11 Forsters Partners selected for Spear’s Tax & Trust Indices 2025
22 October 2025
News
The 2025 edition of Spear’s prestigious Tax & Trust Indices has just been published, and we’re proud to share that 11 Forsters partners have been selected for inclusion.
Noting that “having a strong lawyer at the heart of one’s tax advisory team isn’t just helpful: it’s essential.”, the featured experts have been singled out for combining “deep expertise with discretion and foresight” and for their standing as “leading voices in their industry who not only understand the rules but know how to apply them in ways that preserve wealth and ringfence assets against potential future risks.”
These results are testament to Forsters’ exceptional reputation in the HNW/UHNW sphere, and our ability to advise across the full spectrum of Tax and Trust matters.
Justice without judgment: the rise of NCDR – Olivia Longrigg and Christine Abbotts write for ThoughtLeaders4 High Net Worth Divorce Magazine
21 October 2025
News
The 2024 FPR rule changes
The Family Procedure Rules (“FPR”) now explicitly include a broader range of dispute resolution methods under NCDR (“non-court dispute resolution”) including mediation, arbitration, collaborative law and early neutral evaluation (Amendment No.2 Rules 2023, which came into force on 29 April 2024). This expansion aims to encourage parties to resolve disputes outside court, where appropriate, through a wider array of structured processes.
Parties are now required to consider and (where appropriate) engage in NCDR before initiating court proceedings. A stronger emphasis has been placed on MIAMs (mediation information and assessment meetings) as a gateway to NCDR. Courts are expected to scrutinise whether parties have genuinely engaged with MIAMs and considered NCDR options before proceeding with litigation.
The Court also now has clearer powers:
To direct parties to consider NCDR at various stages of proceedings
To adjourn proceedings to allow time for NCDR
To impose cost consequences for unreasonable refusal to engage in NCDR.
Concerns regarding the push towards NCDR
While the 2024 reforms seek to ease pressure on the courts and improve resolution outcomes, some practitioners have raised important concerns.
Hiring a private FDR Judge or arbitrator can be expensive, so there is a risk that lower income parties may be unable to access NCDR options. There is also the risk of power imbalance, or harm to the more vulnerable party, particularly if mediation becomes mandatory. NCDR processes like mediation rely on cooperation and balance; in cases involving coercive control, domestic abuse or significant financial disparity, one party is likely to feel pressured or disadvantaged. Linked to this is the potential misuse of NCDR in creating tactical delays in cases involving coercive control or domestic abuse.
Some also argue that NCDR outcomes lack the legal scrutiny needed to ensure fairness, particularly in cases involving complex assets, non-disclosure or safeguarding concerns.
The current government has pledged not to make mediation mandatory for separating couples, as proposed by the previous government in its March 2023 consultation. Those proposals were met with resistance from the Law Society and Resolution, who warned that mandatory mediation could lead to barriers to access to justice, an undermining of autonomy and, in certain cases involving a history of domestic abuse, could prove unsafe.
Reconciling reform: Why practitioners should embrace NCDR
In recent years, the family justice system has faced mounting challenges, from court backlogs and escalating litigation costs to a societal shift towards more humane and efficient methods of conflict resolution. As clients navigate difficult family breakdowns, the limitations of traditional courtroom battles are becoming glaringly apparent. Early intervention is crucial in keeping families out of protracted proceedings. Whilst not without its challenges, NCDR presents a positive, workable solution for many families.
Reform brings with it an inevitable set of challenges that require careful evaluation. While concerns around access to justice must be carefully examined, NCDR should be viewed as an opportunity to enhance client-focused outcomes. The essential consideration is to engage with the available processes and to identify the most effective path forward for each client’s unique circumstances. To ensure the continued effectiveness of the family courts, practitioners must evolve beyond the traditional knee jerk response of issuing a Form A or C100, and instead embrace NCDR as an integral part of modern family dispute resolution.
It should be borne in mind that private FDRs and arbitration offer high net worth clients privacy, flexibility, and control. Clients can choose their judge, avoid publicity, and resolve matters confidentially at a time and place that suits them—often more quickly and discreetly than through court proceedings.
Court backlogs: A system under strain
One of the most pressing reasons to embed NCDR in our practice is the severe backlog that currently plagues the court system.
According to the National Audit Office, as of December 2024, there were 47,662 outstanding family law cases. Over 4,000 children were involved in proceedings lasting nearly two years or more.
For families, this delay can be devastating and deeply destabilising. Families face extended periods of being in emotional and financial limbo.
NCDR offers a faster alternative. Mediation and collaborative processes often allow clients to reach an agreement within weeks rather than months or years, offering a solution that could alleviate pressure on overwhelmed family courts. If embraced by family judges and practitioners, NCDR has the potential to significantly ease the burden on courts, freeing judicial resources to focus on the most complex and high-risk cases.
Appropriate use of NCDR
NCDR won’t replace the role of the family court in cases where the authority of the court is needed, such as enforcement, jurisdiction, freezing orders or child protection cases, but it offers many families a faster, more compassionate alternative that lessens further trauma.
To protect victims of domestic abuse, practitioners must stay alert to safeguarding concerns and carefully assess whether NCDR is appropriate. Timely, thorough screening is key to ensuring NCDR benefits the right families.
The changing landscape: divorce coaches, self-navigation and AI tools Today, there is growing demand for flexible, modern approaches to separation. Many people now turn to divorce coaches and selfguided platforms for support and settlement, reflecting a shift towards self-determination in resolving family disputes.
AI is reshaping how people approach family breakdown, offering quick, lowcost basic guidance on legal issues and settlements. While AI cannot replace professional advice, its accessibility appeals to those seeking alternatives to lengthy court battles.
This shift raises important questions about the capacity of AI tools to address the complex emotional and legal issues that often arise during family breakdown. While AI can offer rapid responses, it lacks the emotional sensitivity and contextual understanding required for effective conflict resolution. Similarly, divorce coaches, though supportive (particularly in cases where there is a power imbalance), cannot replace quality legal expertise. This is where NCDR processes play a crucial role—offering a structured, skilled, and adaptable approach that bridges the gap between lengthy court proceedings and the often oversimplified and sometimes generic guidance provided by non-specialist sources.
The growing need for NCDR is not just about efficiency or cost; it is about creating a more compassionate system for families. As society looks to move towards more collaborative, less adversarial forms of dispute resolution, the legal profession must step up to the challenge.
The time for change is now
The family justice system is facing a pivotal moment: court delays, escalating litigation costs, and growing public demand for a more empathetic approach to family separation highlight the limitations of traditional litigation in meeting the real needs of families.
Some cases will still require court intervention, and more support is needed for these families. Initiatives like the Pathfinder pilot are a step forward. For many other cases, NCDR offers a faster, more cost-effective, and compassionate alternative.
Practitioners should explore how NCDR can be tailored to meet client needs. In children matters, it offers a less pressured alternative to court, with speed being vital—what seems brief in legal timeframes can be life-changing for a child. For financial cases, NCDR enables constructive negotiation, with tools like mediation privilege encouraging more reasonable offers.
Family judges and lawyers must rise to the challenge of this changing landscape. Embracing NCDR is not merely a matter of convenience; it is a matter of justice.
Live Forever? – The Privy Council finally calls time on the Shareholder Rule
17 October 2025
News
Reflections on Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments (No 2)
In a landmark decision that will undoubtedly reshape how companies and shareholders interact in legal disputes, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has abolished the longstanding Shareholder Rule – a principle that’s been around for over 140 years.
The case in question? Jardine Strategic Limited v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd and 80 others (No 2), heard in Bermuda and appealed to the final court of appeal for UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies.
What’s the story?
The story begins in 2021. Jardine Strategic Holdings Ltd (part of the Jardine Matheson Group) merged with JMH Bermuda Ltd. As part of the merger, all shares in Jardine Strategic were cancelled. Shareholders who didn’t vote in favour of the deal were entitled under Bermuda’s Companies Act 1981 to receive what is known as “fair value” for their shares.
Jardine Strategic offered US$33 per share, but more than 80 shareholders, including major investment funds, felt that wasn’t enough. They triggered the statutory appraisal process under section 106(6) of the Act and asked the Bermuda courts to determine the true fair value of their shares.
During the discovery phase of the proceedings, the dissenting shareholders asked the company to hand over legal advice it had received about the valuation and the merger.
The shareholders’ argument was based on the Shareholder Rule – a principle dating back to the 19th century under which a company cannot, in the course of litigation between it and shareholders or former shareholders, withhold documents from inspection on the grounds they are covered by legal advice privilege. The rule was justified on the basis that shareholders have a proprietary right to the company’s assets, and was a potentially powerful weapon in a shareholder’s arsenal.
Jardine Strategic pushed back on the shareholders’ request, claiming that the Shareholder Rule was bad law and that the advice was protected by privilege. Undeterred, the shareholders pressed on to Court.
What did the Bermuda courts say?
Both the first instance court and the Bermuda Court of Appeal sided with the shareholders, applying the Shareholder Rule in accordance with longstanding authority. Given the finding that the Shareholder Rule applied, the company had to disclose the legal advice.
Time for the Shareholder Rule to slide away?
However, on appeal, the Privy Council took a fresh look at the Shareholder Rule and delivered a unanimous judgment that – in sum – took it off the shelf, dusted it off, and put it in the shredder.
Describing the Shareholder Rule as “altogether unclothed”, Lord Briggs and Lady Rose stated that the idea that shareholders have a proprietary interest in the company’s legal advice simply doesn’t hold up in modern law. Companies are separate legal entities, and their assets, including legal advice, belong to the company, not the shareholders.
The Court also rejected an alternative “joint interest” argument that had been put forward by the shareholders, finding that merely because shareholders hold a general interest in the company’s affairs, does not mean that they share a legal interest in privileged communications.
Why does this matter?
Where any individuals run a company and are involved (or may become involved) in a dispute with their own shareholders, this decision marks a profound paradigm shift. Its implications strengthen the concept of legal advice privilege for companies – no longer can shareholders easily demand the legal advice that was provided to the company. Whilst this rule has long looked out of place in modern company law, it has until recently stood relatively unchecked. Crucially, the Privy Council also issued a Willers v Joyce direction, making the decision binding in England and Wales.
As we look to the future, this change provides a further degree of certainty, significantly reducing the risk for companies that advice obtained by them will be disclosed.
Forsters achieves excellent results in Chambers UK 2026
16 October 2025
News
The 2026 edition of Chambers UK is now live, with Forsters securing strong results across the board.
This year we are ranked in ten practice areas, including a tier elevation for Construction: Non-contentious and a new listing for Partnerships.
Many of our lawyers are also singled out, with 35 individual rankings ranging from Associates to Watch to Eminent Practitioners.
Client feedback included:
“Forsters provide quick responses, pragmatic advice, and are proactive in delving into issues and finding suitable responses.”
“Forsters are a dedicated and focused team who always strive to provide an excellent client service. They also have an excellent commercial mindset.”
“Forsters offers deep subject-matter knowledge and expertise, forensic attention to detail, excellent guidance and support in commercial negotiations, as well as exceptional customer service.”
Taking the emotion out of Next Gen planning – Nicholas Jacob and Jeremy Robertson write for ThoughtLeaders4 High Net Worth Magazine
15 October 2025
News
The perception of “Next Gen” planning is of unemotional and objective arrangements. Whether we like it or not, emotion is a human reaction – often uncontrolled or uncontrollable, often ignored, and it’s inevitable that emotions will permeate future planning discussions. They are natural reactions. Attitudes are formed by emotions.
Emotions prevent rational thought. Emotions are an inevitable part of the planning process. But – should they be?
Once the emotions at play within a family and their effect on succession are understood, it is important for advisors to take a step back and apply an unemotional approach in developing family governance solutions that address those emotional concerns. By seeking to put emotion to one side and looking objectively at the thorny issues that underly those emotional concerns, advisors are more likely to be able to find workable and enduring solutions.
Are emotional responses damaging in next gen planning?
Emotion is often masked in a controlling approach to planning. Running a business is stressful; stress can and does also lead to emotional turmoil. Emotionally charged decisions will often be made by family members under pressure. Family ties can lead to greater frustration and anger if the emotionally perceived values and requirements are not met.
It’s easy to feel that emotional involvement in the planning process is a negative; but it may also be a positive. The difficulty is that, as family numbers grow down the generations, emotional responses are less and less likely to prevent and resolve family disagreements, however trivial or serious. Long term grudges or resentment are very damaging unless forgiveness is possible, and the suppression of feelings is a negative. Yet trust is also key and trust is a positive emotion which allows difficulties to be resolved. Constructively held emotional (and therefore strongly held) views can actually hold the family together. However, generally, at the end of the day emotions prevent conflicting issues being properly addressed, which can be fatal to the ongoing harmony of the family.
Taking emotion out of the equation – the importance of communication
So how can we take the emotion out of the equation in order to ensure a totally rational thought process? Family members will be opinionated, but that does not mean that they can’t think rationally if well guided. It’s the source of many a family battle that emotions prevent a seriously open and constructive dialogue.
When it is time to interview the adult next gen members of the family, their issues, concerns, worries, frustrations and ire will glean an emotional response from their parents or grandparents. It’s this emotion that needs harnessing. Just the very fact that they are more then often not prepared to share these emotions with their more senior family members is a serious problem in itself.
It’s essential to take the emotion out of those discussions and find rational solutions. Third party consultants or emotionally intelligent lawyers will have the ability to ascertain and absorb the emotional issues and find practical ways of dealing with those issues. Its remarkable how many next gens are desperate to “spill the beans” and vent their frustrations to independent people who are not tied to the family.
That’s all well and good, but if the family is resistant to rational change, the deep emotional issues that have permeated will not be dissipated. It’s a very clear fact that those families that engage in rational and unemotional discussion will be far less likely to have significant disagreements. Those that cannot see the issues in an unemotional manner will be constantly warring to the great detriment of the family as a whole – possibly for many years, or until there is a complete break up. Clear, open and healthy communication, guided by a totally independent third party is essential.
If it’s to be like the Roys in “Succession”, where nobody is prepared to engage constructively, family wars will continue and grow in fervour. Suspicions must be destroyed by fact.
United at all costs?
An example of an emotional response (often espoused by the patriarch or matriarch) is that of wanting the family to stay united at all costs. However, simply saying that a family should stay together will not, in itself, make the family adhere to those values, and seeking to foist unity on a family can be detrimental where members may, often for good reason, wish to forge a separate path. Instead, the unemotional response may be to accept, as hard as it may be, that family members might wish to exit a family wealth holding structure and to put in place a governance structure that caters for that (for example, by applying pre-determined formulae when determining the value to be attributed to an exit family member’s interest). Having a clear framework in place reduces the cost to the family from a fiscal, emotional and, potentially, reputational perspective, particularly if it avoids an acrimonious split being played out in public.
Contribution v Reward: Fairness
The very fact that families are tied together by emotion means that it’s extremely difficult to ensure fairness within the family. Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. It’s only generally possible to get anywhere near fairness when an independent person can explain fairness rationally.
Another emotionally driven issue that needs careful handling is that of contribution versus reward in families where some members are actively involved in building family wealth (for example, through management of the family business) and others are not. Common reactions include: “I do all of the hard work, so why should my siblings and I share equally?” or “My brother is lazy and wants to live off the fruits of my parents’ efforts.”
It is only right that family members who contribute significantly are appropriately rewarded for their hard work, so as not to disincentivise them. At the same time, this must be balanced against the need to avoid resentment from those family members who are not actively involved in generating wealth, often for good reason.
The unemotional approach is to consider how to reward contributing family members in a way that is acceptable to all parties. On a practical level, this is often achieved by rewarding family members working in the business through salary, bonus, and/or other incentives at the operating level of the business, where such remuneration can be objectively set, rather than at, say, the trust level.
This example raises the bigger question of whether an approach will ever be considered “fair” by all parties when emotion is involved.
The answer may well be no, particularly where multiple generations with very different perspectives are involved, because fairness is fundamentally a subjective term. Instead, family members may be better served by adopting a solution that they can accept (even if some consider it more or less fair than others). In our view, such solutions are far more likely to stand the test of time.
First published by ThoughtLeaders4 in the High Net Worth Magazine, Next Gen Wealth Edition, Issue 20.
Forsters named as a Top 75 Employer for Social Mobility in the Social Mobility Employer Index 2025
15 October 2025
News
Forsters is delighted to have been recognised as a Top 75 Employer for Social Mobility in the Social Mobility Employer Index.
This was our debut application for the Index, which is compiled by the Social Mobility Foundation and is a rigorous benchmarking and assessment tool measuring the steps employers are taking to ensure their workplace is open to talent from all social backgrounds.
140 organisations entered the Index this year and were assessed in eight areas: work with young people, attraction and university outreach, recruitment, routes into the employer, data collection, pay, progression and retention, culture and internal advocacy and external advocacy.
Our social mobility strategy is a key part of our overarching Diversity and Inclusion Strategy, aiming to break down barriers and widen access to the legal profession for individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Highlights from the reporting year include:
Announcing our first cohort of solicitor apprentices and expanding the number of apprentice roles within our business services teams
Launching our ‘Count Me In’ D&I data collection initiative, including three socioeconomic data points
Working in partnership with the Sutton Trust to increase our programmes’ accessibility by providing online work experience to students in underserved regions on the Pathways to Law programme
Collaborating with the Social Mobility Foundation to run work experience placements for undergraduate university students actively pursuing a career in law
Strengthening our connection with state schools within our local community, attending careers fairs and running career workshops
Supporting young people to develop literacy skills through our Reading Scheme in collaboration with a local primary school
Use of Rare’s contextual recruitment system
Rolling out Rare’s Hemisphere anti-bias training firmwide
Launching our Early Careers Social Mobility Bursary for future joiners and candidates in our application process who need support with expenses associated with applications and assessments
Our ranking reflects the progress we’ve made in developing our social mobility programme and gives us a clear direction to what comes next. We’re committed to building an inclusive, purpose-driven firm where everyone can thrive, and look forward to actioning the feedback given by the Social Mobility Foundation.
“This recognition is testament to Forsters’ commitment to improving access to the legal sector for those from lower socio-economic backgrounds. We actively encourage and embrace people’s differences so that every individual can flourish and succeed.” – Sara Branch, Partner and Social Mobility Network Co-lead
“We are delighted to have been recognised as a top 75 employer in the Social Mobility Foundation’s Employer Index – especially given that this was our first year applying. The feedback we’ve received will be invaluable in continuing our efforts to push for greater social mobility.” – Miri Stickland, Head of Knowledge and Social Mobility Network Co-lead
Forsters advises on successful acquisition and financing of Catalyst Bicester Phases 1 & 2
15 October 2025
News
We are pleased to announce our role in the successful acquisition and financing of Phases 1 and 2 of Catalyst Bicester, an established prime industrial technology park located in Oxfordshire. The transaction also included the exchange of a conditional contract for the acquisition of Phase 3.
The developer of the site is Albion Land.
Phases 1 and 2 comprise eight high-quality industrial technology units, ranging in size from 21,000 to 37,000 sq ft GIA, and are currently let to four tenants including Tesla and McLaren Automotive. The scheme represents a significant investment in the region’s light industrial infrastructure focusing on advanced manufacturing, R&D and innovation space, offering strong covenant strength and long-term income potential.
This transaction highlights our continued commitment to delivering strategic, high-value real estate investment support and showcases our ability to manage complex acquisitions and financing processes efficiently.
Major changes are coming to European travel with the launch of the EU’s new Entry/Exit System (EES)
10 October 2025
News
The long-awaited digital Entry/Exit System (EES) will track the movements of non-EU nationals entering and leaving the Schengen Area (excluding Ireland and Cyprus), gradually replacing the traditional passport stamping process. It will apply to both visa-exempt travellers and those holding short-stay visas.
Implementation date
The EES will launch on 12 October 2025, followed by a phased rollout across 29 Schengen countries over six months, concluding in April 2026. During this transition, traditional passport checks and manual stamping will continue.
Registration and biometric data
British travellers entering the EU for the first time on or after this date will be required to register at designated self-service kiosks located in airports, ferry terminals, and train stations.
The registration process includes submitting biometric data, including passport information, facial recognition data, and fingerprint scans (note: children under 12 are exempt from fingerprinting). On future trips, travellers must use these kiosks to verify their identity through facial scans and passport checks.
Questions on arrival
Travellers will be required to provide information about their travel plans, including proof of accommodation, sufficient financial means, a return ticket, and valid travel insurance. Although these checks have been there since Brexit, enforcement has been inconsistent. However, starting 12 October 2025, these requirements will be strictly enforced. By automating entry and exit records, the system aims to enhance border security, reduce illegal overstays, and facilitate smoother travel experiences throughout the Schengen Zone.
Data retention
Records are retained for a period of three years following entry or exit. However, if an individual has overstayed beyond the permitted duration, their records will be stored for an extended period of five years to allow for additional monitoring and enforcement measures.
Implications
Longer queues are likely at first, especially at busy airports and ports. However, once registered, future crossings should be quicker. Some concerns have been raised about possible delays during the registration phase, particularly during peak travel times, as travellers adapt to the new system. This is inevitable.
UK Departure ports and EU airports
Folkestone
LeShuttle transports nearly ten million passengers annually between Folkestone and Coquelles in northern France, along with approximately 2.2 million passenger vehicles and 1.2 million freight trucks. Approximtely 70% of the travellers in passenger vehicles are British nationals. To accommodate the new EU Entry/Exit System (EES), Eurotunnel has installed 224 automated kiosks at Folkestone, with a similar setup at Coquelles for travellers departing France.
Upon arrival, drivers are directed into designated lanes—those holding EU passports can bypass the EES kiosks entirely. Non-EU travellers proceed to a covered processing area where vehicles are guided into numbered bays, each equipped with two kiosks. At this stage, all occupants must exit the vehicle to complete registration.
At the kiosks, travellers scan their passports and indicate whether they are non-EU citizens and if they require a visa. Individuals holding a European residence permit or long-stay visa are exempt from completing the EES process. Facial recognition and fingerprint scans are then taken (a firm press is recommended for accurate fingerprint capture). Once registration is complete, travellers continue to a French border control officer who verifies the passport and cross-checks the EES data.
St Pancras International
At Eurostar’s London terminal, 49 EES kiosks are strategically located in three areas: adjacent to the ticket office in the departure zone, near the Thameslink platforms, and on the upper concourse. Additionally, Gare du Nord in Paris is equipped with 18 kiosks.
Starting 12 October, only business-class passengers and frequent Eurostar travelers will be required to complete the EES registration. The process will be extended to all other passengers beginning 12 January 2026, although Eurostar has indicated that registration will be available for all travellers during quieter periods. To manage congestion, the system can be temporarily disabled as a “fire break” if the St Pancras terminal becomes overcrowded during peak times. Eurostar advises passengers to maintain the current recommendation of arriving 75 minutes prior to departure, with staff available to guide travellers to the kiosks.
The registration procedure at Eurostar mirrors that at Folkestone: passengers scan their passports, confirm their EU status, and submit biometric data. However, Eurostar requires passengers to respond to questions about their accommodation, return travel plans, financial means, and insurance coverage. Respondents can select “Yes,” “No,” or “Don’t know” for each query but are cautioned that their answers are legally binding and that they may be asked to provide supporting documentation.
Passengers who do not answer “Yes” to all questions will be unable to access the automated European border e-gates in the Eurostar departure hall. Instead, they will be directed to a French border officer for additional questioning, though this does not necessarily result in denial of entry.
The EU has clarified that medical insurance is not mandatory, as many UK travellers will continue to rely on their UK Global Health Insurance Card for coverage during their stay in Europe.
Dover
The system at Dover will function similarly to the procedures in place at Folkestone and St Pancras. It remains uncertain whether ferry passengers departing from Dover will be required to respond to the four standard questions.
EU airports
At European airports, EES registration typically occurs upon arrival rather than at the point of departure. This process is usually conducted via self-service kiosks; however, at smaller airports, registration may take place at immigration desks where biometric data, including fingerprints and facial scans, can be collected.
Be prepared
Ensure you arrive well in advance for your first journey after 12 October.
Carry all necessary supporting documentation, such as proof of accommodation and return travel arrangements.
Remain informed by consulting official updates from EU and national border authorities.
How we can help
If you need tailored immigration advice, our team of experts is here to help. We work with both employers and individuals across the whole spectrum of immigration needs, taking a pragmatic and sensitive approach to make the process as smooth and swift as possible. Get in touch with one of our team to find out how these latest announcements will impact you or your workforce.
Major changes are coming to European travel with the launch of the EU’s new Entry/Exit System (EES)
I need to make staff redundant — how can I do it fairly? Joe Beeston answers this Financial Times reader’s question
10 October 2025
News
In a recent Financial Times – Your Questions feature, Joe Beeston, Employment Partner at Forsters, addressed a pressing concern for business owners facing financial pressures following changes to agricultural and business property relief: how to reduce headcount fairly, legally, and with compassion.
Joe emphasises that sensitive and lawful handling of workforce reductions is essential to protect businesses from legal claims and preserve employee morale. His advice underscores the importance of forward planning, clear communication, and strict adherence to employment legislation.
Key takeaways include:
Check internal policies: Any redundancy policies and procedures should inform the process.
Ensure genuine redundancy: Cost-saving measures must reflect a real reduction in workforce needs.
Follow consultation requirements: Collective consultation (lasting at least 30 days) is mandatory where 20 or more employees will be made redundant over 90 days. With fewer than 20 redundancies, individual consultation is essential before decisions are made.
Apply fair selection criteria: Avoid bias and discrimination by using measurable, job-related factors.
Consider alternative employment: Think about redeployment opportunities and listen to proposals from employees.
Calculate payments correctly: Statutory entitlements must be honoured, including notice and redundancy pay.
Joe also highlights the legal risks of getting redundancy wrong: unfair dismissal and discrimination claims can lead to significant financial and reputational damage. But beyond the legal implications, redundancies are deeply personal. Joe stresses that clear, respectful and transparent communication is essential. Being honest about the reasons for change, engaging meaningfully with employees, and offering support throughout the process can help preserve trust and morale.
Forsters’ Employment team combines deep expertise in UK employment law with a thoughtful, people-first approach. We help businesses plan and implement workforce changes that are not only legally sound, but also respectful and transparent, helping to preserve trust and morale.
In the latest More than Law podcast, Louise Irvine (Senior Knowledge Development Lawyer) is joined by Polly Montoneri (Partner, Rural Land and Business) and Sophie Smith (Senior Associate, Planning) to examine what Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) means from a landowner’s perspective, where the major opportunities lie, and the need for bespoke deal structures.
The team discusses the rise in landowners entering Section 106 agreements to create and sell biodiversity credits, the evolution of Conservation Covenants and how mandatory BNG requirements are reinforcing the need for a trusted, multidisciplinary team – particularly amid a shortage of ecologists.
The risks for tenants of an upward-only rent review ban: Owen Spencer writes for Estates Gazette
9 October 2025
News
The English Devolution Bill includes proposals to ban upwards-only rent reviews in all new leases. While this has been met with dismay by some landlords and investors, the reaction from occupiers has ranged from sceptical surprise to cautious optimism.
In a piece for Estates Gazette, Owen Spencer, Counsel in Forsters’ Commercial Real Estate team and a corporate occupiers expert, breaks down the background to upwards-only rent reviews, what a ban might mean for corporate occupiers, gaps in the draft legislation, and the potential longer term risks and consequences.
Connecting for positive impact: Responsible Business review 2024-25
9 October 2025
News
Our latest Responsible Business review is now live, highlighting the progress we’ve made and the steps we’re taking to ensure Forsters continues to grow as a responsible firm. The review gives context to our work and outlines how we’re using data to track progress and drive improvement.
This year’s review builds on the strong foundations we laid in 23–24, when we introduced our four responsible business pillars: Communities, Culture, Environment and Collaboration. Since then, we’ve been working hard to embed these pillars at Forsters and it’s been encouraging to see momentum continue to grow. Creating a responsible business is a truly collective effort, and we couldn’t have achieved so much without the input of colleagues across the firm, who generously gave their time, expertise and energy. Thank you to everyone who played a part.
Getting ahead of the Indefinite Leave to Remain shake up
7 October 2025
News
In response to mounting pressure, the Home Secretary, the Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood MP, announced new reforms to the qualification criteria for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) in the UK on 29 September 2025. These changes, originally signposted in the May 2025 Immigration White Paper, are part of a broader effort to tighten immigration controls, promote social cohesion, and ease the strain on public resources.
Central to the reforms is a move towards a contribution-based model for settlement. This would see the standard residence requirement for ILR rise from the current five years to ten years of lawful stay in the UK.
The proposed system would introduce some flexibility. Migrants who meet specific criteria -such as income thresholds or active community involvement -may be eligible to apply for settlement sooner than the ten-year mark. In contrast, those who do not satisfy the new standards could face longer waiting times or risk being denied settlement altogether.
To be considered under the proposed new framework, applicants must prove:
ongoing employment
a minimum level of National Insurance contributions
no history of relying on public benefits
strong English language skills
a clean criminal record
demonstrable community contributions such as volunteering.
A public consultation is scheduled to take place before the end of 2025 to gather feedback on the proposed changes.
When will the changes to ILR come in?
Currently there is no proposed timeline for when these proposed changes to ILR will come into force.
At this stage, it also remains unclear whether these rules will affect individuals already on a settlement pathway, though this is expected to be clarified during the consultation period.
What should you do now?
The current qualification criteria for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) are still in place, but change is on its way. Therefore, if you are eligible for ILR or already hold ILR and meet the criteria for British citizenship, we strongly recommended that you submit your application for ILR or citizenship as soon as possible. Acting now means you won’t be affected by any future changes regarding ILR eligibility.
How we can help
With a proven track record of success in managing complex cases, Forsters’ immigration team would be pleased to provide a comprehensive assessment of your eligibility and assist you with your UK settlement requirements.
Getting ahead of the Indefinite Leave to Remain shake up
Forsters secures top results in the Legal 500 UK 2026
2 October 2025
News
Forsters has received excellent results in the 2026 edition of the Legal 500 UK.
This year we are ranked in 23 practice areas, with tier elevations for our expertise in Employment: Employers, as well as new rankings for Family: children, Immigration: personal and Immigration: business.
Another key highlight is the 44 individual listings, showcasing the depth and breadth of our expertise. 35 Partners were recognised, including 10 in the Hall of Fame, as well as nine Associates.
“It is unusual to find a law firm so adept across all legal disciplines, but Forsters achieve this.”
“The team is professional and collaborative, which makes complex matters feel manageable. Their personal approach and reliability set them apart.”
“Extremely collaborative across the board; a joy to work with. Quick and to the point in responding to correspondence. Confident and erudite in handling the most complex matters.”
Head of Commercial Real Estate Victoria Towers said “We were delighted to advise Wrenbridge and Bridges on this transaction, and it was a pleasure working with Gallagher and their legal team. A highly complex transaction, this deal is an example of the success that comes from our strong relationships with the client teams, and showcased our market leading teams across the board. We are looking forward to continuing to work with the joint venture throughout the life of the development project.”
The age of automation: When AI errors become legal risks
1 October 2025
News
As the age of AI continues to transform the economy and wider society, for legal professionals this technological revolution has brought both promise and peril. Whilst it undoubtedly presents opportunities for lawyers, a recent judgment of the High Court serves as a cautionary tale of the dangers posed by AI for legal practitioners– Ayinde v Haringey, and Hamad Al-Haroun v (1) Qatar National Bank QPSC & (2) QNB Capital LLC, [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin).
Overview
The two cases were listed together under the so-called Hamid jurisdiction, in which the English Court has an “inherent power to regulate its own procedures and to enforce duties that lawyers owe to the court”.
Ayinde v Haringey
Here, the underlying proceedings concerned a judicial review brought against a local authority. Relevant to the Hamid jurisdiction was that one of the barristers had (i) included in their submissions citations to cases which did not exist; and (ii) incorrectly summarised a legislative provision. When the barrister’s instructing solicitor asked for copies of the cases allegedly cited, the barrister was unable to provide them. Further, in response to concerns raised about citations to non-existent cases, the barrister had drafted a response which sought to downplay the issue.
Although there was no finding that it was the use of AI specifically that had resulted in the citations to non-existent cases and the inaccurate description of legislation, the Court concluded that the barrister “could have checked the cases she cited by searching the National Archives’ caselaw website or by going to the law library of her Inn of Court. We regret to say that she has not provided to the court a coherent explanation for what happened.”
Al-Haroun v (1) Qatar National Bank & (2) QNB Capital
The underlying dispute in this case related to a claim for damages arising from the alleged breach of a financing agreement. The relevant facts for the purposes of the Hamid jurisdiction were that the solicitor had relied on his lay client’s legal research without checking it. It transpired that the ‘legal research’ was based on case citations which had been generated partly using AI. Both the lay client and the solicitor issued an apology to the Court.
Key takeaways
There are a number of important takeaways for practitioners. Although no contempt of court proceedings were initiated in either case (despite a finding in the Ayinde case that the threshold for contempt had been met), the cases highlight how a cavalier approach to using AI can give rise to conduct issues; indeed, in both cases referrals to the relevant professional regulator were made. Moreover, the Court noted that a copy of its judgment would be sent to the Bar Council and the Law Society so that they can “consider as a matter of urgency what further steps they should now take in the light of this judgment”.
Whilst this case concerns the use of AI in the dispute resolution context specifically, there is a growing trend for lawyers to use AI-assisted tools in all areas of legal practice. It bears noting that the professional conduct obligations to which lawyers are subject apply generally, whether or not lawyers are interacting with courts or tribunals.
At a time when developments in AI are front and centre of the legal industry, the judgment serves as an important reminder of the potential pitfalls of using AI for legal practitioners. Whilst the cost-saving benefits of AI are well-known, the judgment is a salutary warning that what may seem like a time-saving shortcut must be approached with great caution. For lawyers, the message is clear: professionalism and integrity can never be short-circuited.
