Penningtons Manches Cooper trade and marine partner Max Lim will this week speak at GTR Asia, described as ‘the premier gathering for the Asia Pacific trade community’, which will be attended by delegates from across the commodities, structured trade and commodity finance, fintech and treasury sectors.

Max regularly acts in matters relating to the sale of a wide variety of goods, across the full trade lifecycle. He is renowned for his successful track record advising banks and market participants on their most complex problems.

Opening proceedings on Wednesday 9 September, the second day of the conference, Max will be a key member of a panel exploring the challenges facing commodity market participants and financial institutions. As global trade corridors realign and many multinational corporations shift away from prioritising investment in China, they are diversifying business into economies such as India, Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam. Max’s fellow panellists for the session include Deepa Kumar, head of APAC Country Risk at S&P Global Market Intelligence and journalist and broadcaster Michelle Martin.

Among the topics for consideration will be the steps market participants can take to safeguard physical supply chains from legal defaults or sudden trade policy shifts; structuring cross-border agreements and managing jurisdictional risks in high-growth markets; and the use of granular risk intelligence, maritime metrics and trade data.

Joining Max at the conference, which is expected to draw over 1,500 attendees, will be Penningtons Manches Cooper partners Grant Eldred and George Mingay, specialists in banking and finance and international trade and commodities respectively, who have a long track record of supporting clients in the region.

Says Max: “My aim during the panel session is to provide a practical blueprint for navigating the challenges faced in today’s market environment, from the pre-contract stage through to effective enforcement strategies should a dispute arise. I’m also looking forward to sharing my experience on specific issues that arise at the interface between sale contracts and shipping. It promises to be an insightful discussion and one which we hope will provide valuable perspectives to delegates.”

Penningtons Manches Cooper’s participation in GTR Asia coincides with the 30^th anniversary of the founding of its Singapore office, an important milestone as the firm continues to develop its full service, international offering in the region.

Singapore plays a critical role in the global supply chain by connecting producers, businesses and consumers across Asia and the wider world. Located at the crossroads of major shipping routes, the country serves as an important gateway to South East Asia, a market of more than 650 million people. Its combination of maritime access, aviation links and advanced infrastructure enables goods to move efficiently between regional manufacturing centres and international markets.

Strategic and logistical advantages

One of Singapore’s greatest strengths is its world-class logistics network. The country has been ranked first in the World Bank’s Logistics Performance Index, reflecting the efficiency of its customs processes, infrastructure and logistics services. Singapore also hosts 22 of the world’s 25 leading third-party logistics companies, giving businesses access to a sophisticated ecosystem of freight, warehousing and distribution expertise.

Its air and sea connections further reinforce this position. Changi is South East Asia’s largest air-cargo hub, while Tuas Port will significantly expand Singapore’s maritime capacity. When fully completed in the 2040s, Tuas Port is planned to handle up to 65 million twenty-foot equivalent units annually and become the world’s largest fully automated container terminal.

Singapore is also more than a transit point. Many multinational companies use it as a regional supply chain management centre, coordinating procurement, production, inventory and distribution across multiple markets. This role is supported by a workforce of more than 70,000 supply chain professionals and a deep pool of technology, financial and professional services companies.

Legal infrastructure and commercial trust

Singapore’s legal infrastructure is another important competitive advantage. Its transparent regulatory system, established commercial law and independent courts give companies greater confidence that contracts and property rights will be respected. This predictability is particularly valuable in global supply chains, where transactions frequently involve multiple parties, jurisdictions and regulatory regimes.

The country is a leading centre for international dispute resolution. Singapore’s International Arbitration Act incorporates the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and provides for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention framework.

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre and the Singapore International Commercial Court provide businesses with specialist options for resolving complex, cross-border commercial disputes. The Singapore courts generally adopt a supportive but limited-intervention approach to international arbitration, helping parties achieve enforceable outcomes without unnecessary judicial interference.

This combination of legal certainty, effective dispute resolution and regulatory transparency complements Singapore’s physical logistics capabilities. It allows the country to function not only as a place where goods are handled, but also as a trusted location in which supply contracts are negotiated, financed and managed.

Innovation and digitalisation

Singapore continues to invest in automation, artificial intelligence, real-time cargo tracking and connected trade platforms. These technologies can improve supply chain visibility, reduce delays and help businesses respond more quickly to disruption. The country’s specialist capabilities in pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, chemicals and temperature-controlled products also strengthen its role in high-value and time-sensitive supply chains.

Challenges facing Singapore

Despite these advantages, Singapore faces several important challenges. Its size and lack of natural resources mean that it depends heavily on international trade for food, energy, raw materials and industrial supplies. This leaves the country vulnerable to external crises such as pandemics, conflicts, shipping disruptions and shortages in global markets.

Geopolitical tensions and growing trade fragmentation present another risk. Tariffs, export controls and competition between major powers can alter established shipping and manufacturing patterns. As a small, open economy, Singapore must maintain trusted relationships with multiple trading partners while avoiding excessive dependence on any single market or supply route.

Singapore must also manage domestic cost and capacity pressures. Limited land, a slowing rate of workforce growth and the need to continually upgrade employee skills can increase the cost of logistics and manufacturing activities. Automation can help address some of these pressures, but it also requires substantial investment and the reskilling of workers.

Sustainability is an additional challenge. The logistics industry must reduce emissions while continuing to support growing trade volumes. Extreme weather can disrupt production and port operations elsewhere in the supply chain, while new environmental reporting and decarbonisation requirements create operational and financial demands for logistics companies.

Maintaining a competitive edge

Singapore’s advantageous location, world-class connectivity and trusted legal and business environment give it a distinctive role in global trade. Maintaining this position will depend on its ability to adapt to changing market demands through continued investment in infrastructure, technology and people. If Singapore can successfully navigate these challenges, it is well placed to remain a vital and strategic hub in the global supply chain.

International law firm Penningtons Manches Cooper is celebrating the 30^th anniversary of its Singapore office.

Over the past three decades, the office has become an established part of the firm’s international network, supporting clients across Singapore, Asia Pacific and around the world.

Since opening its doors in 1996, the office has evolved alongside its clients, supporting their growth as Singapore strengthened its position as a leading international centre for maritime trade and commerce.

During that time, the team has advised businesses operating throughout the international shipping, trade and commodities sectors, reflecting the increasingly global nature of trade and investment across Asia and beyond.

While shipping and international trade remain at the core of the practice, the office has expanded its offering to meet the evolving needs of clients, most recently, welcoming private wealth partner, Rachel Yao to launch the firm’s first private wealth practice outside the UK.

This week, CEO Helen Drayton and other senior colleagues will join the Singapore team to celebrate the anniversary at a special event for clients, colleagues and long-standing friends of the firm from across the region. She says:

“Singapore continues to play a pivotal role in the region and this anniversary is an opportunity to celebrate the clients, colleagues and friends of the firm who have been part of our journey over the past 30 years. It is also an exciting time for the office as we continue to invest in our presence in the region, including the recent launch of our private wealth practice. I am incredibly proud of the team and all they have achieved, and I look forward to joining them to mark this milestone.”

Partner Johan Wong, who leads the Singapore office, comments:

“This is a really important moment for the Singapore team. Over the past three decades, what has mattered most has been the strength of the relationships we have built with our clients and industry contacts.  We are really grateful to everyone who has been part of our journey and helped to shape our success. We look forward to extending our support to businesses and individuals across the region for many years to come.”

Experiencing a stroke during or after surgery can be devastating for both patients and their families. It often comes as a shock – particularly if the operation was expected to be straightforward or low‑risk. While some strokes are unavoidable complications and not due to any errors in care, others occur because of technical errors and care that falls below an acceptable standard. When this happens, patients may be entitled to pursue a medical negligence claim.

As part of our series exploring stroke-related medical negligence cases, this article looks at how negligent surgery can lead to a stroke, and outlines the steps you can take if you believe your stroke could have been prevented.

How can a stroke result from negligent surgery?

During any surgical procedure, doctors must follow strict standards to keep blood flow to the brain stable and to prevent clots or bleeding. If those standards are not met, the risk of stroke increases significantly.

Below are some of the most common ways unacceptable errors can cause a stroke.

Poor management of blood pressure

Anaesthetists and surgical teams are responsible for monitoring blood pressure throughout the operation. If it becomes too low, the brain may not receive enough oxygen. If it becomes too high, blood vessels may rupture.

Negligence may include:

• not checking blood pressure frequently enough;
• failing to act on dangerous readings;
• giving the wrong medication or dose.

When these errors occur, the result can be a stroke that could have been avoided.

Mistakes with blood‑thinning medication (anticoagulation)

Blood thinners (anticoagulants) must be managed very carefully around the time of surgery. Too little can cause clots; too much increases the risk of bleeding in the brain.

Negligent care usually involves either not carrying out a proper assessment of the patient’s risk profile and how their anticoagulation should be managed, or errors in documenting or following through instructions about the medication required.

These decisions can have serious consequences, including stroke.

Damage to blood vessels during a procedure

Some operations involve working close to major arteries. If a surgeon uses poor technique or fails to identify important structures, they may cause damage to a vessel. Damage to certain vessels and certainly damage that is not recognised can result in clots forming and travelling to the brain, a reduction in cerebral blood flow, and/or bleeding.

If such an injury was avoidable with appropriate care, or in itself would not be regarded as negligent but should have been identified and was not, the resulting stroke may have been entirely preventable with appropriate care.

Air or fat embolism

Air bubbles or fat particles can enter the bloodstream if proper precautions are not taken. These can travel to the brain and block blood flow. Where this obstructs blood flow to or in the brain, it can result in a stroke.

Delay in spotting the signs of stroke after surgery

Some strokes happen in the hours after an operation – a time when staff must monitor patients closely.

Failing to recognise or act on symptoms such as:

• weakness on one side;
• slurred speech;
• confusion;
• severe headache;
• drooping of the face;

can allow a treatable stroke to become life‑changing. Delay in identifying and acting on signs of a stroke post operatively may have a significant impact on outcome. The additional consequences of such an avoidable delay may form the basis of a claim.

Which types of surgery carry higher risk?

Strokes linked to negligent care are more common in surgeries involving:

• the heart;
• major blood vessels;
• the neck, such as thyroid operations or removal of neck tumours;
• the spine;
• orthopaedic procedures.

How we can help in claims for negligence following surgery

If you or a family member suffered a stroke in connection with a surgical procedure and you are worried that it could have been avoided, we can help by:

• reviewing medical records;
• obtaining independent expert evidence;
• advising you on whether you have a case;
• guiding you through the claims process with empathy;
• aiming to achieve the best possible outcome for you from the case.

We are always happy to talk through your concerns without obligation or cost, and our specialist team will provide clear advice on both the merits of a claim and what would be involved in the claims process.

Please email us at piclinnegstrokeclaims@penningtonslaw.com or call us on 0800 328 9545.

Penningtons Manches Cooper’s medical negligence team includes a specialist group of lawyers with extensive experience in claims involving strokes that should have been avoided and/or better managed with appropriate medical care.

Receiving your first professional contract is an exciting milestone and a proud moment; however, the contract terms can sometimes feel daunting. These tips are designed to help women footballers navigate their contracts and have meaningful conversations with their agents and clubs. Agents should help their clients to understand what is standard, and seeking legal advice is always recommended, to ensure the best terms available are negotiated.

Salary and bonuses

Ensure the contract clearly states your base salary, payment schedule (including dates and frequency of payment), and any performance-related bonuses or incentives. For example, bonuses could be awarded for number of appearances, goals, or assists, and promotion or retention (see below for further details). Check carefully whether bonuses are guaranteed, conditional or discretionary.

Contract duration

Check the length of the contract, as well as any options for extension and when these would need to be exercised. Consider whether a shorter contract that provides flexibility, or a longer deal offering more stability, is more appropriate.

Release and automatic renewal clauses

A release clause allows you to transfer to another club if a specific fee is met. You should ensure that any transfer fees should not be set unrealistically high. Be cautious with any automatic renewal clauses, and ensure they require your approval, not just the club’s.

Signing-on bonus

Check whether the contract includes any signing-on bonuses (payments made directly to you upon joining the club) and in particular when they must be paid.

Loyalty payment

Review any loyalty payment clauses that provide additional bonuses for staying with the club for a certain period. These are usually payable at the end of the first season with the club, but this may vary.

Image rights and marketing

This addresses the club’s use of your image and likeness for promotional purposes. Check who retains control over how your images are used, whether you can sign your own sponsors, if the club can restrict deals with any conflicting brands and, importantly, how revenue from appearances is shared.

Medical and injury provisions

Check the provisions for medical treatment and support in case of injury, including rehabilitation and insurance coverage.

Family leave

Provisions for maternity, adoption and parental leave may differ according to league and country, so review your rights under any policies carefully. Confirm paid maternity leave terms, return-to-play protocols, and whether they can release you during this period.  

Termination clauses

Understand the conditions under which the club can terminate your contract and what compensation you are entitled to if the club ends your contract early. In particular, look for whether the club can terminate for disciplinary or performance reasons, and if any protection from release during long-term injury is included. Ensure there are conditions that also allow you to terminate your contract.

Dispute resolution

Ensure there are clear procedures for resolving any disputes that may arise between you and the club, sometimes referred to as arbitration clauses.

Professional development

Look for clauses that support your professional development, such as access to training facilities, coaching, and educational opportunities.

Questions to consider asking about the club’s female-friendly policies

• What are the policies around family leave – maternity, parental, carer and/or adoption leave?
• What are the club’s player welfare policies?
• Does the club have provisions for menstrual health?

Ultimately, a well‑structured contract is the foundation for a player’s stability and long‑term success. From core terms such as salary and duration to personal provisions around family life and wellbeing, every detail will influence a player’s day‑to‑day experience both on and off the pitch. By asking the right questions and taking the time to understand each aspect of the agreement during negotiations, players can ensure they have complete clarity about what their contract entails, allowing them to stay focused on their career and avoid unexpected issues later on.

Leading law firm Penningtons Manches Cooper is delighted to announce the appointment of Robert Dransfield as a partner in its nationally recognised personal injury and medical negligence team. Based in the London office, he will focus on complex and high value medical negligence claims, further strengthening the firm’s well established reputation in this area.

Robert joins from Stewarts where he was a medical negligence partner between 2007 and 2025. He has particular expertise in major spinal cord injury and cauda equina syndrome claims, and is also very experienced in brain injury, oncology, infection and amputee claims, particularly those valued at in excess of £1 million.

Widely respected by both clients and his peers, Robert is a specialist panel member of Action against Medical Accidents (AvMA), the UK charity for patient safety and justice, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine, and an Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) practitioner. He is recommended by both Legal 500 and Chambers UK, where he is described as ‘an exceptional individual’ and ‘a master tactician, always one step ahead’.

Led by partner Philippa Luscombe, Penningtons Manches Cooper’s team of over 40 personal injury and medical negligence specialists is known for a combination of high quality technical expertise and client focused service to individuals and their families across the UK. It consistently achieves band 1 rankings in both the leading legal directories and is also commended in The Times Best Law Firms list. For the 2025/26 financial year, the team is expecting to see a 10% increase in turnover.

Commenting on Robert’s arrival, Philippa said: “This is an important strategic appointment as we look to further enhance the capability of our London medical negligence practice, particularly in high value work and the delivery of exceptional client care. Robert is exactly the individual we hoped to find – not only because of his unquestionable expertise, but also his commitment to his clients and his thoughtful, meticulous approach. He is an excellent fit for our team – in terms of his personality, technical ability and reputation – and we are thrilled to welcome him.”

Robert added: “It is a privilege to join such a well‑regarded national practice. My work will remain centred on advocating for clients who have suffered catastrophic injuries, with particular emphasis on complex cauda equina syndrome claims and life‑changing brain and spinal cord injury cases. Penningtons Manches Cooper has strong specialist teams in all my key areas of focus, and I have long been genuinely impressed by its reputation in the sector. I have thoroughly enjoyed meeting the team so far and feel that the firm’s collegiate and collaborative culture aligns extremely well with my own approach.”

The government’s consultation on earned settlement closed on 12 February 2026, marking a significant milestone in what may prove to be one of the most substantial reforms to UK immigration law in recent years.

The earned settlement proposals represent a fundamental shift from the current time-served model to a system where settlement must be actively earned through demonstrable contribution and integration. The baseline qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain would double from five to ten years for most migrants, with those in Skilled Worker roles below RQF Level 6 facing a default period of 15 years. However, the proposals also include mechanisms to reduce these periods based on high earnings (over £125,140 for three years could reduce the period by seven years), public service, or community contributions such as volunteering. Conversely, the qualifying period could be extended significantly for immigration breaches, criminal convictions, or receipt of public funds, with some individuals potentially facing waits of up to 30 years.

What makes these proposals particularly controversial is the government’s stated intention to apply the changes retrospectively to existing visa holders. This means individuals already partway through their five-year journey to settlement could find themselves subject to the new, longer qualifying periods when the rules come into force, which is expected to start in phases from April 2026.

The consultation sought views on whether transitional arrangements should apply, but Minister for Migration and Citizenship Mike Tapp confirmed during a Westminster Hall debate on 2 February that while aspects such as retrospectivity and transitional arrangements remain under review, the government intends to proceed with the earned settlement model in principle. However, it has been made clear that the proposals will not affect those who already hold ILR, those with settled or pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme, and those with status under the Windrush scheme.

Given the significance of these changes, the Home Affairs Select Committee also conducted its own inquiry examining the broader implications of these reforms and the complex and wide-ranging impact of changing ILR rules, and gathered evidence from stakeholders across the immigration sector. This closed on 2 December 2025.

For employers and individuals currently navigating the UK immigration system, these developments create considerable uncertainty. Businesses should be reviewing their current workforce to identify those who might become eligible for settlement before April 2026 and those eligible for ILR should be considering whether to apply sooner rather than later. The proposed changes could have significant implications for long-term workforce planning, with extended visa cycles potentially doubling or tripling sponsorship costs and making the UK less competitive for international talent.

The mandatory requirements under the new system would include no NHS or government debt, passing the Life in the UK test, proving English at B2 level (up from the current B1), and a completely new requirement that all applicants (with limited exceptions) must demonstrate earnings of at least £12,570 annually for three to five years before applying. These requirements alone may prove challenging for many current visa holders, particularly those who are unable to work eg those with caring responsibilities.

The immigration team at Penningtons Manches Cooper has been actively involved in feeding back on these proposals and ongoing policy engagements. With the consultation now closed, we await the government’s response and the detailed Statement of Changes expected in March.

In the meantime, if you have any questions or wish to discuss the potential impact of the proposals, please liaise with your usual contact in the immigration team or email us at immigration.enquiries@penningtonslaw.com.

A joint investigation undertaken by BBC News and the New Statesman has intensified concerns over maternity care at University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, which is already facing an independent inquiry into its maternity services.

In an article published on 12 February 2026, the two news outlets summarise findings based on Freedom of Information requests made by Truth for Our Babies, a group of bereaved parents who have bravely joined together to share their experiences of maternity care at the Sussex trust and to raise awareness of the poor standards.

University Hospitals Sussex was one of ten NHS trusts identified by Health Secretary Wes Streeting in June 2025 as requiring urgent review. This decision followed an unannounced two‑day Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection of the Royal Sussex County Hospital’s A&E and maternity departments in February 2025.

At the time of the health secretary’s announcement, maternity negligence specialists at Penningtons Manches Cooper noted that maternity care in Sussex was already under heightened scrutiny following a series of inspections, whistleblowing reports, and mounting concerns about patient safety.

The 2026 BBC News/New Statesman investigation reveals that between 2019 and 2023, the trust carried out 227 internal reviews into maternity deaths. In at least 55 cases, there was a finding that different care ‘may’ or was ‘likely’ to have made a difference to the outcome.

The two news outlets also report that the trust paid out £103.8 million for errors in maternity care between 2021 and 2025, including £34.3 million in 2024/25 alone, the highest figure in England during that period. Despite these findings, University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust maintains that its mortality rates over the past three years sit below national averages, arguing that larger trusts naturally attract higher claim volumes.

Emma Beeson, senior associate in Penningtons Manches Cooper’s medical negligence team and head of the maternal injury team, comments: “The findings from this joint investigation are incredibly worrying. Most troubling of all is the concern raised by members of the Truth for Our Babies group that there may be cases where some bereaved parents do not realise that, but for failures in the medical care provided, their babies may have survived.

“It is very rare that any doctor, midwife or clinician sets out to cause harm, but problems are compounded when there has been a failure to be open and honest with families about the mistakes that may have occurred. Without this recognition and openness, change cannot happen and, by change, I mean real fundamental and systemic change that feeds through at all levels.”

Penningtons Manches Cooper regularly supports families affected by substandard maternity care and offers guidance to those considering legal action. If you or a loved one have concerns regarding recent maternity care, our specialist maternity negligence claims team is available to discuss these without charge and on a no obligation basis.

Please contact us on freephone 0800 328 9545, email clinnegspecialist@penningtonslaw.com or complete our online assessment form.

The conventional approach to calculating dependency is changing from the traditional assumptions made in 1984. At this time, the courts adopted the approach set out in the case of Harris v Empress Motors where it was decided that for two cohabiting married parents who lived together with one child or more, the dependency percentage is 75%, or with no children, 66%.

In our experience as injury solicitors, exceptions are the rule as family dynamics do not always fit the Harris v Empress model. Anomalies arise where parents are divorced, in the process of divorcing, or in the event that there is a prospect of reconciliation. In this instance, the test is not one of the balance of probabilities, but there has to be a realistic expectation, supported by good evidence, that the couple might have achieved a reconciliation, which is calculated on a percentage basis.

There is very little in the fatal accidents act to guide parties as to the correct approach in the case of single parent families where the primary caring parent dies. The typical 75% or 66% calculations are likely to be arbitrary in these circumstances and, because of the absence of statutory guidance, this gives parties plenty of scope to present bespoke calculations based on actual data of what was spent on whom.

Another question that arises in cases of single parent families is what happens when the primary caring parent dies and that care is replaced by the previously absent parent. Does the gain outweigh the loss? In the case of Stanley v Saddique [1992], the dependant child received unsatisfactory care when living with her mother, but after her death the child moved in with the previously absent father and received, as it turned out, a better quality of care than she did with her mother. The court had to consider whether this extinguished the services dependency claim and, by virtue of section 4 of The Fatal Accidents Act, it decided that it did not because the question is ‘what has the claimant lost as a result of the death?’. Therefore care received after death is not taken into account.

In the event of the death of both parents, it is generally inappropriate to apply the conventional approach set out in Harris v Empress Motors. In these circumstances, evidence of actual expenditure by the parents is the preferred method, as in the case of Dhaliwal v Hunt [1995]. However, the subsequent question relating to adoption has led to what many consider an anomalous decision in the case of Watson v Willmott [1991] where the judge circumvented section 4 of the act. He stated that the adoption was not as a result of the child’s parents’ deaths, but rather as a result of the legal adoption process and the legal obligation of the adopting parents to provide for the child.

Unlike many other types of litigation, claims under the Fatal Accidents Act do not require, as might be expected, each and every dependant to be named as a claimant in the proceedings. Although section 2(4) lays down special requirements for all dependants to be named in the particulars of claim, section 2(2) states that all or any of the dependants need to be named as claimants in the action.

The law for dependency claims following a fatal accident is full of exceptions and special situations that require careful and detailed analysis of what are usually unique family situations needing an expert, bespoke approach to the claim. The specialist clinical negligence and personal injury teams at Penningtons Manches have extensive experience in working with these quirks of the law in order to recover substantial damages for families and dependants who have lost loved ones.