Helping children understand divorce and blended families: Our top book picks

Posted on: March 3rd, 2025 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

World Book Day, on the 6th of March, presents an excellent opportunity to explore literature that can assist families in navigating the complexities of separation and blended family dynamics. The emotional turmoil that often accompanies separation can make it difficult for parents to communicate effectively with their children. While each family’s circumstances are unique, the following books can serve as valuable resources to facilitate discussions with younger children about these significant changes.

Metaphors can be an effective tool in helping children comprehend and process difficult topics. The selected titles below not only address the issue of separation but also explore the dynamics of blended families, offering a gentle and relatable approach to these sensitive subjects.

Our Top Seven Recommendations

  1. https://www.andersenpress.co.uk/books/the-box-full-of-wonders/

  1. https://www.andersenpress.co.uk/books/the-hairdo-that-got-away-2/

  1. https://www.walker.co.uk/9781406341768/living-with-mum-and-living-with-dad-my-two-homes/

  1. https://www.walker.co.uk/9780744589252/two-homes/

  1. https://www.penguin.co.uk/search-results?q=two+places+to+call+home&tab=books

 

  1. https://www.andersenpress.co.uk/books/marry-me-mole/

  1. https://www.andersenpress.co.uk/books/luna-loves-library-day/

Key dates to enhance transparency and prevent crime within UK business

Posted on: March 3rd, 2025 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

As a reminder to those in charge of company administration, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act (ECCTA) became law in October 2023. It set out a phased timeline for new requirements on businesses to enhance transparency and prevent crime within UK business. In this summary we highlight the upcoming key dates to note.

We have reported on the objectives of ECCTA in this article by Isobel Moran.

From 25 March 2025 – Identity Verification

From 25 March 2025, individuals may voluntarily verify their identity directly with Companies House or via an Authorised Corporate Service Provider (ACSP). Identity verifications apply to all new and existing company directors and people with significant control. They also apply to members of LLPs.  

Identity verification will become compulsory and so it is advisable to do this as soon as possible to avoid missing the compulsory deadline. If you need any guidance or assistance, please be in touch.

Missing the deadline is an offence. The consequences include financial penalties and may prevent you from being able to make other filings on behalf of existing companies or setting up a new company.

From 27 January 2025 – Suppression of Personal Information

From 27 January 2025, individuals can apply to supress personal information from historical documents such as their home address, date of birth, signatures, and business occupation.

Additional protection will be available to those at risk of harm by protecting their information from public view.

From spring 2026 – Changes to Limited Partnerships

From spring 2026, LPs must: 

  • provide partners’ names, date of birth and usual residential address
  • verify the identity of general partners
  • provide a registered office address in the UK – this must be in the same country the LP is registered in, for example a LP registered in Scotland must have a registered office address in Scotland
  • provide a standard industrial classification (SIC) code
  • file an annual confirmation statement

LPs will need to file their information through an Authorised Corporate Service Provider (ACSP).

There will be new powers to:

  • close and restore LPs
  • apply sanctions
  • protect partners’ information
  • operate a statutory compliance process

These changes for LPs will be implemented following secondary legislation and so we are continuing to monitor these changes.

Please see our initial report on the objectives of ECCTA here. We will continue to provide updates as they come into effect. Now is the time to start taking action to verify the identity of the individuals behind your organisation. If you need any guidance or assistance, please be in touch.

Dominic Holden comments on Apple’s end-to-end encryption in TechRound

Posted on: February 27th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Director Dominic Holden comments on the news that Apple is set to withdraw its Advanced Data Protection feature from the UK, following a dispute with the Home Office over end-to-end encryption and enabling government access to user data. 

Dominic’s comments were published in TechRound, 26 February 2025, and can be found here.

Dominic’s comments are replicated below:

“Balancing privacy rights with the needs of national security is a tightrope that tech companies walk daily. In this case, it appears Apple have begun to teeter.

“End-to-end encryption allows users to more effectively secure their data and better protect it from hackers and other bad actors. However, it can also allow criminals to plot and conduct illicit activity.

“Aside from whether the public trust that a back door such as this will not be misused by the government, the danger of a back door is that it also creates a vulnerability which a hacker may be able to exploit.

“Apple’s decision to withdraw UK user’s ability to encrypt data removes an effective weapon to protect against hacking, whilst hackers and other bad actors will likely migrate to alternative encrypted services that the government cannot access.”

 

Sole directors under the Model Articles of association

Posted on: February 20th, 2025 by Hugh Dineen-Lees
  • The High Court has once again expanded on the confusing area of sole director decision making, where a company has adopted the Model Articles.

Confusion within the Model Articles

It is widely accepted that the Model Articles are free from inconsistencies and are suitable for all company incorporations. However, the Model Articles has faced scrutiny in the High Court on numerous occasions, as their suitability for companies with a sole director has been questioned.

Article 7(2) of the Model Articles states that if (a) the company only has one director, and (b) no provision of the articles requires it to have more than one director, the general rule does not apply, and the director may take decisions without regard to any of the provisions of the articles relating to directors’ decision-making.

On the other hand, Article 11(2) stipulates that the minimum number of directors required to hold a board meeting must be at least two (i.e., the quorum for a board meeting is two) and that no other decisions can be made (as a sole director) save for appointing another director.

The case of Hashmi v Lorimer Wing [2022] concluded that one director is not sufficient for a board meeting to be held and decisions to be made, given that a sole director is unable to create a quorum by satisfying the minimum of two directors that are required for a board meeting, as set out in Article 11(2).  

In contrast, in the same year, the case of Re Active Wear Limited [2022] concluded that a sole director has valid authority to make decisions on behalf of the company. It is important to note that the judge commented that this would not have been the case where the company has in the past had more than one director.

Whilst the decision of Re Active Wear Limited [2022] was welcomed, the confusion created by contrasting interpretations of Articles 7(2) and 11(2) of the Model Articles remained.

Clarification: Re KRF Services (UK) Ltd [2024] EWHC 2978 (Ch)

In the recent case of Re KRF Services (UK) Ltd [2024], the High Court has provided further clarification on the tension between Articles 7(2) and 11(2) of the Model Articles.

After consideration of the aforementioned cases of Hashmi v Lorimer Wing [2022] and Re Active Wear Limited [2022], the judge held that where a company has adopted Model Articles, the sole director has the authority to act under Model Article 7(2). The judge commented that, insofar as the company has adopted unamended Model Articles, Article 7(2) will triumph over Article 11(2). The Court distinguished the case of Hashmi v Lorimer Wing, as that involved a modification to the minimum number of directors, and the judge concluded that the historical number of directors is irrelevant in determining whether Article 7(2) will take precedence over Article 11(2).

What does this mean for companies that have adopted the Model Articles?

Whilst the case of Re KRF Services (UK) Ltd [2024] has provided some clarification and has indicated that the courts are leaning towards allowing sole directors to act where Model Articles have been adopted, it is important to note that it is a High Court decision which does not overrule the previous judgments. It has merely provided some clarification.

As a result, companies with a sole director and who have Model Articles need to be alert to the fact that decisions made by a sole director have previously been deemed to be invalid by the Court. Therefore, it is worth considering whether it would be commercially expedient to appoint another director to ensure all future board meetings are quorate and compliant with Model Article 11(2).

In our experience advising financial institutions in debt finance transactions involving corporate borrowers the preference is amending the company’s Articles. The amendment explicitly states that a quorum can be formed with only one sole director present, and such director has all powers of decision making. It is prudent for shareholders to ratify previous decisions of the sole director as part of this process. This documentation and amendment to the Articles can give comfort to sole directors that they can operate the company as they deem fit without the risk of challenge.

Transparency in digital transactions: What your business needs to know

Posted on: February 18th, 2025 by Hugh Dineen-Lees
  • The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCCA) mandates greater transparency in digital transactions, aiming to eliminate deceptive practices that harm consumers.
  • The Competition Markets Authority (CMA) has gained new power to directly enforce consumer protection laws without court intervention which includes issuing fines and taking corrective actions against businesses that violate the DMCCA.
  • Businesses must enhance their compliance efforts to adapt to the new regulations.

Key changes

  1. Subscription services

Businesses must provide clear information about subscription terms, including costs and cancellation procedures. Automatic renewals must be communicated transparently, and consumers should be able to cancel subscriptions easily. The pre-contract information must be given together, in writing, without the need to click links or download.

In addition, a 14-day cooling off period must be provided to consumers and consumers must have the ability to easily exit the contract with a single communication.

The new regime for subscription contracts will not come into force until April 2026.

  1. Fake reviews

Under the DMCCA, businesses must not publish or commission the publication of fake reviews which are designed to mislead consumers. The DMCCA also puts an obligation on businesses to take reasonable and proportionate steps to prevent the publication of fake reviews.

  1. Hidden fees

All charges must be disclosed upfront in the invitation to purchase (i.e. adverts or listings), including any fees, taxes and charges. Businesses can no longer add unexpected fees at the final stages of a transaction. If the whole price cannot be ascertained, then the method of calculation must be stated in the invitation to purchase.

How does it affect businesses?

  • Businesses will need to update their systems to comply with these updated transparency requirements, which could potentially involve significant changes to their terms of business, website and customer service.
  • Failure to take reasonable and proportionate steps to prevent the publication of fake reviews may leave businesses open to fines and penalties from the Competition and Markets Authority.
  • Marketing teams must be vigilant in creating and reviewing advertising content to ensure it meets the new standards and to ensure that all promotional materials are truthful and not deceptive.

Enforcement by the CMA

The CMA’s will be granted a new power to directly enforce consumer protection laws without court intervention, unlike the Financial Conduct Authority (‘FCA’). This includes issuing fines and taking corrective actions against businesses that violate the DMCCA. In addition, the CMA can consider both regulated and unregulated businesses, unlike the FCA.

Key changes:

  1. Direct Enforcement

The CMA can now issue infringement notices and impose fines of up to 10% of a company’s global turnover or up to £300,000 (whichever is greater) for non-compliance.

  1. Corrective Actions

The CMA can mandate corrective actions, such as refunds to consumers or changes in business practices. Fines may also be issued for failure to cooperate with CMA investigations.

How does it affect businesses?

  • Businesses must adopt a proactive approach to compliance, regularly auditing their practices to ensure they meet the new standards.
  • Businesses should develop robust risk management strategies to handle potential CMA investigations and enforcement actions.

Conclusion

The DMCCA has brought significant updates to consumer law, emphasizing transparency, fairness, and direct enforcement. Recent news and governmental consultations regarding new measures to tackle unfair and costly subscription traps suggest that the CMA will not be shy to exert their new powers. For businesses, this means adapting to new regulations, enhancing compliance efforts, and ensuring that consumer interactions are fair and transparent.

Key dates upcoming under ECCTA

Posted on: February 18th, 2025 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

As a reminder to those in charge of company administration, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act (ECCTA) became law in October 2023. It set out a phased timeline for new requirements on businesses to enhance transparency and prevent crime within UK business. In this summary we highlight the upcoming key dates to note.

We have reported on the objectives of ECCTA in our December 2024 newsletter and a specific article by Izzy Moran available on our website.  

Identity Verification from 25 March 2025

From 25 March 2025, individuals may voluntarily verify their identity directly with Companies House or via an Authorised Corporate Service Provider (ACSP). Identity verifications apply to all new and existing company directors and people with significant control. They also apply to members of LLPs.  

** Identity verification will become compulsory and so it is advisable to do this as soon as possible to avoid missing the compulsory deadline. If you need any guidance or assistance, please be in touch.

Missing the deadline is an offence. The consequences include financial penalties and may prevent you from being able to make other filings on behalf of existing companies or setting up a new company.

Suppression of Personal Information

From 27 January 2025, individuals can apply to supress personal information from historical documents such as their home address, day of birth, signatures, and business occupation.

Additional protection will be available to those at risk of harm by protecting their information from public view.

Changes to Limited Partnerships

From spring 2026, LPs must: 

  • provide partners’ names, date of birth and usual residential address
  • verify the identity of general partners
  • provide a registered office address in the UK – this must be in the same country the LP is registered in, for example a LP registered in Scotland must have a registered office address in Scotland
  • provide a standard industrial classification (SIC) code
  • file an annual confirmation statement

LPs will need to file their information through an ACSP.

There will be new powers to:

  • close and restore LPs
  • apply sanctions
  • protect partners’ information
  • operate a statutory compliance process

These changes for LPs will be implemented following secondary legislation and so we are continuing to monitor these changes.

Please see our initial report on the objectives of ECCTA on our website. We will continue to provide updates as they come into effect. Now it is time to start taking action to verify the identity of the individuals behind your organisation. If you need any guidance or assistance, please be in touch.

Financial penalties and fees: Navigating the new Companies House rules

Posted on: February 18th, 2025 by Hugh Dineen-Lees
  • The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act (ECCTA) has granted Companies House enhanced powers and responsibilities, the power to impose financial penalties and increased fees, a requirement for compulsory identity verification, insistence on electronic filing and measures to enhance the transparency of company ownership.
  • These changes will be rolled out in phases, with full implementation expected by 2027 and all stakeholders should stay informed.
  1. Enhanced powers and responsibilities

In March 2024, Companies House was granted greater authority to query and challenge the information submitted by companies. This includes the power to reject or remove incorrect or fraudulent data from the register, analyse information in greater detail, and share more information with law enforcement agencies and regulatory bodies where necessary. These measures are designed to ensure that the information held is accurate and reliable, thereby increasing trust in businesses across the UK. 

  1. Financial penalties and increased fees

In May 2024, Companies House was granted the power to impose civil financial penalties for most offences under the Companies Act 2006. This significantly widens the failings companies could be penalised for and is intended to ensure prompt compliance with Companies House requirements and deter fraudulent activities.

Companies House also increased its fees to fund these new measures. For example, the cost of incorporating a company has increased from £10 to £50 when filed digitally, and the cost of filing confirmation statements has risen from £13 to £34.

  1. Identity verification

A major component of the reforms is the introduction of compulsory identity verification for all new and existing company directors and people with significant control. For existing companies, the transition period will start from Autumn 2025. By spring 2026, anyone filing on behalf of a company will also need to verify their identity.

  1. Digital filing requirements

By 2026 to 2027, Companies House will require all annual financial accounts to be submitted digitally via software. This move is part of a broader effort to modernise the filing process and improve the efficiency and accuracy of data submissions.

  1. Transparency of company ownership

The Act also mandates the publication of more detailed information on company shareholders, enhancing the transparency of company ownership. This measure is expected to be a significant undertaking for some companies, and the implementation options are currently being worked through.

Conclusion

The updates to Companies House under the ECCTA are designed to create a more transparent, accountable, and secure business environment in the UK. By introducing stricter identity verification, increasing the powers of Companies House, and enhancing the accuracy of company data, these reforms aim to reduce opportunities for economic crime and improve corporate governance.

These changes will be rolled out in phases, with full implementation expected by 2027. Companies and stakeholders are encouraged to stay informed and prepare for these upcoming requirements to ensure a smooth transition. We will continue to keep you updated on upcoming key dates.

Emma Cocker explores the legal action against McDonald’s over harassment allegations, in Personnel Today

Posted on: February 11th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Senior Associate Emma Cocker discusses the BBC investigation and subsequent legal action against McDonald’s over widespread allegations of harassment and abuse, and argues that it demonstrates how the employment insecurity of zero hour workers can create a toxic work culture, in Personnel Today. 

Emma’s article was published in Personnel Today, 10 February 2025. 

McDonald’s: zero hours culture feeds sexual harassment allegations

Sexual harassment allegations at the fast food giant came to the fore in 2023 and provide an example, argues Emma Cocker, of how insecure employment can contribute to power imbalances that create a toxic workplace culture.

Marking its 50th anniversary in the UK, McDonald’s announced plans last August to open more than 200 new restaurants in the UK and Ireland over the next four years. However, problems in its current national network of 1,450 outlets continue to loom large, with a deluge of allegations of employee harassment and abuse threatening to cloud the company’s agenda.

In July 2023, a BBC investigation into working conditions at McDonald’s lifted the lid on what it described as “a toxic culture of sexual assault, harassment, racism and bullying” following allegations by more than 100 staff at UK retail outlets of the fast food chain. According to the BBC, workers, some of them as young as 17, had experience of being abused, bullied, groped and routinely harassed.

The BBC investigation was promoted by disclosures made by whistleblowers after McDonald’s signed a legally binding agreement with the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in February 2023 in which it pledged to protect its staff from sexual harassment.

The EHRC agreement had itself been reached in response to concerns about the handling of sexual harassment complaints made by staff in its UK restaurants. McDonald’s confirmed that it had “fallen short” and it “deeply apologised”, adding that all employees deserved to work in a safe, respectful and inclusive workplace.

Last month, Alistair Macrow, CEO for McDonald’s UK & Ireland, appeared before MPs sitting on the Business and Trade Select Committee. He told them that 29 people had been dismissed over the past year following allegations of sexual harassment.

Liam Byrne MP, the chair of the Business and Trade Select Committee, asked Macrow if McDonald’s had “basically now become a predator’s paradise”. Macrow said the allegations raised by the BBC were “abhorrent, they are unacceptable and there is no place for them in McDonald’s”, and the company was determined to create a culture where there was “no hiding place for bad actors”.

Despite repeated pledges from Macrow that the firm was taking appropriate action to improve working conditions and clean up behaviour, the situation does not appear to have improved. Since its original investigation into the company was delivered, the EHRC has received 300 reports of harassment, while more than 700 current or former employees are taking legal action and accusing McDonald’s of failing to protect them.

The law in relation to employers’ responsibilities is unambiguous. Under the Equality Act 2010, employers have a statutory duty to  protect all staff from discrimination and harassment, regardless of whether they are employees or workers, and regardless of whether they are engaged on a full-time, part-time or casual basis. 

According to the BBC, 89% of McDonald’s 170,000 UK workers were on zero-hours contracts in January 2025, despite the firm’s 2017 announcement that workers would be offered the choice of a flexible or fixed contract offering minimum guaranteed hours. The minimum hours contracts were for a minimum of 30 hours, 16 hours or four hours a week, but most workers opted for flexibility.

Insecure employment

Like many zero-hours workers, McDonald’s staff face employment insecurity, which invariably leaves them reluctant to raise complaints because of fears they will become subject to detrimental treatment as a consequence. It therefore follows that the true extent of discrimination and harassment suffered by McDonald’s staff may be much higher than current figures suggest.

Zero-hours contracts, by their very nature, result in a power imbalance in which an employer holds significantly greater power than the individual. Without any guarantee as to the number or timetable of working hours, staff have little control over their income or schedule, putting them in a vulnerable position whereby they can be easily pressurised into complying with an employer’s demands, or face not being offered hours in future.

The abuse that arises from the inherent power imbalance that exists in zero-hours workplace relationships can lead to significant liabilities for businesses. Employers therefore need to be acutely aware of potential discrimination and harassment in the workplace and what may happen if they fail to address these issues. The ongoing issues at McDonald’s and the company’s abject failure to provide a safe, harassment-free environment have generated a raft of bad publicity which will ultimately affect profits. 

The UK government’s Employment Rights Bill aims to ensure that ‘exploitative’ zero-hours contracts will end. The bill includes measures which are designed to provide workers with greater security and predictability: a right to guaranteed hours, where the number of hours offered reflects that hours worked by the workers during a reference period (which is anticipated to be 12 weeks) along with a right to reasonable notice of shifts, and a right to payment for shifts cancelled or curtailed at short notice.

While these changes will not directly reduce instances of discrimination and harassment, they may help to eradicate the fears and insecurity faced by zero-hours workers. In the meantime, it is clear that McDonald’s still has a long way to go in providing a safe working environment that is free from discrimination and harassment – and in changing public perception that this is indeed the case. How the company handles the growing number of claims made against it will be carefully scrutinised.

If you would like some advice on meeting your employer obligations regarding discrimination and harassment, please contact a member of the Employment team.

 

Government Abolishes Two-Year Rule in Leasehold Reform Act 2024

Posted on: February 6th, 2025 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

Effective from 31st January 2025, the Government has enacted a major change under the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 (LAFRA), which abolishes the two-year ownership rule. This is the first part of the LAFRA to be implemented.

Following this change, Leaseholders will no longer need to wait two years to commence enfranchisement or lease extension processes.

This will have a particular impact on lease extensions or enfranchisement where the flat is subject to an impending sale. Given that new owners will no longer have to wait 2 years to extend their lease or commence enfranchisement proceedings, this will avoid the need for the existing owner to begin this process prior to the sale, if it is required, making the sale process more efficient.

Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook has emphasised this reform marks the initial step towards a comprehensive overhaul of the leasehold system, indicating that efforts will continue to implement the measures outlined in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act.

The implementation of further reforms set out in the LAFRA are planned for Spring.

The updated legislation can be seen here – Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024

Practice guide 27 has now also been updated to reflect this:  Practice guide 27: the leasehold reform legislation – GOV.UK

Cancer: a disability without dispute

Posted on: February 4th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Reports show that since the pandemic there has been a sharp rise in cancer diagnoses in those under the age of 50[1]. The NHS states that 1 in 2 people will have cancer in their lifetime[2] and the dire impact cancer can have on health and quality of life is well known. With cancer more commonly affecting the workforce, what do employers need to be aware of in relation to their employment law obligations to cancer sufferers?

Disability discrimination

Under the Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”) individuals are protected from disability discrimination at work. This protection is afforded not just to employees, but also to workers and the self-employed.

Legislation defines disability as a physical or mental condition which has a “substantial and long-term adverse effect on the ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities[3]

Individuals who suffer certain named conditions, including cancer, are protected from discrimination as soon as they are diagnosed, even if it the illness does not immediately have an impact on their ability to carry out day-to-day activities.

Disability discrimination can occur in any of the following situations:  

  • Direct discrimination: an individual is treated less favourably than others because of their cancer (section 13 EqA)
  • Indirect discrimination: a provision, criterion or practice is in place which applies equally across the workforce, but which disadvantages individuals with cancer more and without any objective justification (section 19 EqA)
  • Harassment: an individual suffering from cancer is treated in a way which makes them feel that their dignity has been violated, they are intimidated or humiliated, or their working environment is hostile, degrading or offensive (section 26 EqA)
  • Victimisation: an individual with cancer is subjected to a detriment because they have complained, or intend to make a complaint, about disability discrimination (section 27 EqA)
  • Discrimination arising from disability: an individual with cancer is treated unfavourably because of something arising from their diagnosis, for example, being penalised under an absence management policy because they are required to attend regular hospital appointments and without any objective justification (section 15 EqA)
  • Failure to make reasonable adjustments: an employer fails to make reasonable adjustments to mitigate any substantial disadvantage a person with cancer may have as a consequence of their illness or its treatment (section 20 EqA)

The extent of protection for those with cancer  

Regardless of the stage or severity of the diagnosis, once an individual has been diagnosed with cancer, they are protected from discrimination. The protection is wide ranging: In Lofty v Hamis[4], the EAT held that an employee diagnosed with a non-invasive, pre-cancerous form of melanoma was protected.

Tribunals take a holistic approach when determining the reason for the detrimental treatment. In Willis v NatWest Bank[5], the employment tribunal held that the decision not to renew Ms Willis’ secondment and the termination of her employment was due to her cancer, not redundancy as alleged. A key indicator was that the work she had been contracted to do still had to be carried out following the termination of her employment.  

The protection applies to individuals throughout their employment, including during recruitment and probationary periods. In Lyddall v The Wooldridge Partnership[6], Ms Lyddall suffered from cancer during her probationary period. Her employment was terminated at the end of her probationary period, purportedly for performance reasons. This was said to be the case despite a lack of feedback regarding her performance. The Wooldridge Partnership argued that it had not provided negative feedback due to a desire to avoid causing stress to Ms Lyddall while she was undergoing treatment. The tribunal was not convinced by this argument and held that as Ms Lyddall’s cancer was a factor in her dismissal it was discriminatory.   

Employers’ considerations in relation to employees with cancer  

Employees are not required to disclose their health concerns or diagnoses to their employer. Employers cannot rely on employees’ failure to disclose a diagnosis as a defence to discrimination claims and employers will be liable for discrimination where the facts show they should have known about an employee’s disability. Therefore, employers must be prudent and pay close attention to individuals’ behaviours and routine changes, as these may indicate an ongoing medical condition which may constitute a disability under the EqA.

To ensure that individuals with cancer are not substantially disadvantaged, employers should seek to work collaboratively with their employees to understand any issues that may arise as a consequence of their illness and treatment. Employers should seek to identify any reasonable adjustments that might provide solutions to those concerns. Referrals to occupational health can be valuable as they can help both individuals and employers understand a treatment plan and any side effects the individual may experience. Occupational health reports can also be a helpful too in working out whether any particular issues are likely down to the employee’s illness, or whether they can be properly attributed to other issues, such as performance or conduct concerns.  

Employers should also take proactive steps to ensure a work environment free from discrimination and harmful ‘banter’ relating to disability. Having comprehensive policies in place and providing training on equal opportunities can reduce the risk of discrimination. If an employer receives a complaint of discrimination, it should be properly investigated, and disciplinary action should be taken where necessary. It is important to remember that a one-off act is sufficient to constitute discrimination, and the perpetrator’s intention is irrelevant.  

How we can help

If you have any questions about employers’ responsibilities and liabilities relating to disability discrimination, or if you need assistance regarding employee complaints, please contact a member of our Employment team.

[1] Cancer rates rising in under-50s – Cancer Research UK – Cancer News

[2] Cancer – NHS

[3] Definition of disability in section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 – GOV.UK

[4] Mrs C Lofty v Mr S Hamis t/a First Café: UKEAT/0177/17/JOJ – GOV.UK

[5] Ms A Willis v National Westminster Bank plc: 2205821/2020 – GOV.UK

[6] Mrs L Lyddall v The Wooldridge Partnership Ltd: 3314738/2021 – GOV.UK

Corporate and Commercial 2024 Deal Highlights 

Posted on: January 30th, 2025 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

Our Corporate and Commercial Team completed an impressive 30+ M&A deals for our clients last year, with around 20% of those with a deal value in excess of £10m. The team has seen a strong start to the year and we look forward with confidence to the rest of 2025.

Head of Corporate and Commercial Jeff Rubenstein commented ”M&A activity shows optimistic signs of growth in 2025. Our clients anticipate more favourable macroeconomic conditions, especially in our sweet spot of owner managed SME businesses, and we’re well placed to assist them in their ambitions.”

Corporate and Commercial 2024 Deal Highlights

Matt Green provides insights on bitcoin recovery to Thomson Reuters

Posted on: January 27th, 2025 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

In a recent article published by Thomson Reuters, Matt Green, Head of Blockchain and Digital Assets, explores the topic of recovering lost Bitcoin. Alongside his co-authors, Brian Mondoh, Barrister at Titan Chambers, and Marcin Zarakowski CEO of Token Recovery, Matt addresses the common belief that Bitcoin is a decentralized network and explains how recent developments have made it possible to recover lost Bitcoin assets.

The article highlights two primary scenarios for losing Bitcoin: theft or scam, and losing access to private keys or seed phrases. They delve into the Digital Asset Recovery (DAR) process on the BSV blockchain, which allows for the reassignment of lost or stolen digital coins through valid court orders.

By ensuring compliance with court orders, the BSV network can freeze and reassign assets to their rightful owners, making the recovery process more efficient and cost-effective.

Read the full article here.