Charities

The Charity Governance Code steering group launched a consultation in early 2024, focusing on how the Charity Governance Code can be enhanced.

The results reveal that 93% of the respondents find the current version of the Code clear, but many charities felt the code could be more accessible and supported by more guidance on implementing the Code.

The next stage of the steering group’s work will be a series of focus groups addressing the key themes from across consultation responses.

In the last budget, Chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed that a 20% VAT will be applied to private school fees from 1^st January 2025. Any fees paid from 29 July 2024 relating to the term starting in January 2025 and onwards will be subject to VAT. These changes appear to be part of Labour’s broader plans to redirect funds towards state education.

In the upcoming budget, the Chancellor is expected to announce the removal of charitable tax relief on business rates for private schools starting from April 2025.

The Fundraising Regulator has been reviewing the Code of Fundraising Practice to ensure the code provides an effective regulatory framework now and in the future.

Following the consultation, the regulator has produced the new code which will become effective from 1 November 2025. The new code can be accessed here: New Code (effective 1 November 2025) | Fundraising Regulator

Fashion for Relief was set up for the purpose of poverty relief and advancing health and education by making grants to charities or other organisations and by giving resources to those directly affected.

The inquiry found that, amongst other things, between April 2016 to July 2022, only 8.5% of the charity’s overall expenditure was on charitable grants and there was  no evidence that trustees had reviewed the charity’s operating model to ensure fundraising methods were in the charity’s best interest and costs were reasonable relative to income generated.

Because of the inquiry, trustees Bianka Hellmish, Naomi Campbell and Veronica Chou were disqualified from trusteeship for several years.

Charities are increasingly having to manage unresponsive executors. This is in part due to the cost of living crisis, but the expenses and time involved in trying to contact unresponsive executors can be costly for charities.

Foot Anstey have launched a Legacy Recovery Portal. This will serve as a time-efficient solution for executor response challenges.

The offering will involve an easily accessible portal wherein charities can input details regarding the legacies and executors whom they are trying to contact.

More details can be found here: Introducing our Legacy Recovery Portal: a time efficient solution for executor response challenges

Government figures (data from the HM Courts & Tribunals Service) show that probate waiting times have halved since June 2024.

This is beneficial for Charities, as a more efficient probate system means that Charities will now have quicker access to funds which have been entrusted to them.

This is particularly notable, given that recent statistics by Farewill reveal an increase in charitable gifts within wills.

Charity legacy income ‘flowing again’ as probate waiting times are halved | Third Sector

Recent amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules suggest that ADR will no longer be a voluntary process in disputes.

These changes, include, for instance the fact that the court’s over-riding objective now includes ‘promoting or using’ ADR. The court’s now also have the general power to order the parties to engage in ADR.

Whilst it is too early to assess how the courts will implement these changes, it appears likely that unwilling parties could be ordered to mediate even immediately before a trial is due to take place.

It is worth charities who are engaged in legacy disputes being aware of these changes.

You can read more about these changes here: Alternative Dispute Resolution: No longer voluntary under new Civil Procedure Rules

Charities should be made aware of this case, which more clearly outlines the requirements for a valid deathbed gift.

Previous case law has made clear that unregistered land can be the object of a deathbed gift, however the position was not clear for registered land.

In this case, the land certificate, hand by the deceased to the claimant represented a transfer of an indicum of title for the purposes of making a deathbed gift. The judgement also clarified that had the deceased not had a land certificate, an official copy of the register would have sufficed.

The key takeaway within this case is that the effect of the death of the registered owner of the estate being administered, during the required ten-year period, does not operate as a bar to a claim for adverse possession.

A point to note from the judgment is the importance of the solicitors’ and medical experts’ opinion. The court found that the solicitor was competent and a reliable and honest witness, and as such the Court of Appeal took her comments into consideration when reaching their decision.

Rea v Rea: The final chapter in a long running Undue Influence saga? 

This case demonstrates that whilst there is some degree of unpredictability when advising on the question of costs, the court will rarely depart from the usual costs rule.

Nevertheless, the costs regime under CPR is focussed on encouraging settlement before cases go to court. It is important that charities consider settlement outside of court where possible.

In claims under the Inheritance Act, the financial needs of a claimant and the costs of the litigation are not mutually exclusive. This recent approach by the court will give some pause for thought when advising on parameters of settlement and it would not be surprising to see some expressions of unease from judges having to follow this ruling.

This case included a multitude of key takeaway points for charity residuary beneficiaries.

• The Court of Appeal decision supports charities’ rights as a residuary beneficiary to query legal fees charged by a firm of solicitors.
• It may be appropriate to query hourly rate-based charges even if the overall costs as a percentage of the estate seem reasonable on paper, especially if the estate is straightforward.
• 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974 states that a bill can’t be challenged after 12 months, but where a residuary beneficiary has not been privy to this information before this deadline, this deadline does not apply.
• The Court is critical of solicitors who give a cost estimate at the outset of a matter but then don’t update it throughout the matter as necessary.
• Communication is key, as the cost of probate and trust work can vary widely depending on a wide range of factors
• Charities are justified in requesting regular cost updates from executors.

The Supreme Court has ruled that success fees are not recoverable from defendants.

Overall, the decision is a positive one for charities as it may lead to less unmeritorious claims being taken on by firms of solicitors and will reduce the level of settlement sums that charities may agree to pay to settle a claimant’s claim.

This case pertains to an estranged adult child being awarded £125,000 in a 1975 Act claim. The Deceased had left the child nothing in their will and had repeatedly expressed negative views about the claimant.

The Judge ruled that the Will did not provide reasonable financial provision for the Claimant and awarded £125,000, with the sum to be held on discretionary trust to ensure it was used responsibly, and to protect the Claimant’s future interests.

Although the Claimant had been estranged from the Deceased for some time, the Judge found her health issues, which prevented her from working, to be a compelling reason for provision.

This is a case in point that the notion that claims by estranged adult children under the 1975 Act are unlikely to succeed unless a moral obligation is shown is steadily losing credibility.

The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025, more commonly known as Martyn’s Law, received royal assent on the 3 April 2025.

Martyn’s Law is intended to improve security and organisational preparedness across the UK and charities hosting big events should be aware of the potential additional requirements to ensure steps have been taken to keep people safe in the event of a potential terrorist attack.

It is expected that the implementation period will be at least 24 months for regulations to bring Martyn’s Law into force.

For more information see our article: Martyn’s Law receives Royal Assent

The Law Commission is reviewing how the right to renew commercial tenancies and how the regime may be reformed. Many charities with a “bricks and mortar” presence occupy their premises under tenancies whilst Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 gives these tenants’ rights to renew their tenancy when it would otherwise expire. The review will reconsider Part 2 and will have a particular focus on supporting efficient use of high streets and town centres to ensure the legislation is suitable for the needs of today’s market. A consultation closed on 19 February 2025 and the Law Commission expects to publish a second consultation paper based on the responses received and conclusions they reach. This second consultation paper is yet to be published.

Standing the test of time? Law Commission review of the LTA 1954

The Renter’s Rights Bill (‘RRB’) is predicted to receive Royal Assent in 2025. Once in force, the bill will end non fault evictions and allow tenants who comply with the terms of their tenancy agreement the right to remain in occupation except in limited circumstances such as sale.

Charities should note, in particular, the changes to grounds of possession. To evict a tenant and obtain possession landlords will need to rely on discretionary and mandatory grounds: the RRB introduces some new grounds and also makes changes to existing ones.

For more information see our articles:

Charities: What do you need to know about the Renters Rights Bill?

Leasehold reforms become law – GOV.UK

Renters’ Rights Revamp – Key points for landed estates

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act Published 

Two cases worth noting relating to the formalities for transferring land. In Neocleous v Rees the court held that a string of emails between the parties created an enforceable and binding land sale contract for the purposes of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. In Hudson v Hathway it was held that a signature on an email could be enough to give rise to a common intention constructive trust of property. The key take away is to be very careful we discussing transfers of interests in land in writing and ensure it is marked “subject to contract”.

Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) which involves the parties seeking to negotiate a settlement outside of court. They can be held at any point within a dispute, whether before or after court proceedings started.

The courts have long been keen to encourage parties to attempt mediation and other forms of ADR- and can impose costs sanctions on parties who unreasonably refuse to consider this.

In this recent case, however, it was held that, as well as their power to encourage parties to mediate and impose sanctions where a party unreasonably refuses to, the court can also order parties to mediate. If a court orders a party to mediate and it refuses, the party could be held in contempt of court.

Given this shift in approach, we expect to see more pressure placed upon charities involved in disputes to engage in mediation. Resolving a conflict outside of court could help a charity to avoid the costs and time associated with litigation. Nevertheless, there is a risk that parties who are forced to mediate by courts might attend simply to ‘tick a box’ without making real attempts to settle.

A mediation should be considered at the earliest possible opportunity, but the parties do need enough information available to weigh up the merits of a dispute and make informed decisions on a settlement.

This case involved a long-running dispute between Manchester Ship Canal Company (MSCC) and the sewerage undertaker for the Northwest of England: United Utilities Water Ltd (UU).

The dispute concerned discharges into MSCC from Sewers operated by UU. MSCC threatened to bring a private law claim in nuisance or trespass against UU in respect of unauthorised discharges of untreated foul water by UU into the Canal.

UU argued that the proposed private law claims were ousted by the Water Industry Act 1991 (which provides a statutory enforcement mechanism for breaches of duty by sewerage undertakers). UU was successful before the High Court and CoA, but MSCC then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that where foul water was discharged into watercourses a common law claim for nuisance could be maintained.

The key takeaway of this case for charities is that the effect of the death of the registered owner of the estate being administered, during the required ten-year period, does not operate as a bar to a claim for adverse possession.

Nazir v Begum: Adverse possession and statutory trusts

The Act introduces requirements on those responsible for certain publicly accessible premises and events to implement measures to protect against terrorist attacks.

These legislative changes are especially relevant to charities who host publicly accessible events or maintain premises which are open to the public. The Act:

• Requires certain premises and events to take reasonably practicable actions to mitigate the impact of a terrorist attack and reduce physical harm. Certain larger premises and events in an enhanced tier will also be required to take steps to reduce the vulnerability of the premises to terrorist attacks.
• Mandates, for the first time, who is responsible for considering the risk from terrorism and how they would respond to a terrorist attack at certain premises and events.
• Establishes a regulator to support, advise and guide those responsible for premises and events in meeting the legislative requirements (this will be a new function of the existing Security Industry Authority (SIA)).

For more information see our article: Martyn’s Law receives Royal Assent | Foot Anstey

In the Government’s Autumn Budget, several crucial updates were announced which were expected to impact on the charity sector (in addition to changes to the National Living Wage and employer NI contributions – see People section for comments on these):

Charity tax rules to be tightened – the government intends to introduce stronger anti-abuse measures to prevent smaller charities receiving tax relief in unintended ways. Whilst this may seem overwhelming for charities to keep on top of, the government has also announced that it will collaborate with sector representatives to implement a short-term education programme, which is intended to be available in 2026.

New social impact investment vehicle – the government announced plans to introduce a vehicle which will ‘bring together socially motivated investors, the voluntary sector and the government to tackle complex social problems’. Subsequently, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has established the Social Impact Investment Advisory Group in partnership with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). The Advisory Group will, amongst other things, provide advice on how the Government can use funds effectively to mobilise social impact capital. There will be a spending review published in June 2025.

Simplified local funding landscape – there are plans to reduce the number of local government grants into a simplified ‘Local Government Finance Settlement’. The intention is to enable more effective planning by local authorities.

This Bill is designed to scrap charitable rate relief eligibility for charitable private schools. The government has stood firm with its previously announced plans to scrap VAT and business rates relief for charitable private schools. In March 2025 the House of Lords put forward amendments which included removing clause 5 the removal of relief for private schools. The Government has rejected these amendments and the Bill will now return to the House of Lords for further consideration.

The High Court struck out claims against senior individuals of the charity Leather Inside Out in a claim about alleged failures to comply with data subject access requests under the UK GDPR.

The case involved consideration of whether two senior officers (trustees) and a consultant of the charity were capable of being ‘data controllers’ (for the purposes of Article 15 UK GDPR) in addition to/in replacement of the charity itself. Although the High Court did not reach this conclusion, it did express that officers could potentially be data controllers in their personal capacity.

The Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act came into force on 6 April 2025 gives parents who have babies in neo-natal care within their first 28 days of their life (for seven continuous days or more)

• Statutory neonatal care leave of 1 to 12 weeks.
• Neonatal care pay set at statutory rates, and as per two tiers:
  • Tier one is for the period when the child is still receiving neonatal care.
  • Tier two is for the period outside tier 1 and before the end of 68 weeks from the date of the child’s birth.

This will be a day one right.

ACAS has published new guidance on this area and a good starting point.

This legislation would give an entitlement to paid “safe leave” for victims of domestic abuse.  The proposal is for 10 days paid safe leave.

This is due for a second reading in the House of Commons on 20 June 2025.

On 20 June 2025, this proposed legislation will get a second reading in the House of Commons.  If passed it would place a requirement on employers to take proactive measures to prevent violence and harassment in the workplace and for there to be additional protections for women and girls.

If enacted, this legislation would require the Government to implement a Care Workers Employment Strategy with the aim of improving the recruitment and retention of care workers; to establish an independent National Care Workers Council (which would be responsible for setting professional standards for care workers, establishing a system of professional qualifications and accreditation for care workers) and require the commissioning an independent assessment of the support available to unpaid carers including financial support and employment rights.

This is due for a second reading in the House of Commons on 11 July 2025.

It is proposed that there should be an establishment of an independent office of the whistleblower to protect whistleblowers.  The office would set, monitor and enforce standards for the management of whistleblowing cases, the provide disclosure and advice services, to have powers of investigation and to order redress if found that a whistleblower has suffered some form of detriment.

This is due for a second reading in the House of Commons on 11 July 2025.

Ms Bailey, a criminal law barrister and tenant of Garden Court Chambers (GCC), brought a claim against GCC. Ms Bailey alleged that GCC investigation into her objection of GCC’s joining a Diversity Champion’s programme run by Stonewall, and her launch of an association based on her gender critical beliefs, was discrimination. She also alleged that Stonewall, in breach of section 111 Equality Act 2010, had influenced/attempted to influence GCC’s actions against her.

The Tribunal, and then the EAT, concluded that Stonewall did not induce the GCC to discriminate against Ms Bailey.

The case provides useful clarity as to what ‘causing’ or ‘inducing’ discrimination means in the context of S111 Equality Act 2010. This is useful for charities to prevent liability which could be caused during public campaigning.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, it held that the definitions of “woman”, “man” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex. The definition of “woman” therefore excludes trans women holding a gender recognition certificate (GRC), who remain protected under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment or in relation to their biological sex (or perceived biological sex)

A retired trans judge is reportedly challenging the Supreme Court’s decision in the European Court of Human Rights, alleging an infringement of her Article 6 human rights.

What does “sex” mean under the Equality Act 2010? Previewing the case of For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers in the Supreme Court

An employment tribunal held that a Christian employee’s beliefs that gender cannot be fluid and that an individual cannot change their biological sex or gender were worthy of respect in a democratic society and could therefore be protected beliefs under the Equality Act 2010.  However, the employee had not been directly discriminated against or harassed because of those protected beliefs. She had been disciplined and dismissed because of the inflammatory language used in her Facebook posts which could have led readers to believe that she held homophobic and transphobic beliefs

Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court has been lodged.

Belief and discrimination – key practical takeaways from Higgs v Farmor’s School

An employment tribunal did not uphold claims for discrimination brought by Mr Lister following his dismissal for refusing to use a gender transitioning student’s name and chosen pronouns and for subjecting that student to trans-phobic discrimination and harassment.

An appeal has been lodged at the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

An employment tribunal held that an academic’s anti-Zionist beliefs qualified as a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010 and that his summary dismissal was an act of direct discrimination and unfair.

Due to be heard at the Employment Appeal Tribunal in November 2025.

The EAT held that a volunteer was a worker when attending activities for which they were entitled to remuneration

Currently listed for a hearing at the Court of Appeal in November 2025.

Counterfeit goods can be important for charities to consider as such goods can be harmful to consumers and the charity’s brand reputation.

The European Union (EU) has introduced new measures to help businesses, including those in the UK, to control counterfeit goods entering the region. These initiatives aim to provide practical tools, making it easier for companies and charities to protect their Intellectual Property.

Find out more here: Protect your brand in the EU: how to combat counterfeit goods and strengthen your IP rights

What constitutes Bad faith following the Court of Appeal’s findings in Sky v Skykick was considered in the judgment in Lidl v Tesco. In the latter decision, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s finding that Lidl’s wordless trade mark registrations were filed in bad faith.

After much waiting, the Supreme Court have finally handed down its judgment in SkyKick UK Ltd and another v Sky Ltd and others [2024] UKSC 36. relating to whether or not the filing of broad trade mark specifications can amount to bad faith. The Supreme Court unanimously accepted Skykick’s appeal in part. The most useful takeaway is the court’s confirmation that a trade mark can be revoked on the basis of bad faith if the applicant did not intend to use the mark for all goods and/or services applied for. The judgment contains useful pointers as to how to undertake such an analysis and determination, which largely relies on looking at the whole circumstances surrounding the filing.

The ruling is an important consideration for future trade mark applications and during contentious proceedings.

Find out more here: Is the Sky the Limit? – The Supreme Court’s ruling in Skykick v Sky highlights the importance of genuine use in trade mark registration

The World Intellectual Property Organisation is currently conducting a survey to collect information on:

1. The incidence of bad faith and use of central attack in relation to international trade mark registrations; and
2. Other grounds used to request cancellation of an international trade mark registration due to ceasing of effect of the basic (national or regional) mark.

The deadline for response was 30 April 2025 and will be discussed by the Working Group in September later this year.

To be heard in summer of this year, this case is set to consider key questions relating to the interaction between generative AI models and copyright and database law.

Many will be keeping a close eye on this one in the hope that the outcome provides important clarity and guidance for AI providers and rights holders alike. Please see further commentary on AI in our commercial section.

EU trade marks registered prior to Brexit were cloned onto the UK register post Brexit.

On 31 December 2025, the five-year window to make use of cloned UK trade marks will expire.  Failure to make adequate use will leave the UK mark prone to cancellation.

Charities should check which UK registrations they own are EU cloned marks, ensure they have made (and can demonstrate adequate use) and consider making UK national filings if appropriate.

What constitutes Bad faith following the Court of Appeal’s findings in Sky v Skykick was considered in the judgment in Lidl v Tesco. In the latter decision, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s finding that Lidl’s wordless trade mark registrations were filed in bad faith.

After much waiting, the Supreme Court have finally handed down its judgment in SkyKick UK Ltd and another v Sky Ltd and others [2024] UKSC 36. relating to whether or not the filing of broad trade mark specifications can amount to bad faith. The Supreme Court unanimously accepted Skykick’s appeal in part. The most useful takeaway is the court’s confirmation that a trade mark can be revoked on the basis of bad faith if the applicant did not intend to use the mark for all goods and/or services applied for. The judgment contains useful pointers as to how to undertake such an analysis and determination, which largely relies on looking at the whole circumstances surrounding the filing.

The ruling is an important consideration for future trade mark applications and during contentious proceedings.

Find out more here: Is the Sky the Limit? – The Supreme Court’s ruling in Skykick v Sky highlights the importance of genuine use in trade mark registration

Ofcom on 24 April 2025 published guidance and set out codes of practice as to how organisations can implement the provisions of the Online Safety Act 2023 to ensure children in the UK with have safer online lives.

New rules for a safer generation of children online – Ofcom

The ICO has published a new data protection audit framework to help organisations improve their compliance with data protection laws, accessible here.

As part of the ICO’s ongoing monitoring of the wider AI ecosystem, the ICO recently carried out consensual audit engagements with developers and providers of AI powered sourcing, screening, and selection tools used in recruitment. It is recognised that the use of AI tools in recruitment processes can offer benefits to employers, but their use can also lead to risks for individuals and their privacy and information rights. The ICO published various recommendations to improve compliance ranging from fairness, transparency and explainability, data minimisation and purpose limitation etc.

This Bill put forward by the House of Lords has three core objectives: to grow the economy, improve public services and make people’s lives easier.

The Bill in large part replicates what had been found in a similar piece of legislation introduced by the previous government, but which ran out of time before the last UK election.

Lawful grounds for processing personal data

The legislation would create a new lawful ground for processing personal data of “recognised legitimate interests”. From a charity perspective this might include data for the purposes of ‘safeguarding vulnerable individuals’.

Smart data/open data provisions

The potentially most significant aspect of the Bill (which is rather under reported) are the “smart data” or “open data” provisions. The aspiration here is to create a replica of the “open banking” / Payment Systems Directive II environment but for “consumer data” more generally.

Anyone familiar with open banking / PSD II will know that the implementation of this regulation was very beneficial for “customers” of data in the fintech sector. However, preparing for implementation was very onerous for the supply side.

No soft opt-in exception for charities.

On the 14^th January, the Government amended to the Bill to allow charities, in the same way as other organisations, to send marketing emails/texts to existing supporters.

Generally, a person cannot send an unsolicited direct electronic marketing communication to an individual ‘subscriber’ unless the recipient consents to receive it.

Now, an exception will apply to Charities where:

• The sole purpose of the marketing is to further one of the Charity’s charitable purposes.
• The charity obtained the individual’s contact details in the course of the individual expressing an interest in one of the charity’s charitable purposes/the individual offering to or providing support towards one of those purposes.

The Trading Bulletin | December 2024 | Foot Anstey

The government has announced its intention to introduce a Cyber Security and Resilience Bill in the Kings Speech. This bill is expected to focus on expanding cybersecurity measures, especially in sectors managing sensitive data or critical services. We can expect:

• Support for a more proactive approach by the regulator
• Expanded reporting requirements (such as need to report on ransomware attacks)
• Cost recovery measures
• Expansion of scope to include managed service providers such as IT outsourcing services
• Power for the government to expand the scope of regulation to other services as it sees necessary.

UK Cybersecurity Regulation: what’s next? | Foot Anstey

On 10 April 2025 the Home Office published a cyber security breaches survey aimed at researching the UK’s cyber resilience. The study explored the policies, processes and approach to cyber security, for businesses, charities and educational institutions.

The survey reports that 30% of charities experienced a cybersecurity breach or attack in the previous 12 months, equating to around 61,000 registered charities. According to the report, phishing attacks remain the most common and disruptive for charities.

It is important charities consider and review their cyber resilience and put in place measures and training to mitigate the risks of a cyber-attack.

For more information on protecting your organisation see our article:

Protect your organisation – five lessons from recent cyberattacks | Foot Anstey

The Central YMCA sent an email to individuals participating in a programme for people living with HIV using “CC” rather than “BCC”, revealing the email addresses to all recipients.

166 individuals could be identified or potentially identified from their email address. As a result, it could be inferred that these individuals were likely to be living with HIV. The Central YMCA have been fined £7,500 and issued a reprimand.

Considering the very serious nature of the breach this was a low fine and probably reduced because Central YMCA is a charity / in line with the public sector approach to fining. The ICO has since issued guidance on the use of BCC and charities should ensure that they comply with the relevant guidance when sending bulk communications by email.

Enforcement action | ICO

From April 2025, drivers of electric and low emission cars, vans and motorcycles will need to pay vehicle tax in the same way as petrol and diesel vehicles. Most electric vans will move to the standard annual rate for light goods vehicles, marking the end of the honeymoon period Evs have enjoyed.

While this policy will help to level the playing field for all vehicle types, it will likely lead to higher operating costs for charity retailers, influencing logistics strategies, consumer pricing, and potentially the pace of EV adoption.

Vehicle Excise Duty rates for cars, vans and motorcycles — from 1 April 2025 – GOV.UK

In 2021, the Government proposed to raise the minimum energy efficiency standard to C by 2027 and B by 2030.

The Government is yet to confirm whether it will implement the original plans for commercial properties.

Charities will want to know whether existing property is exempt under the proposed changes and may consider undertaking works to improve their EPC rating in the long term. They will also want to know the standard to which they must construct new properties.

On 24 October 2024, the draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024 were laid in Parliament. The new Regulations will require Extended Producer Responsibility (“EPR”) for packaging in the UK. The Regulations will relate to producers being responsible for the costs of collecting and managing household packaging waste. Many obligations will be on the brand owners, subject to certain thresholds (but can include other classes of producers such as importers, distributors, and online marketplaces).

The Regulations came into force on 1 January 2025. The deadline for producers to register is 1 April 2025.

Packaging waste: producer responsibilities – GOV.UK

The Great British Energy Bill, expected to create a publicly owned company named Great British Energy (GBE), is set to reshape the UK’s energy sector, aiming to make the country a leader in renewable energy.  In light of the Autumn Budget, £125 million will also be allocated Great British Energy in 2025-26.

The Bill remains in progress through Parliament: it completed its passage through the House of Commons on 29 October 2024 and was introduced to the House of Lords on 30 October, with its Second Reading on 18 November.

For charity retailers, the bill could be expected to foster more domestic renewable energy production and encourage the retail sector to offer more green energy products. The bill also emphasises energy efficiency measures which will include incentives for residential and commercial energy-saving technologies.

Great British Energy Bill – Parliamentary Bills – UK Parliament