Utilities & Infrastructure

(Applicable globally)

In April 2025 the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) closed its public consultation on its “Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) professional standard”. Following this consultation, the RICS published a global standard on responsible use of AI in surveying which is set to take effect on 9 March 2026.

This initiative aims to provide clear guidance for RICS members and regulated firms on integrating AI into surveying practices, and to promote accountability across all RICS-regulated sectors.

The key provisions of the standard include:

• Governance & Risk Management – requirement to implement clear policies around data use, AI system governance, and risk documentation.
• Professional Judgment & Oversight – requirement that Surveyors assess the reliability of AI outputs and remain accountable.
• Transparency & Client Communication – inform clients in writing of when and how AI will be used in service delivery.
• Ethical Development of AI.

Comment

This standard will help ethically integrate AI within the built environment. Organisations which are looking to use AI to support asset management, monitoring infrastructure and delivering projects should familiarise themselves and make use of this standard as a framework for using AI transparently and with the necessary accountability.

(Applicable UK-wide)

Summary

The UK government published the four key stages for bringing the provisions of the Data (Use and Access) Act (the “DUAA”) into effect.

Stage 4 is to be implemented in early 2026 with the Data (Use and Access) Act being fully implemented by June 2026.

Stage 4 will involve the implementation of provisions that:

• restructure the ICO;
• introduce a new electronic system for registering births and deaths and, most importantly for utility and infrastructure providers; and
• most importantly for utility and infrastructure providers, will impact the National Underground Asset Register (NUAR).

Comment

Implementation of Stage 4 of the Data (Use and Access) Act will introduce a statutory obligation for owners of underground apparatus to upload data to the National Underground Asset Register (NUAR), replacing today’s fragmented system of individual information requests.

With approximately 4 million kilometres of underground pipes and cables in the UK and 60,000 accidental strikes each year, NUAR will provide accurate, standardised, and up-to-date information to those carrying out street works—significantly improving safety and operational efficiency.

The legislation also requires asset owners to contribute to NUAR’s operational costs, ensuring the service remains sustainable without taxpayer reliance. Beyond compliance, NUAR’s enhanced capabilities will enable broader applications of its data under strict security and governance principles, supporting innovation and future infrastructure initiatives.

Utilities and infrastructure providers should, therefore, be aware that they will likely be legally required to supply data and share the operational costs of running the NUAR. Compliance will involve integrating asset information into NUAR, updating data governance processes, and budgeting for ongoing service fees. Acting early will reduce operational risk, improve safety, and unlock opportunities for smarter planning and maintenance.

(Applicable to England and Wales)

Summary

Following the Government’s confirmation that it is to overhaul the rules that allow legal challenges to decisions on major infrastructure including reservoirs, nuclear plants, trainlines and windfarms, the measures have now been incorporated into the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025.

The previous rules mean unarguable cases can be brought back to the courts three times, causing years of delay and additional costs to projects, while also clogging up the courts.

The new rules allow one attempt at legal challenge for cynical cases lodged purely to cause delay. Now, where a judge in an oral hearing at the High Court deems the case totally without merit, it will not be possible to ask the Court of Appeal to reconsider. To ensure ongoing access to justice, a request to appeal second attempt will be allowed for other cases.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

In November 2025 the High Court ruled that Britain’s decision to issue more than two dozen oil and gas exploration licences was lawful.

Oceana UK, a marine conservation organisation, brought the case over 28 licences granted in May 2024, arguing that there had not been a proper assessment of the risk to protected marine life.

Britain’s energy department opposed the case. However, it should be noted that the (successful) opposition was based on the licences only being for early exploration and not for extraction at this stage.

(Applicable England and Wales)

Summary

This case concerned service of a notice of claim to acquire the right to management under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (the Act) by Tudor Studios RTM Company Limited (Tudor). The Act required Tudor to serve a notice of claim on each person who was a landlord under a lease of the whole or part of the premises.

Tudor did not serve a notice on A1 Properties (Sunderland) Limited (A1) who held 4 leases of the common parts. The reason Tudor did not do so was that A1 did not have any management responsibilities in relation to those leases as it had underlet all the areas to a management company who was responsible for the whole estate.

The management company served a counter-notice on Tudor objecting to it acquiring a right to manage on the basis it had not served the claim notice on A1.

The Supreme Court ultimately held that failure to serve a claim notice on one landlord did not automatically prevent the transfer of the right to manage to under the Act.

The Supreme Court decided that, as the Act didn’t set out the express consequences for non-compliance, the Court needed to consider what consequence of non-compliance fit the Act as a whole.

Comment

The Court held the failure to give notice of the claim to the landlord in this case made the transfer of the right to manage voidable but not automatically void from the outset, and noted that, as in this case, A1 had been joined to proceedings at an early stage, A1 had already had an opportunity to object to the acquisition of the right to manage.

The decision has wider importance in that it has set out the approach courts should use in deciding on the consequences of parties failing to comply with a statutory framework where Parliament hasn’t expressly set these out.

Issues around procedural compliance are quite common in property matters. Whilst this case does clarify the test to be applied in certain cases of non-compliance; it is a further reminder to Stakeholders of the need to comply with all statutory requirements when serving notices or taking other action under property legislation. The consequences of not getting this right could be expensive and time-consuming.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

Summary

Planning permission for a hyperscale data centre to be built on green belt land in Iver, Buckinghamshire was granted in July 2025.

On 21 August 2025 environmental charity Global Action Plan and civil society group Foxglove confirmed they had filed a formal legal action against the government’s decision to grant Greystoke the green light to proceed with the project because no environmental impact assessment for the build had taken place.

On 23 January 2026, the government conceded in the High Court that it had made a material error in granting planning permission for the data centre complex in Iver, without requiring a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), paving the way for the permission to be quashed.

Comment

The UK’s data centre sector is entering a critical phase as planning policy, environmental scrutiny and digital‑infrastructure priorities converge.

This high‑profile legal error over a hyperscale data centre approval has highlighted growing concerns around electricity demand, water use and climate impacts. With data centres now classed as Critical National Infrastructure (CNI) and recently brought within the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) regime, developers may seek Development Consent Order (DCO) routes to avoid inconsistent local decisions.

However, delays and uncertainty remain until a new National Policy Statement clarifies how need, environmental effects and community impacts will be balanced.

Overall, developers face rising regulatory scrutiny amid strong governmental pressure to accelerate delivery.

Please see our article here for further details.

(Applicable to England and Wales)

The Government published a consultation on corporate civil enforcement reforms, which is seeking views about reform options for tackling corporate misconduct.

Comment

Responses to the consultation are to be submitted by 17 June 2026.

(Applicable to England and Wales)

In March 2026, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) published Guidance on Improving the quality of ‘comply or explain’ reporting in relation to the UK Corporate Governance Code.

The guidance seeks to offer advice to companies to demonstrate transparency and clarity when provisions of the code have been complied with or departed from. The FRC provides a checklist for companies to follow when providing an explanation of why departure from the code was justified.

(Applicable to England and Wales)

From 1 February 2026, fees have changed, including:

– incorporation digital filing fee has changed to £100;
– confirmation statement digital filing fee has changed to £50; and
– voluntary strike off digital filing fee has changed to £13.

Comment

Some Companies House filing fees changed on 1 February 2026

(Applicable to England)

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act received royal assent on 29 April 2026. The Act introduces some far-reaching reforms including:

– Introducing strategic mayor-led authorities across the entirety of England. These Strategic Authorities will have planning powers that span localities, in a return to strategic planning. The government hope this will speed up approval of significant infrastructure projects.

– All mayoral authorities (outside of London) have mandatory Local Growth Plans (LGPs) which set out their areas of focus for economic growth and investment projects.

– There are new planning powers for the new elected mayors. They will be able to ‘call in’ strategic planning applications as is currently done by the GLA in London to try and streamline essential regeneration projects.

– The two-tier council system has been restructured to create combined unitary authorities across the country.

– Introduction of a Mayor’s Community Infrastructure Levy to sit alongside existing CIL schedules.

The Act introduced a ban on upwards-only rent review following discussion on this favouring landlords and putting tenants in an unfavourable position. There  are also new restrictions on underletting clauses in existing leases.

If a superior lease includes terms that would require an upwards-only rent review as a requirement in an underlease, this requirement would not be effective. Furthermore, if such provisions are contained in superior leases, it appears this will also affect the Landlord’s ability to have a say in respect of other requirements relating to rent review terms being included in the underlease (including terms such as the rent review mirroring the headlease).

The scope of tenancies captured by the ban has also been amended to catch tenancies to which Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 apply or would apply if the tenant was in occupation (for business purposes and where permitted by the tenancy).  This ensures subleases of whole premises are captured.

Comment

Landlords may seek to vary existing leases prior to this ban to ensure they retain control over rent review terms contained in underleases.

(Applicable to England, Wales and Scotland)

The government has consulted on reforms to the electricity demand connection process with the use of new powers in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. The consultation has closed on 15 April 2026.

A key proposal is to improve the utilisation of data centres in terms of how they connect to the energy system. Furthermore, the government proposes to establish a way of prioritising network capacity. With improvements to how the energy system is leveraged, the government relays that measures implemented could positively impact projects such as data centres and AI Growth Zones.

(Applicable to England)

From 1 April 2026, the expedited written representations procedure under the Town and Country Planning (Appeals) (Written Representations Procedure) (England) Regulations 2009 (Statutory Instrument 2009/452) (as amended) applies to all section 78 planning appeals arising from applications submitted on or after that date.

This means that for appellants who wish to pursue a section 78 appeal, it is crucial that all relevant details are submitted at the onset of the process; this is because new documents will not be accepted while the appeal is ongoing.

Comment

Developers should ensure that material submitted at the onset of an appeal is fully evidenced with a view to addressing any points of contention during the process.

(Applicable to England)

Following a planning appeal in March, planning approval was given for a battery energy storage system (BESS) in the green belt area of Keston, London.

Using the appeal site for the purpose of installing a BESS was contested on numerous grounds, including how such a structure could disrupt the existing character of the location with its more mechanical appearance and how the purpose of designating green belt land is to prevent such developments from becoming fixtures in more rural areas.

On the contrary, it was argued that allowing the BESS would be a positive addition in meeting the government’s wider net-zero target. Furthermore, a scheme of alternative nesting and foraging land just over a half a mile from the appeal site was proposed to lessen any negative consequences that could stem from the BESS.

The appeal was ultimately upheld, with its capacity to further the net-zero policy aim being a significant point. 

Comment

Developers considering energy infrastructure projects should not rule out green belt land as a hard and fast practice; where a developer can demonstrate sufficient public policy interest in a project and propose measures to help minimise the impact of changes to green belt land, the project may be given the green light to proceed.

(Applicable to Wales)

On 3 February 2026, the Welsh Government published its green paper Shaping the Future of Water Governance in Wales. The consultation on the green paper closed on 7 April 2026.

The headline proposal is a new Welsh water regulator exercising economic regulatory functions. The policy aim behind the reform is to tackle the issue of increasingly outdated infrastructure with increasing maintenance burdens and to ensure Wales is better placed to contribute to minimising any contribution to climate change.

The paper proposes working with the UK Government to secure the required devolved powers to put Welsh water reforms into action, which could involve pushing forward a new Water Bill depending on the outcome of collaboration with the UK Government.

Comment

This looks likely to herald a growing divergence between the English and Welsh regulatory systems particularly in the water sector. Those working in Wales should watch this space following the closure of the consultation.

(Applicable to Wales)

On 2 March 2026, the Welsh Government published a best practice guide for pre-application consultation on Significant Infrastructure Projects (SIPs) under the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024. It is positioned as a practice guide for developers and relevant stakeholders. The document encourages applicants to go beyond statutory minimum requirements and home in on how projects impact their locality. Areas covered within the guidance include stakeholder mapping, reaching underrepresented groups, Welsh language inclusion and phased engagement across the 18-month pre-submission window.

Comment

Developers with interest in SIPs located in Wales can access the guide here.

On 15 April 2026, Defra published its response to the 2025 consultation on improving BNG for minor, medium and brownfield development. A key outcome is a new area-based exemption: any site of 0.2 hectares or less within a red line boundary will fall outside of the BNG requirement. The government estimates this will remove around half of residential planning permissions caught by the regime.

Defra also intends to remove the exemption applicable to developments under the categories of small-scale self-builds and custom builds, noting that most participants in the consultation were in favour of this change and that the change will ease pressure on local authorities.

A full publication of the response to the consultation is located here.

(Applicable to Wales)

The Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets) (Wales) Bill was subject to Royal Assent on April 27 2026. Now, it has become the Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets) (Wales) Act 2026 (the ‘Act’).

A key aspect of the Act is the introduction of the Office of Environmental Governance Wales (OGEW). This independent body will be responsible for monitoring any compliance with environmental law by public bodies in Wales. Furthermore, the OEGW.

The Act also imposes a responsibility on Welsh Ministers to establish targets for biodiversity in Wales. Welsh Ministers will also be responsible for raising the profile of biodiversity and highlighting anything that could impede it. This comes in response to a downturn in the prioritisation of biodiversity in Wales, which the Act aims to counteract.

(Applicable to Wales)

A second commencement order under the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024 took effect on 16 March 2026, activating further parts of the legislation. There are two regulations introduced as part of the commencement order.

One regulation introduces processes regarding the rectification of Infrastructure Consent Orders (ICOs); for example, if a mistake has been made within an ICO and a change becomes necessary, there is guidance within the regulation on how this can be achieved.

The other regulation concerns compensation in an instance where a Welsh Minister has had to entirely repeal a previously made ICO or alter it in some way. In particular, the regulation establishes a channel for how an applicant can pursue compensation should such an event occur.

Comment

These are welcome changes that will be important as the new consenting regime beds in.

(Applicable to Wales)

Summary

In a bid to strengthen the building control system in Wales, the Welsh Government has introduced various regulations which are similar to those already in force in England in some aspects.

Two key elements of these regulations are:

1. Setting out a new regime relating to building work on higher-risk buildings.
2. Introducing duty holder obligations that will apply to all building work under the regulations

The Welsh Government only requires a regulated building to have at one residential unit, whereas the equivalent regulations in England require the building to have at least two residential units.

A fundamental difference between both regimes is that the Welsh Government proposes a local authority serves as the building control approver for higher risk buildings work, whereas in England this function is performed by the Building Safety Regulator.

These regulations are set to come in force on 1 July 2026.

Comment

The strengthening of building control can lead to a decrease in appetite among building investors to some extent, as there are now more regulations to abide by. However, to a larger extent, this can increase investor appetite as building safety is higher, leading to greater confidence in the success of investments.

Additional properties in Wales may need advice on these changes, as higher risk buildings in this area require fewer residential units compared to England thereby leading to a rise in commercial property leases within such buildings.

(Applicable to England)

Summary

In spring of 2026, the Law Commission expects to publish a second consultation regarding the issue of modernising the renewal of business tenancies under the 1954 Landlord and Tenant Act. At the moment, many tenants opt out of the security of tenure provisions of the Act.

However, modern events such as the Covid-19 pandemic, the rise of online retail services and the increased focus on the environmental sustainability of commercial properties show that the Act is not working well for landlord’s or tenants and is standing in the way of modern commercial practices.

They have published an interim statement setting out their findings of an initial consultation concluding that there should be no changes to the security of tenure model, however, the threshold of a tenancy’s duration for exclusion from the Act should be increased from 6 months (in their second consultation paper, they anticipate consulting on increasing this threshold duration of a tenancy to 2 years).  The second consultation paper (expected in Spring 2026) will focus on the technical detail of potential reform of the LTA 1954.

Comment

It seems that reaching the conclusion of not changing the security of tenure model reflects the reality that few tenants resist opting out of this as it provides clarity on when they can end or renew their leases.

BNG is currently only mandatory for developments subject to the TCPA, which means that NSIPs (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects) are exempt. This will change in November 2026, when the mandatory regime is due to extend to NSIPs. We can expect to see a surge in interest in BNG credits, with the possibility that demand may drive down the overall price of the off-site credits.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

The Supreme Court is considering the extent to which rights granted over land can properly constitute easements, in particular focusing on the application of the “ouster principle”. This case will examine whether rights which confer extensive use and control over land cross the line into de facto possession and whether such rights are disqualified as an easements. The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to clarify the legal boundary between permissible rights and arrangements and those which amount to exclusive possession.

Comment

The Supreme Court’s ruling has the potential to significantly reshape the law on easements, particularly where infrastructure projects often require intensive operational rights. A stricter application of the ouster principle could raise issues and concerns in respect of commonly used arrangements for substations and other utility installations. All developers and operators should monitor the outcome closely and, in the interim, ensure that rights are carefully drafted to avoid granting and/or reserving rights that could amount to exclusive possession of servient land.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) considered the circumstances in which a site provider can rely on redevelopment grounds to terminate Code rights under the Electronic Communications Code. The Tribunal confirmed that a landowner must demonstrate a genuine and settled intention to carry out a specific and deliverable redevelopment scheme. A mere intention to remove apparatus, or a loosely defined future use, will not be sufficient to justify termination.

Comment

The Upper Tribunal’s ruling reinforces the “operator friendly” nature of the Electronic Communications Code and the high standard landowners are expected to meet in order to recover possession of their land. In practice, termination on development grounds will only succeed if landowners can evidence a credible, viable, and expident schemes. The ruling highlights the strength of the security of tenure provisions for telecoms operators and the need for landowners to take early strategic advice when considering redevelopment involving Code agreements.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) clarified the scope of its jurisdiction under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The Upper Tribunal confirming that while it has the power to modify or discharge restrictive covenants, it has no equivalent jurisdiction in respect of easements. The decision emphasises the fundamental legal distinction between these two land rights.

Comment

The Upper Tribunal’s ruling highlights a critical limitation in the tools available to developers and infrastructure providers when addressing defective or restrictive land rights. Whilst restrictive covenants may be modified through Tribunal proceedings, easements remain inflexible and must be resolved through negotiation or alternative re-structuring. The ruling highlights the importance of conducting thorough due diligence and engaging in proactive risk management at the acquisition and planning stages, particularly where access or operational rights are essential to the delivery of projects.

(Applicable to England, Wales and Northern Ireland)

Summary

In 2025 DESNZ sought feedback from organisations in the Energy & Infrastructure sector on its proposal to mandate the introduction of solar canopies on new outdoor car parks in both public and private ownership.

This call for evidence closed on 18 June 2025 and on 26 November 2025 DESNZ published their initial response.

The UK government has recently opted not to go ahead with the installation of solar panels in car parks, with cost issues associated with installing solar canopies being a contributor to the decision.

(Applicable UK-wide)

The government launched a consultation in July 2025 in relation to proposals to reform poor payment practices in business-to-business relations. Noting that healthy cash flow benefits businesses and the wider economy, and that over 1.5 million businesses are affected by late payments costing the UK economy almost £11 billion a year, the government is seeking to tackle:
•   late payments;
•   long payment terms;
•   disputed payments; and
•   unfair practice around retention payments.

The consultation sought feedback on a number of potential measures to tackle the main issues identified, but notably for the construction industry, proposed amendments to Part 2 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (the “Construction Act”) to either prohibit the use of retention or introduce requirements to protect retention funds deducted and withheld from insolvency and late/non-payment.

The consultation closed in October 2025 and results were published on 24 March 2026.

Please find the consultation results here.

Comment

As a result of the consultation the government will now seek to draft legislation to introduce the following changes:

1. introducing audit committees and board-level scrutiny of payment practices at large companies;
2. introducing maximum payment terms (limiting payment terms between businesses to 60 days) with limited exceptions e.g. goods are being imported, both parties are large companies, or the purchaser is the smaller company;
3. introducing a set period for disputing invoices;
4. making statutory interest mandatory on late payments at 8% above Bank of England base rate;
5. requiring additional reporting on statutory interest;
6. enforcing financial penalties for persistent late payers;
7. introducing additional powers for the Small Business Commissioner (designed to improve their ability to conduct investigations into poor business-to-business payment behaviour);
8. prohibition of the use of retention clauses in construction contracts.

All of the proposed measures would impact on the construction supply chain, though it is possibly the proposed changes to retention that will cause the biggest shake-up, given that these are routinely used throughout the construction industry and their removal will force parties to consider alternative means of security. The government intends to consult further on the impact of this measure before making a final decision on implementation. However, it is anticipated that there will be a 12-24 month transitional period before any legislation is in force.

In the King’s Speech in May, The Small Business Protections (Late Payments) Bill was noted. This Bill aims to tackle the burden of cash-flow issues induced by late payments on the economy, with the strain being felt particularly by smaller businesses with less capital.

On 25 February 2026 the UK Government published a consultation on the proposed reform of the regulation of construction products. The consultation seeks views on:

1. expanding the current construction products regulatory regime;
2. the introduction of a “general safety requirement” for currently unregulated products; and
3. the provision of enforcement powers to the national regulator for construction products.

Key proposals include:

1. mandatory risk assessment by manufacturers of products;
2. provision of clear product information;
3. labelling and traceability with unique identifiers to facilitate recalls;
4. record keeping of risk assessments, product documentation and safety incident records for 10 years;
5. safe storage and transportation;
6. obligations on importers and distributors;
7. monitoring of safety issues; and
8. enhanced powers for the national regulator to enforce including market surveillance, investigatory powers, and proportionate intervention measures.

The proposals for sanctions for breach of the regulations include monetary penalties, cost recovery, and criminal offences for serious breaches.

Comment

Like many new/reformed building safety measures in recent years, this is part of the Government’s response to Grenfell. The regulation of construction products has been impacted by the UK leaving the EU as many of the product safety regulations were mandated by EU law and have not been materially updated since then.

The consultation closed on 20 May 2026, with new regulations aiming to be introduced by the end of 2026 and coming into force in late 2027.

Please find information on the consultation here.

(Applicable UK-wide)

On the 1^st of April 2026 the government introduced new legislative requirements under the Procurement Act 2023:
1.   section 69 (payments compliance notices);
2.   section 70 (information about payments under public contracts): and
3.   section 71 (assessment of contract performance).

Comment

These provisions will inevitably increase the administrative burden on contracting authorities, and timeframes for compliance will need to be taken into consideration.

For example, in relation to section 70 the contracting authority will need to:
–   publish information about payments made under public contracts that exceed £30,000 including VAT; and
–   publish this information quarterly.

There are limited exceptions to the above under section 70 e.g. the publishing of this information does not extend to a utilities contract awarded by a private utility, a concession contract, or a public contract awarded by a school etc. However, there is some guidance where contracts are awarded in lots, where there are framework provisions, and in relation to grouping payments.

Section 70 will apply to contracts where the procurement of that contract commenced on or after 1 April 2026.

Sections 69 and 71 have been in force since 1st January 2026.

(Applicable UK-wide)

On 23 March 2026 the UK Government’s Department for Work and Pensions published a consultation seeking views on the proposal to combine the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board (ECITB) and the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) to create a single, unified “Industry Training Board” (ITB).

Some of the reasons for the proposed reform include:
•  Too few people entering the workforce;
•  Experienced workers leaving at all stages of their career (research suggests more people are leaving the construction workforce each year than joining);
•  Lack of skills is a significant barrier to employment;
•  Skills shortages are a critical constraint on productivity growth;
•  Transferability of skills within the workforce hampered by lack of recognition.

Comment

The Government wants to encourage more workers into (and to stay in) the construction industry. This is a vital part of the Government’s commitment to delivering 1.5 million homes. The construction industry contributes a huge amount to the UK economy, enabling productivity in other sectors and providing workers with jobs.

The proposed single and unified training board will provide training programmes and education on routes into various professions within the industry to encourage transparency and uptake.

Please find information on the consultation here.

(Applicable UK-wide)

In Paragon Group Ltd v FK Facades [2026] EWHC 78 (TCC), the Technology and Construction Court faced the novel question of who may exercise the right to adjudicate where rights under a construction contract have been assigned.

In this case the original Employer had assigned its rights under the contract to Paragon. The works were delayed and Paragon commenced adjudication to recover liquidated damages from FK Facades. The adjudicator made an award in Paragon’s favour and ordered FK Facades to pay the adjudicator’s costs. However, FK Facades asserted that Paragon had no right to refer the dispute to adjudication as it was not an original party to the contract.

The main issue for the Court to decide was whether an assignee qualifies as a “party” for the purposes of the statutory right to refer to adjudication under section 108(1) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (as amended) (“the Construction Act”).

The Court found that a valid assignment of contractual rights will generally include the right to adjudicate and if parties want to restrict this right then it must be clearly drafted.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

Summary

In the case of High Tech Construction Ltd v WLP Trading and Marketing Ltd [2025] 3209 (TCC) the court considered the question of whether a freezing order to prevent disposal of assets of a party to an adjudication is appropriate.

Comment

If a party to whom another party owes money (creditor) thinks that the party who owes the money (debtor) is at risk of insolvency and might start dissipating assets so that it may not be in a position to satisfy a judgment order, then the creditor can apply to the court for a freezing order to stop the debtor getting rid of its assets until the judgment is received. This is a procedure creditors may need to consider if it suspects there is a risk of insolvency of the debtor during court proceedings to recover the debt. However, this is not common procedure in adjudication.

In this case, the parties had adjudicated for unpaid work and the creditor was successful in the adjudication but the debtor still did not pay. The creditor then sought a freezing order pending enforcement of the adjudication decision.

This case serves as a reminder that a party who is owed money should consider carefully whether it will be able to enforce a judgment/decision if it looks like the debtor is at risk of insolvency, and that this also applies to adjudication decisions.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

Summary

The updated National Living Wage (NLW) and National Minimum Wage (NMW) rates has taken effect from April 2026. The NLW, applicable to workers aged 21 and over, increased from £12.21 to £12.71 per hour.

Other notable raises include:

• An increase of 50p (4.1%) to the NLW for those aged 21 and above, bringing the rate to £12.71 per hour.
• An increase of 85p (8.5%) for workers aged 18–20, raising the hourly rate from £10.00 to £10.85.
• An increase of 45p (6%) for 16–17-year-olds and apprentices, moving the rate from £7.55 to £8.00 per hour.

Comment

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

(Applicable to England, Wales & Scotland)

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

• The limit on the compensatory award for unfair dismissal increased from £118,223 to £123,543. This is likely to be the last such increase since the cap on the compensatory award is to be removed by the Employment Rights Act in 2027);
• The limit on a week’s pay for the purpose of calculating, among other things, statutory redundancy payments and the basic award for unfair dismissal, increased from £719 to £751;
• Guarantee pay, applicable to employees during lay off or short time working, increased from £39 to £41 per day; and
• The minimum basic award in cases where a dismissal is unfair by virtue of certain health and safety, working time, employee representative, trade union, or occupational pension trustee reasons, increased from £8,763 to £9,157.Please note that these rates will only take effect where the ‘appropriate date’ for the cause of action falls on or after 6th April 2026 (the appropriate date here is subject to the specific cause of action, for instance, in an unfair dismissal claim it will be the effective date of termination). The old limits still apply where the appropriate date falls before the 6th April 2026.

Comment

Employers should also be aware that timing matters: the new limits apply only where the claim’s “appropriate date” falls on or after 6 April.

(Applicable to England, Wales & Scotland)

On 5th March 2026, the Government released the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules HC 1691, impacting several immigration routes. For a summary of the key changes that businesses and sponsors need to be aware of, please see our article here.

In particular, sponsors should note a major shift in the way that Skilled Workers are expected to be paid to ensure compliance and consistency. For Certificates of Sponsorship (CoS) issued on or after 8 April 2026, sponsors must ensure those Skilled Workers receive the required salary in each pay period, which should be at least a monthly frequency or as otherwise specified in the worker’s contract, rather than relying on annual salary calculations. This means that sponsors must ensure that both the minimum salary threshold and the applicable hourly going rate must be satisfied within each pay period, rather than waiting until the end of the year to check.

In addition, on 6th March 2026, the Home Office published updated versions of each of the three principal Worker and Temporary Worker Sponsor Guidance documents along with an updated Appendix D (record keeping) and the Sponsor a Skilled Worker guidance. The changes include the Home Office noting the requirement for both prospective and existing sponsors to read all parts of the sponsor guidance and keep up with changes to ensure compliance with sponsorship duties.

For a summary of the key changes that sponsors need to be aware of, please see our article here.

In particular, sponsors should note:

• the changes to the requirements for a job role to be eligible for sponsorship;
• the importance of ensuring the job description on a worker’s CoS accurately reflects the role they will be doing;
• the explicit reference to sponsors’ responsibility to ensure worker’s rights and welfare, which extends to ensuring that workers understand their employment rights, including having processes in place and records retained to demonstrate that this information has been provided to sponsored employees or workers; and
• the clarification that the requirement to check a sponsored worker’s right to work extends to any worker engaged by the sponsor, including those who are not the sponsor’s direct employee.

Comment

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

(Applicable UK-wide)

In relation to the changes to Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) which came into force in April 2026, the Government has published guidance on the changes, covering the steps employers needed to take in advance of the changes and guidance on transitional arrangements that applied to employees that are on sickness absence before 6 April 2026 which ended on or after 6 April 2026.

(Applicable UK-wide)

Summary

The Government has introduced new statutory rates for sick pay and family leave pay, effective from 6 April 2026.

For family leave, the weekly rate increased from £187.18 to £194.32.

For sick pay, the weekly rate increased from £118.75 to £123.25. In addition, the Lower Earnings Limit increased from £125.00 or more per week to £129.00 or more per week. The updated figures reflect a 3.8% rise in line with the consumer price index to September 2025.

Comment

It’s important for employers to review their current policies, assess the financial implications and ensure payroll systems have been updated promptly. These updates took effect from the start of the 2026-2027 tax year, and will have a substantial impact on payroll costs, family leave budgets and HR systems.

(Applicable UK-wide)

Summary

The Employment Rights Act has been touted as the most significant piece of employment legislation in a generation. It’s set to introduce significant and sweeping changes across all areas of employment law.

The changes as of April 2026 are outlined below:

– Changes for Statutory Sick Pay regulations. SSP is payable from day 1 of absence and the lower earnings threshold is being removed, such that low earners will now also be eligible for statutory sick pay (at the lower of the statutory rate or 80% of their normal earnings).

– The ERA 2025 will remove the qualifying service requirements for paternity leave and unpaid parental leave. This means that there are day one rights to paternity leave and unpaid parental leave.

– The ERA 2025 has simplified the Trade Union recognition process and introduced electronic workplace balloting. These amendments make the recognition process less burdensome and helps ensure that Trade Unions can organise industrial action more efficiently.

– Under prior law, if an employer failed to consult properly when making collective redundancies, employees may have been entitled to a “protective award” (a penalty payment). As of April 2026, this award has doubled from 90 days’ (gross, uncapped) pay to 180 days’ (gross, uncapped) pay and significantly increases the financial risk for employers.

– Introduction of a ‘Fair Work Agency’. The main purpose of this new agency is to enforce labour market rights, support compliance, and potentially monitor or intervene in employment rights matters.

– Extension of whistleblowing protections, to explicitly provide that any complaint of sexual harassment amounts to a protected disclosure.

(Applicable UK-wide)

Summary

The Government has announced proposed new statutory rates for sick pay and family leave pay, effective from 6 April 2026.

For family leave, the weekly rate will increase from £187.18 to £194.32.

For sick pay, the weekly rate will increase from £118.75 to £123.25. In addition, the Lower Earnings Limit is also set to increase from £125.00 or more per week, to £129.00 or more per week. The updated figures reflect a 3.8% rise in line with the consumer price index to September 2025.

Comment

It’s important for employers to review their current policies, assess the financial implications and ensure payroll systems are updated promptly. These updates will all take affect from the start of the 2026-2027 tax year, and will have a substantial impact on payroll costs, family leave budgets and HR systems.

(Applicable to England and Wales)

The Statutory Code of Practice on Two-Tier Workforces, which is due to be implemented in October 2026, is expected to:

• promote harmonisation of terms and conditions between transferred and non-transferred staff post-TUPE;
• encourage consultation and transparency in public service outsourcing and re-tendering arrangements;
• require contracting authorities and providers to include fair treatment provisions in contracts; and
• enable employment tribunals to uplift compensation by up to 25% where there is non-compliance with the Code.

For a detailed breakdown of this case, please read our article here.

The amendments coming into effect from October 2026 are set to include:

• Fire/Re-Hire: any dismissal of an employee for a refusal to accept changes to any employment terms relating to pay, working hours, pension, shift times, shift lengths, time off and any other changes to be defined in regulations, will be automatically unfair, save where the employer is essentially facing insolvency.
• TUPE: new regulations will be introduced for suppliers to follow a new code preventing a “two-tier workforce,” relating to public sector outsourced workers.
• Tipping: tightened and more transparent tipping law regulations. This will ensure that 100% of tips and service charge go to workers.
• Trade Unions: A new duty to be imposed on employers, ensuring that they inform workers of their right to join a trade union.
• Trade Unions: TUs to gain strengthened rights of access, ensuring that they can gain improved access to workplaces and speak with, recruit and organise members.
• Sexual harassment: new regulations which will mean employers must take “all reasonable steps” to prevent sexual harassment of their employees.
• Third-party harassment: Employers will be held responsible for preventing harassment of staff by customers, clients, or other third parties.
• Trade Unions: Trade union representatives set to receive stronger protection and support to carry out their duties both efficiently and effectively.
• ET Limits: Time limits for bringing certain employment claims are set to be extended, ensuring that workers have more opportunity to pursue cases. The current 3 month deadline for most current claims will increase to 6 months.

The amendments coming into effect from October 2027 will include:

• Unfair Dismissal:
  Day one unfair dismissal rights have been dropped; a six-month qualifying period will be implemented instead.
  Removal of the compensation cap – anticipated in January 2027

• Zero hours workers – guaranteed hours, reasonable notice and compensation for cancelled shifts: Workers will have the right to be paid if a shift is cancelled, moved to another date, or cut short by an employer at late notice.
• Increased pregnancy and maternity rights.
• New right to statutory bereavement leave.
• Flexible Working: Employers rejecting requests will have to:
  State reasons
  Explain why refusal is reasonable

• Mandatory Action Plans: Gender pay gap and menopause action plans will become compulsory.
• Collective Redundancy: An additional threshold trigger will be introduced – likely to be a minimum number of percentages across an employer’s entire workforce, irrespective of establishment.

Comment

Employers should start reviewing their contracts, handbooks, and compliance frameworks now to ensure readiness for the April 2026 changes and beyond.

Early planning will help mitigate financial and reputational risks, particularly given the significant increase in potential penalties and the introduction of new mandatory obligations.

It is worth noting that major changes to unfair dismissal, zero-hours contract rights and collective consultation obligations are being pushed back to 2027. This allows some breathing time for employers to come to terms with and prepare for the new changes.

Please see further Employment Rights Act 2025 updates in Q4 2026 for further details.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

Summary

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that employers do not need to count past redundancies when deciding if the 20-dismissal threshold for collective consultation under Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act is met.

The EAT has confirmed that the question is whether the employer at some stage was “proposing” the threshold number of dismissals within the relevant time. Accordingly, separate redundancy exercises may not trigger collective consultation and tribunals will assess on the facts whether proposals were linked.

Comments

It’s important for employers to remain cautious when it comes to collective redundancies, because non-compliance risks will increase from April 2026 when protective awards double, not to mention after the further reform that is expected in 2027.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

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. Although the case concerned the NHS bringing outsourced services back in-house, the EAT confirmed that the legal principles on indirect discrimination and post-transfer treatment apply broadly, including to service provision changes, re‑tendering exercises, and business transfers. 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 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.

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. The Code is expected to:

• promote harmonisation of terms and conditions between transferred and non-transferred staff post-TUPE;
• encourage consultation and transparency in public service outsourcing and re-tendering arrangements;
• require contracting authorities and providers to include fair treatment provisions in contracts; and

enable employment tribunals to uplift compensation by up to 25% where there is non-compliance with the Code.

For a detailed breakdown of this case, please read our article here.

Comment

We recommend employers ensure that they are auditing transferred staff’s employment terms, assessing any discriminatory impacts (e.g. identifying whether transferred staff disproportionately share any protected characteristic), checking whether variation of terms is legally possible post-transfer, and preparing a time-bound plan with consultation (where applicable) and documented rationale. In anticipation for the upcoming Two-Tier Code, we recommend employers update internal policies and draft guidance to identify and address term disparities, harmonise fairly, and consult appropriately.

(Applicable UK-wide)

RICS’ first global professional standard on the responsible use of artificial intelligence in surveying practice came into force on 9 March 2026. The standard establishes mandatory requirements for RICS members and regulated firms across four key areas (1) governance and risk management (2)  professional judgement and oversight (3) transparency and client communication (4) and responsible AI development. It outlines expectations for AI‑related policies, data governance, procurement due diligence and ongoing assurance. Members must maintain AI risk registers, assess the suitability of AI outputs, and document decisions where outputs materially impact surveying services.

Comment

The introduction of this standard represents a significant shift in the professional expectations placed on surveying practices using AI. Clients using AI surveying services may increasingly expect evidence of compliance with these standards, making early adoption and integration beneficial from both a risk and competitive standpoint.

(Applicable UK-wide)

The Independent Anti‑Slavery Commissioner has published a detailed report calling for a thorough renovation of the UK’s human rights and forced labour laws. The report concludes that the UK’s current transparency framework under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 is fragmented, weakly enforced, and outpaced by international partners.  Proposed reforms include (1) a statutory failure‑to‑prevent duty covering serious human rights harms across global value chains, (2) a due‑diligence defence based on risk‑based processes, (3) substantial civil penalties of up to 5% of global turnover, (4) criminal liability for serious abuses, and (5) a UK‑wide ban on the import/export/sale of goods made with forced labour.

Comment

This report is significant as it tackles the UK’s growing exposure to forced labour imports, highlighted by the £20 billion of high-risk goods entering the country each year. It aims to tackle the risk identified by the Independent Anti‑Slavery Commissioner that the UK could become a “dumping ground” for products blocked by the EU and US when their bans take effect.  By introducing aspects such as failure‑to‑prevent duty and civil penalties of up to 5% of global turnover the proposal would fill long criticised gaps in the Modern Slavery Act.  Businesses should take early action to mitigate legal and commercial risks if the UK aligns with emerging international norms.

(Applicable UK-wide)

Comment

NESO published its Regional Energy Strategic Planning Methodology in November 2025 as part of its “Beyond 2030” plan to identify onshore and offshore electricity transmission network reinforcements to achieve net-zero goals. NESO is currently consulting on its regional energy strategic planning methodology until 16 January 2026. The final methodology will be published in summer 2026 and will be used to produce the first 11 regional energy strategic plans (RESPs).

Summary

NESO’s strategic planning will focus on electricity and gas distribution networks, with an aim to move towards a joined-up approach and ensure that local areas receive the relevant infrastructure to progress towards Net Zero targets. The proposed methodology which will form the basis of regional strategic planning and so will be of importance to infrastructure stakeholders.

(Applicable to England)

DEFRA has published England’s first comprehensive Land Use Framework, setting out a national strategy for government, landowners and planners on how land should be used more effectively to support housing and infrastructure delivery, food production, clean energy, nature recovery and water resilience.

The Framework covers three areas: a long-term vision for 2030 and 2050; 4 principles to inform decisions relating to land use; and government actions to support land use change including better data and tools to support decision-making.

Comment

The Land Use Framework will be increasingly incorporated into national and local strategies, plans and polices that will have implications for landowners, farmers, developers and promoters. For example, this could include spatial plans for the siting of housing, energy and infrastructure projects as well as integration into Local Nature Recovery Strategies that identify priority areas for habitat creation and opportunities for nature recovery.

(Applicable to England)

DEFRA published its Waste Crime Action Plan, which outlines a suite of tougher measures to tackle serious waste crime in England including illegal dumping, unlawful waste sites and organised criminal activity affecting rural areas. The Plan adopts a zero-tolerance approach to waste crime and confirms enhanced enforcement powers for the Environment Agency, harsher penalties for offenders as well as more coordinated intelligence-sharing between regulators, the police and local authorities.

An additional £45 million will be invested over the next three years to boost enforcement activity, on top of the £5.6 million increase for this financial year announced previously.  A core feature of the Plan is the expansion of surveillance tools, introduction of improved waste tracking and stricter regulatory oversight of waste carriers/brokers.

Comment

Waste crime has become more organised, and continues to pose financial, environmental and safety risks to rural communities, businesses and landowners. The Waste Crime Action Plan signals substantially increased regulatory pressure on illegal waste-related activities, with measures aimed to reduce the significant burden placed on rural landowners, who are often required remediate illegal waste sites at their own expense.