediation of residential buildings where original developers did not take responsibility, and will target residential developments (10+ units) and Purpose-Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) with more than 30 bedspaces.

The following types of accommodation are exempt: social housing, supported housing, care homes, nursing homes, and temporary accommodation for the homeless are generally exempt.

In this case the court is considering whether a term should be implied in two facility agreements relating to the lender’s right to refuse consent to a proposed granting of security or disposal of assets by the borrower. The facility agreements contained covenants which prohibited the borrower disposing of its assets, subject to certain exceptions or receiving the lender’s written consent. Negative pledges subject to the same qualifications were also included in the agreements. The borrower claimed that the refusal of consent was a breach of an implied term of the facility agreements, and that it had suffered loss as a result. The borrower asserted that a term should be implied in the agreements, on the basis of Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] UKSC 17 – to the effect that the lender, in deciding whether to consent, had to act in good faith and should not act capriciously.

The court concluded that a term should be implied, the lender was not entitled to refuse its consent “for a reason or reasons unconnected with what it perceived to be its own commercial best interests or … when no reasonable entity in the position of [the lender] could have refused consent”.

Orchard and another v Dhillon [2025] EWHC 834 (Ch): The High Court held that, where an unauthorised person entered into a regulated sale and rent back agreement, the other party’s right to recover the property (under section 26, Financial Services and Markets Act 2000) was a “mere equity” under the Land Registration Act 2002. As the other party was in actual occupation, their right to have the property reconveyed amounted to an overriding interest, binding on the unauthorised person’s successor to the freehold title.

Kaushal Corporation v Maria Carmel O’Connor (By her son and Litigation Friend Justin Marciano) [2023] EWHC 618 (KB): The judge found that litigation costs do not fall within the service charge clause under a commercial lease, and that in situations where the construction of a clause would expand a tenant or guarantor’s liability considerably, this should be construed narrowly. So, costs relating to an application for approval or consent could be recovered but the costs of litigation could not.

B&M Retail Limited v HSBC Bank Pension Trust (UK) Limited [2023] EWHC 2495 (Ch): The court held that the new lease should contain a rolling redevelopment break clause which can be immediately exercised with six months’ notice. This gives significant weight to landlords looking to redevelop and need to obtain possession from tenants who have protection under LTA 1954.

Sara & Hossein Asset Holdings Ltd v Blacks Outdoor Retail Ltd [2023] UKSC 2: The Supreme Court held that the service charge under the lease was payable upon presentation of the service charge certificate but it did not prevent the tenant from challenging the amount. This decision marks the ability for tenants to “pay now, argue later”.

This brought redevelopment ground F under the microscope, conveniently at a time where the Law Commission is reviewing the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA). The decision discusses a new strategy for tenants when their landlord uses section 30(1)(f) LTA (or ‘Ground F’) to oppose a new tenancy on the grounds of redevelopment. The tenant, Sainsbury’s, vacated part of its demised premises before trial, so it could argue that works proposed by the landlord, Medley, were not to the “holding”.  Medley’s opposition on Ground F failed. Two key points arising from this case are a reminder that the landlord must demonstrate a settled and unconditional intention to carry out their proposed works, which Medley in this case failed to show, and secondly that it is possible for the tenant to reduce their ‘holding’, or the part of the demised premises that they are actually using, before trial so as to defeat the landlord’s opposition based on Ground F.

M&S submitted a planning application to demolish their store on Oxford Street and replace it with a new 9-storey mixed use office and retail store to include a restaurant and a gym. Despite the proposal being approved by the Planning Inspector, Secretary of State (SoS) Michael Gove rejected it. In their challenge, M&S argued that the SoS had misinterpreted the National Planning Policy Framework and had made incorrect conclusions about the impact of refusing this planning application. The Court agreed with M&S and emphasised the importance of providing clear reasons for departing from an inspector’s recommendations.

Re-Cine-UK Ltd and others [2024], shed light on the fact that it is not appropriate for landlords to protect themselves from restructuring plans by simply relying on contractual exclusions or injunctions, but instead by challenging the plan itself, by reference to caselaw and insolvency principles. The High Court held that the rights of the objectors (the landlords) were capable of being compromised by the restructuring plans. The ‘pari passu’ principle stood at the forefront of discussion, and ensured that ‘fairness’ was taken into account when assessing how the losses should fall on the creditors in question. The High Court’s decision shed light on the importance of the passage of time since undertakings were given, and the subsequent state of the companies finances. Landlords and other creditors will now likely be far more wary, and conscious that undertakings to exclude them from future restructuring will not always be enforceable by law.

Where Landlords re-negotiate with a distressed counterparty, they do so at their own risk. This is a reminder that the insolvency court’s powers are wide ranging, and the principle of ‘fairness’ often dictates and overrides even express contractual protections.

In Kwik-Fit Properties Ltd v Resham Ltd (2024) EWCC 4, the court looked at the terms of a lease renewal under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Kwik-Fit had a 25-year lease on the property located in Tyne and Wear, initially at £35,000 per year. Crucially, provisions for rent reviews in the lease had never been exercised. After the lease expired in April 2021, Kwik-Fit remained in occupation while negotiating a renewal with the landlord. Three points were in dispute: namely (1) the request for a tenant break clause every 5 years (2) a proposed cap on the tenant’s contribution to repair costs for a shared accessway and (3) the amount of rent to be paid for the renewal term.

The court declined Kwik-Fit’s request for a five-year break clause. The court found there to be no compelling evidence that Kwik-Fit’s business strategy needed such flexibility, nor was such flexibility the standard case within the auto maintenance industry. The court also rejected Kwik-Fit’s request for a cap on how much it contributed to accessway repairs. This is because the lease already accounted for any adjustment to the contribution percentage being fair and reasonable (allowing for both increases and decreases). Lastly, the court increased the rent to £39,300, noting that prior reviews had not been carried out because the landlord would not have achieved a higher rent during the review periods specified in the lease.

In John Anthony Turnbridge v The London Borough of Islington, the court considered the implications of letting a property where the energy efficiency rating fails to meet the standard set by the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015 (also known as MEES Regulations). Here, a landlord received an EPC rating of G for a property in 2014 and let the property out. The same property was let out through the transition period of 1 April 2023. Under the MEES Regulations, April 1 2023 was the date for when landlords who continued to let out properties below a set threshold (which is E as of the date of publication) would be liable.

The property eventually received a higher EPC rating of D by January 2024, placing it above the required standard under the MEES Regulations. However, the court found that as the property continued to be let with a rating of G past 1 April 2023, the fact that the property had achieved a compliant EPC rating of D by January 2024 was immaterial. The landlord in this case received a fine of £500 for the breach.

John Anthony Turnbridge v The London Borough of Islington raises the crucial point that obtaining a new EPC rating at or above the current threshold will not ‘fix’ any prior contraventions of the MEES regulations.

In Crest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd and others v Ardmore Construction Ltd (in administration) and others [2026] EWHC 789, the High Court granted Building Liability Orders (under ss.130-131 Building Safety Act 2022) to Crest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd against group companies of Ardmore Construction Ltd. Ardmore had acted as the build contractor for the construction of buildings in Portsmouth that were subsequently found to be defective.

Significantly, the court found that the Building Safety Act permitted Building Liability Orders where a matter has only been subject to adjudication, and has not been dealt with at a full trial. This increases the scope of situations in which Building Liability Orders can be made, and increases potential liability for contractors. Read more here.

The Data (Use and Access) Act 2024 (the “DUAA”) is now largely in effect, following its phased implementation timeframe between June 2025 and June 2026. It represents one of the most significant modernisations to UK data protection law since the UK GDPR and Data Protections Act 2018.

The reform will directly affect how retailers collect, use and manage data, which is even more prevalent if digital tools, AI and smart-site technologies are being harnessed in the business.

Several provisions make it easier for organisations to develop and use AI systems. Under the UK GDPR, using solely automated systems to make decisions with “legal or similarly significant effects” (such as hiring or shift patterns) was heavily restricted. The DUAA relaxes this provided that appropriate safeguards are in place. Safeguards include:

• transparency around the logic used;
• ability for individuals to contest decisions; and
• meaningful human intervention where required.

The relaxation allows retailers the freedom to further harness AI system to, for example:

• schedule their workforce;
• support recruitment and onboarding;
• monitor safety compliance;
• support performance evaluations; and
• predict maintenance and project analytics.

Retailers may wish to review their processes and policies to take advantage of the widening ‘innovation-friendly’ changes brought in by the DUAA.

From 06 February 2026, the DUAA removes certain thresholds relating to breaches the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) could fine organisations for.

Prior to the change, and under the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (the “PECR“), the ICO could only issue fines for contraventions in cookies law if it was a ‘serious’ contravention and ‘likely to cause substantial damage or distress’. These two thresholds have been removed, meaning any breach of the cookies rules can now, in principle, result in a fine.

The change increases potential regulatory exposure. We have previously noted the ICO’s increased scrutiny of UK websites, following its investigation of the top 1,000 UK websites to conduct cookie compliance checks.

Retailers may wish to consider:

• conducting cookie compliance audits;
• updating their cookie banners; and
• review their privacy and cookie policies.

For further information on this topic, please see the following short article.

The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (“DUAA”) introduces a statutory duty for organisations to maintain a formal, publicised process for handling data protection complaints, effective from 19 June 2026.

Organisations must acknowledge complaints within 30 days, investigate promptly, and inform complainants of their right to escalate to the ICO.

The statutory duty applies to all organisations with personal data (including employee data). Retailers may wish to:

1. Implement or review their complaints process to ensure it meets the requirements of the statutory duty (including acknowledging the complaint within 30 days); and/or

Consider forming a dedicated team to deal with such complaints or ensuring they form part of the responsibilities of an existing team within the organisation.

The ICO has set several priority areas for 2026, which will continue to drive enforcement and guidance updates throughout the year.

We expect there will be a focus on the following areas, from the regulator:

• Online advertising practices (including advertising technologies, profiling, and targeted advertising);
• Direct marketing and unlawful electronic communications; and
• AI and automated decision‑making, especially where decisions produce significant effects on individuals.

Although the ICO has indicated it will prioritise action where the harm is most likely, retailers should take note of the ICO’s increased enforcement powers (both in greater latitude of application and increased fine amounts).

In this case, the Court of Appeal made several landmark rulings:

• Claimants do not need to prove that their personal data was disclosed to a third party to bring a GDPR claim – mere “processing” (like printing and mailing) is enough.
• There is no “threshold of seriousness” for data protection claims under English Law

In principle, a claimant can recover compensation for fear of the consequences of an infringement of their rights under the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018). The harm does not have to be material. However, such fears must be objectively well-founded rather than purely hypothetical or speculative.

In November 2021 the Government announced its intention to end the sale of non-Zero emissions Heavy Goods vehicles (ZE HGV) weighing up to and including 26 tonnes from 2035 and end the sale of non-ZE HGVs by 2040.

Following on from this, on 6^th January 2026, the Government held a consultation expressing its commitment to this ambition. A summary of the proposed options can be found in the article linked below

Decarbonising Retail Logistics: How the UK’s HGV Emissions Consultation Will Reshape Supply Chains?

The consultation closed on 17^th March 2026.

As the proportion of electric vehicles in the UK is growing, the Government on 26 November 2025 opened a consultation on its proposal to implement Electric Vehicle Exercise Duty (eVED) to electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid cars. The consultation closed on 18^th March 2026.

eVED Consultation

The government proposes to charge eVED at the following rates:

• 3p per mile for Zero Emission Vehicles
• 5p per mile for plug-in hybrid vehicles

These measures are intended to be introduced in 2028.

Interestingly, electric vehicles which drive 8,000 miles a year would pay £240 in eVED annually or £20 monthly and by comparison the average petrol and diesel driver driving the same mileage would pay double this amount.

These measure, along with the increasing non-commodity cost of electricity, are likely to encourage retail companies to switch their fleets to EV vehicles. It is also interesting to note that according to a recent study by ChargeUK the cost of charging an EV on the public network is, for the first time in years, lower than the cost of fuelling a petrol or diesel car. A link to the study can be found here: Public EV charging now cheaper than petrol for most drivers

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) on 18 March 2026, published a Government consultation on a new permitted development right (PDR) for small, non‑domestic wind turbines to reduce planning barriers that have historically limited uptake. However, this is subject to certain conditions such as the number of turbines, size and certification standards.

Key proposals include:

• One turbine per site.
• A maximum height of up to 30 metres.
• Applicable to non-domestic settings, including commercial estates and public land
• Subject to noise, visual, siting and environmental restrictions.
• Exclusions for designated and sensitive locations such as National Parks, National Landscapes, conservation areas and the curtilage of listed buildings.

Permitted development rights for onshore wind turbines in England – GOV.UK

This consultation remains open until 10 June 2026.

Retailers that own large estates could consider the feasibility of installing a single onshore wind-turbine, as a way of mitigating increased electricity costs.

Pursuant to the Value Added Tax Act 1994, electricity supplied for home charging is subject to VAT at 5%, whereas electricity purchased at a public charge point attracts VAT 20%. This imbalance has led to EV charge point operators across the UK lobbying for the government to correct this imbalance.

In the case of Charge My Street Ltd v Revenue Customs and Commissioners, Charge My Street (CMS) who are an operator of EV public charge points appealed against HMRC’s decision that VAT due on its supplies of electricity falls under the standard 20% VAT rate rather than the reduced 5% VAT rate. The first-tier tribunal    stated that in principle electricity supplied at public charge points could qualify for the reduced rate provided the 1,000 kWh per person, per premises per month threshold was not breached.

HMRC has appealed the decision.

The possibility of the reduced 5% VAT applying to public charge points such as those in large supermarket car parks or retail parks is likely to create more footfall. If the tribunal’s decision is upheld, this could have significant tax consequences for those retailers who have been charging VAT on the supply of electricity at the higher rate.

From 1 January 2026, a two‑year Access to Public Domain Documents Pilot began in the Commercial Court, London Circuit Commercial Court and the Financial List. The scheme expands public access to documents that enter the public domain through their use in open court, reflecting the Supreme Court’s approach in Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring [2019] UKSC 38 and broader calls for greater transparency.

The Pilot shifts the system from an application‑based model to default proactive disclosure via CE‑File. It covers key documents such as skeleton arguments, written submissions, witness statements and expert reports, provided they were used in a public hearing. This marks a significant operational change likely to influence litigation strategy, particularly around drafting and publication risk.

A major change is coming on 28 January 2026. The UK Sanctions List (UKSL) will become the only official list of UK sanctions and the OFSI Consolidated List will no longer be updated.

Breaches of sanctions can lead to criminal prosecution or civil penalties, so businesses should ensure their compliance processes are ready for the change. If your systems currently use the OFSI Consolidated List, they must be updated to pull from the UK Sanctions List instead. If you use third-party screening providers, check that they will switch to the UKSL in time.

The government advises making these updates well before January 2026—don’t leave it to the last minute. Find more details here.

On 30 January 2026, the Academy of Experts issued new Guidance on the use of AI by expert witnesses, responding to growing judicial concern over AI‑generated inaccuracies and recent cases involving fabricated authorities. The guidance stresses that experts remain personally responsible for their opinions and must apply rigorous human oversight when using AI, particularly given risks of hallucinations, confidentiality breaches, bias and data protection issues.

The guidance also clarifies which AI uses are low‑risk, high‑risk, or prohibited, and encourages experts to document and, where appropriate, disclose their use of AI. This is expected to shape commercial disputes by increasing scrutiny of expert methodology, prompting more challenges to the admissibility and reliability of expert evidence, and raising the stakes for parties who rely on AI‑assisted analysis.

For more information, please see the full guidance here.

On 17 February, the Civil Justice Council (CJC) launched a consultation on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) by legal representatives in the preparation of court documents. The consultation aims to assess whether specific rules are required to regulate the use of AI in drafting materials such as pleadings, witness statements, and expert reports. The consultation closes on 14 April 2026.

On 16 March 2026, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) issued updated guidance aimed at raising standards in “comply or explain” reporting under the UK Corporate Governance Code. The FRC expressed concern that many companies have drifted towards boilerplate disclosures, unsupported assertions of full compliance and, in some cases, failures to acknowledge departures from the Code—behaviours that undermine transparency and the value of governance reporting.

The updated guidance seeks to re‑centre the regime on meaningful explanation and genuine governance insight, making clear that companies must articulate how they apply the Code’s principles and provide well‑reasoned, specific explanations when they depart from any provision. The FRC emphasises that a departure is not a negative signal but evidence of a board thinking carefully about what governance structure best fits the business.

Please follow this link to our latest article.

In September 2025, the Law Commission launched its Fourteenth Programme of Law Reform, unveiling 10 new projects, including a review of liability for defective products. This initiative examines the current regime, with a focus on AI, aiming to give businesses greater legal certainty in the digital age. A public consultation is planned for the second half of 2026.

In light for the recently enacted UK Product Regulation and Metrology Act which gave the government the power to adopt select aspects of EU product regulatory framework where it is considered to be in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers, the suggestions seem to be that UK compliance is becoming proactive, tech-focused, and demanding supply chain transparency.

Those who invest early in digital compliance tools, traceability, and cross-border alignment will not only mitigate risk but also create opportunities to shape and thrive under the next generation of product safety and liability rules. This is the moment for forward‑thinking companies to position themselves as industry leaders.

The FCA has finalised its Motor Finance Consumer Redress Scheme following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd; Johnson & Wrench v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which confirmed that undisclosed discretionary commissions, high commissions and hidden commercial ties can render motor‑finance agreements “unfair” under s.140A CCA. Although the Court rejected fiduciary‑duty arguments, it held that structural non‑disclosure in the Johnson case created a fundamentally unfair relationship, setting the template for the FCA’s approach. The Scheme is expected to return £7.5bn to consumer across 12 million+ agreements, with two linked schemes covering the OFT (pre‑2014) and FCA (post‑2014) regulatory eras.

Redress is awarded either through a full “Johnson remedy” (repayment of all commission plus interest) or a hybrid remedy for most consumers, with lenders responsible for assessing agreements and paying redress. The two linked schemes must be implemented by 30 June 2026 (FCA‑regulated era) and 30 August 2026 (OFT‑regulated era), ahead of a final consumer deadline of 31 August 2027 before which they need to apply for redress. The Scheme represents one of the largest redress programmes ever in UK retail finance and imposes significant operational and governance demands on firms while offering consumers a structured route to compensation.

Please follow this link to our latest article.

The fixed recoverable costs (FRC) regime was significantly expanded in October 2023 to cover most civil litigation claims valued at up to £100,000. Since then, further adjustments have been made. In April 2024, FRC figures were uprated for inflation, with additional increases to be applied to fast‑track trial advocacy fees. A further round of amendments followed in October 2024, introducing a new bespoke procedure to resolve disputes about the amount of fixed costs payable in FRC cases — the Fixed Costs Determination.

No further changes are currently anticipated. However, the Government has confirmed that the expanded FRC regime will undergo a formal post‑implementation review in October 2026, meaning any future reforms are unlikely before that point.

The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s restrictive interpretation of the “conduct of litigation” under the Legal Services Act 2007. The Court held that litigation tasks may lawfully be carried out by non‑authorised individuals (such as paralegals or trainees) provided they do so under the supervision and responsibility of an authorised lawyer, who is the person “carrying on” the conduct of litigation.

The judgment restores long‑established litigation practice and confirms that responsibility, direction and control, not the physical performance of tasks, determine compliance with the Act. It provides welcome clarity for litigation teams and reduces the risk of technical challenges to delegation, while reinforcing the continuing professional responsibility of authorised practitioners.

Please follow this link to our latest article.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has certified an opt‑out collective action alleging that Sony abused its dominant position in the PlayStation digital marketplace by imposing unfair terms that led to higher prices for consumers. The claim, potentially worth up to £5 billion and covering around 8.9 million UK users, has also become a key test case on litigation funding following PACCAR, with the Court of Appeal confirming that funding arrangements based on a multiple of investment (rather than a share of damages) remain lawful.

The case proceeded to trial on 10 March 2026 and will be closely watched for its implications for platform‑based competition claims and the future shape of collective actions in the UK.

The Pan‑NOx Emissions Group Litigation is one of the largest consumer actions brought before the English courts, involving more than 1.6 million drivers alleging that major automotive manufacturers—including Mercedes‑Benz, Volkswagen, Ford, Nissan and Peugeot‑Citroën—used unlawful “prohibited defeat devices” to cheat emissions tests. Claimants argue that vehicles passed official test conditions but emitted far higher NOx levels during real‑world driving, in some cases more than 40 times above legal limits. The High Court has already issued several important preliminary judgments, including findings in November 2024 on the binding effect (or lack thereof) of various decisions of Germany’s Federal Motor Transport Authority, which will shape how technical and regulatory evidence is treated across the litigation.

The first major trial on “Prohibited Defeat Devices” commenced in October 2025, with further trials on other issues scheduled into 2026, and disclosure, funding and costs hearings continuing in parallel. The litigation is expected to set key precedents on automotive emissions compliance, cross‑border regulatory findings, and the management of large‑scale group actions. Its outcomes are likely to influence both remaining emissions claims and the wider regulatory expectations for vehicle manufacturers in the UK.

A 40% first-year capital allowance is now available for expenditure incurred on or after 1 January 2026. This allowance was designed to encourage business investment in cases where existing first-year allowances do not apply. The allowance is available to both incorporated and unincorporated UK businesses, including businesses in the leasing sector. The measure is particularly beneficial for unincorporated businesses with capital expenditure exceeding the £1 million Annual Investment Allowance cap. The introduction of this relief coincided with a reduction in the main pool writing-down allowance from 18% to 14%.

On 19 January 2026, new rules implementing the Public Offers and Admissions to Trading Regulations 2024 (“POATRs“) as well as the framework for the Public Offer Platform Regime came into force. The rules replace the previous regime and introduce significant changes for capital raising and public offers. Chiefly, the rules reduce the need for a prospectus, thereby simplify the process and cost for companies raising capital in the UK and/or admitting securities to UK public markets. The aim of the new rules is to incentivise retail participation and promote London as a listing venue.

From 1 February 2026, a number of revised Companies House fees are in effect. Please see here for an overview of the current fees: Companies House fees – GOV.UK

On 25 February 2026, the Department for Business and Trade (“DBT“) published the final UK Sustainability Reporting Standards (“UK SRS“) which encompass UK SRS S1 and UK SRS S2.

• UK SRS S1 sets out general requirements for disclosing sustainability-related financial information and requirements on general sustainability-related risks and opportunities. This covers governance, strategy, risk management, metrics and targets.
• UK SRS S2 applies specifically to climate-related risks and opportunities, requiring disclosure of greenhouse-gas emissions and information about climate resilience.

The UK SRS are now available for voluntary use. The Government has confirmed that for companies considering UK SRS reporting, UK SRS S2 is a national reporting framework for the purposes of section 414CB(6) of the Companies Act 2006. Separately, the Government has indicated that it intends to consult on introducing UK SRS disclosures for large private companies as part of its “Modernising Corporate Reporting” programme in the course of 2026.

From 6 April 2026, the dividend tax rate increased by 2 percentage points for both basic and higher-rate taxpayers. The basic rate increased from 8.75% to 10.75%, while the higher rate increased from 33.75% to 35.75%.

Official guidance is available on GOV.UK: Changes to tax rates for property, savings & dividend income

From April 2026, the Government made several changes to the EMI scheme. The regime, which provides significant tax benefits to employees of qualifying companies, is aimed at helping smaller and early-stage businesses attract and retain talent. The reforms extend EMI access to a broader range of businesses and are expected to support growth within scaling companies through the following changes:

• The gross asset limit for qualifying companies increased to £120 million.
• The maximum number of employees allowed increased to 500.
• The maximum period for exercising EMI options increased to 15 years.
• The total value of unexercised EMI options which can be granted increased to £6 million.

It is also expected that the requirement to notify HMRC of EMI option grants will be removed from April 2027, reducing the administrative burden for companies under the regime.

On 7 April 2026, the Office for Equality and Opportunity published new guidance on gender pay gap reporting. In line with the guidance, any employer with 250 or more employees must report on and publish gender pay gap data within a year of the “snapshot date”. Companies can also publish a voluntary action plan alongside the published gender pay gap data. Whilst this is currently optional, it is expected that action plans will become mandatory from spring 2027, subject to relevant secondary legislation being passed.

The second reading of a Private Members’ Bill, the Company Directors (Duties) Bill, which was scheduled for 17 April 2026 has been postponed with no future date confirmed at present. The Bill intends to amend section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 to require company directors to balance their duty to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole with duties in respect of the environment and the company’s employees.

The “go live” date for the UK Digitisation Taskforce’s three-step plan is expected to be confirmed in summer 2026 (i.e. likely in Q3 2026).

Full digitalisation is expected to take place in stages. The Dematerialisation Market Action Taskforce (DMAT) appointed by the Digitisation Taskforce is tasked with confirming an implementation plan to implement proposals to i) replace paper share certificates, ii) improve the intermediated system, and iii) transition all shares into the intermediate system.  Enabling legislation could start progressing in 2026, with the first stage concerning the abolition of paper share certificates being targeted for the end of 2027.

As part of the wider implementation of identity verification measures under the ECCTA, Companies House has indicated that it expects its verified-filer model to be in place by no earlier than November 2026. Guidance issued by Companies House confirms that by this target deadline, Companies House plans to make identity verification of the presenters a compulsory part of filing any document, and to require agents filing on behalf of companies to be registered as ACSPs.

In Webster and another v ESMS Global Ltd and others [2025] EWHC 3107 (Ch) the High Court intervened to resolve a boardroom deadlock, confirming that it has jurisdiction to enforce a shareholder’s right to circulate a written resolution.

The enforceability by injunction of the statutory right to demand the circulation of a written resolution provides a powerful tool to resolve internal corporate deadlocks. The judgment also means that an attempt by directors to block or frustrate valid circulation requests can carry the risk of an injunction against the company and may lead the court to authorise the requesting shareholders to carry out the circulation themselves. For directors refusing to comply, this also entails the risk of an adverse costs order.

From 5 January 2026, paid-for online advertisements for less healthy HFSS (high fat, salt, or sugar) products will be banned. The restrictions were due to come into force on 1 October 2025, prior to an amendment of the effective date. Nevertheless, the government expects compliance from 1 October 2025 as originally planned. The government has published accompanying guidance here.

The government has announced the following restrictions:

• A 9pm watershed for advertisements of HFSS products, applicable to television and UK on-demand programmes.
• A prohibition on paid-for advertising of unhealthy food and drink products online.

The rules will apply to businesses with 250 or more employees, including retailers and manufacturers, franchises and symbol groups, online platforms, as well as restaurants, takeaways and others in the out-of-home sector (among others).

The Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) has issued further guidance, which can be found here: Food: HFSS Product and Brand Advertising – ASA | CAP.

Several businesses in the Middle East have declared force majeure under their contracts due to the ongoing war between Iran, Israel and the US. With the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, global retailers may question whether they can also rely on such clauses when facing supply chain disruption and related operational challenges arising from the conflict. The answer depends heavily on the drafting of the relevant clause. Businesses should consider whether a clear causal link can be established between events in the Middle East and the disruption suffered, and whether sufficient steps have been taken to mitigate that disruption. If the causal connection cannot be easily demonstrated, a business risks committing a  breach of contract. Even where the link can be established, relief will usually be unavailable unless reasonable mitigation measures are taken. For further discussion of force majeure, please see our previous articles by clicking here and here.

On 22 September 2025, the government published new guidance on the Price Marking Order 2004 (PMO) to reflect amendments taking effect on 6 April 2026. See the full guidance here.

The PMO applies in Great Britain to business‑to‑consumer sales of goods (both online and in store) and requires transparent display of the selling price and unit price (where applicable) to facilitate consumers making a like-for-like comparison of products. The changes will require businesses to update their in‑store and online materials (e.g. signage, product labels, loyalty pricing displays and assortment promotions) ahead of 6 April 2026.

The parties contracted for the supply of electricity by URE Energy (URE). Genesis passed a resolution for its amalgamation and duly informed URE of this. Whilst this would have triggered URE’s express right to terminate the contract, URE continued to supply electricity to Genesis and issuing invoices in performance of the contract for a further six months. When URE attempted to terminate, Genesis argued that URE had waived its termination right by way of continued performance. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that a party is deemed to have knowledge of the express terms of its contract and confirmed that a party cannot waive its contractual right to terminate unless it is actually aware of that right.

The Court of Appeal clarified that a repudiatory breach (a breach going to the core of the contract) is not automatically incapable of remedy under a contractual clause.

The dispute arose from a shareholders’ agreement containing a provision requiring a shareholder to transfer shares if it committed a material breach that was not remedied within ten business days. Gwent committed serious breaches and Kulkarni argued that repudiatory breaches are not remediable. However, the court rejected this notion and decided that remediation is forward-looking (i.e. seeks to fix matters rather than eliminating past harm). In this instance, the breach was remediable by Gwent taking action.

This decision underscores that businesses should draft clauses clearly if they intend certain breaches to be irremediable. The ruling promotes flexibility, allowing parties to correct serious breaches and preserve commercial relationships, while highlighting that breaches may remain remediable unless the contract specifies otherwise.

Certain changes affecting trade unions under the ERA came into force in February 2026, with others introduced from April 2026. These reforms ease the process for unions to initiate and sustain industrial action, while strengthening legal protection for employees who participate.

Key changes include:

• Stronger dismissal protection – dismissal for taking part in lawful industrial action will be automatically unfair.
• Rolling back the Trade Union Act 2016 – many restrictions introduced in 2016 are removed, simplifying the industrial action regime.
• Shorter notice periods – unions must now give only 10 days’ notice of strike action (down from 14).
• Extended strike mandates – ballot results will remain valid for 12 months instead of 6.
• Streamlined ballot and action notices – reduced information requirements when notifying employers.
• Simpler thresholds – industrial action will require only a simple majority of votes cast, with turnout thresholds removed.
• Removal of picket supervisor requirement – unions no longer need to appoint an official picket supervisor.

Overall, these reforms lower procedural barriers and encourage more confident union activity. Employers should prepare for faster disputes and longer-running mandates by reviewing contingency plans, communication strategies and industrial relations policies.

On 5 March 2026, the Government released the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules HC 1691, impacting several immigration routes. In addition, on 6 March 2026, the Home Office published updated versions of each of the three principal Worker and Temporary Worker Sponsor Guidance documents along with an updated Appendix D (record keeping) and the Sponsor a Skilled Worker guidance. For a summary of the key changes that businesses and sponsors need to be aware of, please see our article here Business Immigration Updates for Employers March 2026.

Employers sponsoring overseas workers should review their sponsorship compliance processes and workforce planning to ensure that they are aligned with the new Immigration Rules. We would encourage all key personnel on sponsorship licences to read the updated parts of the sponsor guidance, appendices and glossaries for the routes the employer sponsors or is considering applying for and to remain aware of the changes. Please get in touch with our business immigration team if you require advice on the changes or sponsorship licences and sponsor duties more generally.

The National Living Wage (NLW) and the National Minimum Wage (NMW) rates increased on 1 April 2026:

• the NLW applicable to workers aged 21 and over increased from £12.21 to £12.71 per hour;
• the NMW applicable to workers aged 18 to 20 increased from £10 to £10.85 per hour;
• the NMW applicable to workers aged under 18 and apprentices increased from £7.55 to £8 per hour.

These adjustments are part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to ensure fair pay and align wage levels more closely across age groups.

From 6 April 2026, SSP is payable from day one of sickness absence (rather than the fourth day). In addition, the lower earnings limit to qualify for SSP has been abolished, meaning that eligibility to SSP has been extended to low-paid workers. There is also a new calculation method for SSP: the lower of the flat rate (which increased from £118.75 per week to £123.25 per week from 6 April 2026) or 80% of normal weekly earnings. Employers should review their SSP arrangements to ensure that low paid staff (including potentially casual workers) who now qualify for SSP are paid appropriately.

Paternity leave (although not statutory paternity pay) and parental leave became a day one right for eligible employees on 6 April 2026, removing the previous service requirements. In addition, employees are now able to take statutory paternity leave after a period of shared parental leave.

Employees will also be able to benefit from a new right to Bereaved Partner’s paternity leave from 6 April 2026, where the mother (or primary adopter) or a child dies within a year of childbirth/52 weeks from the adoption placement.

Employers should review and update applicable policies and consider any impact on contractual enhancements (especially where built upon the existing statutory framework).

From 6 April 2026, compensation limits and minimum awards which apply to certain awards that employment tribunals can make and other awards payable under employment legislation increased. These include the following:

• the limit on the compensatory award for unfair dismissal increased from £118,223 to £123,543 (this is likely to be the last such increase since the cap on the compensatory award is to be removed by the ERA in 2027);
• the limit on a week’s pay for the purpose of calculating, among other things, statutory redundancy payments and the basic award for unfair dismissal, increased from £719 to £751;
• guarantee pay, applicable to employees during lay off or short time working, increased from £39 to £41 per day; and
• the minimum basic award in cases where a dismissal is unfair by virtue of certain health and safety, working time, employee representative, trade union, or occupational pension trustee reasons, increased from £8,763 to £9,157.

Please note that these rates only take effect where the ‘appropriate date’ for the cause of action falls on or after 6 April 2026 (the appropriate date here is subject to the specific cause of action, for instance, in an unfair dismissal claim it will be the effective date of termination). The old limits still apply where the appropriate date falls before 6 April 2026.

The maximum protective award for a failure to collectively consult has been doubled from 90 to 180 days’ pay, increasing financial exposure.

Employers should keep accurate records of any redundancies made and proposed across their business as a whole to help identify (across a 90-day period) when the relevant threshold might be triggered.

On 7 April 2026 the Fair Work Agency was established with the main purpose to enforce labour market rights, support compliance, and potentially monitor or intervene in employment rights matters.

The FWA has been granted extensive powers, including the ability to enter premises, seize documents, issue notices of underpayment, and bring tribunal proceedings on behalf of workers. It can also impose financial penalties for non-compliance. For employers, this means heightened scrutiny and the need for robust compliance frameworks across all employment practices.

We recommend employers consider undertaking an internal audit to ensure confident compliance in respect of the National Minimum Wage/National Living Wage, holiday pay, Statutory Sick Pay, Modern Slavery and Agency worker rights.

From 6 April 2026, disclosure of sexual harassment is a qualifying disclosure for whistleblowing purposes. Therefore, employees are now protected from being subjected to detrimental treatment or unfair dismissal following a sexual harassment disclosure. We recommend that whistleblowing and prevention of sexual harassment policies are updated accordingly.

Trade unions will be able to conduct ballots using new methods of voting (as opposed to post), including electronic balloting. This will make it far easier for employees to engage with ballots and could lead to increased strike action.

The ERA made a large number of changes in relation to trade unions and the most significant changes are due to be implemented in October 2026. These changes will include:

• a new right for trade unions to access workplaces both physically and/or virtually to enable them to communicate with workers;
• a new obligation on employers to provide a written notice informing workers of their right to join a trade union; and
• enhanced protections for employees taking part in industrial action.

Please see our article here A new ‘ERA’: Everything you need to know about the Employment Rights Act 2025 for further details.

While the preventative duty currently places broad requirements on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of employees, the ERA:

• strengthens this duty by requiring employers to take all reasonable steps, significantly raising the compliance bar. Employers failing to meet this obligation risk a 25% uplift in tribunal awards and enforcement action by the Equality and Human Rights Commission; and
• introduces liability for employers for all forms of third party harassment, save where an employer can demonstrate that it took all reasonable steps to prevent such harassment.

Please see our article here for details on preparing for the changes: Third party harassment: Preparing for October 2026

Most employment tribunal claims currently have a 3-month limitation period. However, from no earlier than October 2026 (exact date to be confirmed), the  ERA will extend the time limit to 6 months.

This change, together with the extended 12-week Acas Early Conciliation period, will result in greater uncertainty regarding threatened/anticipated litigation for employers. When combined with delays in listing at tribunals we are likely to see many more full merits hearings occurring many years after the events from which they arose, which could have evidential implications.

Please see our article here A new ‘ERA’: Everything you need to know about the Employment Rights Act 2025 for further details.

From 1 January 2027, the qualifying period of service to bring a claim for unfair dismissal will be reduced from 2 years to 6 months. Any employee who has 6 months’ service on or after 1 January 2027 will therefore be able to claim unfair dismissal (when dismissed and/or where they resign in response to a fundamental breach of contract).

The compensation cap (which is currently the lower of the statutory limit (currently £123,543) and 52 weeks’ gross pay) will also be removed from 1 January 2027. The Government has said it will publish an impact assessment on the impact of removing the compensation cap, but there is no commitment to a consultation on the effects.

Both changes combined mean that employers are likely to face more claims for unfair dismissal and find them more difficult to settle (especially for higher earners).

The ERA will introduce a new ‘reasonableness’ test to the consideration of flexible working requests, under which employers rejecting flexible working requests must demonstrate that this decision was reasonable. The eight statutory business reasons for refusing a request remain unchanged, however tribunals will look closely at how ‘reasonable’ the employer’s process and rationale were.

Furthermore, where an employer refuses a flexible working request, they will need to consult with the employee and follow a specified process, which is due to be set out in secondary legislation.

This has the potential to increase the litigation risk associated with flexible working request refusals.  Implementation of these changes is expected in 2027 however the specific date has not yet been confirmed.

The ERA introduces significant protections for workers on zero and low hours contracts aiming to eliminate exploitative practices and provide greater predictability.

Employers will have a duty to offer guaranteed hours to those zero-hour/low hour workers who work regular hours over a reference period (likely to be 12 weeks). In practice, this means employers will no longer be able to rely on open‑ended zero‑hours arrangements where people regularly work consistent patterns.

In addition, employers will be required to provide reasonable notice of shifts, with short notice cancellations or changes of shifts by employers attracting mandatory compensation for the worker.

These changes (which are being actively challenged by the BRC for their disproportionate impact on the retail and consumer sector) are expected to be implemented in 2027 however further detail, including the implementation date, is awaited in secondary legislation.

The ERA proposes to make dismissal both during pregnancy and maternity leave, and for the six month period after an employee’s return, automatically unfair save in specific (narrow) excluded circumstances. Details of these changes are due to be set out in secondary legislation and subject to consultation.

The ERA establishes a day one right to a minimum of one week of unpaid bereavement leave for employees grieving the loss of a loved one and/or a pregnancy loss before 24 weeks of pregnancy (currently a worker becomes entitled to maternity leave where a pregnancy is lost after 24 weeks). Further detail will be set out in secondary legislation.

The ERA will make fire and rehire unlawful (save in circumstances where the business is essentially facing insolvency) by making any dismissal automatically unfair where:

• the reason for the dismissal is that the employee did not agree to the employer’s attempt to vary their core terms and conditions of employment; or
• because the employer intended to employ another person on varied terms to carry out substantially the same role.

These changes will come into effect from January 2027.

Employers should consider whether any contractual changes are required and could be achieved before this restriction comes into effect.  After commencement, employers will need to consider exploring alternative strategies for workforce restructuring, such as voluntary agreements or collective consultations. Failure to comply could result in costly tribunal claims and reputational harm, making early engagement with employees and unions essential.

Currently, employers are required to collectively consult with appropriate representatives where they propose to make 20 or more redundancies within a 90 day period at one establishment. The ERA is proposing to introduce a secondary threshold trigger, which will require employers to collectively consult depending on the number of redundancies proposed across the entire business, irrespective of the ‘establishment’ impacted.

This could have a significant impact for multi-site retailers and will require employers to keep an accurate central record of redundancies proposed across the business as a whole. Such employers should also consider the benefits of a standing body of representatives, to ensure consultation can be undertaken quickly and is as effective as possible.

The ERA introduces a restriction on the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in cases involving harassment or discrimination. This new measure means that an NDA between an employer and a worker will be void where it seeks to prevent the worker from speaking out about relevant harassment or discrimination, except in narrowly defined circumstances to be set out in secondary legislation, subject to a consultation process.

Employers may still use NDAs to protect legitimate business interests or sensitive information, such as trade secrets, but any misuse to silence victims will attract legal consequences.

The commencement date for these changes is expected to be 2027 after consultation.

A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision has highlighted the discrimination risks that can arise following any TUPE transfer, where transferred employees are left on less favourable terms than their new employer’s existing workforce.

The key risk arises when employers delay or fail to address disparities in terms and conditions after a TUPE transfer, particularly where these disproportionately affect a group with a protected characteristic. This case mirrors the concerns the Government’s forthcoming Statutory Code of Practice on Two-Tier Workforces is designed to address, which is due to be implemented in October 2026.

This case is a clear signal that leaving staff on legacy terms, especially where protected groups are adversely affected, may result in unlawful discrimination, even when operationally convenient. Whilst changes to terms and conditions made because of a TUPE transfer are likely to be void, beneficial changes such as increasing pay are unlikely to be contentious. Liability can arise even without a discriminatory motive; if harmonisation or variation is legally possible, failing to act can create discrimination risk.

For a detailed breakdown of this case and recommended actions for employers to take, please read our article here.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers, which confirmed that ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010) refers to biological sex, the Equality and Human Rights Commissions (EHRC) issued interim guidance on the provision of separate‑sex toilets in workplaces and public services. The interim guidance stated that, as a result of the For Women judgment, someone who identifies as transgender does not change sex for the purposes of the EA 2010. As such, the guidance stated that ‘[a] trans woman is a biological man’ and ‘[a] trans man is a biological woman’, such that allowing trans women to use women’s facilities, or trans men to use men’s facilities, would mean those facilities were no longer single‑sex.

In this latest case, judicial review proceedings were brought against the EHRC, arguing that their guidance on which public or workplace toilets and changing rooms transgender people should use misinterpreted the law and, even if accurate, was incompatible with Human Rights law.

The High Court held that the EHRC’s interim guidance was lawful. It confirmed the following points:

• that sex under the EA 2010 means biological sex;
• health and safety regulations require either separate male and female rooms, or fully lockable single-user rooms usable by anyone;
• a lavatory remains single-sex only if used exclusively by biological members of that sex; and
• the concern that employers or anyone else would need to ‘police’ toilet use on a person-by-person or day-by-day basis was unrealistic; staff can be expected to follow policies in good faith.

Importantly, the High Court also emphasised that these requirements do not remove employers’ parallel obligations under the Equality Act 2010, including the duty not to discriminate against employees with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Employers must ensure that trans people are not left without toilet provision, nor should they be forced to use toilets of their biological sex. Employers can, and in many cases should, provide additional or alternative facilities to ensure dignity and inclusion.

For further details on this case and recommended actions for employers, please see our article here: Employment tribunal and court judgments | March 2026

The final quarter has seen major regulatory and enforcement developments. The EU published its Digital Omnibus proposals, aiming to simplify compliance under the AI Act, GDPR, and Data Act. These proposals extend deadlines for high-risk AI systems to late 2027 or beyond, providing businesses with more time to adapt to complex requirements. For UK businesses operating in the EU, this offers breathing space but also signals the need for long-term compliance planning.

WIPO’s Pulse survey revealed a sharp increase in global IP awareness, particularly in emerging markets, highlighting the growing importance of international brand protection strategies. Meanwhile, enforcement activity around lookalike products continued, with several supermarket disputes settled out of court. These settlements suggest a trend toward negotiated outcomes rather than prolonged litigation, but they also underscore the need for robust trade mark and design registrations to strengthen bargaining positions.

 From 1 January 2026, EU use will no longer support cloned UK trade marks created during Brexit transitional arrangements. Businesses must ensure they can evidence genuine UK use or risk revocation.

Find out more here: The Clone Race – The final sprint for EU brand owners to protect their cloned UK trade marks | Foot Anstey

The UK Government’s report on AI copyright consultation is due in March 2026. This report is expected to influence future legislative reform, potentially introducing clearer rules on data scraping and copyright exceptions for AI training.

 In April 2026, the UKIPO frees will increase (by approximately 2025). This will impact trade mark and design filings, renewals, and oppositions. Businesses should factor these changes into their IP budgets and filing strategies.

The APPG for IP has launched a short inquiry on IP and illicit trade enforcement. It will focus on how the UK can strengthen IP enforcement against illicit trade ahead of the renewal of the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO)’s counter-infringement strategy.  In the Summer of 2026 a report will be produced and recommendations will be published

Further information:
—IP and illicit trade enforcement inquiry

The Supreme Court has confirmed that protected agricultural designations apply strictly when registering and using trade marks for food and drink products. It held that Oatly’s mark POST MILK GENERATION was invalid for oat‑based food and drink because the term “milk” is a protected designation under assimilated EU law and can only be used for products meeting the statutory definition. Consumer understanding or lack of deception was irrelevant. The decision, the first UK Supreme Court ruling on designations, underscores the need for brand owners to consider food law restrictions when selecting trade marks, even where the mark alludes to non‑dairy products.

The Court of Appeal has clarified that a trade mark licence expressed to continue “indefinitely” is not the same as a perpetual licence and may be terminated on reasonable notice. Construing the licence as a whole, the Court found that an agreement of indefinite duration necessarily contemplates an ability for either party to bring it to an end, even where express termination rights are granted only to one party. The decision emphasises the importance of clear drafting on duration and termination in trade mark licences and confirms that, absent clear language to the contrary, commercial parties will not readily be taken to have intended to bind themselves in perpetuity.

The High Court has held that both parties breached a trade mark co‑existence agreement governing use of the TREK mark and that Trek Bicycle Corporation infringed Clarks’ UK TREK trade marks. The court found that Trek breached the agreement by selling TREK‑branded cycling shoes and insoles, while Clarks breached it by expanding its TREK range into shoes adapted for sports or fitness. Despite these breaches, Clarks’ TREK marks were not partially revoked for non‑use, and Trek’s use of TREK on cycling footwear infringed under sections 10(1) and 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. The decision highlights the risks of drift in product strategy under long‑standing co‑existence arrangements and underscores the importance of precise drafting and ongoing compliance with agreed use limitations.