Regulatory, compliance & risk

Manual handling at work: Understanding employers’ legal duties

Wed, 23 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0100

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:0906043b-603b-4bad-8add-0825192fd482/as/ART-sara-varasteh-nOEGlVWilVU-unsplash.avif?assetname=ART-sara-varasteh-nOEGlVWilVU-unsplash.jpg&originalImageWidth=1980&originalImageHeight=960

article | 5 min read

Manual handling at work: Understanding employers’ legal duties

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

This article considers employers' duties to avoid, assess and reduce risks arising from manual handling and what practical steps organisations can take to protect employees.

Published: 23 September 2026
Authors: Rubina Zaidi

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/rubina-zaidi/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/charles-arrand/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/hayley-saunders/profile

false

style

single-column-text

What is manual handling?

Manual handling operations arise in many sectors, including logistics, warehousing, retail, manufacturing, construction, healthcare and office environments. The activity need not involve lifting a load in a box; it can include moving a patient, pushing a trolley or roll cage or supporting an awkward item.

The Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (the Regulations) define “manual handling operations” as transporting or supporting a load by hand or bodily force, including lifting, putting down, pushing, pulling, carrying or moving it (regulation 2). A “load” includes any person, animal or object.

The Regulations concern operations which involve a risk of injury. Although manual handling is commonly associated with back injuries, “injury” is not confined to back injury. However, the definition excludes injury from a toxic or corrosive substance which has leaked or spilled from a load, is on its surface but has not leaked or spilled from it or is a constituent part of the load.

To whom do the Regulations apply?

The principal duties apply to employers in respect of their employees and to a “relevant self-employed person” in respect of themselves, as defined by regulation 2.

The Regulations sit within a wider health and safety framework. Depending on the circumstances, duties relating to manual handling may also arise under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (the Management Regulations), including the duty to conduct a suitable and sufficient assessment of risks to health and safety.

Employers’ duties: avoid, assess, reduce

Regulation 4 establishes a three-stage hierarchy for controlling manual handling risks:

employers must first avoid the need for employees to undertake manual handling operations which involve a risk of injury, so far as is reasonably practicable. Avoidance may involve eliminating the operation or changing or mechanising the process. Mechanisation can help, but introducing equipment such as forklift trucks may create different hazards which must also be assessed and controlled (see our article Operating forklift trucks: LOLER and the wider legal framework )
where it is not reasonably practicable to avoid manual handling operations involving a risk of injury, employers must make a suitable and sufficient assessment. It should address the actual operation rather than rely solely on generic assumptions. It must be reviewed if there is reason to suspect it is no longer valid or there has been a significant change in the operations, and amended where necessary
employers must then take appropriate steps to reduce the risk of injury to the lowest level reasonably practicable.

Regulation 4 also requires employers to take appropriate steps to provide affected employees with general indications and, where reasonably practicable, precise information about each load’s weight and the heaviest side of a load whose centre of gravity is not positioned centrally.

The assessment

Schedule 1 organises the assessment around five factors to which the employer must have regard: the task, the load, the working environment, individual capability and other factors. Questions which must be considered when making the assessment include:

the task: whether it involves holding or manipulating a load away from the trunk; twisting, stooping, reaching upwards or another unsatisfactory posture or movement; excessive lifting, lowering or carrying distances; excessive pushing or pulling; risk of sudden movement; frequent or prolonged physical effort; insufficient rest; or a rate of work imposed by a process
the load: whether it is heavy, bulky or unwieldy, difficult to grasp, unstable or has contents likely to shift, or is sharp, hot or otherwise potentially damaging
the working environment: whether space constraints prevent good posture; floors are uneven, slippery or unstable; floor or work-surface levels vary; there are extremes of temperature or humidity; conditions cause ventilation problems or gusts of wind; or lighting is poor
individual capability: whether the job requires unusual strength, height or other physical characteristics, creates a hazard for someone who might reasonably be considered pregnant or have a health problem, or requires special information or training for safe performance
other factors: whether movement or posture is hindered by personal protective equipment or clothing.

Regulation 4(3) additionally requires particular regard to the employee’s physical suitability; clothing, footwear or other personal effects; knowledge and training; relevant findings under regulation 3 of the Management Regulations; whether the employee is in a group identified by the findings as being especially at risk; and relevant health-surveillance results.

The role of training

Information and training are important, but do not replace the regulation 4 hierarchy. Regulation 4(3) requires employers to have particular regard to employees’ knowledge and training. Schedule 1 also requires consideration of whether special information or training is needed for the job to be performed safely.

Training should be relevant to the work undertaken and cover the risks identified, the measures in place to control them and the use of aids. Employers should review whether further information or training is needed when operations change.

Employees’ duty

Regulation 5 requires each employee to make full and proper use of any system of work provided by their employer in compliance with regulation 4(1). In practice, employees should follow the system, use aids as instructed and report defects, changes or difficulties. This does not displace the employer’s duties.

Practical steps for organisations

review operations to identify routine and non-routine manual handling operations, including deliveries, maintenance, cleaning, emergencies and tasks undertaken by temporary workers or contractors
consult employees who perform the work and observe its conduct, including foreseeable variations and peak workloads
apply the hierarchy by eliminating unnecessary handling, redesigning operations, using aids, and reducing remaining risks through workplace, organisational and procedural controls
ensure assessments are task-specific and proportionate, appropriately documented and take account of workers who may be especially at risk
ensure aids are suitable, available, maintained and properly used, that employees are trained in their use and that their introduction does not create additional risks
provide information, instruction, training, supervision, and load information required by regulation 4
review arrangements after incidents, reports of difficulties, changes to the task, workplace or workforce, or evidence that controls are ineffective.

Organisations may also use the Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE) risk filters to help identify low-risk operations and decide if a more detailed assessment is required. The HSE provides task-specific tools, including the MAC tool for lifting, carrying and team handling, the RAPP tool for pushing and pulling, and the ART tool for repetitive upper-limb tasks. It also provides checklists to help identify and assess high-risk operations.

The HSE confirms its tools are divided by task type and that some tasks may require more than one tool.

Key takeaway

The law does not prescribe specific weight limits for manual handling, and HSE’s filter values are guidelines rather than safe limits. Compliance requires employers to apply the regulation 4 hierarchy to the actual operations undertaken. Effective arrangements combine appropriate work design, suitable handling aids, task-specific assessments, employee involvement, relevant information and training, monitoring and timely review.

Useful links

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/perspectives-disclaimer

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

COSHH: Not just hazardous chemicals

Wed, 23 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0100

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:66e4a55d-50cb-439e-b678-84a01005f460/as/Brand_Images_Places-(105).avif?assetname=Brand_Images_Places+%28105%29.jpg&originalImageWidth=1000&originalImageHeight=667

article | 5 min read

COSHH: Not just hazardous chemicals

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

This article considers what substances beyond industrial chemicals must be controlled in workplaces and the practical steps that can be taken to protect employees' health.

Published: 23 September 2026
Authors: Rubina Zaidi

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/rubina-zaidi/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/charles-arrand/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/hayley-saunders/profile

false

style

single-column-text

What are substances hazardous to health?

Although The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (the Regulations) are often associated with industrial chemicals, their scope is considerably wider. The Regulations also apply to substances encountered in many non-industrial workplaces, including cleaning products, dusts, fumes, vapours and biological agents.

The definition of a substance hazardous to health in Regulation 2(1) is intentionally broad. In addition to substances carrying hazard classifications, substances assigned workplace exposure limits and biological agents, COSHH applies where a substance creates a health risk because of its chemical or toxicological properties and the way it is used or present at work.

The Regulations are not limited to substances that are inhaled. Employees may be exposed through skin contact, eye contact, skin absorption or accidental ingestion. Employers should therefore consider all potential exposure routes when assessing risk.

COSHH applies to exposure arising out of, or in connection with, work. This distinction means the Regulations would not ordinarily apply simply because an employee contracts an illness from a colleague at work. The focus is on work-related exposure to hazardous substances, although biological agents at workplaces may be caught by the Regulations.

Who has duties under the Regulations?

The Regulations impose duties on employers and the self-employed.

Where an employer has duties under the Regulations to their employees, he has the same duty, so far as is reasonably practicable, in respect of others, whether at work or not, who may be affected by the employer’s work (save for duties relating to health surveillance, monitoring, information and training, and dealing with accidents). ‘Others’ might include contractors, agency workers or members of the public.

Organisations should therefore consider who beyond their direct workforce may be affected by hazardous substances.

Assessing the risk

The starting point for compliance is a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks from substances hazardous to health (regulation 6).

COSHH assessments should include identification of:

the hazardous substances present
who may be exposed
potential exposure routes
the type and extent of exposure
potential health effects
any exposure limits
the measures required to eliminate, prevent or control exposure.

COSHH assessments should not be treated as paper exercises. They should reflect how work is conducted in practice, including maintenance, cleaning operations, emergencies and foreseeable deviations from normal procedures. Assessments must be reviewed if there is reason to suspect they are no longer valid, where the work has significantly changed, or where monitoring or health surveillance indicates existing controls may be inadequate.

Employers should consider whether exposure can be eliminated before considering controls. Any assessment required should consider the effectiveness of existing controls and employers should take account of all exposure routes, including inhalation, ingestion and skin or eye contact. Failure to recognise non-inhalation exposure can result in overlooking significant risks.

While safety data sheets provide useful information about hazardous properties and recommended precautions, they should not be viewed as a substitute for workplace-specific assessments. Risks arising from substances often depends on their use, handling, storage or generation in the workplace.

New or expectant mothers and other vulnerable employees require specific consideration. COSHH assessments should, for example, identify substances that present additional risks during pregnancy or breastfeeding and controls adjusted appropriately.

Preventing or controlling exposure

A key principle of COSHH is that exposure, wherever reasonably practicable, must be prevented, otherwise it must be adequately controlled (regulation 7).

Employers may be able to prevent exposure by:

eliminating the hazardous substance
substituting it with a safer alternative
changing the process to avoid its use or generation, or
using equipment or methods that reduce exposure.

Where exposure cannot be prevented, employers should implement appropriate controls which may include local exhaust ventilation, enclosure of processes, engineering controls, safe systems of work and hygiene measures.

Personal protective equipment (PPE) should generally be used only where adequate controls cannot be otherwise achieved, or as a supplement to other controls.

Other key duties

As well as conducting an assessment and implementing controls, employers should:

ensure control measures are properly used
maintain, examine and test control measures
monitor workplace exposure where necessary
provide health surveillance where appropriate
provide employees with information, instruction and training
establish arrangements for dealing with accidents, incidents and emergencies involving hazardous substances.

The extent of these requirements (regulations 8-13) will depend on the nature of the substances used and the risks identified.

Principles of good practice

Schedule 2A to the Regulations describes eight principles of good practice for controlling exposure to substances hazardous to health which underpin the concept of "adequate control" and provide a practical framework for employers when devising, implementing and reviewing controls.

Employers should design and operate work activities and controls to minimise emission, release and spread of substances hazardous to health. Exposure should be reduced to the lowest level reasonably practicable, with controls applied at source wherever reasonably practicable and a hierarchy of control measures used, prioritising elimination, substitution and engineering controls before relying on PPE.

Measures adopted should be proportionate to the health risks involved, suitable for the nature and severity of the risk and capable of achieving and maintaining adequate control of exposure.

The principles also emphasise that controls should be regularly reviewed to ensure continuing effectiveness, and that employers should consider all potential exposure routes. Employees should be provided with suitable information and training so that controls are used effectively.

Compliance is therefore not achieved through a COSHH assessment alone or by demonstrating that exposure is below a workplace exposure limit. Rather, employers should adopt a preventative and systematic approach that seeks to eliminate or minimise exposure so far as is reasonably practicable and ensure that controls remain effective.

Employees' duties

Employees must use the controls provided for their protection fully and properly and report defects in those controls where appropriate (regulation 8).

Effective compliance depends on both suitable controls and employee engagement.

Training and monitoring effectiveness remain essential to ensure controls are used properly.

Practical steps for employers

identify all substances that could create a risk to health, not just industrial chemicals
complete and regularly review COSHH assessments
eliminate use of hazardous substances where reasonably practicable
substitute safer products or processes where possible
implement appropriate engineering and organisational controls
ensure control measures are maintained and tested
provide suitable information, instruction and training
consider whether health surveillance is required
monitor compliance in practice rather than relying solely on documentation
review arrangements following incidents, near misses, process changes or the introduction of new substances.

Comment

COSHH extends across a wide range of workplaces and to seemingly routine work.

Enforcement action frequently highlights failures to identify or adequately control less obvious hazards arising from dusts, fumes, vapours, biological agents and substances generated by the work itself. Proportionate and well-considered COSHH assessments, coupled with effective control measures and ongoing review, can significantly reduce the risk of occupational ill health and therefore of enforcement action.

As regulators continue to focus on the prevention of work-related ill health, employers should ensure that COSHH compliance forms part of their wider health and safety management arrangements rather than being treated as a standalone exercise. By adopting a proactive approach to identifying and controlling exposure, organisations can better protect employees, reduce business risk and demonstrate compliance with their legal duties.

Useful links

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/perspectives-disclaimer

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

The Hillsborough Law Bill: Key duties and implications

Wed, 23 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0100

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:bbad6353-c8f8-43a4-ad9a-3a135ced018a/as/trading-agreements-and-outsourcing.avif?assetname=trading-agreements-and-outsourcing.jpg&originalImageWidth=1980&originalImageHeight=960

article | 7 min read

The Hillsborough Law Bill: Key duties and implications

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

A new duty of candour could change how organisations engage with inquests, inquiries and public investigations. Here’s what to watch now.

Published: 23 September 2026
Authors: Nancy Wesby

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/nancy-wesby/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/charles-arrand/profile

false

style

single-column-text

Background

The Public Office (Accountability) Bill, commonly known as the Hillsborough Bill, has progressed through Parliament and is currently at Second Reading in the House of Lords, following Commons amendments relating to the security and intelligence services. Subject to completing the remaining parliamentary stages, it is expected to receive Royal Assent before the end of the current Parliamentary session.

The Bill responds to longstanding concerns about the conduct of public authorities and officials following major incidents, investigations and public inquiries. Although rooted in the experiences of the Hillsborough families after the 1989 disaster, it has also been shaped by wider concerns about institutional defensiveness and lack of transparency in major public scandals and inquiries, including Grenfell, the Infected Blood Inquiry, Windrush and the Post Office Horizon affair.

The Bill is also heavily influenced by Bishop James Jones' 2017 report to Parliament, The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power, commissioned after the fresh Hillsborough inquests. The report identified 25 "points of learning", including a statutory duty of candour for public authorities, greater support and participation rights for bereaved families, and a cultural shift towards openness, transparency and accountability. Many of those recommendations underpin what is now known as the Hillsborough Law.

In summary, the Bill aims to ensure that public authorities and officials perform their functions with candour, frankness and in the public interest by:

imposing a duty on public authorities and public officials to act with candour, transparency and frankness in inquiries and investigations, backed by criminal liability
requiring public authorities to promote and maintain ethical conduct
creating new offences of failing to uphold the duty of candour and assistance, and misleading the public
replacing the common law offence of misconduct in public office with two statutory offences
expanding non-means-tested legal aid for bereaved families at inquests in England and Wales where a public authority is an interested person

Who does it apply to?

The Bill applies to a wide range of public authorities and public officials, including central government departments, NHS bodies, local authorities, Integrated Care Boards and the intelligence and security services.

Importantly, however, the obligations are not limited to the public sector. They would also extend to those with a "relevant public responsibility" in connection with an incident under investigation or inquiry, so that organisations closely connected to public functions cannot avoid transparency obligations simply because they sit outside government.

This includes organisations providing services under a direct contract with a public authority, as well as individuals and organisations with health and safety responsibilities connected to the incident. The Bill could therefore capture private sector organisations whose activities are closely linked to public services or public safety.

The explanatory notes give the following example: “…in an event similar to the Post Office Horizon scandal, a public authority contracted with a private company to supply computer software, and defects in that software resulted in significant impacts on members of the public, that company could be subject to the duty of candour and assistance.”.

For private sector organisations, this may be one of the Bill's most significant features. Businesses delivering outsourced public services, supplying critical systems to the public sector, or exercising health and safety responsibilities in connection with an incident could find themselves within scope.

What does it do?

A statutory duty of candour and assistance

Public authorities and public officials must act with candour, transparency and frankness in their dealings with statutory and non-statutory inquiries and inquests. The Bill also allows the duty to be extended to other investigations, including criminal, regulatory, supervisory and public service investigations.

The duty is proactive. Those subject to it must notify the relevant chair, coroner or investigator where their actions or decisions may be relevant, provide reasonable assistance, disclose relevant information, respond openly and accurately, and correct information later found to be incomplete, inaccurate or misleading.

The duty goes beyond responding to information requests. Public authorities and officials are expected to help establish the full facts, placing transparency and accountability above institutional or reputational concerns. Inquiry chairs and coroners may issue directions to secure compliance.

A criminal offence is committed where a person deliberately fails to comply with the duty in order to hinder an inquiry or investigation from finding out what happened or achieving its purpose. An offence may also arise where, after being required to provide information or assistance, they act recklessly as to whether their failure will obstruct the process.

The duty does not override legal professional privilege, the privilege against self-incrimination or public interest immunity. However, questions are likely to arise as to how these protections interact with the new obligations in practice, including when organisations will be regarded as falling within scope. Early case law is therefore likely to be closely watched.

Mandatory ethical conduct framework

The Bill requires public authorities to promote and maintain high standards of ethical conduct, transparency and frankness, and to have regard to guidance expected to align with the Nolan Principles.

Public bodies must adopt a code of conduct explaining how staff should act with candour, transparency and openness, how those standards apply in practice, and the consequences of failing to meet them, including where failures may amount to gross misconduct.

The code must also explain:

how concerns can be raised where someone may not have complied with the code
the process for protected disclosures, including relevant internal policies
how members of the public can complain about the authority or its staff, including any external complaint bodies

New criminal offence - Misleading the public

The Bill creates a new offence where a public authority intentionally or recklessly misleads the public and its conduct is "seriously improper".

Conduct will be "seriously improper" only where a reasonable person would regard it as such in all the circumstances. This includes significant or repeated dishonesty on matters of substantial public concern, such as inaccurate evidence to an inquiry, withholding key documents, failing to disclose public safety information, or misleading bereaved families. The conduct must have caused, contributed to, or risked harm, and significantly depart from expected standards.

Seriously improper acts to prevent death or serious injury

The Bill introduces a new offence of breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury. It applies where a public office holder has a role-based duty to protect another person from death or serious injury, knows or ought to know of that duty, and intentionally or recklessly breaches it, causing or creating a significant risk of such harm. The breach must fall far below the expected standard.

"Critical harm" means death or grievous bodily harm under the Offences against the Person Act 1861. CPS guidance indicates that grievous bodily harm may include life-changing injuries and injuries requiring significant or sustained medical treatment, even where the person later makes a full or near-full recovery.

The offence is intended to apply only to public office holders whose roles inherently involve protecting others from critical harm, such as members of the armed forces, firefighters and police officers.

The proposed offence would replace misconduct in public office and provide a clearer statutory basis for accountability where intentional or reckless breaches of duty expose others to critical harm.

Parity of arms for bereaved families

The Bill will introduce non-means-tested legal aid for families at inquests whenever a public authority is an interested person and is legally represented. Public authorities must ensure their own representation is necessary and proportionate, and chairs and coroners must have regard to an overriding objective of enabling full and effective participation by affected persons.

In practice, these provisions may increase the number of legally represented participants and the scrutiny applied to the evidence and decision-making of public bodies. Public authorities will also need to consider carefully whether legal representation is necessary and proportionate in each case.

The Lord Chancellor must also issue conduct guidance for public authorities and their lawyers, which may influence approaches to disclosure, engagement with interested persons and participation in inquests.

Operational questions remain, including when funding will be available and whether the regime will achieve parity where legal aid rates differ from rates available to lawyers acting for public authorities.

Practical readiness: steps organisations can take now

Although the Bill remains subject to the parliamentary process, organisations that may fall within scope should consider whether their governance and investigation procedures would support compliance with the proposed duty of candour and assistance.

Practical steps include reviewing policies and training to promote transparent engagement with inquiries, investigations and inquests; identifying internal ownership and escalation routes for significant incidents; assessing document retention, preservation and disclosure processes; and, for suppliers to public authorities, reviewing contracts to ensure cooperation, information sharing and investigation obligations are clearly allocated.

Organisations likely to be involved in inquiries or inquests should also consider how legal professional privilege, public interest immunity and information governance would be managed in practice, and whether protocols are in place to respond quickly to information and assistance requests.

Key issues to watch include:

A number of aspects of the Bill are likely to attract particular attention as it progresses through Parliament and, if enacted, through the courts:

when non-means-tested legal aid will be available for families at inquests
the practical impact of proportionality requirements on public authorities and their lawyers
the extent to which private sector organisations providing public services or functions will fall within scope
how the courts interpret key concepts, including "functions of a public nature" and the thresholds for the proposed offences

Conclusion

The Hillsborough Law represents a significant development in the legal framework governing inquiries, investigations and inquests. By imposing a proactive duty of candour and assistance, creating new enforcement mechanisms and extending obligations beyond traditional public bodies, the Bill may affect a broader range of organisations than its title initially suggests.

Whether all aspects of the proposals become law remains to be seen. However, organisations operating in regulated environments, delivering public services, or undertaking activities with significant public safety implications should monitor the Bill closely and consider whether their governance, investigation and disclosure processes would withstand the enhanced scrutiny envisaged by the legislation.

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/perspectives-disclaimer

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

UK cartel investigation decision stretches two important concepts

Tue, 22 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0100

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:a8933f99-26b0-40c9-a6b8-0466432a965c/as/ART-u2114277519_Create_images_that_reflect_a_global_outlook._They_fd2a8779-a779-47d7-9bd8-b074b21b5b2c_1.avif?assetname=ART-u2114277519_Create_images_that_reflect_a_global_outlook._They_fd2a8779-a779-47d7-9bd8-b074b21b5b2c_1.jpg&originalImageWidth=1980&originalImageHeight=960

article | 2 min read

UK cartel investigation decision stretches two important concepts

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

A UK cartel law decision identifies challenges for independent UK businesses whose activities are largely outside the UK.

Published: 22 September 2026
Authors: Kiran Desai

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/kiran-desai/profile

false

style

single-column-text

The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has competition powers. The FCA issued a commitment decision on 18 September 2026 relating to 11 traders in relation to conduct in commodity futures trading (Decision to Accept Commitments: CA98.2023.01).

The FCA can accept the offer of commitments if, pursuant to its investigation, it holds ‘competition concerns’ and has determined that commitments offered by the direct object of the investigation addresses the competition concerns. As such, in a commitment decision the FCA does not make a finding of infringement.

Two elements of the current matter raise risks for businesses who think their activities are not subject to UK competition law.

First, the decision relates to traders who, for a cartel to exist, need to be separate undertakings. The FCA’s decision identifies that each trader (a) traded for his own profit using his own funds, (b) was responsible for his trading decisions, (c) operated as an independent contractor, rather than an employee, and thus the FCA characterised the traders as competitors. However, the evidence presented also identifies (i) the traders were members of the same trading group, (ii) the trading group was run and owned by one of the traders and another individual, (iii) a single group trading agreement governed the relationship between the traders, the trading group and others, (iv) each trader’s funds were pooled with the other traders funds for risk purposes, (iv) the traders had a common trading infrastructure, and (v) two of the traders operated under regulatory permissions of another trader.

Arguably, there is at least as much to point to the traders being not separate undertakings as there is to them being sufficiently connected for competition law purposes.

Second, infringement of UK competition law requires that the object or effect of a cartel is the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the UK. The FCA’s expressed view is that the traders (all of whom were based and active in the UK) compete, and so the traders ‘trade within the UK’. However, the decision is notably absent as regards any evidence connecting the traders’ activity as regards energy futures contracts traded on exchanges, most of which are outside the UK, and the extent that they traded on futures contracts on a UK exchange. As such, factually, the link to any possible effect of that activity to the UK is speculative at best.

The FCA’s decision raises two important lessons. First, activity undertaken in the UK that relates largely to non-UK markets cannot automatically be regarded as a safe harbour. Second, activities undertaken by entities that seem independent but do not fully regard themselves as separate entities, are more susceptible to competition law than they consider.

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/perspectives-disclaimer

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-dispute-resolution-and-litigation

]]>

Commercial Payments Bill: Reforming UK late payment legislation

Wed, 16 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0100

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:13e3c9fd-2eee-49b2-b2d0-06d147b00e5e/as/ART-MJ00001.avif?assetname=ART-MJ00001.png&originalImageWidth=1980&originalImageHeight=960

article | 4 min read

Commercial Payments Bill: Reforming UK late payment legislation

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

Late last year, the UK Government opened a consultation announcing significant proposals to tackle late payment practices as part of a broader plan to stimulate growth within the SME sector (see our earlier article here). The proposed reforms were formalised earlier this year by way of announcement of the Commercial Payments Bill (the “Bill”) in the King’s Speech. The proposed legislation is aimed at strengthening and modernising the rules which currently exist to protect small businesses against the detrimental impact of late payments.

Published: 16 September 2026
Authors: Michelle Craven-Faulkner & Stefanie Hughes

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/michelle-craven-faulkner/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/stefanie-hughes/profile

false

style

single-column-text

The Bill has undergone committee stage and entered report stage earlier this month, providing a further opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny and amendment. Whilst various details of the new regime will require secondary legislation, we have set out some of the key elements of the Bill below.

Payment terms capped at 60-days to protect small businesses

Subject to certain exemptions, a 60-day deadline to pay invoices will apply when large businesses enter into contracts to pay smaller businesses. This position will apply by default, and parties will not be able to vary this under contract. Certain limited exemptions to the 60-day payment deadline are proposed within the Bill, for example where the smaller party is the purchaser, or where the contract is between two large undertakings. Secondary legislation will be required to define business sizes for the purposes of any exempted transactions. Subject to further consultation, there is also an intention to introduce an exemption from maximum payment terms for contracts for imports and exports. In the event that the purchaser is a public authority, payment terms will be capped at 30 days. The most recent amendments to the Bill (see here) introduce consequential amendments to the Procurement Act 2023 to simplify the calculation of certain payment dates.

Some concerns have been raised that there is a lack of clarity on the point at which the purchaser is deemed to have discharged its obligation to pay within the deadline. For example, is the purchaser deemed to have paid when they have instructed payment, or is the obligation only discharged at the point that the supplier receives the funds? In the latter scenario, purchasers may risk incurring mandatory interest (see further below) if there are banking delays which are outside of their control.

Mandatory and non-negotiable statutory interest on late payments

Interest on late payments will accrue at 8% above the Bank of England base rate, with the Bill providing that contractual terms which seek to exclude or restrict the right to the statutory rate of interest will have no effect. The Bill also renames the existing Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 as the Commercial Payments and Interest on Late Payment Act 1998, reflecting the broader reform of the regime.

Further detail is required on whether purchasers will be obliged to automatically apply interest on overdue invoices, or whether the onus will be on suppliers to take a proactive approach in claiming any interest.

Time limits for disputing invoices and fixed sum penalties for raising disputes in certain circumstances

The Bill introduces a time limit within which a business must raise an invoice dispute. This is aimed at preventing a business from raising a dispute in bad faith immediately before the invoice is due under the contract.

The Bill also introduces an implied term into contracts which allows for a supplier to recover a fixed sum from a purchaser where a dispute is raised late or without sufficient information.

Clarity is required as to whether there is a set length of time within which a dispute must be resolved once it has been raised. If there is no deadline for resolving disputes, businesses could rely on an ongoing, meritless dispute as a basis on which to delay or withhold payment.

Enhanced reporting requirements, and increased board-level accountability for “large” UK companies and LLPs

The new measures mandate greater transparency from such large organisations around their payment performance and practices, and interest owed on late payments.

Strengthened enforcement powers for the Small Business Commissioner (SBC)

The SBC will be equipped with new powers such as the ability to investigate practices, and impose financial penalties for non-compliance with the new rules.

The trigger mechanism which will enable the SBC to initiate an investigation will centre on whether a business has “persistently engaged in poor payment practices”. Whilst the draft Bill provides some indication of what may constitute poor practice, it remains to be seen what will constitute “persistent” in practice.

Sector-specific reforms

The use of retention clauses within construction contracts will be banned. For additional detail on these provisions, see our earlier article Retention ban moves a step closer – but what will replace it?

Practical next steps for commercial teams:

review standard payment terms and identify any arrangements exceeding the anticipated statutory cap
map and test invoice-to-payment processes to identify bottlenecks and delays and implement systems to mitigate such risks
implement systems to track payment dates and calculate any interest which may fall due in the event of non-compliance
strengthen invoice validation and dispute escalation processes to meet any statutory deadlines
ensure payment data is accurate and capable of supporting enhanced reporting requirements
consider governance structures, including board-level oversight and audit scrutiny of payment practices.

REFORMS REPRESENT FUNDAMENTAL REGULATORY INTERVENTION

“These reforms represent a fundamental regulatory intervention in commercial payment practices, not a marginal adjustment. The introduction of hard payment caps, coupled with mandatory interest and enhanced enforcement powers, will force large organisations to confront long-entrenched behaviours in their supply chains. Whilst the policy intent is clear, the operational challenge for businesses should not be underestimated. Payment compliance will become a systems and process issue as much as a legal one. Boards will need to take ownership of payment performance as a matter of financial discipline, reputational risk, and regulatory exposure. Businesses that fail to adapt quickly will face not only increased cost but meaningful scrutiny from regulators and the market.”

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/perspectives-disclaimer

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-transactional-and-advisory/ddcc-strategic-commercial-contracts

]]>

Operating forklift trucks: LOLER and the wider legal framework

Wed, 9 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0100

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:041da4ac-1eda-4676-9838-856d1868d803/as/ART-u2114277519_create_high_end_photography_showing_logistics_veh_9a921dd3-de5f-4f62-b073-a66d911f95a5_0.avif?assetname=ART-u2114277519_create_high_end_photography_showing_logistics_veh_9a921dd3-de5f-4f62-b073-a66d911f95a5_0.jpg&originalImageWidth=1980&originalImageHeight=960

article | 5 min read

Operating forklift trucks: LOLER and the wider legal framework

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

This article summarises key requirements relating to forklift trucks and practical steps to help organisations manage the risks arising from their use and comply with the law.

Published: 11 September 2026
Authors: Rubina Zaidi

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/rubina-zaidi/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/charles-arrand/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/hayley-saunders/profile

false

style

single-column-text

What is a forklift truck?

For the purposes of this article, “forklift truck” is used to refer principally to rider-operated forklift trucks. These are primarily designed to lift, lower and move materials. The article does not address fixed lifts and hoists or mobile elevating work platforms, such as cherry pickers and scissor lifts, which are intended primarily to lift people. A non-integrated working platform attached to a forklift truck should be used to lift people only in the exceptional circumstances described in Health and Safety Executive (HSE) guidance.

The wider legal framework

Forklift trucks can create serious risks for operators, pedestrians and others. The relevant framework extends beyond the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER). Depending on the circumstances, duties may also arise under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER), and the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992.

A forklift truck is work equipment under PUWER and, when used to lift or lower loads, is lifting equipment under LOLER. The regimes commonly apply together.

The legislation covers specific risks associated with operations involving lifting equipment. Those responsible for the safe operation of such equipment should review their arrangements to ensure the associated risks are being properly identified and controlled and that applicable legal duties are being met.

Key duties under LOLER

LOLER applies to employers in respect of lifting equipment provided for use or used by employees at work. In specified circumstances, its requirements also apply to relevant self-employed persons and to persons who, in connection with a trade, business or other undertaking, control lifting equipment, those who use, supervise or manage its use, or the way it is used, but only to the extent of their control (regulation 3).

Principal duties include:

strength and stability: equipment must be of adequate strength and stability for each load. Every part of a load and anything attached to and used in lifting it must also be of adequate strength (regulation 4)
lifting people: equipment must prevent a person using it from being crushed, trapped or struck, or falling from the carrier. Where activities are carried out from the carrier, those risks must be prevented so far as is reasonably practicable. Subject to a limited exception, suitable devices must prevent the risk of the carrier falling, and a trapped person must not be exposed to danger and must be capable of being freed (regulation 5)
positioning and installation: equipment must be positioned or installed to reduce, so far as is reasonably practicable, the risk of the equipment or load striking a person, or a load drifting, falling freely or being unintentionally released (regulation 6)
marking: lifting machinery and accessories must be clearly marked with their safe working load. Additional marking requirements apply where capacity depends on configuration and where equipment is, or is not, intended to lift people (regulation 7)
lifting operations: every operation must be properly planned by a competent person, appropriately supervised and carried out safely (regulation 8)
thorough examination: lifting equipment must be thoroughly examined and inspected in prescribed circumstances (regulation 9).

Thorough examination, reports and records

Before lifting equipment is first put into service, it must be thoroughly examined unless it has not previously been used, the relevant declaration of conformity could or should have been drawn up, the employer has received that declaration, and it was made no more than 12 months before the equipment was put into service. Alternatively, where equipment is obtained from another person’s undertaking, it must be accompanied by physical evidence showing the last thorough examination required by regulation 9 has been undertaken.

Where safety depends on installation conditions, examination is required after installation and before first use, and after assembly at a new site or location.

Equipment exposed to conditions causing deterioration liable to result in dangerous situations must be thoroughly examined at least every six months if used to lift people or if it is a lifting accessory, and at least every twelve months for other lifting equipment, or in accordance with an examination scheme. Examination is also required following exceptional circumstances liable to jeopardise safety. Where appropriate, inspections must take place at suitable intervals between thorough examinations.

A thorough examination is a systematic, detailed examination of the equipment and safety-critical parts by a competent person, not routine maintenance, servicing or a pre-use check. The person should have appropriate practical and theoretical knowledge and experience of the equipment and be sufficiently independent and impartial to make objective decisions.

The examiner must notify the employer forthwith of any defect which is or could become dangerous and, as soon as practicable, provide the employer and anyone from whom the equipment has been hired or leased with an authenticated written report containing the particulars required by Schedule 1.

Where a defect involves an existing or imminent risk of serious personal injury, the report must also be sent to the relevant enforcing authority. Equipment must not be used before an existing dangerous defect is rectified. If a defect could become dangerous by a specified time, it must not be used after that time until rectified (regulation 10).

Required declarations of conformity, thorough examination reports and inspection records must be retained for the periods prescribed by regulation 11.

Practical steps for dutyholders

Organisations should integrate LOLER compliance with their wider arrangements for work equipment and workplace transport. Practical measures include:

identifying the lifting operations and equipment within the organisation’s undertaking or control, including non-routine work, attachments and relevant contractor activities
assessing each task by reference to the truck, load, centre of gravity, capacity, attachment, route, ground conditions, visibility, people exposed to risk and foreseeable abnormal use
selecting a truck and compatible attachment suitable for the task, and ensuring the rated capacity is understood and not exceeded
ensuring operations are planned by a person competent for the task, with proportionate supervision and an appropriate safe system of work
providing adequate training and authorisation for operators, and sufficient information, instruction and training for managers and supervisors
maintaining an accurate equipment register and coordinating pre-use checks, defect reporting, preventive maintenance, PUWER inspections and LOLER thorough examinations
checking examination reports are complete, acting on defects within the specified timescale and withdrawing equipment from use where regulation 10 requires
ensuring purpose-designed access equipment is used to raise people rather than forks or an improvised platform. Any exceptional use of a non-integrated platform on a forklift truck should be undertaken in accordance with HSE guidance, using a suitable and compatible truck-platform combination and appropriate planning and risk controls.

Finally...

A current report of thorough examination alone does not demonstrate compliance with every relevant duty. Safe operation depends on suitable equipment, competent people, effective planning and supervision, maintenance, inspection, pre-use checks and prompt action on defects. For forklift trucks, LOLER should therefore be treated as part of an integrated system for managing work equipment and risks relating to workplace transport.

Useful links

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/perspectives-disclaimer

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

Modern slavery reporting: Are you ready for tougher rules?

Fri, 4 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0100

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:367f0cac-7c6f-4c20-8f1d-44983eea1ae2/as/ART-u2114277519_Close-up_product_shoot_of_a_green_electric_cable__54f9d579-cd76-4ab2-9bd2-9ade412108c3_0.avif?assetname=ART-u2114277519_Close-up_product_shoot_of_a_green_electric_cable__54f9d579-cd76-4ab2-9bd2-9ade412108c3_0.jpg&originalImageWidth=1980&originalImageHeight=960

article | 3 min read

Modern slavery reporting: Are you ready for tougher rules?

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

Introduced into the House of Commons on 30 June 2026, the Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026 (the Bill) looks set to significantly overhaul the UK's corporate modern slavery reporting regime.

Published: 4 September 2026
Authors: Michelle Craven-Faulkner

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/michelle-craven-faulkner/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/stefanie-hughes/profile

false

style

single-column-text

The current reporting framework under the Modern Slavery Act 2015

The existing corporate modern slavery reporting regime is set out in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (the MSA) and requires commercial organisations within its scope to publish an annual slavery and human trafficking statement. Pursuant to section 54 of the MSA, the statement must describe the steps the organisation has taken to ensure that slavery and human trafficking are not taking place within its supply chains, or any part of its business. Alternatively, an organisation may publish a statement confirming that it has taken no such steps.

The MSA has long been criticised for imposing relatively limited reporting obligations on commercial organisations, and for lacking meaningful sanctions. The Bill would introduce the most significant changes to the UK’s corporate modern slavery framework since the enactment of the MSA over a decade ago.

Mandatory reporting under the Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026

Whilst the MSA identifies a number of topics that organisations may choose to address in their statements, it does not mandate the inclusion of particular information. Organisations are therefore free to determine the content of their statement, with brevity often the preferred approach.

The Immigration and Asylum Bill would significantly overhaul this position by introducing mandatory reporting requirements relating to the content of slavery and human trafficking statements. Under the draft proposals, organisations would be required to report on:

their structure, operations and supply chains
steps taken to identify, assess, and mitigate the risk of slavery and human trafficking in their business and supply chains, and where no such steps have been taken, the reasons for this
any policies relating to slavery and human trafficking and, where no such policies are in place, the reasons for this
any training made available to staff, and, where no such training has been provided, reasons as to why
due diligence which has been conducted and implemented in relation to modern slavery risks
any measures taken to assess the organisation’s effectiveness in ensuring that slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in its business and supply chains.

Financial penalties

Financial penalties under the updated regime will be determined under secondary legislation but would be capped at the higher of: (a) 1% of total turnover (for commercial organisations) or total budget (for public authorities), or (b) GBP 1 million. The updated regime would also extend to public authorities that meet certain financial thresholds (which will also be determined by way of secondary legislation).

Increased governance and accountability

In addition, organisations should prepare for:

a longstop statement publication deadline of six months after the end of their financial year
increased visibility at board level, with statements requiring governing body approval, as well as a personal declaration from the signatory that the statement is “accurate to the best of their knowledge and belief”.

Preparing for the proposed reforms

For organisations with established supplier due diligence, internal governance and training programmes, the proposed reforms may not require a radical overhaul of their existing processes. However, organisations that have thus far adopted a minimum-compliance approach to their reporting obligations should start to prepare now. Whilst the Bill is not yet law, the scale of the proposed reforms should not be underestimated. For example, an organisation that has not yet taken action in relation to any one of the mandatory reporting areas will be required to issue an explanation as to why, creating significant reputational risk and regulatory scrutiny for those demonstrating inaction.

Steps organisations can take now

Organisations may wish to review their supply chain operations and existing practices to ensure they have the information necessary to identify and appropriately mitigate modern slavery risks. Such review may include a deep dive into current risk-assessment processes when engaging new suppliers or renewing existing contracts. It may also include a thorough review of internal governance procedures, such as existing policies and training programmes, with a view to identifying areas where further controls may be required.

Organisations may also wish to check existing contracts for audit rights, as well as provisions requiring the supply of information. This will provide crucial visibility into the supply chain which can be used for risk-assessment purposes. Organisations that supply to the public sector should also be prepared for enhanced due diligence during any public procurement processes.

Key takeaways

The proposed reforms signal a shift from a largely transparency-focussed regime to one with a real emphasis on accountability. Organisations should use this time to review their current compliance frameworks and ensure that these can withstand any incoming enhanced obligations.

Further information

You can find further details on the Immigration and Asylum Bill here.

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/perspectives-disclaimer

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-transactional-and-advisory/ddcc-strategic-commercial-contracts

]]>

Consultation on the withholding tax regime: What you need to know

Tue, 18 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0100

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:a6f979f0-cc83-4087-a19b-ed7808bf676a/as/ART-US00010.avif?assetname=ART-US00010.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

Article | 2 min read

Consultation on the withholding tax regime

What you need to know

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The UK Government is consulting on the simplification of the UK withholding tax regime. One of the changes being mooted is a move towards a ‘self-assessment’ style system whereby UK borrowers assess whether the conditions for relief from UK withholding tax are met rather than applying for, and relying on, directions from HMRC to this effect.

Published: 16 August 2026
Author: Thomas Wilkinson & Laura Gould

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/laura-gould/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/laura-board/profile

false

style

single-column-text

Background

The UK Government quietly launched a consultation in July 2026 regarding withholding tax on payments of interest made to overseas lenders. The aim of the consultation is to seek views on whether the administration of treaty relief from the UK’s withholding tax (WHT) regime could be simplified without resulting in a loss of tax.

The government acknowledges that the current system can be “costly and challenging to navigate”; we agree with this comment - in our experience, the current system can be complex, costly and time consuming.

The current system

At a high level, where treaty relief is considered to apply, a UK borrower is required to withhold tax at the basic rate (20%) from UK source yearly interest payments made to an overseas lender on account of that overseas lender’s UK tax liability unless HMRC provide directions that the borrower may make a payment to the overseas lender gross of UK WHT (subject to some exemptions).

In practical terms, where an overseas lender is ‘passported’ (i.e., it has a DTTP number), a borrower can submit a DTTP2 application to HMRC requesting directions that interest may be paid gross of UK WHT (or at a reduced rate depending on the terms of the double tax treaty between the UK and the jurisdiction of the relevant overseas lender). If the lender is not ‘passported’ but is nonetheless entitled to treaty relief in relation to interest payments it receives from a UK borrower, a standard double tax treaty application must be submitted to HMRC before interest can be paid to the overseas lender gross of UK WHT – it can take HMRC many months to process these applications.

Until HMRC issue directions to a borrower that it may pay interest to an overseas lender gross of UK WHT, the borrower is not entitled to make interest payments to an overseas lender without withholding tax at the basic rate, even if it is quite clear that the relevant conditions for treaty relief are met.

This can lead to increased costs for borrowers who are usually required to "gross up" the lender under facility agreements until a direction is received. Where treaty relief is sought, due to the length of time is takes to obtain a direction outside of the DTTP scheme, the first interest payment date may need to be pushed back to enable a borrower to make the payment free of withholding tax. Relying on alternative WHT exemptions may also need to be explored.

In other words, under the current system, HMRC acts as gatekeeper and their advance clearance is required before interest payments may be paid subject to treaty relief.

A move towards borrower ‘self-assessment’?

To simplify the regime, the consultation seeks views on, amongst other things, a move towards a ‘self-assessment’ style system. Under this system, a borrower would assess whether the conditions under the relevant double-tax treaty between the UK and the overseas lender’s jurisdiction are met and, assuming it considers the relevant conditions are met, the borrower could make the interest payment(s) gross of UK WHT to the overseas lender without directions from HMRC.

This would certainly represent simplification for HMRC as they would no longer be required to consider these applications and issue directions to borrowers in response to the same.

In some respects, this would also offer simplification for UK borrowers in that they would likewise no longer be required to deal with the administrative burden of submitting DTTP2 applications to HMRC. However, this would shift a different type of compliance burden onto borrowers as they would need to assess whether they consider, ahead of making an interest payment to an overseas lender, whether the relevant conditions for relief are met such that they can legitimately make these payments gross of UK WHT. If borrowers get that assessment wrong, HMRC could seek the underlying tax which should have been withheld as well as penalties and late payment interest from the borrower.

Additionally, since HMRC are keen to maintain effective reporting requirements “even where no UK tax is payable”, any move to a self-assessment style system would likely see additional reporting requirements for borrowers.

Concessionary treatment where things have gone wrong

As mentioned, HMRC ‘gatekeep’ the WHT regime and issue directions providing that borrowers can make interest payments to overseas lenders gross of UK WHT (or at a reduced rate) if they are satisfied that the necessary conditions for relief are met under the relevant double tax treaty between the UK and the overseas lender’s jurisdiction.

Up until recently, HMRC operated a concessionary treatment under which, where interest was paid to an overseas lender gross of UK WHT (or at a reduced rate) without the necessary directions from HMRC, but the conditions for relief under the relevant double tax treaty were met, HMRC would not seek to recover the underlying tax from the borrower and would instead seek to recover only late payment interest and penalties.

This felt like a fair and common-sense approach – after all, HMRC are not ultimately entitled to this tax as the overseas lender’s jurisdiction has taxing rights over the interest pursuant to the double tax treaty. The borrower simply failed to get the necessary directions in place ahead of making the interest payment gross (or at a reduced rate) to the overseas lender.

However, this concession is currently paused and is flagged as being not within scope of the consultation. That is not particularly surprising because if there was a move towards a self-assessment style system, there would be no need for the concessionary treatment.

Either a UK borrower:

correctly determines that full or partial treaty relief is available and makes the appropriate payment to the overseas lender; or
incorrectly determines that full or partial treaty relief is available and makes a payment to an overseas lender gross of withholding tax or at a reduced rate. Since this was incorrect and withholding tax was indeed due, the borrower is rightly liable for the UK WHT that should have been withheld – the concessionary treatment would not offer the borrower any forbearance in this scenario in any event.

Conclusion

We agree that the current system is complicated and ripe for simplification – a move towards a ‘self-assessment’ style regime therefore appears to be sensible and there is precedent for this in relation to royalties.

However, this will mean that borrowers will be required to take on the risk of assessing whether the conditions for relief from UK WHT are met – with potentially significant tax liability (as well as interest and penalties) if borrowers get that assessment wrong. Clearly, a borrower’s assessment of the UK WHT position can only be as robust as the information provided to it by the overseas lender in question – naturally, if a ‘self-assessment’ style regime is adopted, loan documentation will have to carefully consider how to allocate risk on this point between borrowers and overseas lenders.

HMRC are clearly nervous about the potential for a loss of tax arising from a simplification of the regime and are consulting on potential safeguards which can be put in place to ensure compliance. There is a delicate balancing act here – if the compliance requirements on borrowers are particularly onerous under any new regime, this will limit the extent to which the UK WHT regime has been simplified and risks swapping one type of administrative complexity for another.

The consultation closes on 7 September 2026 and HMRC's next steps will be watched with interest by banks, private equity sponsors, and multinational groups amongst others.

If you would like to discuss the potential impact of the consultation on your financing arrangements, please contact a member of the Shoosmiths tax team.

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/perspectives-disclaimer

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-transactional-and-advisory/ddcc-tax

]]>

New tech, old law (part 2): UKJT confirms its position on liability for AI harm

Tue, 11 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0100

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:e5a2d752-7778-45a5-9db5-16b9156d3a90/as/ART-US00117.avif?assetname=ART-US00117.jpg

article | 4 min read

New tech, old law (part 2)

UKJT confirms its position on liability for AI harm

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

What's new in the UKJT's final legal statement on civil liability for AI harm, and what does this mean for businesses in the supply chain and/or as end users?

Published: 11 August 2026
Authors: Alex Bishop, Peter Richards-Gaskin, Alex Kirkhope, Sarah Reynolds, Claire Kershaw & Stefanie Hughes

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/alex-bishop/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/peter-richards-gaskin/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/alex-kirkhope/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/sarah-reynolds/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/claire-kershaw/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/stefanie-hughes/profile

false

style

single-column-text

The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT) has published its final legal statement on liability for AI harm, following consultation on its draft legal statement published earlier this year. While the UKJT’s core conclusions (as discussed in our previous article) remain largely unchanged, the final statement incorporates some further analysis in certain areas. This article focusses on those developments and the key takeaways for businesses, both in the AI supply chain and as end users.

Summary of key updates

Vicarious liability and non-delegable duties

the final statement discusses a further important aspect of potential liability for harm caused by another, namely where there is a non-delegable duty to protect against that harm¹. Giving the example of an NHS Trust procuring an AI diagnostic tool from a third-party developer, the statement notes the Trust would not be able to avoid liability for any harm caused to a patient as a result of a defect in the tool by arguing the defect was the developer’s fault. The Trust would, however, likely consider seeking a contribution from the developer under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 – subject to the usual analysis on causation, contributory negligence and so on.

Factual causation and material contribution to damage

the final statement also includes a new discussion around the principle of ‘material contribution to damage’ – to date predominantly applied in cases involving industrial disease and clinical negligence, but arguably of general application. The principle essentially fills a gap left where, through multiple wrongdoers, harm was caused, but on a strict ‘but for’ analysis no single wrongdoer’s act or omission caused the harm. An example is given of two waste plants, one using human employees only and the other an AI system, negligently discharging equal amounts of waste into a river which together take the pollution level above a particular threshold.

Contributory negligence

the potential impact of contributory negligence was not addressed in the draft statement – the final statement now considers how such arguments may play part of the assessment of liability for harm caused by AI. The statement does not suggest that any particular new principles or analysis need apply, but emphasises that the question will always be highly fact specific, and the nature of the user (commercial or non-commercial) and the level of verification of the AI output will be key themes.

Defamation

the expanded discussion in the final statement emphasises that the extent to which anyone in the AI supply chain may be considered a publisher is highly fact specific. This may be most straightforward to establish in the case of commercial publishers using AI tools to generate content for their website. At the other end of the scale, the UKJT suggests that a Foundation Model Developer, with no involvement in publication of a statement beyond having licensed the use of their model, may potentially be deemed a publisher of a defamatory statement generated by it - if they have sufficient practical ability to prevent further publication.
the final statement also acknowledges that how the defences available under s.1 of the Defamation Act 1996 and s.5 of the Defamation Act 2013 may apply in relation to AI-generated content is unclear. In relation to s.5 of the 2013 Act for example (Operators of websites), the potential defence is predicated on the basis of there being a ‘poster’ of a statement with whom the website operator must seek to correspond, but query whether/who a court would consider to be a ‘poster’ of an AI-generated statement.

What does this mean for businesses?

As noted in our previous article, in most commercial contexts the contractual arrangements between the parties in an AI supply chain will be the most important legal framework governing liability for any harm arising. For businesses operating in this space and their advisers negotiating commercial contracts, meticulous attention to detail must go hand in hand with a thorough understanding of the technology (both as it stands and how it may evolve) as well as its intended/likely deployment downstream.

For businesses as end users of AI tools the key points to note include:

generally speaking, an organisation could not be held vicariously liable for harm caused by an AI tool it is using since the tool itself, in the absence of its own legal personality, could not be held primarily liable. An organisation could however be held vicariously liable for wrongdoing, such as negligence, by an employee in connection with their use of an AI tool. Moreover, an organisation using an AI tool in the performance of a non-delegable duty could not avoid primary liability to anyone harmed as a result of a defect in the AI tool, but could seek to recoup (at least partially) any such liability incurred by way of a contribution claim against the tool developer (subject of course to the usual analysis and any contractual arrangements preventing or limiting their ability to do so).
more particularly, organisations using chatbots may potentially be liable for false statements made by it if the chatbot is held out as communicating on the organisation’s behalf, if there is an express or implied representation that the chatbot’s output is accurate, and/or if the chatbot makes a defamatory statement. Such organisations should make clear to users that the chatbot is AI-powered, that its output may be inaccurate/contain hallucinations, and that any views expressed do not represent those of the organisation. Those organisations in scope of the EU AI Act are likely to be familiar with these types of requirements, given their alignment with the Act’s transparency obligations.
for professional services firms, consideration of whether, when and how to deploy AI tools must form part of their ongoing assessment, exercising reasonable care and skill, of how to carry out their client’s instructions. While any guidance from relevant regulators and professional bodies will be instructive in this respect, given the implications for their own liability, amongst other good reasons, professionals must exercise their own judgment in the context of the particular matter and their client’s objectives. In some scenarios, a client may prefer to forego a potential benefit of using AI in order to avoid a potential risk. The critical foundational step is to identify and explain competently the potential options and the risks and benefits of each.

¹ Such duties are rare and their defining features were articulated by the Supreme Court in Woodland v Essex County Council [2013] UKSC 66 (23 October 2013) at paragraph [23]. In short where it is established that Party A owes a non-delegable duty of care to Party B and outsources an integral part of its functions to Party C, if Party B suffers harm as a result of Party C’s negligence in the performance of that particular function, Party A will still be liable to Party B. Non-delegable duties may arise for example in the context of prisons, care homes and schools.

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/perspectives-disclaimer

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-dispute-resolution-and-litigation

]]>

Less healthy foods: What are the key lessons from the ASA’s rulings?

Mon, 27 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0100

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:5ec38334-77d5-4711-994f-45068068de14/as/ART-US00011.avif?assetname=ART-US00011.jpg

article | 4 min read

Less healthy foods: What are the key lessons from the ASA’s rulings?

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

In July 2026, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) published six rulings considering whether the restrictions on the advertising of less healthy foods and drinks (LHF) had been breached.

Published: 27 July 2026
Authors: Adam Flynn

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/adam-flynn/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/stephen-johnstone/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/sammy-hacklett/profile

false

style

single-column-text

This article summarises the key takeaways from those rulings and earlier 2026 decisions. For background on the LHF restrictions, see our previous articles (here and here).

Ads depicting unidentified non-LHF products are not safe

The four July 2026 rulings which were not upheld concerned paid-for online ads for promotions or offers, such as ‘pizza from only £10’ or a ‘double deal’. Each ad showed non-prepacked food, but none of the ads specifically named or otherwise identified the product shown.

In each ruling, the ASA reiterated that brand ads (i.e. ads that promoted a brand, including the brand of a range) are exempt from the restrictions. The ASA considered three scenarios to decide whether the ads breached the restrictions or fell within the brand-advertising exemption. The three scenarios the ASA worked through were as follows:

an ad depicting a specific LHF sold by the advertiser would breach the restrictions
an ad depicting and clearly identifying a specific non-LHF sold by the advertiser would not breach the restrictions
if a realistic product image is shown but the product is not identified, the ASA will assess whether that product is visually indistinguishable from any LHF sold by the advertiser. If it was visually indistinguishable from an LHF, the ad would be in breach.

By way of example, if a non-LHF burger was shown in an ad but was not identified (i.e. the non-LHF burger was not explicitly named), the ad would breach the restrictions if that non-LHF burger was indistinguishable from another of the advertiser’s burgers, which was LHF.

Because all the ads featured non-LHF products, scenario 1 did not apply. However, as the products were depicted but not identified in the ads, scenario 2 was not satisfied, and the ASA moved to consider scenario 3.

Under scenario 3, the ASA will scrutinise the advertiser's wider product range to determine whether any LHF is visually indistinguishable from the unidentified product shown. It is therefore not enough that the product shown in an ad is non-LHF: if it is visually indistinguishable from a specific LHF sold by the advertiser, the ad will likely be restricted.

The practical lesson is clear: where a specific product is shown, identify it in the ad. If this is not done, the ASA may compare it against the advertiser's wider menu or product range, including relatively minor features and variants such as ingredients, filings, and toppings, to assess whether the depicted non-LHF product is visually indistinguishable from an LHF.

Brand characters are off limits if they are synonymous with an LHF

Advertisers should not assume that the use of brand characters will be exempt. In one ruling, the ASA undertook a detailed analysis of the character's shape, colour and relationship to the advertiser's product range before concluding that one of the characters used in the ad was synonymous with a specific LHF product. This shows that the ASA will scrutinise whether consumers are likely to associate a character with a particular LHF. Where a character has become closely linked to a specific product variant, its use will likely bring an ad within the scope of the restrictions.

Food being prepared will be analysed by the ASA

In one ruling, the ASA rejected the advertiser's argument that food shown during the preparation phase should fall outside the scope of the visual indistinguishability test. In the ad, chicken pieces were shown frying in oil. The ASA considered that, apart from needing to be removed from oil, the product appeared as it would when served, and that the final served product was one which was capable of being purchased. As such, the ASA analysed whether the product shown was visually indistinguishable from any LHF sold by the advertiser. On this occasion, the products were not visually indistinguishable from any specific LHF. This led the ASA to conclude the ads were brand advertisements and were therefore out of scope of the LHF rules.

All advertisers need to be aware of the restrictions

The restrictions are not confined to food and drink manufacturers or retailers. In one ruling published in July 2026, the ASA considered an ad by a food delivery platform that did not sell its own food or drink. In another, the ASA expressly reminded advertisers that the legislation does not limit its application to businesses involved in the manufacture or sale of food and drink.

The key question is therefore not the nature of the advertiser's business, but whether consumers could reasonably identify the ad as being for an LHF.

Franchisees are treated as part of the franchisor

Food or drink SMEs (i.e. businesses that employ fewer than 250 people) are exempt from the LHF restrictions. Whilst this is made clear in both the legislation underpinning the restrictions and Advertising Guidance, the ASA has in two separate rulings reminded advertisers that franchisees are treated as part of the business of the franchisor for the purposes of calculating the number of employees.

Incidental products are not restricted

In April 2026, the ASA determined that an identifiable product on the edge of an Instagram ad’s frame which moved in and out of the shot as the camera moved, was not referenced by the central protagonist and, which was only shown when the viewer’s attention would be elsewhere, was incidental. The ASA determined that consumers could not reasonably be expected to identify the ad as for that product, and as such, its use was not restricted.

The ASA reached the same decision for another identifiable product which was not mentioned in a voice-over, and which was only included in a brief shot where the movement of the camera would direct the viewer’s attention elsewhere.

What should I do now?

Advertisers should continue to review paid-for online ads carefully before publication, particularly where food or drink products or brand characters appear. If a non-LHF product is shown, it should be clearly identified in the ad.

If you require any support with your marketing compliance, please do reach out to Adam Flynn and Stephen Johnstone at Shoosmiths.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-sectors/ddcc-consumer-and-retail-perspectives

]]>

What does the UK’s approach to tackling deforestation mean for your business?

Tue, 21 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0100

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:3343a0f5-4bc6-4763-b02d-8029bc72951b/as/ART-US00049.avif?assetname=ART-US00049.jpg

article | 3 min read

The UK’s approach to tackling deforestation

What it means for your business

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The UK Government has announced a strengthening of its approach to tackling global deforestation risk in UK businesses’ supply chains and has set out new proposals to ‘further decouple UK consumption from global deforestation’.

Published: 21 July 2026
Authors: Angus Evers

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/angus-evers/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/adam-flynn/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/sammy-hacklett/profile

false

style

single-column-text

What has the government proposed previously?

The Environment Act 2021 contains powers for the government to introduce regulations restricting the use by UK companies of ‘forest risk commodities’ in commercial activity. The previous Conservative government consulted in early 2022 on prohibiting larger businesses operating in the UK from using commodities including cattle (beef and leather), cocoa, coffee, maize, rubber, soy and palm oil grown on illegally deforested land. Those businesses would be required to publish information obtained through due diligence into their supply chains, identifying where any ‘forest risk commodities’ they placed on the UK market came from.

Despite the EU adopting a Regulation on Deforestation-free Products in 2023 (which applies in Northern Ireland), the UK Government has not taken the proposals it consulted on in 2022 forward – until now.

What is the government proposing now?

One of the last policy proposals of the Labour government led by Sir Keir Starmer was to publish a policy paper on the UK’s approach to deforestation regulations. The policy paper states that the government aims to introduce regulations, including under the Environment Act 2021, alongside legislation that will strengthen the UK Timber Regulation.

At the core of the proposals is an obligation for qualifying businesses that use forest risk commodities and wood products to carry out due diligence to ensure these are produced in compliance with relevant local laws. According to the policy paper, businesses will need to establish a due diligence system, report on their activity and be able to evidence their compliance by collecting geolocation data on the origin of the specific products.

The measures are designed to strengthen the UK’s approach to tackling illegal deforestation, although the policy paper also states an ambition to transition to a deforestation-free standard, such as the one in the EU Regulation on Deforestation-free Products (EUDR), in due course.

The policy paper indicates that the information requirements under the GB regime will align with what is needed for a due diligence statement under the EUDR when exporting to the EU or moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.

Which commodities will be caught?

The requirements are intended to apply to the same commodities as the EUDR - namely wood, cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber, soy and certain derived products (e.g. chocolate and furniture).

Which businesses will be caught?

Businesses in Great Britain that trade in forest risk commodities and wood products, and that have an annual turnover of more than £1 million will be required to comply with the due diligence requirements. However, GB businesses with an annual turnover below £1 million that export goods to the EU or Northern Ireland will still need to comply with the EUDR, as there is no turnover threshold under the EUDR.

How will the GB regime interact with the EUDR?

The government has also committed to ensuring the measures will operate consistently alongside the EUDR, to protect the UK internal market and support export-led growth. It remains to be seen how this will work in practice, as whilst the proposed GB regime is concerned with illegal deforestation, the EUDR is concerned with any form of deforestation (including legal deforestation).

The EUDR will continue to apply in Northern Ireland to ensure that Northern Ireland’s unique access to the EU single market is maintained.

What happens next?

The Labour government led by Sir Keir Starmer issued the policy paper and it is too early to tell whether the new Labour government led by Andy Burnham will take forward the proposals. Assuming it does, there will be a consultation on the proposals later in 2026, with a view to introducing regulations in 2027. The regulations will include provisions on enforcement and civil sanctions.

Large and medium-sized UK businesses operating within the EU or placing relevant products on the EU or Northern Ireland markets must comply with the EUDR from 30 December 2026. Micro and small UK businesses operating within the EU or placing relevant products on the EU or Northern Ireland markets must comply with the EUDR from 30 December 2026 for wood products currently regulated under the EU Timber Regulation and from 30 June 2027 for all other relevant products.

UK businesses that may be affected by the proposals should maintain a watching brief and wait for the anticipated consultation later in 2026. As a preliminary step it may also be prudent to begin mapping and assessing supply chains to identify commodities and products that are likely to trigger due diligence requirements.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

UN automated driving regulation: A step change for global AV use

Fri, 3 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0100

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:2d87ff6f-52e2-46d6-bb91-391debd0a85d/as/ART-US00041.avif?assetname=ART-US00041.jpg

article | 4 min read

UN automated driving regulation

A step change for global AV use

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

New regulations have been finalised which will pave the way for AVs to be deployed in the UK and beyond by providing a uniform approach to safety, approval and data recording.

Published: 7 July 2026
Authors: Ben Gardner

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/ben-gardner/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/mingsze-yu/profile

false

style

single-column-text

On 24 June 2026, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) formally adopted a new Global Technical Regulation on Automated Driving Systems (ADS). This marks the first internationally harmonised framework governing the safety, approval and operation of fully ADS, representing a significant milestone in the regulation of Automated Vehicles (AVs).

The Regulation adopts a technology-neutral, performance-based approach, supporting innovation while ensuring a high level of safety. It recognises that ADS has the potential to transform road transport but also introduces novel safety challenges requiring new regulatory tools and methodologies.

Key aspects of the ADS Regulation

The Regulation establishes a framework governing the design, validation, approval and oversight of ADS. It applies to systems capable of performing the entire Dynamic Driving Task, including real-time perception, decision-making and vehicle control.

A central principle underpinning the Regulation is that ADS must achieve at least the level of safety of a competent and careful human driver and must operate without creating unreasonable risk to occupants or other road users.

The framework is built around several key pillars:

Performance requirements for the driving task
ADS must safely perform the full driving task within its defined Operational Design Domain. This includes responding appropriately to normal, critical and failure scenarios, complying with traffic rules, avoiding collisions and mitigating risks arising from system limitations or failures.

Safety Management System (SMS)
Manufacturers are required to implement a comprehensive SMS covering the entire lifecycle of the ADS. This includes processes for identifying, managing and mitigating risks, together with continuous monitoring and improvement following deployment.

Safety case approach to approval
Approval is based on a structured safety case, requiring manufacturers to demonstrate, through evidence and analysis, that the ADS meets the required safety standard. This reflects a shift away from prescriptive rules towards a more flexible, outcomes-based regulatory model.

Multi-pillar validation framework
Given the complexity of automated driving, safety must be demonstrated through a combination of simulation, controlled testing and real-world data. No single validation method is sufficient; regulators expect a holistic and evidence-based assessment of system performance.

In-service monitoring and reporting
The Regulation extends beyond initial approval by requiring ongoing monitoring of ADS performance in real-world use. Manufacturers must report safety-related incidents and system failures, enabling continuous oversight and iterative improvement.

Data and traceability requirements
Vehicles must be equipped with data storage systems capable of recording safety-relevant information. This supports regulatory oversight, incident investigation and accountability, and is likely to be particularly relevant for insurers and enforcement authorities.

Taken together, these pillars reflect a move towards adaptive, evidence-based regulation that can evolve alongside technological developments while maintaining robust safety standards.

Implications for the UK

For the UK, the adoption of the ADS Regulation is particularly significant. The UK has played an active role in its development and is widely expected to align its domestic regulatory framework with the UNECE approach.

International standards, including the ADS Regulation, are likely to play a central role in informing the technical requirements applied at the approval stage. However, this will sit within the broader domestic regime established by the Automated Vehicles Act 2024, which introduces UK-specific authorisation, licensing and in-use regulatory requirements.

The implications for the UK are therefore significant:

regulatory alignment: Approval authorities can rely on an internationally recognised framework, reducing duplication and divergence
accelerated deployment: OEMs and developers can design to a single global standard, supporting more efficient market entry
enhanced oversight: International standards and UK-specific regulatory tools provide a robust framework for supervision
global competitiveness: Alignment supports the UK's efforts to attract and facilitate AV innovation and deployment

Overall, alignment with international standards is expected to support the safe and scalable introduction of AV, while maintaining appropriate domestic regulatory control.

Entry into force and next steps

Following adoption by the UNECE World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29), the ADS Regulation will now proceed through the relevant UNECE processes before entering into force.

While the precise timing has not yet been confirmed, further work is expected both internationally and domestically to ensure alignment between the ADS framework and existing vehicle regulations.

In the UK, focus will turn to implementation of the Automated Vehicles Act 2024. This will involve the development of secondary legislation, guidance and regulatory processes across areas such as type approval, authorisation, operator licensing and in-use monitoring.

For industry, the focus will be on readiness. Manufacturers and developers will need to develop robust safety cases, implement appropriate governance structures and ensure that validation approaches align with regulatory expectations. Other stakeholders, including insurers and operators, will also need to assess how the evolving framework affects risk, liability and commercial models.

What does this mean for businesses in the AV sector?

The UNECE ADS Regulation represents a foundational development in how AVs are regulated globally. By establishing a harmonised, performance-based framework, it provides a clear pathway for the safe and scalable deployment of AV technologies.

For the UK, the emerging approach reflects a balance between international alignment and domestic regulatory control. International standards are expected to play a central role in shaping technical requirements, while the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 provides the structure for authorisation, oversight and enforcement.

More broadly, the Regulation is expected to accelerate the adoption of AVs by providing clarity and certainty for OEMs, software developers and approval authorities. In doing so, it lays the groundwork for safe, consistent and scalable deployment across global markets.

As the framework continues to develop, this combination is likely to define the UK’s regulatory landscape. For businesses, the key challenge will be navigating this evolving environment while ensuring that safety, compliance and innovation remain central to deployment strategies.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-sectors/ddcc-mobility-logistics-and-manufacturing-perspectives

]]>

RIDDOR reform: Shaping the future of workplace incident reporting

Mon, 15 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0100

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:fec14f91-70ff-45f6-9066-65381117dc8a/as/ART-drahomir-hugo-posteby-mach-mhJehENhy80-unsplash.avif?assetname=ART-drahomir-hugo-posteby-mach-mhJehENhy80-unsplash.jpg

Article | 4 min read

RIDDOR reform: Shaping the future of workplace incident reporting

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) consultation on proposed reforms to the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 (RIDDOR) closes on 30 June 2026. Should you engage?

Published: 15 June 2026
Authors: Nancy Wesby

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/nancy-wesby/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/kirsty-hughes/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/charles-arrand/profile

false

style

single-column-text

On 7 April 2026, the HSE launched a public consultation on proposed reforms to the RIDDOR, marking the most significant review of the regime in over a decade. The consultation, which closes on 30 June 2026, represents more than a technical update, it signals a fundamental shift in how workplace incidents will be captured, reported and scrutinised.

The proposals reflect a growing recognition that the current framework is not operating effectively in modern workplaces. Longstanding issues around unclear definitions, inconsistent interpretation, and both under and over reporting have limited the quality of data available to the regulator and, in turn, its ability to target enforcement activity. Against that backdrop, the HSE is seeking to modernise RIDDOR to deliver a more data-driven, transparent and efficient reporting regime.

What are the proposed reforms?

The consultation covers a combination of legislative and non-legislative changes designed to strengthen worker protections while reducing unnecessary administrative burden.

Legislative reforms

Key legislative proposals include:

Clarification of core definitions - The HSE proposes to clarify key concepts such as “work-related” and “injury”, where current ambiguity has led to inconsistency in reporting. While greater clarity should improve consistency, it may also reduce the flexibility businesses have historically relied upon in borderline cases.
Expansion of reportable occupational diseases - The list of reportable diseases will be updated to reintroduce certain previously removed conditions and include new ones. This reflects an increased focus on long-term exposure risks, including those linked to hazardous substances such as silica dust (e.g. pneumoconiosis and silicosis). As a result, businesses in sectors such as construction, manufacturing and maintenance are likely to see heightened scrutiny of occupational health risks.
Broadening who can diagnose occupational diseases - Currently, only doctors registered with the General Medical Council can confirm reportable occupational diseases. The HSE proposes extending this to other healthcare professionals, including registered nurses and occupational health practitioners. This is intended to reduce delays and better reflect modern occupational health practices but is likely to accelerate identification and increase the volume of reportable cases.
Revision of ‘dangerous occurrences’ - The list of reportable dangerous occurrences will be updated to better reflect modern workplace risks. This is expected to bring a wider range of near-miss events within scope, meaning incidents previously managed internally may now require formal reporting.

Non-legislative reforms

In parallel, the HSE is exploring changes to improve the overall reporting framework, including:

clearer and more accessible guidance;
streamlined reporting processes; and
improvements to the usability of reporting systems.

While these changes are aimed at reducing administrative friction, they will operate alongside an expanded reporting regime, meaning the overall compliance burden may still increase.

What does this mean in practice?

Taken together, the proposals point towards a significant recalibration of the RIDDOR regime, with several key implications:

Increased reporting volumes - A broader range of occupational diseases and dangerous occurrences, combined with faster diagnosis, is likely to result in more reportable incidents.
Greater regulatory visibility and scrutiny - Enhanced and more timely data will give the HSE greater insight into operational risks, supporting a more targeted and intervention-led approach to enforcement.
Reduced discretion in borderline cases - Clarified definitions may limit the scope for subjective interpretation, reducing flexibility but improving consistency.
Heightened exposure to enforcement and claims - Increased reporting may lead to more regulatory intervention and, in some cases, downstream civil or insurance implications.

Notably, mental health remains outside the scope of the proposed reforms. Work-related stress is not currently reportable under RIDDOR and the consultation does not propose to change this position, although the HSE continues to focus on the management of stress-related risks more broadly.

Why this consultation matters

This consultation is a rare opportunity for businesses to influence the future shape of workplace incident reporting and the extent of their regulatory exposure.

Engaging with the consultation allows organisations to:

influence how key concepts such as “work-related” are defined in practice;
ensure that expanded reporting categories are proportionate and workable;
highlight operational and resourcing challenges; and
mitigate unintended consequences, such as over-reporting or disproportionate administrative burden.

Absent engagement, there is a real risk that revised definitions and expanded obligations are implemented in a way that increases regulatory exposure without reflecting operational realities.

Key considerations for businesses

Businesses should start preparing now for the likely direction of travel. In particular:

Review internal reporting procedures - Ensure escalation processes are robust and capable of capturing incidents that may fall within an expanded RIDDOR scope.
Engage with occupational health providers - Understand how diagnoses are made and communicated, particularly in light of a broader pool of professionals being able to confirm reportable diseases.
Reassess historical assumptions - Revisit areas of previous ambiguity (e.g. borderline dangerous occurrences or suspected occupational diseases) in light of proposed clarifications.
Prepare for increased regulatory visibility - More frequent and detailed reporting is likely to inform targeted HSE enforcement activity.
Train key personnel - Health and safety teams, HR, and line managers should be updated on any revised thresholds and categories to ensure consistency and reduce the risk of under-reporting.
Consider submitting a consultation response - Businesses with significant exposure to occupational health risks or high volumes of reportable incidents should assess whether their operations are adequately reflected in the proposals.

Looking ahead

The direction of travel is clear: more clarity, broader coverage and faster reporting, underpinned by a more data-driven regulatory approach. While the reforms aim to improve both worker protection and regulatory efficiency, the practical effect for many businesses is likely to be an increase in reporting obligations and regulatory scrutiny, at least in the short term.

The consultation period, which runs until 30 June 2026, provides a time-limited opportunity to shape the framework that will govern workplace incident reporting for years to come. Businesses that engage now will be better positioned not only to influence the outcome, but also to adapt their systems and processes in anticipation of a more expansive and transparent reporting regime.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

Price gouging under scrutiny: What UK businesses should prepare for

Mon, 1 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0100

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:21d51164-5154-4cab-a8db-88c78d37caa6/as/ART-US00146.avif?assetname=ART-US00146.jpg

Article | 5 min read

Price gouging under scrutiny: What UK businesses should prepare for

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The UK government has signalled by statements to parliament a crackdown on “price gouging” – the practice of hiking prices to unjustified highs during crises. What should a business do?

Published: 01 June 2026
Authors: Kiran Desai

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/kiran-desai/profile

false

style

single-column-text

Ignoring the policy merits of what is proposed, the practical implication for businesses is that pricing decisions may face greater scrutiny, both regulatory and public. Rather than focusing on prescriptive steps, corporations may wish to test themselves against a series of internal questions. These include:

how robust is our pricing governance and oversight?
can we evidence and explain our price changes?
how exposed are we to regulatory scrutiny?
how vulnerable are we to reputational damage?
are we balancing commercial reality with perceptions of fairness?

A New Focus on Price-Gouging in the UK

As first addressed in parliament on 24 March 2026 and reiterated on 21 May 2026, the UK government plans to empower regulators to act swiftly against excessive pricing. Price gouging typically means exploiting a crisis by raising prices to an unfair or unjustifiable level. Measures under discussion include rapid investigations and public “name and shame” campaigns to spotlight firms whose margins surge unfairly. In extreme cases, officials even suggest targeted orders or fines to stop “exploitative pricing”. This is a proactive shift – historically UK competition law has not punished high prices alone (unless a dominant firm abused its power), focusing more on collusion or monopolistic conduct. Now, however, the UK government aims to address unfair prices, reflecting public expectations and political pressure.

Key Questions for End-Consumer Facing Corporations

1. Do we have the right pricing governance and oversight?

Corporations should ask whether pricing is treated as a strategic governance issue, with clear internal controls and approval routes for significant price changes. The relevant internal question is whether the business has guardrails capable of testing not only commercial necessity, but also how a pricing decision may appear if reviewed by a regulator, customer base, or the media. The strength of that governance framework may be as important as the price decision itself.

2. Could we clearly justify and evidence each material price increase?

Corporations should ask themselves whether they could demonstrate, with contemporaneous records, why a price increase occurred and whether it was linked to genuine cost, supply, or market factors. The issue is not merely whether an increase can be defended in principle, but whether the business has documentary support showing purchase costs, margins, inventory constraints, or other drivers. A key internal question is whether the company could explain its pricing decisions in a way that appears disciplined rather than opportunistic.

3. How would our pricing look under regulatory scrutiny?

With stronger oversight powers under discussion, corporations should ask how their pricing patterns would appear if compared against pre-crisis levels, sector norms, or peer conduct. The question is whether the business has identified who would respond to an inquiry, how data would be assembled, and whether any pricing outliers would be difficult to explain. Even before any formal rules are settled, a prudent self-assessment is whether the company would be comfortable seeing its pricing decisions examined in real time by a regulator.

4. What would be the reputational impact if our pricing were publicly challenged?

Corporations should ask not only whether a price increase is legally defensible, but also how it would be perceived externally. A price decision that can be explained internally may still be portrayed publicly as exploitative, particularly in a period of economic pressure. The relevant question is whether the business has considered the effect on customer trust, brand value, and public narrative if it were singled out in a “name and shame” environment. In many cases, reputational exposure may matter as much as formal legal risk.

5. Are we striking a credible balance between fairness and commercial reality?

The final question is whether the business can articulate a coherent position on where legitimate cost recovery ends and perceived exploitation begins. Regulators have indicated that not every price increase is problematic, particularly where costs have genuinely risen, but the dividing line remains unclear. Corporations should therefore ask whether their internal policies, margin expectations, and crisis-response planning reflect a defensible balance between commercial viability and wider perceptions of fairness. What is already clear is that even an investigation can consume management time, create advisory cost, and inflict reputational harm before any formal determination is reached.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

Lessons from Grenfell: Consultation on regulating fire risk assessors

Tue, 5 May 2026 00:00:00 +0100

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:5d1b623d-8563-4ea0-ade0-2228bc2c42b9/as/ART-declan-sun-ZavISko7NyY-unsplash.avif?assetname=ART-declan-sun-ZavISko7NyY-unsplash.jpg

Article | 5 min read

Lessons from Grenfell: Consultation on regulating fire risk assessors

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The Government is consulting on regulating the fire risk assessor (FRA) profession by mandating competence, accreditation and oversight to improve trust, consistency and safety.

Published: 5 May 2026
Author: Rubina Zaidi

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/rubina-zaidi/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/charles-arrand/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/hayley-saunders/profile

false

style

single-column-text

What matters

On 26 March 2026, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) published an open consultation seeking views on proposals to regulate the FRA profession in England. The proposals include mandatory competency standards, clearer professional definition and statutory oversight.

What matters next

The consultation closes on 18 June 2026. It forms part of the Government’s wider programme of professional, institutional and legislative reform in response to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry (the Inquiry).

FRAs, responsible persons (RP), managing agents, building owners and others with fire safety duties should consider responding, as the proposals are intended to form the basis for future legislation regulating the FRAprofession.

Purpose of the consultation

FRAs play a critical role in identifying fire hazards and ensuring appropriate fire safety precautions are in place across almost all non‑domestic premises, including the common parts of residential buildings. Despite the importance of this role, FRAs are not currently members of a regulated profession. There is no single professional body for FRAs, no consistent definition of competence, and no mandatory qualification, certification or registration.

The consultation responds directly to long‑standing concerns about inconsistency in the quality of fire risk assessments and to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 recommendation that the Government establish a system of mandatory accreditation for FRAs.

The current legal framework

Fire safety in non‑domestic premises, including the common parts of blocks of flats (and the building's structure and external walls and doors between the domestic premises and common parts), is primarily governed by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (FSO). Article 9 of the FSO places a duty on the RP to make a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment, identifying the general fire precautions required.

RPs may carry out the assessment themselves or appoint a competent person to assist them. Current Home Office guidance recommends that, where an RP lacks the necessary expertise, particularly in more complex premises, expert assistance should be sought. However, there is no mandatory mechanism by which RPs can verify the competence of FRAs beyond the requirement to ensure their competence and the guidance advice to use assessors certificated as competent to carry out Fire Risk Assessments under a recognised (voluntary) certification scheme or those registered as such by a professional body.

The Building Safety Act 2022 has increased the focus on competence across the built environment, particularly for higher‑risk buildings, but it does not regulate FRAs. The consultation and proposed regulation of FRAs seek to address this gap.

The case for reform

Concerns about fire risk assessment practice pre‑date Grenfell, with earlier tragedies such as the Lakanal House fire exposing weaknesses in risk assessment quality and competence. Dame Judith Hackitt’s 2018 Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety referred to the review hearing that fire risk assessments were sometimes being reduced to “tick‑box exercises” completed by individuals “without demonstrable competence of fire safety….”.

The Inquiry’s Phase 2 report found that fire risk assessments commissioned for Grenfell Tower were inadequate, including failures to identify critical fire safety hazards and failure to identify whether risks previously identified had been remediated, and were relied upon by those responsible for the building without effective scrutiny. The Inquiry concluded that these failings reflected systemic weaknesses in competence assurance and recommended mandatory accreditation to ensure professional standards across the FRA profession.

Survey data published by the Government in September 2024 also highlights the scale of the issue: only 46% of respondents undertaking fire risk assessments belonged to a certification or registration scheme, and around half reported undertaking no formal, regular refresher training.

Proposals under consultation

The consultation envisages a formally recognised, consistently competent and effectively regulated FRA profession, supported by statutory powers. Key areas under consideration include:

Defining the role of FRAs

The consultation proposes legal definition of the role of FRAs and its scope, to support consistency and improve standards and accountability across the sector.

The RP’s ability to conduct their own assessments

The Government is considering if RPs should be professionally registered to undertake fire risk assessments on their own premises at least for higher-risk buildings¹.

Competency frameworks and standards

The Government proposes mandatory competency requirements for FRAs, aligned with recognised frameworks covering skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours, building on work undertaken by industry, including publication of BS 8674:2025. This sets out a structured competence framework for FRAs across three levels-Foundation, Intermediate and Advanced.

Accreditation, certification and career pathways

The consultation explores options for mandatory accreditation and certification, alongside clearer career pathways, including transitional routes, opportunities to demonstrate competence for existing practitioners and measures to attract new entrants to the profession through access to training and apprenticeships.

Regulatory oversight and enforcement

The Government seeks views on what regulatory powers, offences and sanctions would be required to ensure effective oversight of the FRA profession, with the intention that such regulation should sit within the emerging integrated regulatory framework for the built environment, as outlined in the Single Construction Regulator Prospectus published in December 2025.

Implementation and transition

Recognising the need to expand the FRA profession, the consultation asks if and how competency requirements and regulation should be phased in, taking account of current capacity and the need to maintain enough competent FRAs.

Relationship with wider professional reform

The proposals for regulating FRAs form part of a broader reform agenda affecting built‑environment professions. The Government has signalled its intention to create a coherent regulatory framework for fire engineers and other safety‑critical roles in addition to FRAs, with oversight potentially consolidated under a single construction regulator in future legislation.

What this means in practice

If implemented, the proposals would represent a fundamental shift for FRAs and those who rely on fire risk assessments. RPs, building owners and managing agents would gain greater assurance as to assessor competence, but would also need to ensure that the FRAs they appoint meet mandatory requirements once these are in force.

For FRAs, the proposed regulation should bring clearer professional recognition and improved structure, including accreditation, to their career, along with new compliance obligations, continuing professional development and regulatory oversight.

Responding to the consultation

Responses to the consultation will inform the Government’s impact assessment and future legislative proposals, with the Government intending to legislate when parliamentary time allows.

Given the potential significance of the proposals, stakeholders across fire safety, property management, construction and housing should consider engaging with the consultation to help shape the future development and regulation of this critical fire safety profession.

Respondents can complete the online survey or email their responses to:

FireSafetyUnitconsultations@communities.gov.uk

Written responses can be sent to:

Fire Risk Assessor Consultation
Attn: National Resilience and Fire Safety Division,
Fry Building,
2 Marsham Street,
Westminster,
London,
SW1P 4DF

And finally...

We will continue supporting stakeholders by publishing further articles or LinkedIn posts as the consultation, responses and regulatory reforms progress.

¹The Building Safety Act 2022 introduced a definition of a higher-risk building (for residential premises), covering buildings of at least 18 metres or 7 storeys in height and containing at least two residential units.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

Railways Bill: ORR’s new enforcement and appeals regime

Wed, 22 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0100

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:2d69c44f-d6a5-4728-8c6b-85832b1e32b2/as/ART-US00132.avif?assetname=ART-US00132.jpg

Article | 5 min read

Railways Bill

ORR’s new enforcement and appeals regime

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

This article examines the Railways Bill’s reforms to the ORR’s regulatory, monitoring and enforcement powers, including a new appeals regime and a re-balanced enforcement model.

Published: 22 April 2026
Authors: Rubina Zaidi

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/rubina-zaidi/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/charles-arrand/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/hayley-saunders/profile

false

style

single-column-text

The Railways Bill proposes the most significant shift in the Office of Rail and Road’s (ORR) regulatory, monitoring and enforcement powers in a generation. This article examines how the reforms will reshape the ORR’s role, including a new appeals jurisdiction and a re‑balanced enforcement model.

What matters

In addition to helping create a new, publicly owned company, Great British Railways (GBR) (to replace Network Rail), the Railways Bill (the Bill) (currently at the Report stage in the House of Commons)will substantially reshape the regulatory remit of the ORR. The ORR will gain a broader monitoring function over GBR’s statutory activities, enforce a new GBR licence, and operate a judicial‑review‑style appeals body for GBR’s decisions on access, capacity, charging and timetabling.

What matters next

Rail operators, freight companies, retailers and other network users should prepare for a regulatory landscape in which regulatory scrutiny increases, and enforcement tools become more targeted. Stakeholders should also anticipate forthcoming ORR and Department for Transport consultations on GBR’s draft licence, the retail code of practice and the new statutory appeals framework.

The ORR’s expanded monitoring remit

The Bill places the ORR at the centre of the reformed rail system. The ORR will assume a broader monitoring and reporting role covering the full scope of GBR’s activities including over its managing, operating and renewing the network; running most passenger services in England; setting fares, selling tickets and providing systems and services relating to the operation of passenger services.

Unlike today’s model, the ORR’s monitoring, which should be targeted, proportionate and outcomes focused, will focus on GBR’s performance of its statutory functions, assessed against GBR’s business plan and informed by Secretary of State guidance. The ORR may investigate issues and raise them with GBR and escalate concerns to the Secretary of State, who makes decisions on action. Importantly, the ORR will not hold enforcement powers in relation to its statutory monitoring role, but its monitoring will play a key role in triggering enforcement action and will support accountability to the Secretary of State where concerns arise.

This separation between monitoring and enforcement places the ORR as an “independent assessor” andexpert advisor to the Secretary of State.

A new, streamlined GBR licence with targeted enforcement powers

A new single GBR licence will be issued by the Secretary of State, with the ORR responsible for monitoring and enforcement. The licence is expected to be narrower and more outcomes‑focused than Network Rail’s current licence.

Key licence changes include:

a move away from routine use of financial penalties for GBR licence breaches. Enforcement will instead revolve around investigations, early resolution and taking enforcement actionwhere appropriate
some areas where ORR previously exercised enforcement powers, such as train service performance, will fall outside GBR’s licence and into the monitoring sphere instead
the Government may include a focused licence condition covering long‑term infrastructure asset stewardship, so the ORR can address the long-term risk of asset deterioration through effective, proportionate enforcement action.

With GBR assuming responsibility for central retail systems and absorbing the ticket‑retailing functions of multiple operators, the new licence will require GBR to:

support an open and competitive retail market
treat independent ticket retailers fairly
comply with a new code of practice which will govern how GBR manages retail systems.

The ORR will enforce the code of practice, with non‑GBR retailers able to raise GBR decisions or actions directly with the ORR. Where the ORR finds non‑compliance, it will have powers to issue binding orders requiring corrective action.

Other key changes introduced by the Bill

A new passenger watchdog (evolving from Transport Focus) will take on the ORR’s current roles relating to passenger information, accessible travel, complaints, delay compensation and sponsorship of the Rail Ombudsman.

The watchdog will:

set industry standards through guidance and codes
monitor compliance
refer concerns to the ORR for enforcement action.

The ORR will continue to enforce licence conditions in these areas and retain its consumer law powers, currently used, for example, to improve ticket fee transparency.

Reforms to access contracts is a further key reform, with the reduction of the ORR’s role in approving or directing access contracts for the network representing one of the most profound shifts for the industry. Under the new model:

GBR will determine access to the network
GBR will set access charges and performance schemes
GBR will issue key policy documents including the Access and Use Policy (AUP) and the infrastructure capacity plan.

Instead, ORR becomes the appeals body for third parties challenging GBR’s decisions on capacity allocation, access and charging.

Under the proposed judicial‑review‑style appeals regime, it appears thatappeals will be assessed according to principles similar to those applied by the High Court of England and Wales on judicial review or the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session in Scotland. Grounds include:

illegality
procedural unfairness
irrationality
legitimate expectation.

This marks a significant change. The ORR is not re‑making decisions on the merits but assessing the legality and fairness of GBR’s decisions.

If an appeal is upheld, the ORR may:

quash GBR’s decision
order GBR to reconsider the matter with directions on how it should be reconsidered
substitute its own decision if there has been an error of law and only one lawful decision was possible.

The ORR’s developing appeals policy envisages:

defined appeal windows (some may be as short as five working days)
a standardised, fast‑paced process
publication of appeals and decisions (subject to redaction).

Stakeholders will need to adapt internal governance and evidence‑gathering accordingly but it should be noted that, at present, the precise scope, procedure and statutory wording of the appeals regime are subject to policy development and regulations.

ORR’s continuing areas of enforcement

Several areas of the ORR’s remit remain unchanged, including:

Health and Safety regulation across the mainline network, London Underground, trams, light rail and heritage rail
Consumer and Competition law powers (concurrent with the CMA)
production of rail statistics
regulation of roads, non‑GBR networks, including HS1, Core Valley Lines and the Channel Tunnel
train driver licensing
station, network and service closure ratifications
regulatory functions in Northern Ireland.

This continuity ensures that ORR retains core regulatory authority in safety, competition, consumer protection and non‑GBR infrastructure oversight.

What the changes mean for industry

Dutyholders should recognise that the reforms do not reduce regulatory scrutiny but re‑allocate and enhance it:

monitoring becomes more expansive and more structured
enforcement becomes more targeted and licence‑driven
appeals become a key mechanism for challenging GBR decisions
retail oversight and data transparency will intensify
passenger standards will be shaped by the new watchdog but enforced by the ORR.

Stakeholders should plan early for this shift, given the complexity of the transition and the number of interdependent regulatory instruments still to be published.

And finally...

We will publish further articles and post information on LinkedIn as the Bill and its reforms progress.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

Automated vehicles: Government launches self-driving pilot scheme

Thu, 9 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0100

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:8596c622-7cd1-4d64-bf11-29cf4996852b/as/ART-US00060.avif?assetname=ART-US00060.jpg

Article | 3 min read

Automated vehicles

Government launches self-driving pilot scheme

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The UK Government has launched a self-driving vehicle pilot scheme allowing self‑driving vehicles to operate on public roads without a safety driver for the first time. This represents a significant step towards commercial deployment of automated vehicles ahead of the full regulatory framework under the Automated Vehicles Act 2024, which is expected to take effect in late 2027.

Published: 9 April 2026
Authors: Ben Gardner

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/suzanne/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/kerry-finch/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/ben-gardner/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/abbie-gray/profile

false

style

single-column-text

The scheme is intended to bridge the gap between existing trials (which still require a safety driver) and full commercial rollout, enabling controlled real‑world deployment while regulators gather further evidence to shape a permanent regime.

Key features

Operation without a safety driver

The defining feature of the scheme is that it permits operation of a self-driving vehicle without a human safety driver in the vehicle. It applies only where the automated driving system (ADS) performs the entire dynamic driving task while engaged and requires no human oversight. Vehicles that require human monitoring or intervention remain outside scope and must continue to operate under the existing trialling regime.

Vehicle approval & listing

Participation in the pilot scheme is subject to a layered approval and permitting process, reflecting the Government’s focus on safety and regulatory control during early deployment. Participating vehicles must meet strict defined regulatory requirements including:

vehicle approval: All vehicles deployed under the pilot must be formally assessed and listed as self‑driving. This requires demonstrating that the ADS can safely and lawfully perform the entire dynamic driving task within defined operational design parameters. The ADS will be assessed by reference to the latest draft of the UN ADS Regulation which sets out various minimum technical standards and requirements
Vehicle Special Orders (VSOs): Where a self‑driving vehicle cannot comply with existing construction and use requirements (for example, provisions assuming the presence of a driver), operators will need to obtain a Vehicle Special Order (VSO) granting targeted regulatory exemptions. Securing a VSO is likely to be a critical early step for many applicants with heavy reliance again placed on the vehicle’s conformance to the UN ADS Regulation
vehicle registration: Vehicles must be registered under section 1 of the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018, enabling them to be recognised as self‑driving for the purposes of the pilot scheme and linking responsibility to a defined legal entity.

Automated Passenger Service (APS) permits

Where a pilot deployment involves carrying passengers, an additional APS permit will be required under Part 5 of the Automated Vehicles Act 2024. The APS regime is intended to regulate taxi, private hire and bus‑like self‑driving services and is expected to come into force in spring 2026, subject to final approval. While the detailed framework is still being finalised, the guidance makes clear that pilot passenger services will be expected to comply with APS requirements as they are introduced.

Safety, incident & cybersecurity management

Applicants must demonstrate robust operational and safety arrangements to support the deployment of self‑driving vehicles under the pilot scheme. This includes evidence of:

effective incident detection, escalation and emergency response procedures
clear cooperation and information‑sharing protocols with emergency services and first responders
a defined investigation framework and post‑incident management processes.

Participants are also required to maintain documented safety reports, underpinned by an appropriate safety management system, together with ongoing reporting obligations and immediate notification of safety‑related incidents.

Temporary & iterative framework

The pilot scheme is non‑permanent and will remain under active review. Lessons learned from deployments will be used to shape the final regulatory regime under the Automated Vehicles Act, expected to be fully in force from late 2027.

Who can apply?

From spring 2026, applications may be made by organisations involved in the operation, supply or deployment of self‑driving vehicle services in England, Wales and Scotland, including:

vehicle manufacturers or technology developers
fleet operators or mobility service providers (for example, taxi‑ or bus‑style services)
multi‑party consortium arrangements, where responsibility for the vehicle, the automated driving system and the service operation is split between different entities

Applicants must be able to assume responsibility for the safety, operation and regulatory compliance of the pilot deployment.

The scheme is distinct from traditional automated vehicle trials, which continue to require an in‑vehicle safety driver and remain governed by the existing trial code of practice.

What's next?

The pilot scheme signals a growing level of regulatory confidence in automated vehicle technologies and offers an early opportunity for operators to deploy, test and refine self‑driving services in live operating conditions.

Organisations considering participation should begin preparations now, including early engagement with relevant authorities and a thorough assessment of the regulatory, safety and operational requirements that will apply to their vehicles and service model.

Further details of the Self-Driving Vehicle pilot scheme are available here.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-sectors/ddcc-mobility-logistics-and-manufacturing-perspectives

]]>

RIDDOR: Essential guidance for reporting workplace incidents

Fri, 27 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:f01155a1-eae7-4300-91b9-15d5e3a1e4ca/as/Brand_Images_Places-(68).avif?assetname=Brand_Images_Places+%2868%29.jpg

Article | 3 min read

RIDDOR: Essential guidance for reporting workplace incidents

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

This article provides practical guidance on when incidents must be reported under RIDDOR, including practical examples and useful links. The aim is to help duty holders understand their obligations, avoid common pitfalls, and ensure compliance.

Published: 27 March 2026
Authors: Rubina Zaidi

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/hayley-saunders/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/charles-arrand/profile

false

style

single-column-text

What matters

The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) is an essential part of UK workplace safety law. Employers, the self-employed, and the person in control of work premises must report certain incidents to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). RIDDOR reporting is not just a legal requirement but is vital for monitoring workplace risks, preventing recurrence, and shaping future safety standards.

Duty holders must know which incidents are reportable, how to identify them, who should report under RIDDOR and the correct process for reporting. Failure to comply can result in enforcement action and reputational damage.

What matters next

To ensure compliance you should:

familiarise yourself with the types of reportable incidents
understand who is responsible for reporting under RIDDOR
use the HSE’s updated guidance and online forms for clarity
review practical examples to distinguish reportable from non-reportable events.

Who should report under RIDDOR?

The following persons (responsible person) are responsible for reporting reportable incidents:

the employer, where an employee is involved in the incident
a self-employed person if that person was in control of the premises where and when the reportable incident happened or when the self-employed person receives a reportable diagnosis
the person in control of work premises where and when the reportable incident happened, in cases of incidents involving a non-employee.

When must incidents be reported under RIDDOR?

Reportable incidents

Incidents must be reported under RIDDOR if they are:

work-related (arising out of or in connection with work)
result in a reportable injury, disease, or dangerous occurrence as set out below.

Fatalities: Any work-related death (excluding suicides) must be reported under RIDDOR. If a person dies from a work-related injury within one year, this must also be reported regardless of whether the incident has already been reported. Fatal (and specified major injuries) can be reported by telephone or online.
If death occurs in premises solely owned/ occupied by a self-employed person, this is not reportable.

Specified injuries: The following specific injuries must be reported:
- fractures (except fingers, thumbs, toes)
- amputations
- permanent loss or reduction of sight
- crush injuries to head/torso causing internal organ damage
- serious burns (covering over 10% of the body or significantly damaging the eyes, respiratory system or other vital organs)
- scalping requiring hospital treatment
- loss of consciousness from head injury or asphyxia
- injuries from working in enclosed spaces leading to hypothermia/heat illness or requiring resuscitation or hospital admission for more than 24 hours.
over-7-day incapacitation: If a worker is unable to perform their normal duties for more than seven consecutive days (excluding the day of the accident but including weekends, rest days and days the worker would not normally be expected to work), this must be reported within 15 days.
injuries to non-workers: If a member of the public is injured due to a work-related accident and taken directly to hospital for treatment, this is reportable.

Occupational diseases

These are reportable when a responsible person is notified that a worker is suffering from any of the following diseases:

carpal tunnel syndrome, where the work involves regularly using percussive/vibrating tools
hand/forearm cramp, where the work involves long periods of repetitive movement of the fingers, hand or arm
occupational dermatitis, where the work involves significant or regular exposure to a known skin sensitizer/ irritant
hand-arm vibration syndrome, in work involving regular use of percussive/ vibrating tools or holding of materials subject to percussive processes/ processes causing vibration
occupational asthma, where the work involves significant/ regular exposure to a known respiratory sensitizer
tendonitis/ tenosynovitis in the hand or forearm, in physically demanding work involving frequent, repetitive movements
occupational cancer linked to workplace exposure to a known human carcinogen or mutagen
diseases due to workplace exposure to biological agents.

Dangerous occurrences

Certain events with the potential to cause serious harm must be reported, even if no injury occurs. Examples include:

collapse or failure of lifting equipment or of the failure of any load-bearing part of such equipment (cranes, hoists, forklifts), but not of the failure of accessories to the equipment or ancillary equipment
explosion or fire due to an electrical short circuit/overload causing work stoppage or a significant risk of death
accidental release of hazardous substances which might result in personal injury to anyone (other than through the combustion of flammable liquids/ gases)
incidents when plant/equipment unintentionally contacts an uninsulated overhead electric line with voltage over 200 volts or comes close to such a line where an electric discharge is caused
incident involving the release or potential release/escape of a biological agent likely to cause severe human infection/ illness
complete or partial collapse of:
- a substantial part of any scaffold over 5 metres high
- any supporting part of a suspended scaffold which results in a working platform falling
- any part of any scaffold where anyone falling from it would be at significant risk of drowning.

Practical examples of reportable dangerous occurrences

a warehouse worker fractures their arm (not a finger or thumb) in a fall
a member of the public slips in a shop and is taken to hospital for treatment
a forklift overturns but no one is injured
an employee is diagnosed with occupational asthma
a chemical storage tank ruptures, releasing hazardous vapours which cause injury to non-employees.

Reporting stress-related and mental health illnesses under RIDDOR

While stress and mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression are increasingly recognised as significant workplace health issues and employers have a duty to protect workers from stress as with other health and safety risks at work, they are not currently classified as RIDDOR-reportable.

The HSE is unlikely to investigate a report of an individual case of work-related stress or related ill health but may investigate if it appears several employees are suffering from work-related stress. 

Further steps and best practice tips

train responsible persons on identifying and reporting incidents
use online forms and resources to ensure accurate reporting
if circumstances change (for example, an injury later results in death), amend the report online using the HSE portal
keep a copy of the submitted RIDDOR report and any supporting documentation
maintain records of reportable incidents, reportable diagnoses and of workplace incidents which prevents the injured worker from doing routine work for more than three consecutive days (excluding the day of the accident); such records must be kept for at least three years
keep accurate records of all workplace incidents, even those not reportable, for internal review and improvement
review the HSE’s guidance regularly for changes in reporting requirements.

Useful links and resources

HSE RIDDOR Guidance
Types of Reportable Incidents (HSE)
Make a RIDDOR Report Online
HSE’s A to Z of guidance by topic HSE: Guidance: Topics
For a full list of dangerous occurrences, refer to Schedule 2 of The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-transactional-and-advisory/ddcc-people-and-reward

]]>

What the CMA’s new green claims guidance mean for businesses

Mon, 23 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:b8256f35-2c91-4ea3-be53-1580d6e9e3b3/as/ART-US00092-(24).avif?assetname=ART-US00092+%2824%29.jpg

Article | 7 min read

What the CMA’s new green claims guidance mean for businesses

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

In January 2026, the Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) released Making green claims: Getting it right, across the supply chain (the “Supply Chain Guidance”).

This guidance builds on the CMA’s Green Claims Code and provides guidance to businesses about where responsibility for making environmental claims lies across the supply chain.

In this article, we set out what the Supply Chain Guidance means for your business.

Published: 23 March 2026
Authors: Adam Flynn

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/adam-flynn/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/charles-arrand/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/angus-evers/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/stephen-johnstone/profile

false

style

single-column-text

What is a green claim?

Environmental claims (or green claims) include claims which suggest or create the impression that a product or service: (i) has a positive environmental impact or no impact on the environment, (ii) is less damaging to the environment than a previous version of the same product or service, or (iii) is less damaging to the environment than competing products or services.

A business can make a green claim in any form of broadcast or non-broadcast advertising, either by explicitly setting out the environmental credentials of a product, or by presenting information in a certain way (i.e. via the use of “green” logos or imagery).

How are green claims regulated in the UK?

Under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (the “DMCC”) the CMA has direct enforcement powers to protect consumers from unfair commercial practices, such as misleading marketing, and has the power to impose fines of up to 10% of global turnover on businesses / traders that breach the DMCC.

The CMA published the Green Claims Code in 2021 to help businesses understand and comply with their obligations under consumer protection law when making environmental claims. It sets out six key principles to be aware of when making environmental claims: (i) claims must be truthful and accurate; (ii) claims must be clear and unambiguous; (iii) claims must not omit or hide material information; (iv) claims must only make fair and meaningful comparisons; (v) claims must consider the full lifecycle of the product or service; and (vi) claims must be substantiated.

The Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”) bans ads which breach the CAP and BCAP Codes, (together, the “UK Advertising Codes”). The UK Advertising Codes are underpinned by consumer protection legislation, specifically the DMCC, and contain rules which prohibit misleading advertising and misleading environmental claims in both broadcast and non-broadcast advertising. In recent years, the ASA has released several rulings which banned misleading environmental claims across a range of sectors.

What is the key takeaway in the Supply Chain Guidance?

The CMA state that businesses across the supply chain must take steps to ensure any environmental claims made (whether directly, indirectly or by passing information from others on to consumers) are accurate and not misleading.

The CMA go on to say that a business may be deemed to be repeating an environmental claim where it stocks a product containing a claim. For example, if a manufacturer falsely or misleadingly labels a product as having an environmentally friendly characteristic, both the manufacturer and the retailer stocking that product may be liable for engaging in an unfair commercial practice.

The Supply Chain Guidance includes illustrative examples to clarify this approach to enforcement. We have summarised some of these below. The examples show that the CMA’s enforcement approach will very much be assessed on a case-by-case basis, but will in each instance consider which entity made the claim, and the processes each company in the supply chain has in place to ensure the claim is accurate (see What does the CMA expect businesses to do for further information).

Scenario 1

Situation: Misleading product information relating to the recyclability of a product is uploaded onto the retailer’s website from the brand’s online product information system. The retailer has a relationship with the brand, performs regular random checks to ensure that product descriptions are accurate, requests evidence for a selection of claims, and asks the brand to complete an annual declaration that all claims are accurate and that appropriate substantiation is held.

Enforcement: The CMA state that both the retailer and brand have a responsibility to ensure the claim is not misleading. The CMA may be more likely to prioritise action against the brand as there is potential for widespread harm from the brand’s commercial practices and the brand is better positioned to remedy the issue.

Scenario 2:

Situation: A large supermarket chain orders branded body wash which includes one ingredient that is certified organic. This organic content constitutes 10% of the ingredients of the body wash. The supermarket decides that the body wash will be marketed as part of the supermarket’s ‘environmental’ range. The range description explains that all products in the range have an organic content that is 60% or higher.

Enforcement: The CMA state that both the retailer and brand have a responsibility to ensure the claim is not misleading. The CMA is likely to focus on the commercial practices of the retailer as the retailer has marketed the product with misleading environmental credentials and is best placed to remedy the situation.

Scenario 3:

Situation: A retailer running a small store orders dish cloths from a large manufacturer, who labels the product as “compostable”. The cloths can only be composted if returned to specific stores, where they are sent for specialist processing.

Enforcement: The CMA explain that both the retailer and the manufacturer have a responsibility to ensure the claim is not misleading. The CMA explains that it may be more likely to prioritise action against the manufacturer who made the claim on the product, as the manufacturer would be best placed to inform consumers of how to dispose of the cloths to achieve the environmental benefit claimed.

Does the CMA say anything else about its enforcement approach?

According to the Supply Chain Guidance, the CMA will take various factors into account when deciding its enforcement approach, including: (i) the strategic significance of acting (i.e. the extent to which CMA action fits with the CMA’s overarching objectives and strategy); (ii) the likelihood of a successful outcome; and (iii) how substantial the positive impact of CMA intervention would be (i.e. the direct impact on consumer behaviour, or the indirect effect of deterring poor practices or improving compliance in the market).

The CMA is likely to view practices as particularly egregious where businesses should be clear about their obligations, such as in situations where guidance already exists or ASA rulings relating to a particular type of claim have already been published. Businesses that do not have processes in place to ensure the accuracy of their environmental claims (noting in the Supply Chain Guidance that claims “they make” includes claims made either directly, indirectly or by passing information from others on to consumers), or that fail to properly follow their procedures, are also likely to be a focus of CMA attention.

What does the CMA expect businesses to do?

The CMA explain that businesses across the supply chain must take steps to ensure any environmental claims they “make” (either directly or indirectly, or by passing information on to consumers) are accurate and not misleading.

Retailers

For retailers, the relevant steps may include:

seeking robust, credible and up to date evidence (which according to the CMA may vary according to the claim, type of product, service or sector) from suppliers ahead of advertising or selling products to consumers. The CMA state that in the fashion sector, this can include final scope certificates and final transaction certificates (documents issued by an approved certification body to evidence that a facility is certified to produce products, fabrics or fibres to the relevant given standard, or that products, fabrics or fibres being shipped or received were produced to the relevant given standard)
where obtaining evidence is not possible due to timing or confidentiality, asking for confirmation (i.e. via a self-assessment questionnaire) that suppliers or brands hold proof, or a declaration, that their claims are accurate
reviewing claims and documents regularly to ensure product information is accurate i.e. performing random spot checks of product descriptions and requesting evidence to support a selection of claims from suppliers
adopting additional measures when working with new suppliers, such as checking whether a change in supplier impacts any claims being made
maintaining regular contact with suppliers and checking for changes in the supply chain which may affect the accuracy of a claim
considering if environmental claims are clear and whether additional information is required for consumers to understand them.

Brands selling through third parties

The CMA say that brands selling through third party retailers should ensure any claims they make are accurate, and should provide retailers with the appropriate assurances that the claims made by the brand are correct. This includes sharing underlying evidence with retailers and explaining the basis on which the brand’s environmental claims are made, or if this is not possible due to timing factors, providing a declaration that the product information is accurate.

Suppliers and manufacturers

According to the CMA, suppliers and manufacturers should provide retailers and brands with the assurance they need so they can confidently make accurate claims. This may include:

ensuring evidence is provided to support claims and that records on product composition, testing and provenance are retained
facilitating supply chain transparency (i.e. updating others in the supply chain if there is a change to the raw materials used
providing assurances to others in the supply chain in a different way if product information is confidential
not making casual claims which could be mistaken for objective environmental claims.

What does this mean for retailers in particular?

Understandably, the Supply Chain Guidance has caused concern amongst large retailers that stock a huge quantity of third-party products, many of which contain environmental claims on the packaging. Implementing every action included in the CMA’s recommended checklist for retailers would represent a substantial administrative burden for large retailers.

However, with the CMA’s newly acquired direct enforcement powers under the DMCC, retailers can ill afford to be complacent, and should take note of the examples and checklists contained in the Supply Chain Guidance. This is particularly important given that the CMA recently imposed its first significant fixed penalty of £473,000 under the new DMCC direct enforcement regime.

On that basis, in relation to claims on own-brand products, we suggest that retailers:

ensure any environmental claims can be substantiated prior to the publication of the claim, and ensure documentary evidence is held in relation to each claim
ensure those responsible for marketing compliance are aware of the principles established in the CMA’s Green Claims Code, in ASA rulings and in CAP guidance on environmental claims, via the provision of staff training
actively monitor and ensure staff are aware of any ASA rulings published in relation to environmental claims
implement an ‘environmental claims policy’ explaining the steps that must be taken by staff prior to making environmental claims on own brand products.

Regarding third-party products stocked and sold by retailers, we recommend that retailers implement the CMA’s recommended checklist in the following, proportionate way:

include assurances as to the accuracy of any environmental claims appearing on third-party products in contracts with third parties
seek an annual declaration that all environmental claims on the third parties’ products are true and accurate
perform random spot checks of environmental claims and request evidence to support a selection of environmental claims from third-party suppliers
seek additional assurances and undertake additional spot checks when working with new suppliers.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

Renewable energy stakeholders & fossil-fuel shocks: Competition law

Fri, 20 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:f8f0ea0c-c7e7-4029-b79a-73f288d7bd1c/as/ART-u2114277519_coffee_table_book_style_high_end_photography_show_536f92f6-c582-43e2-ab95-b5bebe5f6373_3.avif?assetname=ART-u2114277519_coffee_table_book_style_high_end_photography_show_536f92f6-c582-43e2-ab95-b5bebe5f6373_3.jpg

Article | 2 min read

Renewable energy stakeholders & fossil-fuel shocks: Competition law

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

Energy shocks affect renewables too. Stakeholders must react fast yet stay within UK/EU competition law, even in times of crisis.

Published: 20 March 2026
Authors: Kiran Desai

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/kiran-desai/profile

false

style

single-column-text

Volatility is not a defence—conduct matters. UK and EU competition authorities acknowledge that genuine scarcity can drive price increases and volatility, but their focus is on how companies respond to such volatility. Making pricing decisions based solely on a firm’s own costs and risks is permitted. However, risk emerges when companies—sometimes inadvertently—begin coordinating, signalling, or aligning their behaviour, especially under a “crisis narrative”.

Renewable energy players must be wary of sharing commentary on market conditions, bidding strategies, or contracting approaches. Even well-meant efforts to “stabilise” the market risk being seen as attempts to influence competitors.

Where renewables face heightened risk. As energy systems decarbonise, competition issues increasingly relate to flexibility and system access rather than fuel supply. In practice:

storage and balancing markets: Sharing information on expected availability, outage timing, or state-of-charge strategies between competitors may constitute unlawful information exchange.
grid access and congestion: Discussions among developers about grid connection sequencing or curtailment responses can raise competition concerns if they impact rivalry.
ancillary services and optimisation tools: Shared platforms and algorithmic bidding increase the risk of indirect coordination if data segregation and governance are inadequate.

Crisis-driven cooperation: possible, but tightly constrained. Market stress may prompt talks about cooperation, such as shared logistics or coordinated responses. While competition law doesn’t ban all collaboration, it must be lawful and follow three principles:

necessity and proportionality: Limit cooperation to clearly defined operational issues and keep it temporary.
no coordination on strategic variables: Avoid discussions on prices, output, bidding, capacity withholding, or contracting positions.
safeguards: Use clean teams, data aggregation, or independent intermediaries when data sharing is unavoidable, with clear records and sunset clauses.

Arguments about “security of supply” or “system resilience” do not override competition rules for renewables.

Geopolitical shocks: tighten governance, not conversations. External shocks, such as geopolitical tensions, can quickly affect energy pricing and liquidity. Renewables businesses, often spanning multiple sectors, face increased risk of cross-portfolio spillovers. Informal exchanges between teams may stray into sensitive territory.

In summary, renewables are at the centre of the energy transition but must operate within markets still shaped by gas, imports, and geopolitics. Competition law remains strict during disruptions. The safest approach is to ensure that rapid, resilient responses always embed competition compliance, so actions remain lawful and defensible.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-sectors/ddcc-energy-and-infrastructure-perspectives

]]>

Charity trustees and whistleblowing: insights for the charity sector

Thu, 12 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:4bb8cb5a-28a1-4030-b5eb-e93f082539a1/as/ART-MJ00007.avif?assetname=ART-MJ00007.jpg

Article | 4 min read

Charity trustees and whistleblowing

Insights for the charity sector

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

A recent Employment Tribunal decision has confirmed that a charity trustee was not entitled to whistleblower protection. What does this mean for the charity sector?

Published: 12 March 2026
Authors: Robert Nieri

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/robert-nieri/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/antonia-blackwell/profile

false

style

single-column-text

What is whistleblower protection?

The whistleblowing legislation in Great Britain provides protection for workers against being subject to a detriment, as well as protection for employees against dismissal, where the worker or employee makes a protected disclosure of information about malpractice by their employer or a third party, such as breach of a legal obligation, criminal offences or actions which present a danger to the health and safety of any individual.

Currently, a worker includes both an employee and an individual who works under any other contract where the individual agrees to perform personally any work or services for another party. Importantly, office holders are not treated as workers, although case law has established that whistleblower protection can be extended to cover holders of judicial office on grounds of their occupational status.

Within the charity sector, whistleblowing disclosures help the Charity Commission to detect serious problems such as fraud, safeguarding concerns and mismanagement in charities. Whilst the Commission seeks to encourage anyone connected with charities to raise concerns, the recent case of MacLennan v British Psychological Society could be seen as a deterrent to doing so for anyone not classed as a worker.

Background to the case

Dr MacLennan had been a member of the British Psychological Society for many years. He had concerns about how the Society was run and campaigned to be president-elect to address those concerns. He was also a trustee of the Society.

He was elected in May 2020, but his election remained confidential until ratified. He claimed to have made four protected disclosures in June 2020, followed by a further nine protected disclosures between July 2020 and December 2020 once his role as president-elect was ratified. Relations between Mr MacLennan and the Society deteriorated and, following an investigation into allegations of bullying, he was expelled from membership of the Society in May 2021, which terminated his role as both trustee and president-elect. He brought a claim in the Employment Tribunal on the basis that these actions amounted to detriments resulting from the protected disclosures that he had made. To progress the claims, he needed to demonstrate that he came within the definition of worker.

What was the outcome of the case?

Initially, it was held that Dr MacLennan was never a worker of the Society but rather a volunteer carrying out activities on a pro bono basis. As a result, the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear his claim.

Dr MacLennan appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) arguing that he should be treated as a worker, despite the absence of any written contract between himself and the Society. The EAT allowed the appeal and sent the case back to the Employment Tribunal for further consideration as to whether his position as a charity trustee was akin to occupational status, given the nature of the role, responsibilities and regulatory regime, such that the whistleblower protection could be extended to cover his role, as had been found to be the case with judicial office holders.

However, the Employment Tribunal has again held that Dr MacLennan is not entitled to whistleblower protection based on his status as a charity trustee. Although his position was similar to that of a worker in some respects, these factors were outweighed by others such as the fact he operated as a volunteer and was not paid by the Society, any retaliation against him could not include dismissal and he could raise concerns directly with the Charity Commission, which has statutory obligations to consider, investigate and act on any wrongdoing reported by a charity trustee. For these reasons, his position as a charity trustee was not the same as that of an employee or worker. The Employment Tribunal also decided that the status of a charity trustee did not count as occupational status, because their status was governed by law and the relevant regulatory framework. In particular, the Employment Tribunal was keen to avoid conflicts of interest that could arise where a charity trustee brings claims against their charity resulting in the charity’s funds being used to defend and potentially satisfy the claim. On this basis there was reasonable justification for excluding charity trustees from whistleblowing protection.

What does this mean for the charity sector?

If the Employment Tribunal had found in Dr MacLennan’s favour, this would have had significant implications for the charity sector and volunteers generally, opening up whistleblower protection to a much wider group of individuals. As it is, charity trustees and volunteers remain outside of whistleblower protections for the time being, which may make such individuals think twice before raising concerns.

This decision should not, however, be seen as a deterrent. Aside from this being a first instance decision and so not binding on other Employment Tribunals therefore allowing a future tribunal to reach a different conclusion, this decision does not mean charity trustees are left without any agency to challenge perceived wrongdoing.

As part of their role within a charity, charity trustees are required to act in what they consider to be the best interests of their charity’s purposes and while charity boards act collectively, the Charity Commission makes clear in its guidance that charity trustees should exercise independent judgement and feel able to give their views, raise concerns and to challenge. If they strongly disagree with a decision the charity board has made, they should ask for this to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting, and sometimes they may disagree so strongly with a decision that they have no choice but to resign. Charity trustees should also bear in mind required behaviours under the recently revised Charity Governance Code (which is good practice but not legally binding), in particular Principle 4 ‘Ethics & Culture’, a requirement that charity trustees should speak up when they have concerns about the charity’s governance or operations.

There may still be circumstances where it is not possible for a concern to be properly addressed within a charity and as mentioned charity trustees can report issues to the Charity Commission that have happened, are happening or are likely to happen and that could seriously harm the people a charity helps, its staff or volunteers, the services it provides, or its assets or reputation. The Charity Commission is a ‘prescribed person’ making it the regulatory body for appropriate disclosures on matters relating to ‘the proper administration of charities and funds given, or held, for charitable purposes’. It is noteworthy that 46% of whistleblowing disclosures made to the Commission between 1st April 2024 and 31st March 2025 were received from non-employees (46%), which include trustees.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-transactional-and-advisory/ddcc-people-and-reward

]]>

Lessons from Grenfell: Consultations on construction products

Wed, 11 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:32fffa48-6aae-4824-96d9-5e91f8da4ebf/as/ART-clark-van-der-beken-OpWcYdI7L9s-unsplash.avif?assetname=ART-clark-van-der-beken-OpWcYdI7L9s-unsplash.jpg

Article | 5 min read

Lessons from Grenfell

Consultations on construction products

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The Government has launched two consultations on construction product safety: a new General Safety Requirement for unregulated products and the Construction Products Reform White Paper. The reforms seek to close the regulatory gaps exposed by Grenfell.

Published: 11 March 2026
Authors: Rubina Zaidi

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/rubina-zaidi/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/hayley-saunders/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/charles-arrand/profile

false

style

single-column-text

What matters

The Government is consulting on a new General Safety Requirement (GSR) for all currently unregulated construction products, alongside a consultation on an extensive White Paper proposing transformation of the construction products regime, as highlighted in our previous article on the proposed reforms to construction product regulation- Building safety: Time for radical clarity. Both consultations aim to address systemic failures exposed by Grenfell and drive cultural, regulatory and institutional change across the construction product lifecycle.

What matters next

Both consultations close on 20 May 2026 at 11:59pm. Views are sought from all stakeholders be they manufacturers, importers, distributors, designers, contractors, specifiers, developers, building control professionals and residents. The reforms will shape the future of regulation of construction products in the UK, with new regulations to be introduced by the end of 2026 and implementation expected from late 2027 onwards. While the consultation is open to everyone, such stakeholders should consider engaging with the consultation, to ensure their views are considered as these far-reaching reforms progress.

Importance of the consultations

The independent reviews and Inquiry into Grenfell revealed fundamental weaknesses in the construction products system including inadequate safety standards, fragmented regulation, limited enforcement, misleading marketing and insufficient accountability across the supply chain. While steps have been taken to address these concerns, such as the Building Safety Act 2022, the creation of the Building Safety Regulator, and bans on combustible cladding, large parts of the construction products market remain unregulated, with only products covered by designated standards or technical assessments currently falling within the UK’s construction products regulatory regime.

The consultations address these gaps, promoting a system designed to prevent unsafe products from entering the supply chain.

The GSR consultation for construction products

The proposed risk-based GSR, which will operate alongside UK construction products regulation, introduces an overarching legal duty to ensure that any construction product placed on the UK market is safe, under its intended and reasonably foreseeable conditions of use. It applies to all products not regulated by designated standards or technical assessments, so that the significant numbers of products currently unregulated will be regulated.

The GSR addresses the inability of regulators to intervene when unregulated products pose known risks and aims to ensure consistent standards across all construction products.

Key features of the GSR proposals

Manufacturers must identify and assess product safety risks, considering intended use, foreseeable misuse, installation conditions and interactions with other products. Risk mitigation measures must be proportionate and evidence‑based.
Manufacturers must provide comprehensive safety information, including:
- intended use and technical specifications
- installation, assembly and maintenance instructions
- safety warnings
- conditions where a product should not be used
- any voluntary standards or third‑party certifications obtained

Information must be accessible, accurate, current and not misleading.

Manufacturers and importers must keep risk assessments, product documentation, and safety incident records for 10 years.
Products must carry unique identifiers and manufacturer/importer details. Digital identifiers (e.g., QR codes) are encouraged to support traceability and recall processes.
Importers and distributors, including builders’ merchants, must verify compliance, maintain records, and have controls in place to ensure unsafe products do not enter the market.
All those subject to obligations in relation to the manufacture of products, making them available on the market must ensure that:
- construction products are safely stored and transported
- construction products are monitored
- safety issues are identified and addressed
- complaints are investigated and recorded
- corrective actions (amending information or enabling the withdrawal of unsafe products from the market) are undertaken.
The National Regulator for Construction Products will gain enhanced enforcement and sanctionspowers:
- market surveillance
- investigatory powers (entry, seizure, testing)
- suspension, prohibition and recall notices
- civil penalties
- criminal sanctions for serious breaches
- power to recover enforcement costs

An appeals process will be available.

Used products for re‑use in construction will be regulated unless clearly marketed as requiring repair or reconditioning.

The Construction Products Reform White Paper consultation

The White Paper sets out the Government’s long‑term vision for a safer, more transparent and accountable construction products system. It is wider in scope than the GSR, covering:

future standards and regulation
digital product information
testing, certification and accreditation
oversight of conformity assessment bodies
the future role of regulators
environmental and sustainability considerations
competence across the product supply chain

Key Proposals in the White Paper

Every product will be regulated through designated standards or technical assessments or the new GSR.
Products critical to safe construction will be subject to enhanced requirements
Enhanced product information will be mandated to eliminate misleading marketing practices, with the proposals including:
- accessible labelling and safety‑critical data
- mandatory product information requirements
- digital product records
- a national construction product information library
- increased transparency of testing and certification data
Digitalisation of product records is proposed by way of:
- digital product records by default
- QR‑linked product information
- integration with the “golden thread” for higher‑risk buildings
- support for a future digital ecosystem across the construction supply chain
Strengthening Testing and Certification to address concerns about inconsistent and commercially influenced testing should be achieved by the proposals for:
- a licensing regime for all Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs)
- mandatory duty for CABs to act in the public interest
- greater oversight and transparency of testing processes
- expanded public sector testing capacity
New enforcement powers and sanctions for the regulator include:
- civil monetary penalties
- criminal sanctions
- director disqualification
- recovery of proceeds of crime

Routes to redress for those harmed by defective products will be improved.

Improved sustainability of products should be achieved by proposals regarding:
- sustainable materials
- environmental performance reporting
- support for circular economy principles
- integration of MMC (Modern Methods of Construction) within the regulatory framework

What this means for the industry and duty holders

Manufacturers, importers, distributors and designers must prepare for more stringent responsibilities and greater scrutiny. The reforms demand cultural change: safety, integrity and transparency must be embedded into every stage of commercial practice.

Clearer roles are proposed for principal designers, principal contractors and installers, especially where products are critical to safe construction to achieve greater accountability across the chain.

The Government acknowledges the scale of change and intends to introduce phased implementation with detailed guidance to support compliance, including for SMEs.

Next steps

The Government invites responses to the consultations from all stakeholders in the construction product sector, and from members of the public.

To respond to the GSR consultation, please visit the online survey platform at:

Consultation on the General Safety Requirement (GSR) for Construction Products - Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government - Citizen Space

To respond to the White Paper consultation, please use the online survey platform at:

Construction Products Reform White Paper - Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government - Citizen Space

Alternatively, you may respond to the consultations by email to:

ConstructionProducts@communities.gov.uk

And finally…

The two consultations represent a significant proposed overhaul of construction product regulation and provide a key opportunity for stakeholders to help shape a safer, more transparent system. We will publish further articles and post information on LinkedIn as the consultations, and the reforms, progress.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

Algorithmic collusion: CMA investigation & lessons from US settlements

Tue, 3 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:a414d920-dbf0-4337-9f5d-637f955534da/as/ART-skyler-sawyer-Ce-CG2WU59E-unsplash.avif?assetname=ART-skyler-sawyer-Ce-CG2WU59E-unsplash.jpg

Article | 3 min read

Algorithmic collusion

CMA investigation & lessons from US settlements

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has announced the launch of an investigation into the suspected sharing of competitively sensitive information among competing hotel chains using the software of a third-party data analytics provider. Businesses using or considering price‑optimisation or algorithmic decision‑making tools to make commercial decisions should be aware of rapidly evolving regulatory scrutiny and, in particular, they should be alert to the possibility of competition authority challenge.

Published: 3 March 2026
Author: Manu Mohan

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/kiran-desai/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/simon-barnes/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/manu-mohan/profile

false

style

single-column-text

Pricing algorithms powered by data analytics and predictive modelling are playing an increasingly significant role in sectors such as real estate, insurance, transportation, and education. However, in parallel, competition authorities in the UK, EU, and US are increasingly focused on how such technologies may facilitate coordinated pricing or reduce independent decision‑making.

The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), in its draft Annual Plan for 2026 - 2027 and as part of implementing its 2026 - 2029 Strategy, had identified deterring algorithmic price collusion as a priority area. CMA officials have publicly acknowledged that algorithmic pricing is an “area of focus and concern” and that the CMA is “watching and learning” from US cases.

Two US Department of Justice (DOJ) proposed settlements from late 2025 now offer practical guideposts for both developers and users of pricing tools, signalling how regulators are likely to approach the design, procurement, and deployment of algorithmic pricing systems. Key learnings are that:

the technical capabilities of software can enhance competitors’ ability to optimize cartel gains, monitor real-time deviations, and minimize incentives to cheat
competing users who rely on the same algorithm, particularly one trained on competitively sensitive, non-public data, may be found to have engaged in unlawful coordination, even if each retains discretion to override the algorithm’s recommendations
direct communication between competitors is not required to establish collusion. It may suffice that a software provider proposes a coordinated pricing model to multiple firms, each aware that its competitors were also being invited to participate, and that those firms adopted and adhered to the model, creating a common understanding among the competitors that prices would rise collectively
agreements to fix list prices or starting prices (e.g., advertised list prices), even if final transaction prices vary, can distort the competitive process and may be treated as unlawful
even if an algorithm fails to raise or stabilize prices, the collective delegation of pricing decisions to a common algorithm can itself constitute unlawful coordination
features such as “auto accept” or default settings that encourage outsourcing of pricing function to the algorithm and make it easier for users to bulk-accept or difficult to override pricing recommendations through administrative burdens may be viewed as reducing independent judgment and increasing the risk of coordinated pricing
guardrails in an algorithm that increase recommended prices or resist downward pricing pressures such as a “sold-out” mode that stops recommending lower prices once a target figure is reached (even if units remain unsold), or a “revenue protection” mode that limits availability to drive up prices could be seen as artificially constraining competition and contributing to coordinated price increases

Against this backdrop of heightened regulatory attention and recent enforcement actions, there are a number of practical measures that both developers and users of pricing algorithms may wish to consider.

Recommended best practices

Developers

avoid training models on non-public, competitively sensitive data such as rivals’ pricing, costs or customer information
ensure each customer’s model operates autonomously without centralized consideration, sharing of information, or enforcement of common pricing logic across users
maintain transparency in model design by avoiding “black box” logic that limits oversight, and keep clear documentation explaining how recommendations are generated and updated
apply restrictions on the use of any non‑public information both for model training and runtime optimisation
use historical or backward-looking data (e.g. that is at least 12 months old to train model algorithms
prevent the use of any market‑survey data that includes non‑public, competitor‑specific pricing or operational information
train sales and support teams to avoid statements implying access to other users’ competitively sensitive data, or shared commercial purpose across users references in customer presentations, marketing materials or discussions
implement audit trails and enable independent review of data sources, model updates and algorithmic performance to detect and address potential compliance risks

Users of pricing algorithms

verify whether the algorithm uses data or logic derived from competitors’ commercially sensitive information, and request documentation on data sources, training methods and compliance safeguards
maintain sufficient human oversight and avoid full automation or features that may undermine independent commercial judgment
establish internal guidance on extent of reliance on algorithmic pricing including escalation protocols when outputs appear to mirror market-wide patterns or competitive behaviour
understand the functionality and calibrate the use of features such as “sold-out” mode or “revenue protection” mode that may inhibit lowering of prices or align behaviour of competitors
provide targeted training to internal data science, commercial pricing and procurement teams to help them recognize risks of algorithmic coordination
avoid participation in vendor-hosted meetings or training sessions where market analyses, non‑public trends, pricing strategies, or operational benchmarks may be discussed with other competing users
avoid any language during procurement or implementation discussions that could imply commercial alignment or shared objectives with competing users of the algorithm
conduct regular reviews of algorithmic outcomes to detect unexplained price uniformity or parallel pricing across competitors

As the regulatory landscape continues to evolve, businesses may wish to review existing practices and ensure appropriate governance measures are in place. Regular assessment of data inputs, human and system behaviour, and internal controls can support compliance efforts and help ensure that pricing tools operate in a manner consistent with competition law expectations.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

Supporting mergers that support the political-industrial agenda

Tue, 24 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:b007a12b-2b00-4af0-ba04-fea9eba53425/as/ART-u2114277519_create_high_end_photography_showing_fashion_detai_3a69a537-651d-4402-a2ca-bc0fed45538f_1.avif?assetname=ART-u2114277519_create_high_end_photography_showing_fashion_detai_3a69a537-651d-4402-a2ca-bc0fed45538f_1.jpg

Article | 2 min read

Supporting mergers that support the political-industrial agenda

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

While there is a debate to have on the point, it is generally agreed that the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and the EU’s Competition Directorate-General, have become closer to the executive branch. An example is the CMA’s recognition to support competitiveness in a broader international context. Would this extend to industrial chokepoints?

Published: 24 February 2026
Authors: Kiran Desai

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/kiran-desai/profile

false

style

single-column-text

It is time for Europe to weaponise its chokepoints

Financial Times

https://www.ft.com/content/b92fd917-9f1b-4393-b96d-6d22ba757c72

Two studies named in a Financial Times article identify chokepoints, namely, goods or services where Europe is particularly strong and others (in particular, China and/or the USA) are reliant on Europe. For example, countries outside Europe are reliant on the chip production machinery produced by Dutch firm ASML. One study identified 41 chokepoints where China depends upon the EU for 80 per cent of its imports, and 67 chokepoints where the United States is as dependent.

Competition authorities such as the CMA might be persuaded by the executive branch to implement competition law such that a merger that creates or strengthens a UK‑based chokepoint may be welfare‑enhancing or strategically desirable even if it lessens competition downstream.

Existing UK checkpoint examples include the civil nuclear fuel cycle (conversion, enrichment, services) as the UK (via Urenco) sits at the core of Western uranium enrichment capacity. Any merger consolidating enrichment, fuel services, or small modular reactors (SMR)‑linked fuel supply would strengthen a strategic chokepoint even if it reduced competition. Hypothetical others include aerospace engines and related high-value components, pharmaceutical manufacturing, advanced therapeutics, vaccine process development, interest rate derivatives clearing, FX trading, certain commodities benchmarks, and certain defence inputs.

Speculatively, sectors that could become UK chokepoints if major mergers were allowed include AI compute infrastructure and model deployment platforms, satellite services and space-based data (earth observation, navigation augmentation), and synthetic biology platforms (design-build-test infrastructure).

As regards practicalities, the legal advisory role comes in the ability to deliver a successful outcome for parties in the context of the tension that exists in the UK between the current law, which identifies the CMA should block mergers that likely result in a substantial lessening of competition, and the political agenda, recognised by the CMA, where “the need for capital” (read, transactions) are important “to unlock opportunities in critical sectors where the UK has a comparative advantage, like life sciences and AI”, (Doug Gurr, Interim Chair, CMA, speech, 23 October 2025) which is classic industrial-policy language.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

New tech, old law? UKJT considers liability for AI harm

Fri, 20 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:7ab40224-69f5-4efd-aa64-40370c729484/as/u2114277519_Macro_photography_of_a_tech_device_photo_product_ph_2dd8a26b-5b15-49ab-8eec-1b96481517c6.avif?assetname=u2114277519_Macro_photography_of_a_tech_device_photo_product_ph_2dd8a26b-5b15-49ab-8eec-1b96481517c6.png

Article | 6 min read

New tech, old law?

UKJT considers liability for AI harm

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

AI adoption continues to accelerate across sectors, with a significant majority¹ of businesses reporting major performance gains as a result. At the same time, the internal governance around AI adoption isn’t always keeping pace², and AI-related litigation is a key concern for many in-house legal teams³. Add to this an absence of any overarching legal framework for liability in relation to AI in the UK,⁴ and the net result is a somewhat heady mix of short-term gains with (at least perceived) longer term uncertainty and risk.

Published: 20 February 2026
Authors: Alex Bishop, Peter Richards-Gaskin, Alex Kirkhope, Sarah Reynolds, Claire Kershaw, Stefanie Hughes

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/alex-bishop/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/peter-richards-gaskin/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/alex-kirkhope/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/sarah-reynolds/profile

false

style

single-column-text

Against this background, the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT) has recently published, and is consulting on, a draft legal statement on liability for non-deliberate AI harms under the private law of England and Wales (the Statement). The core issue the Statement is concerned with is “in what circumstances, and on what legal bases, English common law will impose liability for loss that results from the use of AI”.

The UKJT’s approach to this is founded on the premise that AI (defined in the Statement as “a technology that is autonomous”⁵) does not have legal personality in English law so liability for any harms caused by the use of it must therefore be attributed to other ‘legal persons’. Despite the novel context, the UKJT suggests such liability can be attributed using ordinary existing legal principles within the ‘inherently flexible’ English common law system.

From that starting point, the Statement addresses the following questions:

does the principle of vicarious liability apply to loss caused by AI?
in what circumstances can a professional be liable for using or failing to use AI in the provision of their services? If AI used in the provision of professional services produces erroneous output, is the professional liable for loss resulting from the error?
can a person ever be liable for harms caused by use of AI where there is no fault on their part?
does liability attach to false statements made by an AI chatbot?

Key takeaways / comment

Overall, the Statement serves as a helpful reminder of both (i) the extent to which existing legal principles can be applied to the relatively novel scenarios and risks of AI use and (ii) the ability of the English common law system to adapt further where necessary to address these.

In most commercial contexts the contractual arrangements between the various parties to an AI supply chain will be the most important legal framework governing liability for any non-deliberate harm arising. The need for application/analysis of tortious or other legal principles is likely to be relatively rare in practice, and parties within the AI supply chain should therefore prioritise clear and robust contractual allocations of risk, and view any potential claim in negligence as amongst themselves as a fallback Claims brought by end users against professional services firms are likely, however, to be brought in professional negligence, whether under the terms of their contract or under tort.

Meticulous drafting of contracts has always been important, and highly complex supply chains are also nothing new. Nonetheless in the context of AI supply chains (the structure of which, the Statement notes, is likely to change as the technology advances), contracting parties and their advisers will benefit from renewed emphasis and particular attention to detail around the ‘basics’ of warranties, indemnities, limitations and exclusions. A thorough understanding of the technology, roles and responsibilities of all parties within the supply chain will be key in apportioning liability and managing risk appropriately.

It’s worth noting in this context that, to date, AI vendors have been reluctant to offer detailed liability cover in respect of ‘downstream’ use of their products and platforms, though basic protection such as IPR indemnities for AI outputs is becoming more common with larger vendors. Over time our expectation is that, in the same way as for data protection, under increased customer demand - more detailed template clauses will begin to take hold, requiring vendors to verify not only legal compliance, but also the broader legal, security and ethical processes and governance they have in place in respect of their AI systems. Given the dynamic nature of AI systems, their performance, ongoing development and outputs, such governance would cover the full lifecycle of the system, spanning its historic development and training, current performance as well as ongoing oversight (human or otherwise) to provide customers with adequate assurance as to the product’s accuracy and integrity over the term of its deployment.

In the rarer cases where liability cannot be determined under contractual arrangements (and with reference to the four questions noted above):

the principle of vicarious liability is unlikely to apply to harm caused by AI. Since an AI system has no legal personality itself, it cannot have the primary liability upon which the vicarious liability of another (legally recognised) person could be based. That said, an employer may be vicariously liable for loss resulting from the negligent use of AI by an employee (subject to the usual analysis).
the question of whether a professional has been negligent in their use of AI – or for failing to use AI – is likely to be determined in much the same way as the question of whether they have been negligent in using – or not using – any other tool available to them, applying well-established legal principles⁶. It will be highly fact specific; for example:
- evidence as to the standard of care exercised by reasonably competent members of the relevant profession⁷ will be crucial. While this may be informed by any applicable guidance from regulators/professional bodies (to which professionals must of course pay close attention), as the UKJT notes this “tends to be somewhat high level”, and evidence as to consistent market practice may be hard to pin down for a variety of reasons.
- particular uncertainties may arise in relation to causation where it is necessary to understand why AI produced the output it did (not only that it was incorrect). Maintaining clear and comprehensive audit trails (for example of prompts to the AI tool and steps taken to check/refine output, amongst other things) may help to fill evidential gaps.
whether in the context of AI use or generally, a person will not normally be liable for harm caused through no fault of their own, save for a failure to meet an agreed standard or result. In light of which, if the professional advice produced falls below the standard expected of a reasonably competent professional in that field, then it is likely that a professional services firm will be found liable in negligence to an end user/client, even if it was AI that caused or made the error. In addition, where an AI system is incorporated into a tangible product, such as a CD-ROM for example, the Consumer Protection Act 1987 will apply and carries strict liability for defective products causing certain physical harms. The Law Commission has stated it intends to review this area of the law including to address the status of “pure software”⁸.
non-contractual liability may in principle arise for statements made by an AI chatbot, in negligent misstatement or misrepresentation, deceit, libel, slander and/or malicious falsehood. As ever much will depend on particular facts, for example whether the chatbot’s response was autonomous or pre-determined, whether it is clear the AI chatbot is just that (as opposed to appearing as a chat function with a human), or whether the chatbot was well known to hallucinate.

Next steps

While the Statement goes some way to dispelling perceived legal uncertainties around liability for AI-related harm, needless to say real uncertainties remain. Robust governance frameworks and contractual arrangements are essential to mitigating the most significant risks/uncertainties, ensuring management time and resource can remain focussed on driving business forward. Flowing that governance and contractual assurance right through an organisation’s AI supply chain will increasingly become essential rather than a ‘nice to have’.

The consultation closed on 13 February 2026 and the UKJT states it intends, once responses have been considered, to publish a final version of the Statement as soon as possible.

More information

If you’re navigating the governance or contractual issues raised in this article – and need to protect your organisation’s risk and liability when procuring AI systems – our AI and dispute resolution and litigation teams are ready to help you move forward with confidence.

¹ 64% of respondents to Shoosmiths’ AI Governance Report: Uncharted territory: Navigating AI governance for better business performance.
² 32% of respondents to the above survey reported having advanced accountability frameworks in place.
³ 55% of respondents to Shoosmiths’ Litigation Risk Report 2026 expect AI-related litigation to increase.
⁴ Other jurisdictions, including the EU with its stalled AI Liability Directive, have also struggled to codify clear liability principles in relation to AI.
⁵ Note that there is currently no universally accepted definition of AI, though the definition adopted by the UKJT within its Statement deliberately shares lineage with definitions used by UK Government, the EU and the OECD.
⁶ See in particular South Australia Asset Management Corporation v York Montague Ltd [1996] UKHL 10 and Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2021] UKSC 20
⁷ In accordance with the ‘Bolam test’ from Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582
⁸ This is a nuanced area given the state of the art in relation to software delivery methods and the current precedent that software-as-a-service does not amount to “goods” under UK legislation.

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-dispute-resolution-and-litigation

]]>

Nutrient profiling model: Changes to HFSS / LHF are coming

Thu, 5 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:715ddbf7-db56-4260-bac4-362703c7f866/as/ART-u2114277519_Create_images_that_reflect_a_global_outlook._They_4a1434da-908a-45f7-954b-e52da5bc7320_2.avif?assetname=ART-u2114277519_Create_images_that_reflect_a_global_outlook._They_4a1434da-908a-45f7-954b-e52da5bc7320_2.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

ARTICLE | 2 min read

Nutrient profiling model

Changes to HFSS / LHF are coming

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The UK Government plans to update the underlying nutrient profiling model (NPM) that underpins high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) and less healthy food (LHF) advertising. In this article we outline what you need to know.

Published: 5 February 2026
Author: Stephen Johnstone

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/stephen-johnstone/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/adam-flynn/profile

false

style

single-column-text

What is the NPM?

The Nutrient Profiling Model (or NPM) is a scoring system developed by the Food Standards Agency used to assess the nutritional content of food and drink products. It balances the contribution made by beneficial nutrients of food and drink products alongside the negative contributions from nutrients where intakes are higher than recommended, to provide an overall nutrient profiling score.

Currently, it is the NPM 2004/2005 (with the 2011 technical guidance) that is widely used, including by Ofcom and the Advertising Standards Authority, in enforcing the rules on TV and online advertising restrictions. We discussed these in our previous article Brand or banned? The new rules reshaping food ads.

Why is change needed?

The Department of Health commissioned a review of the NPM 2004/2005 in 2016 to ensure that it met the latest scientific dietary recommendations. Public Health England then developed a proposed update to the NPM in 2018 to better reflect modern nutrition science (NPM 2018).

In July 2025, the Government reiterated its intention to update the NPM in its “Fit for the Future 10 Year Health Plan for England” by stating that the 2004 model was ‘plainly out of date’ and estimated that a ‘simple modernisation’ could reduce childhood obesity cases by nearly 170,000.

The Government has recently published the consultation outcome from 2018. While the Department of Health accepted the nutrient profiling model expert group recommendations that followed the 2018 consultation, and the NPM 2018 was published (along with technical guidance), the NPM 2018 is not yet applied to policy.

What does this mean?

The adoption of an updated model will impact which food and drink products are categorised as HFSS and/or LHF and are caught by the advertising and promotion restrictions. Many products currently compliant with HFSS and/or LHF regulations will therefore become non-compliant under the updated model.

What’s next?

The Government has stated that there will be a public consultation on applying the NPM 2018 to advertising and promotions restrictions which will take place in 2026.

Food businesses may want to consider their product ranges and assess any possible changes to the classification and scores of those products if the NPM 2018 were to be adopted, and, in due course, feed into the consultation, which will be key in determining if the new model is applied to the HFSS and LHF restrictions.

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/perspectives-disclaimer

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-sectors/ddcc-consumer-and-retail-perspectives

]]>

Trends reshaping consumer & retail in 2026

Mon, 26 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:5a422f06-f13a-4104-80dd-bbda54188a40/as/ART-US00092-(18).avif?assetname=ART-US00092+%2818%29.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

ARTICLE | 6 min read

Trends reshaping consumer & retail in 2026

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

Consumer and retail in 2026 is being reshaped by AI-driven personalisation, omnichannel fulfilment and a sharper focus on compliance. We outline the trends impacting the sector this year and beyond.

Published: 26 January 2026
Author: Simon McArdle

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/simon-mcardle/profile

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/hayley-saunders/profile

false

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/sanjeev-sharma/profile

false

style

single-column-text

Mission possible: AI agents driving the future of retail

Agentic AI is redefining retail in 2026. Unlike traditional automation or generative AI, these autonomous systems don’t wait for prompts – instead, they plan, act and learn continuously. Agentic AI monitors data, spots opportunities and executes tasks within set parameters. For consumers, this means a shift from passive browsing to proactive, personalised shopping. Platforms like Google and Microsoft now offer AI agents that compare prices, build baskets and even complete purchases with consent.

Behind the scenes, retailers are using the technology to optimise inventory, adjust pricing in real time and detect issues before they escalate – freeing teams to focus on strategy and boosting margins. Other uses include virtual try-on (VTO). VTO allows retailers to show whether a lipstick shade suits a customer’s complexion or how a piece of furniture will look in their living room. The challenge is how to ensure privacy by design, secure explicit consent and ensure fairness in AI outcomes when using it.

But the opportunity is real: analysts forecast agentic commerce could generate $3-5 trillion in retail value by 2030, accounting for up to 20% of e-commerce spend.

Social‑commerce platforms go one step further, analysing behaviour to surface the right product at the right time. This has fuelled a sharp rise in channels like TikTok Shop, an in-app e-commerce feature that lets users buy products directly within the app, which saw its sales increase 55% year-on-year in the UK in December 2025.

For retailers, the challenge is clear: adapt fast or risk falling behind in an AI‑orchestrated marketplace.

Sustainability: Still a growth driver, but now a compliance risk

For more than a decade, sustainability has been one of retail’s strongest selling points, with 41% of market growth in consumer-packaged goods coming from products marketed as sustainable. Today, those products hold 24% of branded market share in the US and 38% in the UK.

The influence is undeniable: adding a sustainability label can boost demand by almost 15% without changing price or advertising.

But there’s a catch: the claims only work if they’re credible. Regulators are watching and they’re leaning into AI to help them do it. In 2024, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) used its AI-powered Active Ad Monitoring System to scan 28 million ads, with more than 90% of those amended or withdrawn flagged by AI, not complaints from consumers.

Combine that with the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)’s Green Claims Code and new powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCC), and the stakes are clear: getting it wrong can mean fines of up to 10% of global turnover. These are just some of the trends impacting advertising and marketing this year.

Omnichannel: Beyond the storefront

With the shift towards e-commerce, how retailers use physical stores will continue to evolve. In today’s omnichannel world, many are moving beyond being places to just browse and buy. Instead, retailers are increasingly leveraging their existing portfolio of bricks and mortar to create hyper-local fulfilment hubs, which serve as mini distribution centres that make same-day, even near-instant delivery and collection possible.

Why? Because consumer expectations have shifted. Waiting days for an order feels outdated. Getting what you want within hours is now the norm.

Physical stores can power last-mile logistics, widen delivery and pickup options and connect seamlessly with online platforms. In addition, platforms that began with groceries are now beginning to target fashion, electronics and luxury goods. Uber and Deliveroo are also trialling same‑day drops for high‑value items, increasing customer expectation of how quickly they can receive a product they buy online down from days to hours.

Cyber threats, fragile supply chains and trade turmoil: A new retail reality

Retail is operating on a knife-edge. Geopolitical tension, regulatory scrutiny and digital threats are no longer background noise – they’re shaping every decision. From cyber-attacks and fragile supply chains to trade pressures, the risks are multiplying.

Shifting dynamics, from regulatory scrutiny to trade pressures, are influencing where and how retailers operate. This is something backed up by our litigation risk 2026 report, which surveys 360 UK-based general counsel and senior in-house lawyers. When respondents working in consumer and retail were asked which geopolitical trends had the biggest impact on risk over the past year, three themes dominated: state-sponsored cyber-attacks came top at 77%, highlighting the scale of digital vulnerability; supply chain risks followed at 67%, as global fragility continues to disrupt operations; and international trade tariffs and protectionism added further pressure (55%), reshaping cross-border strategies and exposing businesses to new layers of complexity.

To counter these risks, businesses in the sector are taking decisive steps. Building resilience against cyber-attacks tops the list at 74%, as digital threats escalate. Two-thirds (66%) are rethinking their supply chain matrix, strengthening weak links and improving visibility. And more than half (53%) are updating standard contract terms for international suppliers, ensuring agreements reflect today’s volatile trade environment.

For consumer-facing businesses, staying ahead of geopolitical and regulatory shifts is vital as we move into 2026. Retailers that anticipate change, embed DMCC compliance early and build agility into operations will be best placed to protect reputation, maintain trust and expand confidently in an unpredictable world.

Value in a volatile economy

In a climate of economic uncertainty, shoppers aren’t spending on autopilot, they’re making deliberate choices. Increasingly, consumers are trading down in some categories so they can invest where it matters most.

This isn’t about chasing the lowest price. It’s about justifiable value: quality and relevance that feel worth it. For retailers, that means every part of the offer needs to work harder: from pricing architecture to product mix and brand promise. Those who deliver on value, whether through affordability, premium options or flexible product ladders, will earn loyalty in a market defined by trade‑offs and prioritisation.

Health as the new battleground

The proliferation in use of weight‑loss drugs last year will continue to change what consumers eat and how retailers respond. Appetite‑suppressing treatments like Ozempic are already reshaping buying habits, with some retailers reporting dips in higher‑calorie sales while there has been a rise in demand for foods rich in protein. Food brands are under pressure to reformulate, while tightening HFSS advertising rules restrict how and where products can be promoted, especially online and in child‑focused spaces.

As a result, retailers and manufacturers will need to balance demand for healthier choices with compliance, while adapting to new consumption patterns driven by medication. Those who act fast, aligning product strategy with regulation and shifting behaviours, will stay relevant in a market where health is a new battleground.

Deals driving the next chapter

M&A will continue to reshape the sector in 2026. Over the past year, there’s been a steady stream of deals: strategic acquisitions, distressed sales and bold moves to snap up struggling brands or break into new categories. Some of the deals we advised on last year back-up that trend, including acting for Maven Group on its acquisition of Wagtail/ETM Collection, advising Santander Group and ABN Amro Bank on an £88 million refinancing facility for PPHE Hotel Group’s flagship asset, Park Plaza Victoria London hotel, acting for Hilco Capital on the strategic management-backed acquisition of Lakeland, and advising FTI Consulting as administrators of DC London PIE, franchise operator of Pizza Hut UK, on its pre-pack sale to Yum! Brands.

Expect that momentum to continue, with opportunities at both ends of the market, from luxury to value.

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/perspectives-disclaimer

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-sectors/ddcc-consumer-and-retail-perspectives

]]>

Logistics: Competition: Build & use exclusively, or build & share?

Thu, 22 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:57599a78-1b2e-4b8b-92fb-5e32f6a7b3ad/as/Brand_Images_Places-(150).avif?assetname=Brand_Images_Places+%28150%29.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

ARTICLE | 2 min read

Logistics: Competition

Build & use exclusively, or build & share?

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

The owner of a logistics asset may be forced by competition law to give third parties access to and be able to use the asset.

Published: 22 January 2026
Author: Kiran Desai

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/kiran-desai/profile

false

style

single-column-text

Urban delivery infrastructure—locker networks, micro-fulfilment centres, and reverse logistics hubs—is emerging as a competitive battleground. When dominant players control these facilities, questions arise about access for competitors. The “essential facilities” doctrine, though applied sparingly, could gain traction if exclusionary practices hinder market entry. Regulators may require non-discriminatory access to such infrastructure, particularly where public funding or subsidies are involved.

This possibility is a result of an expansion in the concept of abuse of a dominant position in the court judgement Android Auto (ECJ, Case C-233/23). As applied to logistics assets, if the asset was developed and is used by the owner and, by agreement, some third parties, then if use of the logistics assets by other third parties is “more attractive” to those third parties’ customers, those third parties could claim the right to use the asset.

One consequence of this result is that vertically integrated companies—like retailers who own their logistics operations but also let third parties use those assets (for example, reverse logistics facilities)—might be required to offer access to any third party, even direct competitors. The main challenge then would be in determining the specific terms and conditions for such access. This potential outcome may make logistics asset owners stop and think about whether to share use of those assets, which likely affects the economics of a new asset build proposal.

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/perspectives-disclaimer

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-expertise/ddcc-disputes-risk-and-compliance/ddcc-regulatory-compliance-and-risk

]]>

Logistics: Collaborations: Efficiency or collusion?

Tue, 20 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:2d87ff6f-52e2-46d6-bb91-391debd0a85d/as/ART-US00041.avif?assetname=ART-US00041.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

ARTICLE | 2 min read

Logistics: Collaborations: Efficiency or collusion?

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

Collaboration takes various forms in the logistics sector and competition considerations always arise.

Published: 20 January 2026
Author: Kiran Desai

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/kiran-desai/profile

false

style

single-column-text

Cross-border logistics often necessitates collaboration—whether through joint ventures, shared infrastructure, or data-sharing agreements. While such cooperation can reduce costs and enhance sustainability, it must be carefully structured to avoid laws prohibiting anti-competitive agreement. Information exchange, particularly on pricing or capacity, is a red flag for regulators.

The EU Commission’s decision in Case AT.40795 – Food delivery services, identifies that a 15% equity stake between two otherwise independent entities is deemed sufficient to constitute a structural link capable of facilitating collusion, highlighting the antitrust risks posed by cross-shareholdings.

Green alliances present a nuanced challenge. Sustainability initiatives are laudable, but if they become a pretext for limiting competition—such as agreeing on delivery volumes or restricting access to urban hubs—they risk enforcement action. Businesses should adopt robust compliance protocols and seek legal advice before entering collaborative arrangements. Before engaging in what can be material upfront investments, parties can engage with regulators to have their proposed agreement cleared by the competition authorities.

A stumbling block for green alliances to benefit from the clearance criteria can be that the sustainability scheme must either have unlimited participation, be non-exclusive or at least not meaningfully foreclose competition. This can be a challenge when larger market participants want to move forward but need to have the scheme open to the smaller players, as this can complicate the scheme’s implementation and increase costs. This and other considerations mean that an element of the deliberation phase of a proposal should include a competition assessment to put in place guiderails that ensure the scheme’s adopted design and implementation plan are capable of being cleared and robust should any complaints arise.

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/perspectives-disclaimer

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-sectors/ddcc-mobility-logistics-and-manufacturing-perspectives

]]>

Ethical AI: Turning intent into impact

Mon, 19 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT

https://delivery-p150664-e1601913.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:991252f8-30dd-48f0-a0ac-2f1ac27092e6/as/Detailed-perspective-(122).avif?assetname=Detailed+perspective+%28122%29.jpg

alternative text

alternative text secondary

ARTICLE | 3 min read

Ethical AI

Turning intent into impact

false

aiSummary

Summarise with AI

AI summary

/content/shoosmiths/index

Summarise with AI

title

true

Modal title

medium

17B078

AI promises efficiency and innovation, but without ethical and sustainable practices, it risks amplifying bias and environmental harm. Organisations must move beyond principles to practical governance, ensuring fairness, transparency and resource stewardship.

Published: 19 January 2026

Author: Max Finney

/content/dam/shoosmiths/lawyers/max-finney/profile

false

style

single-column-text

Navigating AI governance for better business performance

Our recent AI governance survey of 200 GCs and senior executives, produced in collaboration with FT Longitude, revealed a critical issue: while AI adoption accelerates, strategy and safeguards are lagging.

That gap matters. In this article we take a closer look at the ethical implications of AI, as many businesses grapple with how to adopt AI responsibly and without risking revenue, reputation or compliance.

The state of play: Where are we now?

AI is no longer a future concept – it’s here, shaping decisions and operations. Yet governance hasn’t kept pace. Our AI governance research shows only a third of organisations rate their AI accountability as advanced, and fewer than one in five have mature ethical foundations. Environmental impact is climbing the risk agenda, with energy and water use from large-scale models now firmly on the radar. Despite this, compliance and privacy still dominate governance priorities, leaving ethics and sustainability trailing.

The one group that does understand AI’s environmental cost is the C-Suite however, with respondents twice as likely to identify it as a key risk than GCs and below. Despite the awareness of organisations’ leaders this is clearly not being translated into practice. This gap between ambition and action matters: without robust frameworks, AI risks amplifying bias, eroding trust and harming people and the planet.

What’s holding organisations back?

The barriers are familiar: limited expertise, resource constraints, and the relentless pace of tech change. Many organisations articulate ethical principles but fail to embed them in day-to-day operations. Confidence in compliance is high, yet without independent audits and transparent reporting, it’s often misplaced. This mirrors challenges in supply chain transparency and carbon footprint reporting – complexity and opacity make it hard to verify reality. Moving beyond policy statements to measurable, accountable practice is essential.

Why it matters

Responsible AI isn’t just about compliance – it’s about shaping outcomes that matter. Algorithmic bias has the potential to entrench existing inequalities, while disparities in access to AI tools risk deepening digital divides. Within organisations, uneven distribution of AI expertise is common, and without inclusive training initiatives, these gaps can become further embedded. Those already disadvantaged may be left even further behind, undermining social mobility and cohesion. To close these divides, organisations must invest in accessible, equitable training programmes that bring everyone along on the AI journey.

Design choices, such as voice, tone and UX, can reinforce stereotypes if unchecked. On the environmental front, data centres powering AI could account for 8% of global emissions by 2040. Responsible AI practices are essential to ensure organisations are future-ready for a rapidly evolving legal landscape, but beyond compliance are able to demonstrate they are using AI to drive progress, not harm.

Turning principles into practice

Here are some ways that organisations can deliver AI responsibly:

implement robust governance: Move beyond policy statements to practical implementation, with transparency on where AI is used and clear accountability for addressing impacts
strengthen environmental impact assessments: Measure and mitigate the resource use of AI systems and providers, and set targets for improvement
tackle bias head-on: Invest in training to ensure your people are able to detect, mitigate, and report on bias in AI outcomes
audit and assure: Regular, independent reviews of AI practices help bridge the gap between organisational controls and how systems operate in practice

More information

To find out more about the state of AI governance check out our full report or contact one of our team.

Alternatively, join us at our Clean Currents event to explore the evolving intersection of energy development and data centre infrastructure.

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/perspectives-disclaimer

style

single-column-text

/content/shoosmiths/all-experience-fragments/ddcc-sectors/ddcc-technology-and-ai-perspectives

]]>