Search and find what you need faster.

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

‘Gender critical’ belief discrimination – where are we now?

Posted on: April 24th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Four years ago, the concept of discrimination based on ‘gender critical’ beliefs was unheard of. However, the 2021 decision of Forstater v CGD Europe & Ors paved the way for protection under the Equality Act 2010 for individuals holding gender critical beliefs.  

Despite Forstater, there has been a slew of employment tribunal cases brought by individuals claiming their belief that sex is biological and immutable led their employers to subject them to less favourable treatment. These claimants worked in areas including the NHS, local government, charities, the education sector and even the legal profession. With trans rights supporters claiming that such beliefs are transphobic and hateful, many employers have been confused as to their obligations and fearful of ‘getting it wrong’.

Most recently, in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers it was held that ‘sex’ within the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex, reigniting tensions about the interplay between the rights of trans people and the rights of biological men and women. With the Supreme Court’s decision hot off the press, this article summarises some of the key cases and legal principles that have emerged in recent years, helping employers to be confident in their decisions about balancing the rights of all parties to be treated in a way compliant with the Equality Act 2010 and help them to ensure everyone enjoys dignity and respect at work.

Forstater v CGD Europe & Ors (2022)

Maya Forstater’s consulting contract with the Centre for Global Development was not renewed after she published a series of social media messages describing transgender women as men. She brought claims of discrimination, with the employment tribunal initially ruling against her. However the Employment Appeal Tribunal later found that her beliefs were protected under the Equality Act 2010 because they were “worthy of respect in a democratic society“. At a subsequent hearing, the tribunal concluded Ms Forstater had suffered direct discrimination on the basis of her gender-critical beliefs and she was awarded compensation of over £105,500 including for loss of earnings, injury to feelings, aggravated damages and interest.

Bailey v Stonewall Equality Limited Garden Court Chambers & Ors (2022)

Barrister Allison Bailey claimed she was discriminated against for her gender-critical views after Garden Court chambers concluded that two of her personal tweets, which included gender critical views, potentially breached her professional obligations as a barrister. Bailey had co-founded LGB Alliance, an advocacy group for the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people, which opposed the ‘trans extremism’ it said Stonewall promulgated. Ms Bailey complained to colleagues about Garden Chambers becoming a Stonewall Diversity Champion, saying that Stonewall was complicit in a campaign of intimidation of those who questioned gender self-identity. The tribunal found that Garden Court had discriminated against Ms Bailey and she was awarded £22,000 compensation for injury to feelings, plus interest.

Fahmy v Arts Council England (2023)

Denise Fahmy attended an internal teams meeting where hostile comments were made about people who hold gender critical beliefs. This was in the context of a discussion about the award and removal of a grant to LGB Alliance. A petition was later circulated in which further hostile and intimidating comments were made, leading Ms Fahmy to raise a Dignity at Work complaint, which was not upheld. Leeds Employment Tribunal found in favour of Ms Fahmy, concluding that she had been harassed for her gender-critical beliefs, and shortly afterwards, the parties reached settlement for an undisclosed sum.

Phoenix v Open University (2024)

Joanna Phoenix, a professor, co-signed a letter to the Sunday Times in 2019 in which she made her gender critical beliefs known. She, with others, then established the Gender Critical Research Network, an academic research group promoting research into sex and gender from a gender critical perspective. As a result, she was harassed and discriminated against by colleagues, including in one instance the Deputy Head of Department likening her to “the racist uncle at the Christmas dinner table“. The employment tribunal found that her complaints of direct discrimination and harassment were well-founded and that she had been constructively unfairly (and wrongfully) dismissed. Shortly afterwards the parties reached settlement for an undisclosed sum.

Adams v Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (2024)

Roz Adams worked as a counsellor at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. Ms Adams held gender critical beliefs and believed that victims of male sexual violence should be able to choose whether to engage with male or female counsellors. In 2021, the centre appointed a trans woman to the post of CEO. Ms Adams warned that giving ambiguous answers to victims who wanted to know the sex of their counsellor could mislead them or lead them to self-exclude from the service. The issue escalated when a colleague announced they were non-binary and changed their name to one that sounded male. Ms Adams asked her manager for clarity on how she should respond if service users asked if the colleague was male, which along with her observations about language used regarding gender critical people (including ‘terf’, bigot and fascist’) led to a deeply flawed disciplinary process against Ms Adams. She resigned, alleging constructive dismissal and discrimination. Delivering a scathing judgment, the tribunal concluded that Ms Adams had been discriminated against and constructively dismissed due to her gender-critical beliefs. Ms Adams was awarded compensation of £68,990 and Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre was ordered to publish a statement apologising.

Meade v Westminster City Counsel and Social Work England (2024)

Rachel Meade, a social worker, posted on a Facebook profile (that was set to private with approximately 40 friends) expressing her gender critical beliefs. One of Ms Meade’s colleagues complained to the regulator about these posts, alleging that they were transphobic and that Ms Meade had deliberately shared posts containing misinformation about the trans community. Following an investigation into the complaint, Ms Meade was told that there was a reasonable prospect that her Fitness to Practise would be found currently impaired because of her ‘discriminatory activity’ on Facebook. She was told that she could either accept the report and a sanction of a one-year warning or have her case referred to a hearing. She chose the former. Ms Meade’s immediate managers confirmed they had no concerns about her practice but she was subsequently suspended on charges of gross misconduct and ultimately issued with a final written warning. The tribunal found that Ms Meade had been harassed on account of her gender critical beliefs, awarding her over £58,000, including aggravated and exemplary damages, reflecting the extent of the wrongs committed by the Respondents.

Frances v Department of Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (2025)

Ms Frances brought claims of constructive dismissal on the basis of her gender-critical belief and also on a separate philosophical belief in the integrity of the civil service. The claims were settled early, but this case was highly unusual in that there was no confidentiality around the settlement, including its high value (£116,000). It also resulted in public statements from two Whitehall permanent secretaries, committing their respective departments to significant redrawing of policies around sex and gender. This case helped to buck the previous trend of litigating gender critical belief cases until the bitter end, following settlement in the cases of Esses v The Metanoia Institute and the UK Council of Psychotherapy and Favaro v City, University of London.

Higgs v Farmor’s School (2025)

Kristie Higgs, pastoral administrator and work experience manager at a school, was dismissed for posts she made on her Facebook profile opposing the view that ‘gender is fluid and not binary’, contending that same-sex marriage cannot be equated with traditional marriage between a man and a woman. A complaint was made by a parent, leading to MS Higgs’ suspension and eventual dismissal. Ms Higgs claimed direct discrimination and harassment. While her claims were initially dismissed on the basis that it was the manner of expression that had caused her dismissal, not her beliefs themselves, the Employment Appeal Tribunal granted her appeal and remitted the case back to the tribunal. Ms Higgs appealed to the Court of Appeal, which ultimately ruled that Ms Higgs’ dismissal constituted unlawful discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, emphasising that dismissing an employee merely for expressing a protected belief is unlawful unless the manner of expression is objectionable and the dismissal is a proportionate response.

What should employers be doing in light of these decisions?

It is clear that employers that conduct or condone discrimination against workers with gender critical beliefs are likely to find themselves on the wrong end of an employment tribunal judgment. While this precedent is well established, the recent decision in For Women Scotland has once again brought to the fore the issue of competing protections under the Equality Act 2010. While there is a surfeit of misinformation circulating online that the Supreme Court has ‘removed’ or ‘weakened’ the rights of transgender individuals in favour of those who hold gender critical beliefs, this is incorrect. The law today is the same as it was before last week’s decision and discrimination against trans people for reasons relating to gender reassignment remains unlawful, as does discrimination against those holding gender critical beliefs. However, because of the misrepresentation of the law on this highly emotive topic, many organisations are confused and fearful. Nevertheless, businesses must take a step back from the online noise and focus on a common-sense approach that treats everyone with dignity and respect.

Employers ought to remember that inclusion is for everyone and that there is nothing discriminatory in recognising that the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment relate to groups that have different needs and vulnerabilities. Employers should avoid making statements that disagree with the Equality Act 2010 or the Supreme Court judgment, or that favours or prioritises particular groups. This may lead to claims of sex-based harassment and discrimination as well as discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief.

It is possible to treat trans people with dignity and respect while also applying the Equality Act 2010 definition of sex, and remaining compliant with it. While it may be tempting to seek to avoid conflict, making all spaces ‘gender neutral’ is likely to garner complaints, as well as being in breach of workplace health and safety legislation. It may also be tempting to take situations on a case-by-case basis, but this is likely to lead to non-compliance with the Equality Act 2010 and could lead to employment tribunal claims by workers who expect to be able to access single sex spaces for reasons of privacy and dignity.

It is recommended that employers review their policies and training to assess and act on the risk that what they currently have is unlawful. Policies not based on the Equality Act 2010’s definition of sex are likely to result in unlawful conduct for which employers may be sued in the employment tribunal. Clear language should always be used and the normal standards of workplace and professional conduct must be applied to everyone equally. Set clear expectations around conduct and do not tolerate offensive behaviour in the workplace, whatever the protected characteristic in question. Businesses may see a rise in grievances relating to this topic and while proper grievance policies should always be followed, employers should not entertain vexatious or unreasonable complaints and may need to consider invoking their disciplinary policy for repeat offenders.

If you would like support and advice on making certain that your policies and handbooks ensure your employees are protected, please contact a member of our Employment team.

Alienating behaviour: Where are we now?

Posted on: April 17th, 2025 by zhewison

Jim Richards, gives us the latest insights on alienating behaviour in family law. In this article he breaks down the Family Justice Council’s 2024 review and what it means for handling parental alienation cases.

In December 2024, the Family Justice Council (FJC) published a comprehensive review on parental alienation and alienating behaviours. This long-debated issue has now been addressed with clear guidance aimed at assisting judges, and those in litigation in dealing with allegations of this nature.

A new approach to parental alienation

The FJC’s guidance marks a significant shift in how parental alienation is approached. It confirms that there is no “syndrome” of parental alienation. Instead, the focus should be on the behaviour, context, and reasons why a child is reluctant, resistant, or refuses to spend time with one parent.

The test for alienating behaviour

The guidance outlines a three-part test for identifying alienating behaviour:

  1. The child is reluctant, resists, or refuses to engage with a parent.
  2. This reluctance is not due to the behaviour of that parent towards the child or the other parent.
  3. The other parent has behaved in a way that has led directly or indirectly to the child’s reluctance to engage in a relationship with the other parent.
    All three elements must be present for a finding of alienation.

Moving away from past practices

This new approach moves away from the previous tendency to use alienation as a catch-all explanation for a child’s reluctance to spend time with a parent. The courts will no longer entertain this approach, especially if there is any finding of domestic abuse.

The role of the court

The report emphasises that the court is the ultimate decision-maker in these cases. Experts and Cafcass (Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service) cannot determine whether specific events took place. It is the court’s role to decide if domestic abuse or alienating behaviours have occurred. Allegations must be supported by evidence; fake assertions will not suffice.

The importance of early action

Relevant issues must be raised early in the process, with appropriate case management directions given. It is not acceptable to introduce allegations late in the proceedings to strengthen a weak case.

Looking ahead

The development of case law in this area will be closely watched, and further guidance from the courts is anticipated.

If you would like to learn more about alienating behaviours and how they may impact your case, please contact our family law team. We are here to provide expert advice and support.

Dominic Holden explores the Home Office consultation on ransomware payments, in Law360

Posted on: April 10th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Director Dominic Holden examines the recent Home Office consultation on cyber attacks and banning ransom payments by public bodies and critical infrastructure operators, and discusses the potential impact of such reforms on SMEs, in Law360.

Dominic’s article was published in Law360, 9 April 2025. 

On 14 January 2025, the Home Office opened a consultation on proposals to ban ransom payments by publicly owned bodies and operators of critical national infrastructure that have or may have suffered a ransomware attack[1]. The consultation runs until 8 April 2025, and the government seeks input from potential compliance stakeholders, industry, research, and the public.

The overall aim is to tackle the multi-billion-pound cybercrime industry, and the specific objective is potentially to make vital infrastructure like hospitals and the National Grid an unattractive prospect for hackers.

Yet, these proposals are not without their flaws.

The below article examines these plans, explores the development of the ransomware industry, and discusses how such reforms could impact UK businesses.

What is ransomware?

Ransomware is a type of malware that attempts to unlawfully encrypt files on a host computer system. Once infected, critical IT networks can become crippled and inoperable. The hacker then promises to provide the key to unlock the files in return for money, typically in cryptocurrency.

These attacks can be particularly harmful due to the associated financial losses, theft of potentially sensitive data and intellectual property, as well as significant business/service disruption and reputational damage.

Growing threats

One of the key triggers for this consultation exercise appears to have been the Synovis ransomware attack in June last year, which caused severe damage to the NHS with the postponement of over 10,000 outpatient appointments and around 1,700 elective procedures in London.[2]

Ransomware attacks are a growing threat. Over a period of twelve months which ended in August 2024, the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre’s (NCSC) became involved in managing 430 cyber incidents including 13 separate ransomware incidents which were “deemed to be nationally significant and posed serious harm to essential services or the wider economy”. According to the National Crime Agency, the number of UK victims appearing on ransomware data leak sites has also doubled since 2022[3].

As a result, ransomware is viewed by the National Crime Agency as one of the most serious organised cybercrime threats to the UK’s national security.

These attacks have now become highly profitable. In 2024, one study revealed that UK respondents paid an average of £870,000 with two organisations admitting to paying £10m-£20m in ransoms[4]. According to Sophos (which specialises in endpoint security), the median global ransomware payment made by victims over the past couple of years has also increased by 400% up from $400,000 to $2 million. Meanwhile the recovery costs to victims of a ransomware attack have also increased from $1.82 million to $2.73 million – a rise of around 50%[5].

Whether the ransom is paid or not, regulators and customers will very likely need to be notified of the attack under existing legislation, leading to the threat of an investigation, fines, claims and significant damage to an organisation’s reputation as their customers and suppliers learn of the attack.

The question of how to meet this threat faces governments across the globe.

Exploring the Home Office proposals

Banning ransomware payments

The idea of banning ransomware payment by certain organisations could be an effective deterrent to reduce ransomware attacks, with hackers looking elsewhere – hopefully overseas – for easier pickings that are permitted to pay out. The policy would follow the long-standing principle of the UK Government not to pay ransoms for its citizens taken hostage by terrorists.

However, a ban could be damaging to businesses. Paying a ransom can often be the fastest and most cost-effective way for an organisation to recover from these attacks.

The alternative to non-payment is trying to reset and restore an organisation’s system from backup (assuming regular backups exist) and a potentially catastrophic data loss. The business disruption that follows can be ruinous, both financially and reputationally.

According to Veeam’s 2024 Ransomware Trends Report, 96% of security professionals surveyed said that their backup repositories had been targeted, while a mere 15% were able to recover their data without paying a ransom[6].

That said, paying a ransom can be a risky business. The same report found that 27% of those organisations who had paid the ransom, were still unable to recover their data. In other words, while paying up might seem to offer a quick solution, there is no guarantee that it will resolve the problem.

‘Double dipping’ poses a further risk for victims. In such cases, a ransom is paid only for a further attack to follow a few days later. Or, even worse, an additional ransom is demanded to avoid the hacker publishing the compromised data or selling the information to the highest bidder.

This poses the question of whether the Government’s proposed limited ban goes far enough.

The focus on publicly owned bodies and operators of critical national infrastructure is a good start, given the obvious disruption that stems from the paralysis of these organisations. However, the policy risks hackers moving their attention away from these organisations, focusing their efforts on private companies who would still be permitted to pay a ransom. This could be particularly devastating for SMEs – which make up around 99.9% of the UK economy, but who lack the resources to mount an effective defence against, and response to, a ransomware attack[7].

A limited ban is not the only measure under consideration.

Reporting of all ransomware attacks

The mandatory reporting of all ransomware attacks by companies that meet a certain threshold is also proposed. This proposal is similar to that which has already been proposed in the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, which is due to be put to Parliament this year.

The purpose of the reporting is to assist law enforcement agencies by giving them a better understanding of the scale and nature of attacks, in order to identify patterns and improve responses to such attacks, and stop them from spreading.

This would appear to be an obvious ‘win’. The more up-to-date information available, the better the future decision-making on how to combat the threat.

The question which then arises, however, is whether the Government will properly resource the authorities who will receive this data, to allow them to take effective steps to respond.

Decision to pay a ransom

Finally, the Home Office proposes that the decision to pay a ransom could be left to the authorities.

The idea of the authorities needing to approve (or not) the payment of ransoms, is likely to be unworkable. It assumes a level of dynamism and responsiveness from Government authorities that is unlikely to be achieved in practice. Taking this decision out of the hands of those who know the organisation and the data at risk best, would seem to be ill-advised.

It also remains to be seen how the Government proposes to enforce legislation against the payment of ransoms. Criminalising the victims of a ransomware attack for making a ransom payment would seem to be unduly punitive given that these organisations are the innocent parties in this situation.

The Government may consider substantial fines to be a more appropriate sanction in line with current legislation around data, such as the UK General Data Protection Regulation/Data Protection Act 2018.

Conclusion

It is clear that the time has come for decisive action to be taken in the battle against ransomware attacks, and the Home Office’s initial focus on critical infrastructure and the public sector is a welcome first step.

However, the consultation is light on detail as to the how the Government intends to enforce compliance, and around the resources that will be available to ensure the reporting of ransomware attacks informs an effective strategy to prevent these attacks from occurring and spreading.

If a limited ban on ransom payments is introduced, it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that support will be provided to soften the increased business interruption that will invariably follow in the private sector.

While these proposals rumble throughout Westminster, there are still steps businesses can take to improve their chances of avoiding an attack, or ensure they are able effectively to deal with one when it comes.

Training staff to identify potential ransomware and other cyber-attacks along with regular system checks, backups and patching, can be essential in mitigating against these threats. Cyber insurance can also provide valuable support and resources to deal with the consequences of an attack, along with a robust incident response plan which deals with how the business can operate in the face of a ransomware event.

For more information on our services relating to technology disputes, please see here

[1]                 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/world-leading-proposals-to-protect-businesses-from-cybercrime

[2]                  https://www.england.nhs.uk/london/synnovis-ransomware-cyber-attack/latest-media-statement-on-synnovis-cyber-attack/#:~:text=As%20a%20result%20of%20the,St%20Thomas’%20NHS%20Foundation%20Trust.

[3]                  https://www.gov.uk/government/news/world-leading-proposals-to-protect-businesses-from-cybercrime#:~:text=The%20NCSC%20managed%20430%20cyber,services%20or%20the%20wider%20economy.

[4]                 Over Half of Breached UK Firms Pay Ransom – Infosecurity Magazine

[5]                  https://assets.sophos.com/X24WTUEQ/at/9brgj5n44hqvgsp5f5bqcps/sophos-state-of-ransomware-2024-wp.pdf

[6]                  https://www.primesys.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Veeam-2024-ransomware-trends-report.pdf

[7]                  https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/business-population-estimates-2023/business-population-estimates-for-the-uk-and-regions-2023-statistical-release

Matt Green Co-Signs Industry Letter to Support Innovation in Digital Asset Sector

Posted on: April 10th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Director and Head of Blockchain and Digital Assets, Matt Green, recently co-signed a letter to the UK government alongside a coalition of leading UK and global trade bodies in the crypto digital assets sector, on behalf of techUK.

Addressed to Varun Chandra, the Prime Minister’s Special Adviser on Business & Investment, the letter cites recent geo-political events as key reasons as to why the UK should continue to advance its digital asset and blockchain policy to ensure that it becomes a premier jurisdiction for crypto investment and innovation.

Matt and his fellow signatories put forward a number of practical recommendations to the government, including the following:

  • Appointing a ‘blockchain’ special envoy to drive policy alignment and innovation
  • Developing a Government Action Plan for digital assets and blockchain technology
  • Recognising the synergy between blockchain, quantum computing, and AI
  • Establishing a high-level forum for industry-government-regulator engagement

Click here to read their letter in full.

This news was covered by The Times, CoinTelegraph, Binance, Digit News, Finextra, Crypto News, Bloomingbit, Tron Weekly,  FX Street, Trading View and Block Weeks.

For more information on our Blockchain and Digital Assets services, click here

Corporate and Commercial Spring Newsletter

Posted on: April 9th, 2025 by Alanah Lenten

Read our Spring Newsletter here

Letter from the Editor Charlotte Hamilton

It has been a busy first quarter of 2025 in the corporate, commercial and employment sectors.

In this edition of our Newsletter, I have summarised the report issued by the Investment Security Unit of the Government (ISU) on the effectiveness of the National Security and Investment Act 2021 (Notifiable Acquisition) (Specification of Qualifying Entities) Regulations 2021 (NARs). For businesses in the 17 sectors considered sensitive, the NARs dictate whether a notification must be made to the ISU for any proposed acquisition having considerable impact on the timing of an acquisition.

Becci Collins, Solicitor in our Employment team, has summarised the new right introduced by the Statutory Neonatal Care Pay (General) Regulations 2025 for parents to take neo-natal care leave, to receive statutory neo natal care pay and what steps employers should be taking now.

Ewan Ooi, trainee in our Banking team and Samantha Aldridge, paralegal in our Employment team discuss the importance of careful drafting in legally binding agreements and how it can protect businesses.

They summarise two cases highlighting how enforceability depends on the use of clear and precise wording and why legal advice is needed when drafting the terms of commercial agreements and employment contracts.

Please see the key dates section for upcoming corporate, commercial and employment law updates and as always, please be in touch with any queries.

We will be discontinuing this newsletter after this edition. It will be replaced by our brand new newsletter: ‘The Fineprint’.

The Fineprint

‘The Fineprint’ is designed for founders, entrepreneurs, and owner-managed businesses who are passionate about growing their ventures and staying informed about the latest industry trends and legal updates.

If you’re a business owner, startup founder, or an entrepreneur looking to gain insights, practical advice, and inspiration, this newsletter is for you.

For more information please see here, You can opt out at any time.

Supporting SMEs: Lawrence Stephens Unveils New Business Newsletter

Posted on: April 7th, 2025 by Alanah Lenten

Welcome to The Fineprint*

Our quarterly newsletter that puts owner-managed businesses at the heart of our musings.

Who should read ‘The Fineprint’?

The Fineprint is designed for founders, entrepreneurs, and owner-managed businesses who are passionate about growing their ventures and staying informed about the latest industry trends and legal updates. If you’re a business owner, startup founder, or an entrepreneur looking to gain insights, practical advice, and inspiration, this newsletter is for you. Whether you’re just starting out or looking to scale your business, The Fineprint offers valuable content tailored to your needs.

 

What You Can Expect

Owners’ Stories: Get inspired by the journeys of successful entrepreneurs and learn from their experiences.
Legal Advice: Stay informed about the latest legal developments and how they impact your business.
Business Health Guides: Practical tips and checklists to ensure your business is on the right track.
Case Law Updates: Understand the implications of recent case laws on your business operations.
And Everything In Between: From industry insights to expert opinions, we cover all the essential topics you need to know as a business owner and entrepreneur.
The first edition of this newsletter can be expected in July 2025.

To receive this newsletter, sign-up below. 

Sign-up here 

If you need legal advice, have a story to share, insights to offer, or questions to ask, we’d love to hear from you. Please contact Alenten@lawstep.co.uk for any queries relating to this newsletter.

James Lyons comments on private equity and retail businesses in Retail Sector

Posted on: April 7th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Director in the Corporate and Commercial team, James Lyons, comments on the trend of private equity firms investing in retailers, and discusses how these growth strategies can benefit both business and private equity buyers.

James’ comments were published in Retail Sector, 4 April 2025, and can be found here.

Speaking with Retail Sector about the trend of publicly listed retailers taking private equity, James explains that “if the business continues to benefit from access to institutional capital, stock liquidity, and the other advantages that come with a listing, then remaining public makes sense.”

He states that there are challenges that come with this, noting “the costs of listing, the scrutiny, and the increased pressure, especially with rising employer and NI costs, all add up. When those burdens become greater than the benefits, it’s easy to see why more retail companies are opting to go private.”

Commenting on the recent acquisitions of Walgreen Boots Alliance by private equity, James told Retail Sector that “Sycamore’s acquisition of Walgreens includes Boots, but that’s just one part of the wider business. A number of commentators believe that Sycamore will likely spin off Boots to focus more on the US retail market. It’s possible we could see Boots reappear on the public markets, perhaps through a demerger and a new listing in the UK. Alternatively, it could be sold to another private equity firm or a trade buyer.

“While it’s hard to predict exactly what form it will take, I’m sure the brand will endure.”

James explains that, for private equity firms looking for retailers to invest in, “it’s about identifying where investment can generate increased returns over the next few years and ensuring the business is positioned for long-term sustainability. Take Boots, for example. Its pharmacy element is heavily regulated, which may be of interest to some private equity firms, but not necessarily to all.”

James also notes that “retailers that can leverage technology to strategically enhance their business are likely to attract more private equity interest. Ultimately, the future of retail is moving towards digital, making it a key area for private equity firms, rather than traditional high street retail.” 

Speaking on the evolution of this sector, James commented “Retail now is very different from what it was two decades ago. It’s a blend of the traditional high street and the rapidly expanding online retail sector. The rise of digital technology and AI interfaces has really shaped the way consumers shop today. Private equity firms bring both expertise and investment, particularly in the digital and e-commerce space. Traditional retailers may not have had the same level of expertise or know-how, and that’s where private equity can make a real difference.”

He goes on to argue that this is not the be all and end all of business, stating that “public listings can still be a credible option for the right business at the right point in its cycle, if done for the right reasons. So, I don’t see this as a long-term trend. For example, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that Boots could come back to the public markets at some point, if it makes sense for the business.

James concludes by suggesting that, overall, the strategy of the private equity firms is key to such deals, and that these are questions retailers must consider

“There has to be a commercial deal that works for both parties. What are the intentions of the new owner? What areas do they plan to invest in? Where do they see future growth? Is this the right owner to take the business to the next level?” 

To find out more about our Corporate and Commercial services, click here. To find out more about our services in the Retail sector, click here.

 

Lawrence Stephens appoints Head of Financial Institutions and Head of Real Estate Finance

Posted on: April 4th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Lawrence Stephens is delighted to announce the appointment of Senior Director Greg Palos as Head of the firm’s Financial Institutions sector.

Greg has been at Lawrence Stephens for over 20 years, since merging his own firm in 2004. During this time, he has been responsible for establishing and building the Real Estate Finance and Banking teams at the firm which now includes 12 Directors and 46 professional staff in total.

With this appointment, Greg’s wider role will include ensuring Lawrence Stephens continues to meet the needs of its existing Financial Institution sector clients, build and widen these relationships, and explore new sector opportunities for the firm, both in the UK and internationally.  

This important appointment reflects Lawrence Stephens’ twin-engine strategy of focusing on the Financial Institutions and Owner Managed Business sectors which have driven the firm’s strong growth over the last five years.

Lawrence Stephens is also pleased to announce the appointment of Ann Ebberson as Head of the Real Estate Finance department.

Ann is currently a Director in the team, having joined from City firm Rosling King in 2024. She is a well-known industry practitioner, recognised in the legal directories and brings to the role a wealth of sector knowledge and experience.

Acting for a range of banks, lending institutions and fixed charge receivers, her experience spans development finance, property acquisitions and sales, residential landlord and tenant issues, title rectifications and working with litigation colleagues on complex disputes which involve real estate and finance. 

Managing Director Steven Bernstein commented: “Greg’s appointment to this wider sector-focused role confirms our commitment to our strategy of sticking to what we are good at and what we are well known for. Greg’s deep knowledge of the sector and the firm’s capabilities presents us with an opportunity to build on already strong foundations and take us to the next level of growth for the firm.”

 “I’m delighted that Ann has taken on the role of Head of the Real Estate Finance department. She has already proven to be a strong and capable leader and I look forward to seeing her consolidate our position as a real force in the Real Estate Finance market.”

Lawrence Stephens announces four Director promotions

Posted on: April 1st, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Leading full-service law firm, Lawrence Stephens, is pleased to announce the promotion of Asim Arshad, Anna Christou, Sarah Gallagher and Ausra Triantafyllidou to Director,  effective from 1 April 2025.

These promotions follow a year of continuing growth for Lawrence Stephens in response to increasing client demand. Director numbers have increased from 28 to 45 and this 60% increase also includes lateral hires in key areas of growth as well as a team of eight Directors recently recruited from Memery Crystal.

  • Asim Arshad becomes a Director in the Disputes Resolution team, specialising in commercial litigation. In particular, Asim has extensive experience handling disputes involving crypto assets, including acting for individuals seeking to recover lost or stolen crypto assets. In addition to contentious matters, Asim’s work has included advising on cryptoasset regulation and compliance, token issuance, NFT projects, and acting for one of the industry’s leading mining platforms and token issuing entities
  • Anna Christou becomes a Director in the Real Estate Finance team. She joined Lawrence Stephens as a trainee solicitor in 2011. She currently acts for leading UK buy-to-let lenders, bridging lenders, challenger banks and building societies, dealing with both regulated and unregulated loans on commercial and residential property portfolios.
  • Sarah Gallagher becomes a Director in the Residential Real Estate team. She heads up Lawrence Stephens’ team of specialists in the new build sector. Her primary client base is formed of purchasers of both leasehold and freehold new build properties, inside and outside of the Greater London area and developers selling plots at a variety of developments. Whilst Sarah’s specialism is largely new build work, she also acts for those selling and purchasing residential properties of all varieties, including shared ownership, HNW and UHNW.
  • Ausra Triantafyllidou also becomes a Director in the Real Estate Finance team. She acts for a number of long-standing investors with large commercial, residential and mixed-use portfolios. Her primary focus is on secured lending transactions including investment and development finance matters.  She advises clients on landlord and tenant matters including acquisitions, disposals, lettings, transfers of portfolios to corporate structures and finance transactions. 

Steven Bernstein, Managing Director at Lawrence Stephens, commented: “With these four Director promotions, we are proud to be recognising growth from within our own people. We continue to demonstrate Lawrence Stephens’ growth in traditional sectors and expansion into emerging ones. Asim, Anna, Sarah and Ausra’s specialist expertise reflect the full-service approach we take at Lawrence Stephens, and how we are able to deliver the best outcomes for our clients.”

 

Gareth Hughes comments on wills for parents in The Guardian’s ‘The Good Life’ supplement

Posted on: March 28th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Director and Head of Private Wealth and Succession Planning, Gareth Hughes, explains why having wills in place is crucial for parents looking to protect the interests of their children.

Gareth’s comments were published in The Guardian’s ‘The Good Life’ supplement, 8 March 2025.

“For many parents, taking steps to secure their child’s future in the event of their own death is an area of primary concern. Putting a will in place can be a daunting prospect; however, we consider it essential to protect the best interests of the child.

“A key concern is responsibility for the day-to-day care of the child. Under a will, a parent can appoint a guardian and ensure that minor children will be cared for by a person they trust with the responsibility.

“Finances also warrant careful consideration. By making a will, a parent can put appropriate structures in place so that assets are managed and used to support their children until they are of an age to manage the assets themselves.

“A will gives a parent peace of mind: that they have done everything they can to protect their children in the event of their death.”

If you would like advice on drawing up your will, please contact a member of our Private Wealth and Succession Planning team.

Danny Schwarz and Stephen Dodge discuss the imminent closure of Prince Charles Cinema in Estates Gazette

Posted on: March 27th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Director and Head of Commercial Real Estate Danny Schwarz, and Trainee Solicitor Stephen Dodge examine how the ongoing lease renewal dispute between a tenant – the Prince Charles Cinema – and their landlord reveals real estate concerns for many of London’s independent businesses. 

Danny and Stephen’s article was published in Estates Gazette, 25 March 2025, and can be found here. 

——

From packed showings of cult classics like The Room to raucous singalong presentations of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Londoners are united by weird and wonderful memories from the iconic Prince Charles Cinema in Leicester Square. However, few visitors would have imagined, while passing through the theatre’s red carpeted corridors, that such a long-standing institution does not own its space.

Like many of London’s independent businesses, the Prince Charles Cinema is a tenant, and is currently suffering the nightmare of all tenants – a bitter dispute with its landlord. However, unlike the horror classics that have played across its screens, the plucky protagonist of this story seems unlikely to make it out alive.

The cinema announced earlier this year that its landlord has all but chosen to force the cinema to close its doors.

Lease renewals and break clauses

In what otherwise might be a standard lease renewal at market rents, the landlord has demanded rents the cinema pays are far above market rates. It has also proposed a rolling break right in the lease, which would allow the landlord to terminate the lease on six months’ notice at any time. The belief is that the landlord, owned by real estate development company Criterion Capital, intends to redevelop the property.

It’s not hard to see why

Already a prime London location, the Prince Charles Cinema is an historic building in an area of high footfall. Despite the theatre’s old-world charm, there are likely scores of rival businesses that would happily swoop in on such a desirable plot.

While break clauses in commercial leases are a part of business included to provide a degree of certainty of term to the parties and to minimise the risk of non-payment of rent, they are typically commonplace in commercial leases. A landlord or tenant may have an option to break on the third or fifth anniversary of their agreement, but that option allows the break to occur only on that specific date, with notice. Sometimes, tenants with break clauses are even rewarded for not exercising that clause with a rent-free period after the break date.

The proposed break clause in the Prince Charles Cinema’s new lease would throw certainty to the wind by allowing the landlord to force out the tenant at any time.

The demand for above-market rents adds a further layer of obfuscation to the negotiations.

The landlord’s break which they can exercise at any time is not in itself a reason for the Prince Charles not stay in occupation. The above market rent is more likely to prevent the cinema from renewing its lease. If the landlord wanted the property vacant, it might have simply elected not to discuss renewal. Unless of course the Prince Charles is protected by the security of tenure provisions of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954.

A look at the lease

A look at the current lease which is available to view at the Land Registry suggests that the Prince Charles could be in a better negotiating position than reported, given that it enjoys security of tenure under the lease. This means the cinema could serve a notice on the landlord requesting a new lease on the same terms as the existing lease save for the rent and the term of the lease which would both need to be in line with the current market. This would mean that for the landlord to oppose the grant of a new lease it would have to object on one of the prescribed grounds, in this case most likely redevelopment.

The difficulty the landlord would face is that at present its plans to redevelop the property are nothing more than rumours and to oppose a new lease the landlord must show genuine intent, through applying for planning permission, for example

A look at the rent review provisions in the current lease of the cinema hints at another reason the landlord may be wary of statutory renewal proceedings. The lease granted in 1963 contains provisions for rent review every 21 years and capped at £14,000 per annum. This may explain how the cinema has survived this long in Leicester Square. Capped rent reviews are less common in modern leases. Leases also tend to be shorter, and rent reviews usually occur every 5 years, not every 21.

Ultimately, this is all speculation. It is impossible to know the exact status of the negotiations. Unless the Prince Charles has grounds to oppose the proposed higher rents and rolling landlord’s break, there is likely little the cinema can do in this situation.

Despite a petition circulating gathering more than 15,000 signatures at the time of writing, for independent businesses in the entertainment and hospitality sectors who are facing these ‘David vs Goliath’ battles against their larger landlords, there is simply not enough bargaining power.

Silver screens and silver linings

This position is made worse for businesses with unique or novel requirements for their property, such as cinemas.

While the Prince Charles is a unique business with its niche and devout following, cinemas are becoming increasingly less desirable as tenants, due to their relatively low turnover post-pandemic. In areas like Leicester Square, there is an added incentive for landlords to attract businesses with high turnover and higher spend per customer, so that they can charge turnover rents.

There is one silver lining to the storm cloud gathering above the Prince Charles Cinema: the landlord has not yet applied for planning permission to redevelop. A search of Westminster Council’s Planning Portal shows just one entry relating to the property – an approved application to display an unlit sign reading ‘to let’.

So, for now at least, the show goes on.

If you would like to know more about our Commercial Real Estate services, or to get advice about commercial leases, please click here

Jim Richards discusses divorce and pension sharing orders in FT Adviser and Today’s Wills & Probate

Posted on: March 25th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Director and Head of Family Jim Richards discusses how despite their usefulness, the use of pension sharing orders in divorce proceedings has not become widespread since their introduction 25 years ago. 

Jim’s article was published in FT Adviser, 20 March 2025, and can be found here. A version of his article was also published in Today’s Wills & Probate, 21 March 2025, and can be found here.

It is a sadly familiar scenario at the end of a marriage – especially in TV dramas. Along with the sale of the house there is the dividing up of the debris from the failed relationship. Who gets the pictures? Who gets the potted plants? Who gets the cat?

Not so often featured is perhaps the most important decision of all: who gets the pension?

A study undertaken on pensions and divorce at the start of the decade by research hub MICRA, based at the University of Manchester, along with the Pensions Policy Institute, came to some clear conclusions.

The research found that there were “wide gendered pension disparities” within couples at the higher end of the income distribution, as well as those at the lower end too. Overall, it suggested that such disparities could make a “marked difference” to couples going through separation proceedings. 

However, unlike a prenuptial agreement, for example, pension sharing on divorce should not exclusively be a concern for the wealthy.

Its potential importance and contribution to wellbeing applies widely across society as a whole.

Yet, in the midst of the mayhem that often accompanies the dissolution of a marriage, it can easily get overlooked.

Pensions often not priority

By and large couples heading for divorce are in their 30s and 40s.

Retirement may seem a long way off and the immediate priority might be ‘what happens now?’ rather than the remote issue of finances 30 years ahead. 

Of course, one aspect of this is that pensions still do not loom large enough in younger, middle-aged people’s awareness. Many do not save enough and they do not do so when they are young enough for it to make a difference. 

As revealed by the MICRA and PPI research, most people are also significantly under-resourced in terms of their retirement income and pay little attention to this until they are in their 50s. 

By this point, it is obviously much harder to compensate by increasing contributions for the years that have already passed.

Meanwhile, on divorce, this deficit problem can be compounded if parties are aiming to take on new mortgages to meet their housing needs with the possibility that they might not be repaid until well into retirement.

Any income that they enjoy must be deployed first to repaying the mortgage. 

They will not have time enough from perhaps their early 50s until retirement in which to put more money into a pension fund.

Short-term thinking about pensions can overlook the importance of long-term financial security – and it also reflects the importance of receiving tailored legal advice.

If you would like advice on divorce and financial settlements, please contact a member of our Family team.