Retail & Consumer

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.

The 2026 business rates revaluation takes effect on April 1, 2026, across England and Wales, updating property rateable values based on market rental values as of April 1, 2024.

This will have an impact for retail and consumer clients, as occupation costs may have changed significantly following revaluation. Retailers should review whether their current stores remain economically viable. Rent review and lease renewal negotiations are increasingly being considered alongside revised rates liabilities, and portfolio rationalisation may accelerate where rates increases combine with weaker trading locations.

In June 2026, the Government published an important update on non-domestic MEES (Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards). It confirmed a more targeted approach than previously expected. Rather than applying EPC B requirements across all commercial stock, the Government now proposes:

• EPC B by 2031 for privately rented buildings over 1,000 sq m (where cost-effective);
• smaller premises to remain subject to the current EPC E standard;
• the previously proposed EPC C requirement by 2027 has been abandoned.

For clients in the retail sector, this should mean an increased focus on retrofit obligations, potential capital expenditure requirements, ESG due diligence becoming more important on acquisitions, immediate compliance pressures reduced, and occupiers and investors will face market pressure from lenders and institutional investors demanding improved ESG credentials.

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.

The Law Commission’s review of security of tenure remains one of the most important long-term developments for commercial property.

The Commission has provisionally concluded that the existing contracting-out model should remain, but further consultation on the mechanics of the 1954 Act is expected during 2026.

The updated RICS Professional Standard on Service Charges in Commercial Property took effect from 31 December 2025 and is expected to influence landlord and tenant behaviour throughout 2026.

The clients in this sector should focus on service charge transparency, management costs, sustainability expenditure, and value for money in shopping centres and retail parks.

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

The Government continues to progress proposals that would prohibit certain upwards-only rent reviews in new commercial leases and lease renewals. This was introduced through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026. The Act received Royal Assent on 29 April 2026

Although not yet in force, the proposal has already influenced market behaviour. This has increased use of index-linked reviews, stepped rents, shorter lease terms, and greater negotiation over landlord income security.

This legislation is primarily residential. However, it is expected to be relevant for owners of mixed-use developments, with significant further provisions expected to come into force during 2027.

Owners of mixed-use blocks, town-centre developments, residential-above-retail assets may see increased administrative requirements and changes to service charge regimes.

Although the Government’s June 2026 update softened previous proposals, energy performance remains an important issue. The Government confirmed its intention to require EPC B by 2031 for privately rented non-domestic buildings over 1,000 sq m, while retaining EPC E as the minimum standard for smaller premises.

Even though the EPC C milestone previously proposed for 2027 has been abandoned, landlords and occupiers are already making decisions based on future compliance requirements.

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.

In Sik v Malik¸the High Court ruled that the tenant must put the landlord back in the exact financial position as if the breach had never happened. This means paying 100% of the rent arrears and interest for the entire duration.

The High Court recently revisited principles governing relief from forfeiture after forfeiture for rent arrears. The court reinforced that tenants seeking relief will generally be expected to pay full arrears and associated liabilities.

In SBP 2 SARL v 2 Southbank Tenant Ltd, the High Court ruled that a commercial lease forfeiture clause referencing sections 122 and 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 requires a formal court determination of insolvency before a landlord can exercise a right of re-entry.

The High Court recently examined forfeiture clauses linked to insolvency events and stressed the importance of precise compliance with insolvency-trigger wording.

As of 19 June 2026, the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (the “DUAA”) is now fully in force, representing one of the most significant modernisations to UK data protection law since the UK GDPR and Data Protections Act 2018.

The changes 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 by 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 patter) 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 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
2. 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.

Since April 2023, commercial properties must have an EPC requirement rating of E or higher unless a valid exemption is registered. It is however expected that the government will tighten EPC requirements surrounding commercial properties such that by April 2027 the minimum rating will rise to C and eventually B by 2030.

To prepare for this, landlords are advised to audit their portfolio, prepare budgets for improvements, check for exemptions that apply and review existing tenant/ lease agreements.

Tenants of buildings with EPC rating of C or lower should anticipate improvements by landlord’s and determine in the lease who can make these changes. Further steps to take can be found in our article linked below

Business tenants: MEES and the rise of green clauses

The Government’s consultation on the implementation of Electric Vehicle Exercise Duty (eVED) to electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid cars was explored.

On 13 July 2026, the Government published the outcome of this consultation, and announced the introduction of eVED, a new mileage charge on electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEV) which will take effect from April 2028.

The government confirmed that eVED will be charged at the following rates:

• 3p per mile for electric vehicles
• 1.5p per mile for plug-in hybrid vehicle

The link to the Government Consultation Response can be found here:

eVED_Government_Consultation_Response.pdf

The Government’s eighth Contracts for Difference (CfD) allocation round is progressing through 2026 and is expected to drive significant investment into renewable generation, including offshore wind, solar and other low-carbon technologies. The CfD regime remains the Government’s primary mechanism for supporting low-carbon electricity generation and is central to achieving its Clean Power 2030 ambitions. For retailers and large energy users, increased renewable deployment should improve long-term security of supply and may support the availability of corporate Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), offering opportunities to hedge energy costs and meet ESG targets. Businesses with significant energy consumption should continue reviewing procurement strategies in light of these developments.

Implementation of provisions under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 is expected to continue throughout Q3 2026. The reforms are intended to streamline delivery of nationally significant infrastructure projects, including electricity transmission networks, renewable generation and other clean-energy projects. The Government has made clear that accelerating grid and energy infrastructure is a key component of its Clean Power 2030 strategy. Retailers operating large estates or pursuing on-site generation projects should monitor opportunities created by faster grid connections and network expansion, particularly where electrification, EV charging infrastructure or renewable generation form part of wider decarbonisation plans.

On 14 August 2026, the UK government launched a consultation on its review of the ZEV Mandate which seeks to accelerate Zero Emission Vehicle (“ZEV“) deployment and increase investment in ZEVs.

The ZEV Mandate was implemented by the Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes (VETS) Order 2023 which is a combination of devolved and reserved legislation. As such the consultation is being undertaken jointly by the UK Government, Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland’s Department for Infrastructure.

The consultation addresses the impact of the ZEV Mandate in the UK so far, emerging challenges, policy options such as trajectory options for cars and vans, new credit mechanisms and revision of compliance payment levels. It also seeks views on the carbon implications of these options and the UK’s approach to ZEV Mandate compliance and carbon modelling.

The consultation closes on 23 October 2026.

A link to the consultation can be found here; Zero emission vehicle mandate review – GOV.UK

The UK’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism is scheduled to take effect from 1 January 2027. The regime will apply a carbon price to imports of certain carbon-intensive goods, including aluminium, cement, fertiliser, hydrogen, and iron and steel products. Although primarily aimed at industrial sectors, retailers, developers and supply-chain businesses may be affected where imported construction materials, fixtures, fittings or infrastructure components fall within scope. Businesses should review procurement arrangements and engage with suppliers regarding emissions reporting and carbon-cost transparency, as the new regime could influence pricing and sourcing decisions.

The possibility that reduced VAT can apply to public EV charging points after the case Charge My Street Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners was explored.

Following HMRC’s appeal of the First-Tier Tribunal’s decision, HMRC has published a policy paper on 12 May 2026 which solidifies its position that charging electric vehicles at public charge points is standard rated for VAT.

The First-Tier Tribunal had found in favour of Charge My Street Limited and concluded that under Note 5(g) of Item 1 of Group 1 of Schedule 7A to the VAT Act 1994 there is no additional requirement for the premises to be owned or controlled by the person receiving the supply. This raised the possibility that EV charging at locations such as public car parks may fall under the reduced 5% VAT rate

In its policy paper, HMRC challenges this decision and confirms that while the case is being appealed, the position remains that charging electric vehicles at public charge points is standard rated for VAT.

A link to the policy paper can be found here:

VAT liability of supplies of electricity from public electric vehicle charge points – GOV.UK

More details on the case can be found in our article here:

Charge My Street Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners – Reduced VAT rates for public Electric Vehicle (EV) chargers? | Foot Anstey

In April 2026, the UK Government launched consultations on a new product safety framework and a reformed market surveillance and enforcement regime, building on powers introduced by the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025. Responses were due by 23 June 2026, and the consultation is now closed. The proposals would modernise the UK’s product safety rules by imposing greater obligations on online marketplaces, expanding supply chain responsibilities, permitting wider use of digital labelling, and introducing a more consolidated enforcement framework with broader civil sanctions and enhanced information-sharing powers.

For businesses, the proposals point towards increased expectations around product traceability, supply chain oversight and proactive risk management. For litigants, insurers and disputes practitioners, the more significant development may be the proposed enforcement reforms, which could increase regulatory investigations and generate more follow-on disputes by reducing reliance on criminal prosecutions.

The consultations should also be viewed alongside the Law Commission’s ongoing review of defective product liability, including AI-related risks. While no immediate changes to civil liability have been proposed, the combined effect suggests a regulatory trend towards greater accountability across product lifecycles. Businesses should review governance, product safety controls and contractual allocation of compliance responsibilities now, while monitoring both consultation outcomes and the Law Commission’s recommendations.

Following its February 2026 consultation on the use of AI in preparing court documents, the Civil Justice Council (CJC) published an update on 2 July 2026 indicating broad support for a light-touch regulatory approach. Responses largely agreed that no AI-specific rules are required for pleadings, skeleton arguments and other documents prepared by regulated legal professionals, with existing professional and ethical obligations considered sufficient.

The principal area of debate concerns witness statements, where the CJC is considering whether additional safeguards or disclosure obligations are needed to protect the authenticity of witness evidence. The CJC is also exploring greater transparency requirements for expert reports where AI has been used. A final report is expected later in 2026.

On 07 July 2026, the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT) published its Legal Statement on Liability for AI Harms, concluding that English law is generally capable of addressing civil liability arising from AI without the need for AI-specific liability legislation. The statement argues that existing doctrines, particularly contract, negligence, professional liability, product liability and misrepresentation, are sufficiently flexible to deal with harms caused by autonomous AI systems.

Although the statement is not legally binding, UKJT publications have previously been influential with courts and practitioners. Its significance lies in providing an authoritative indication of how English courts may approach disputes involving AI pending the emergence of substantive case law. Notably, the statement suggests liability is more likely to fall on deployers, application developers and professionals using AI than on foundation model developers, while emphasising the importance of contractual risk allocation, human oversight, testing, record-keeping and transparency. It also highlights that professionals could, in some circumstances, be negligent for failing to use AI where industry standards evolve accordingly.

For businesses and insurers, the statement reinforces that AI does not operate within a legal vacuum. While it reduces arguments that bespoke legislation is urgently required, significant uncertainty remains around causation, highly autonomous systems and software-related product liability, issues that may be addressed through the Law Commission’s ongoing review of defective product liability and AI-related harms.

On 17 July 2026, the Department for Business and Trade launched a consultation on significant reforms to the UK’s competition litigation and enforcement framework, with responses due by 25 September 2026. The proposals seek to make competition collective actions “swifter and simpler” by raising the threshold for certification of opt-out claims, strengthening scrutiny of costs and proportionality, expanding ADR mechanisms, reforming litigation funding rules and enhancing the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) enforcement toolkit. The consultation also proposes greater procedural alignment between competition and consumer enforcement regimes and a more streamlined regulatory appeals framework.

For businesses facing collective actions, the most significant proposal is the introduction of a stricter certification test, requiring the Competition Appeal Tribunal to consider the absolute suitability, merits and cost-benefit justification of claims. However, the consultation simultaneously seeks to increase funding options, including permitting damages-based agreements and providing greater certainty for litigation funders. The combined effect is uncertain: while weaker claims may face greater barriers, well-supported group claims could become easier to fund and pursue.

For in-house teams and disputes practitioners, the proposals signal continued growth rather than retrenchment of the UK collective actions regime. Businesses should monitor the consultation closely, review competition compliance frameworks and assess exposure to follow-on damages claims, particularly as the Government continues to promote collective redress while seeking tighter judicial control over unmeritorious litigation.

The FCA’s motor finance consumer redress scheme, finalised following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd; Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd [2025] UKSC 33, has been partially suspended after legal challenges brought by consumer and industry participants. The Upper Tribunal is expected to hear those challenges in December 2026 or February 2027, with parts of the scheme paused pending the outcome. Firms must continue preparatory work, including identifying affected agreements and gathering commission data, but are not currently required to calculate or pay compensation.

The scheme is expected to deliver approximately £7.5 billion of redress across more than 12 million motor finance agreements and remains one of the largest consumer redress exercises in UK financial services history. However, the challenge highlights continuing disagreement over the FCA’s approach to identifying unfair relationships and calculating compensation.

For lenders, insurers and investors, the principal significance is continued uncertainty over ultimate liabilities, provisioning and operational planning. For litigants and disputes practitioners, the suspension increases the prospect of parallel complaints, Ombudsman referrals and court claims if the scheme is modified or quashed. While the FCA maintains that a redress scheme remains the most efficient solution, firms should continue contingency planning on the basis that a complaint-led redress process may ultimately be required.

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.

On 2 June 2026, the Lady Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor announced the creation of a new Business and Property Division of the High Court, replacing the Chancery Division from October 2026. The new Division will bring together the Business and Property Courts, including the Commercial Court, Technology and Construction Court and Financial List, under a single structure. The changes are intended to simplify court administration, improve user navigation and reinforce the international attractiveness of England and Wales as a forum for complex commercial disputes.

Litigation funding reform remains a significant development to watch following the Government’s December 2025 commitment to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal (2023) (PACCAR) and introduce proportionate regulation of third-party litigation funding. The proposed reforms would clarify that litigation funding agreements (LFAs) are not damages-based agreements (DBAs), reversing the uncertainty created by PACCAR and restoring the position generally understood to have existed before 2023. The Government has also indicated that a regulatory framework for litigation funders is under consideration.

However, no dedicated legislation was included in the 2026 King’s Speech, meaning PACCAR remains the current legal position and funding arrangements continue to face potential enforceability challenges.

For businesses, funders and disputes practitioners, the key issue is timing. Q1 2027 is increasingly emerging as a period to watch for legislation reversing PACCAR, statutory confirmation that many LFAs fall outside the DBA regime, and further developments on the regulation of litigation funders. Until then, parties should continue reviewing funding arrangements carefully and assessing funding-related risks in commercial litigation and collective actions.

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, involving approximately 1.6 million claimants and several major vehicle manufacturers, has reached a significant stage following the High Court’s July 2026 liability judgment. The Court rejected most of the claimants’ principal allegations, holding that not every emissions-control calibration strategy constitutes a prohibited defeat device and that claimants must establish more than real-world emissions exceeding laboratory test results. However, the Court identified certain unlawful strategies, including a coolant temperature setpoint device in some Mercedes vehicles and a split-injection strategy in certain Peugeot-Citroën vehicles.

The decision is important because it narrows the circumstances in which emissions-control systems will be found unlawful and raises the evidential burden for claimants, particularly in proving reduced emissions-control effectiveness. While manufacturers secured substantial victories on the core liability issues, the litigation is far from over. A further trial is scheduled for October 2026 to determine the consequences of any actionable breaches, including damages and remedies.

For businesses and disputes practitioners, the judgment highlights the challenges of large-scale product liability litigation, the importance of technical expert evidence, and the continued exposure of manufacturers to significant follow-on claims despite important defence successes.

In Drelle v Servis-Terminal LLC [2026] UKSC 29, the Supreme Court held that an unrecognised and unregistered foreign judgment can constitute a bankruptcy debt under section 267 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The Court overturned the Court of Appeal, reaffirming that a final foreign judgment creates an immediate common law obligation to pay, regardless of whether it has first been recognised in England.

The Court also rejected the argument that bankruptcy proceedings amount to indirect enforcement of a foreign judgment, emphasising that insolvency is a collective process for the distribution of assets rather than a judgment enforcement mechanism.

The decision strengthens the position of foreign judgment creditors and may increase insolvency-related leverage in cross-border disputes. For businesses, the principal consequence is greater exposure to insolvency risk arising from overseas litigation, potentially increasing settlement pressure before recognition proceedings are commenced.

A milestone in the UK’s shareholding reform programme was reached on 14 July 2026 when the Dematerialisation Market Action Taskforce published its implementation plan. The Government has accepted the recommendations and confirmed that legislation will be introduced before the end of 2027 to remove paper share certificates and require digital share registers for publicly traded UK companies. While immediate action is not required from shareholders, listed companies and registrars should begin assessing the operational and governance implications of the transition towards a fully digital system of share ownership.

By no earlier than the end of 2026, Companies House expects to deliver a number of further reforms under ECCTA. These include increased transparency requirements for limited partnerships, completion of the transition period for mandatory identity verification and the commencement of compliance activity against individuals who have failed to verify their identity. Companies House also expects to expand its ability to cross-check information against data held by public and private sector bodies, supporting its wider objective of improving the accuracy of the register. In addition, disqualified directors are expected to be prevented from delivering documents directly to Companies House, with only limited exceptions where filings are made through an ACSP.

As part of the wider implementation of identity verification measures under the ECCTA, Companies House has confirmed that it expects its verified-filer model to be in place by no earlier than November 2027. 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.

In Saxon Woods Investments Limited and others (Respondents) v Francesco Costa (Appellant) [2026] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court has clarified the scope of directors’ duties under section 172 Companies Act 2006. The Court held that a director’s genuine belief that a particular course of action is in the company’s interests is not, by itself, sufficient. Directors must also act loyally and in good faith towards the company and cannot covertly pursue their own strategy, mislead fellow directors or undermine the board’s collective decision-making role. While the courts will continue to respect genuine commercial judgments, the decision reinforces that section 172 operates within the wider framework of fiduciary duties. The judgment is likely to be of relevance to founder-led, family-owned and investor-backed businesses where disagreements over strategic direction can arise.

Businesses in the Middle East continue to face ongoing war disruption to transit through the Strait of Hormuz, causing global retailers to question whether they can rely on force majeure 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.

The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (“DUAA”) introduces important new requirements for how organisations handle data protection complaints which came into effect on 19 June 2026. Organisations should continue to review and, where necessary, update their complaints handling frameworks to ensure compliance.

Under the new requirements, individuals have a right to complain if they consider that a business has handled their personal data in a way that does not comply with UK data protection legislation. There are no format or labelling requirements in respect of complaints so organisations must ensure that they assess the substance of the issue rather than the language used.

Organisations should ensure that they are familiar with the core procedural requirements on timing and responsiveness, investigation and handling, and accessibility and transparency which controllers should follow when handling data protection complaints.

The new subscription contracts regime under the DMCCA is expected to come into force in January 2027 and will affect businesses with subscription-based products, memberships or auto-renewing services. The regime is designed to address so-called “subscription traps” and will likely require businesses offering consumer subscription services to provide enhanced pre-contract information, renewal reminders, cooling-off rights and straightforward cancellation processes.

That said, the relevant legislation and accompanying guidance has not yet been passed by Parliament. We therefore await confirmation on the precise requirements; however it is anticipated that draft legislation will be published imminently in order to give businesses time to adapt.

In 2013, Dame Zaha Hadid, the globally recognised architect, entered into a trade mark licence with her architectural firm, Zaha Hadid Limited (the “Company”), allowing the Company to use the registered trade marks for ‘ZAHA HADID’. At the time, Dame Zaha was the sole shareholder of the Company. In 2016, upon Dame Zaha’s death, the registered trade marks passed to the Zaha Hadid Foundation (the “Foundation”). The Company wished to renegotiate the licence fee (which it considered to be too high), and the dispute arose over whether the Company was entitled to terminate the licence on reasonable notice.

The dispute centred around a clause in the licence which stated that the agreement would “continue indefinitely, unless terminated earlier”. The Court ruled that use of the word “indefinite” meant that the parties had contemplated the possibility of the relationship ending, even if no express mechanism had been provided.

This case highlights the importance of drafting terminology and how the Court will apply a high bar in determining whether a contract exists in perpetuity.

From 25 August 2026, trade unions will be permitted to conduct statutory ballots electronically and in workplaces in addition to the existing postal voting system. The Government expects the change to increase participation in ballots and reduce administrative barriers to industrial action. Retailers with recognised unions should review industrial relations strategies and ensure contingency planning reflects the potential for increased employee engagement in industrial action processes.

Employers should prepare for significant changes to the right-to-work regime taking effect on 1 October 2026. The reforms extend compliance obligations beyond traditional employment relationships and may create liability further up contractual supply chains involving agency workers, subcontractors and gig-economy workers. Retailers relying on flexible labour models should review labour supply arrangements, onboarding processes and contractual protections before implementation. For further detail, see Business Immigration Updates for Employers | July 2026.

The Government recently consulted on a number of ERA reforms, including guaranteed hours for zero and low-hours workers and the potential expansion of carers’ leave rights. The outcome of these consultations is expected to shape the secondary legislation implementing several 2027 reforms. Government responses and further detail on implementation are anticipated during Q4 2026. Employers with significant casual workforces should continue monitoring developments.

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, from 30 October 2026 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.

Retailers should pay particular attention to customer-facing environments given the introduction of liability for third-party harassment and emerging evidence of increasing levels of customer abuse directed towards retail workers.

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

See also Customer abuse in retail: What the latest survey tells us and what employers should do now

Most employment tribunal claims currently have a 3-month limitation period. However, from 1 October 2026, 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.

Further reforms to tipping arrangements are expected to take effect later in 2026 following the Government’s consultation on a revised statutory code of practice on the fair and transparent distribution of tips, which closes 29 September 2026. Employers operating tipping arrangements will be required to consult with workers, trade unions or elected representatives before introducing or revising tipping policies and will need to keep those policies under review. Hospitality, leisure and customer-facing retail businesses should ensure existing tipping practices are compliant ahead of implementation. See the Government’s consultation: Make Work Pay: revised tipping code of practice.

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 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 will make fire and rehire unlawful (save where the employer can demonstrate specified financial difficulties affecting its ability to continue as a going concern) 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 introduces a framework for an additional organisation-wide consultation threshold, with the precise trigger to be set out in regulations, 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 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 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 are expected to take effect in 2027.

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.

Following a voluntary phase introduced in 2026, employers with 250 or more employees should monitor forthcoming requirements to publish gender pay gap and menopause action plans, which are expected to become mandatory during 2027. The reforms form part of the Government’s wider equality agenda and are intended to encourage employers to take more proactive steps to address workplace inequalities and support employee wellbeing. Larger retailers should consider reviewing existing gender pay gap reporting processes and any measures currently in place to support employees experiencing menopause ahead of further legislative detail being published.

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.

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 following a consultation process which was completed in July last year.

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 Court of Appeal has provided further guidance in the long-running equal pay litigation involving thousands of Tesco store workers seeking to compare their roles with higher-paid distribution centre employees. The decision emphasises the importance of contemporaneous evidence when assessing whether roles are of equal value, including job descriptions, training materials, operational documents and other records demonstrating the requirements of a role in practice.

The case also highlights the continuing litigation and financial risks associated with large-scale equal pay claims in the retail sector. Retailers should ensure that pay structures, job evaluation exercises and supporting documentation are regularly reviewed and updated, particularly where there are significant pay differentials between customer-facing and operational roles. For further information, see our articles Equal pay litigation: key risks and lessons for employers | Foot Anstey and Employment tribunal and court judgments | May 2026 | Foot Anstey.

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

From 1 August 2026, Jersey became a separate designation under the Madrid System. Designating the UK in an international trade mark registration will no longer automatically extend protection to Jersey, requiring businesses to designate Jersey separately where protection is required. Existing international registrations that designated the UK before 1 August 2026 will generally benefit from transitional arrangements. Businesses with brands, customers or enforcement interests in Jersey should review their trade mark filing and portfolio management strategies, as Jersey now operates as a distinct jurisdiction for trade mark protection.

Find out more here: Procedural Changes Coming Up for Jersey, UK

The Bill will introduce protections against unauthorised commercial association with major sporting events (ambush marketing), restrictions on advertising and trading around event venues, and a UK-wide offence for the unauthorised resale of tickets. The measures may affect marketing, promotional and ticketing activities. The Bill is currently progressing through the House of Commons and is not expected to receive Royal Assent until later in 2026 or early 2027.

Find out more here: Sporting Events Bill [HL] 2026-27 – House of Commons Library

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.