This LGBTQ+ History Month, we’re spotlighting two colleagues who embody our ambition to be the most human law firm and create a culture where people genuinely feel seen, heard and celebrated. In a conversation hosted by our DEI & CSR Manager, Megan Mosey, co-chairs of Aura (our LGBTQIA+ committee) Jake and Sophie share personal journeys on identity, belonging, and what inclusion looks like through their lens.

Their conversation offers insight into the LGBTQIA+ community within our firm – it shows how their identities and life experiences have shaped the kind of lawyers they are. The perspectives, empathy, and openness they bring because of those experiences strengthen the way they work and the way they show up for others.

The themes they explore mirror what drives our broader approach to inclusion. Across the firm, we are committed to creating an environment where people feel respected, supported, and able to thrive. Jake and Sophie speak to the moments that help foster that environment, from everyday acts of allyship to the confidence that comes from feeling understood.

LGBTQ+ History Month is a chance to recognise progress, reflect on the experiences that still need to be heard, and celebrate the voices that make our culture stronger. Their discussion reminds us why representation matters, why listening matters, and why genuine inclusion is built through connection and openness.

We invite you to view to the full conversation here.

Penningtons Manches Cooper is proud to return as the 2026 headline sponsor of the International Garden Photographer (IGPOTY), a major global photography competition that celebrates plants, gardens and the natural world through outstanding images.

Today, Helen Drayton, Penningtons Manches Cooper’s CEO joined Tyrone McGlinchey, IGPOTY’s managing director and head judge, at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew for a prestigious event to announce the winners of IGPOTY’s Competition 19 and unveil the latest exhibition.

Competition 19’s overall winner – selected from the nine main category winners – is Mark Hetherington from Cumbria. His entry, ‘Grange Fell Last Light’ was taken in Borrowdale, in the Lake District, England’s largest national park.

Penningtons Manches Cooper is also delighted to continue its additional sponsorship of the PMC Plants and Planet category for a second consecutive year. The category explores the relationship between plants and a changing climate, highlighting both their vulnerability and their vital role in sustaining ecosystems. IGPOTY donates a portion of its proceeds from the category to WeForest’s reforestation programmes.

This year’s winning PMC Plants and Planet image is ‘Mangrove Restoration’ by Stephen Studd, featuring mangrove recovery efforts in Kep, Cambodia.

Helen Drayton commented:“Seeing the stunning portrayal of our natural environment in this year’s submissions brings into sharp focus not only the skill of the photographers who took part, but also what we risk losing if we don’t protect it. Sustainability is central to our ethos as a responsible business and we are proud to be part of the mission behind this competition. Congratulations to all.”

Commenting on the firm’s support, Tyrone McGlinchey said:

“I would like to sincerely thank Penningtons Manches Cooper for its support, we are very proud to have the firm as Headline Sponsor for 2026. The sponsorship helps IGPOTY continue its mission to inspire audiences, both old and new to love nature and photography via its competitions and exhibitions.”

Stephen Studd said:

“I am absolutely honoured to have won first place in the PMC Plants and Planet category. An IGPOTY Award is without doubt the most prestigious recognition in garden photography, bringing together remarkable talent from around the world whilst highlighting the importance of protecting and cherishing our green planet.”

Now celebrating its 20th year, IGPOTY welcomes entries from photographers at every level – from amateurs to seasoned professionals – and attracts submissions from across the globe.

Following the main exhibition at Kew, which runs until 9 March, a touring exhibition will visit several UK locations, providing Penningtons Manches Cooper’s colleagues and clients with further opportunities to view the collection. The venues include Birmingham Botanical Gardens, Cambridge University Botanic Garden and Blenheim Palace gardens near Oxford.

Reflecting on this year’s overall winner, Tyrone McGlinchey said:

“The winning photograph depicts a stunning landscape vista, full of plant life, with layers of colour and tactile textures, and through a well-balanced composition, truly immerses us in the scene. The use of multiple exposures has allowed us to see the environment in all its glory – many congratulations to Mark.”

The category winners were:

• Abstract Views – Ian Gilmour: Autumn flurry
• Beautiful Gardens – Stephen Studd: Lower pool, Exbury Gardens
• Breathing Spaces – Mark Hetherington: Grange Fell Last Light
• PMC Plants & Planet (Sponsor: Penningtons Manches Cooper) – Stephen Studd: Mangrove Restoration
• The Beauty of Plants – Alison Tinson: Game, Set and Match
• The World of Fungi – Tony North: Amethyst Deceivers
• Trees, Woods & Forests – Grant Bulloch: Glen Affric
• Wildflower Landscapes – Bernadette Benz: Alpine Cotton Balls
• Wildlife in the Garden – Perdita Petzl: Rare Beauty

Find out more by visiting the IGPOTY website.

This article, originally published in September 2025, has been updated to reflect the passing of the Employment Rights Bill into law in December 2025.

Employers often adopt a relaxed approach towards the management of new employees due to their ability to dismiss reasonably simply within the first two years of employment, and with a low risk of claims (save for more complex cases involving discrimination or whistleblowing). This is as a result of the current two year ‘qualifying period’ for bringing an unfair dismissal claim.

The Employment Rights Act 2025 became law in December 2025, and with it came confirmation that the qualifying period for unfair dismissal will be reduced to six months, with effect from 1 January 2027. This put to an end to over 12 months of speculation as to what the new unfair dismissal laws might look like, and finally confirmed the Labour government’s abandonment of its manifesto pledge to make unfair dismissal a ‘day one’ right.

From the start of next year, then, employers will no longer have the luxury of waiting for two years to see how things go with new employees. Rather, they will need to ensure they are ready to make decisions about employee performance and conduct at an early stage.

What was not anticipated was the removal of the cap on unfair dismissal compensation, currently £118,223, which is also expected to happen on 1 January 2027. While the majority of compensatory awards do not come close to this figure, this will be significant in the case of senior executives and other high earners, and may well make exit negotiations significantly more difficult.

By way of a reminder, in order to dismiss an employee fairly, an employer needs a fair reason and must follow a fair process. This is particularly the case where performance is concerned. There is often scant evidence of poor performance that employers can rely on if managers have not taken the time to deal with performance issues or, if they have, they failed to document them.

It is important to bear in mind that a fair dismissal for performance is almost impossible without giving the employee prior warnings and the opportunity to improve, so an employee having unfair dismissal rights from day one presents real problems for employers – they may find themselves having to go down the route of a negotiated settlement and paying over the odds to remove the employee.

• Improved policies (and training)
  Performance management policies should be clearly drafted and make the consequences of failing to improve during a performance improvement period clear. Equally, disciplinary policies should be very clear on the types of behaviour that may constitute misconduct and employers should think carefully about how any workplace rules or expectations around conduct are communicated so that they are clear to all employees.
• Rigorous management
  Policies are of no use if they are not implemented, so managers may need to become more disciplined in dealing with performance and conduct issues when they arise. Understandably, managers often do not want to tackle these difficult issues, but the consequences could be significant if they fail to do so. Managers should be diligent in noting concerns from the outset of the employment and documenting those concerns by way of email exchanges with the employee. They should then move to more formal performance management processes or disciplinary proceedings as and when necessary. Managers should be trained on these policies and they should be properly communicated to all staff.
• Tackling issues head on
  This is really about workplace culture. Employees should expect to be challenged about performance and conduct issues, and managers should be free to do so in a constructive way. All too often, the urgency of a task and the need to get work out of the door can take over, and feedback can get forgotten. Employers should provide training to managers on how to manage difficult issues, together with the support needed to enable them to do this. Equally, employees need to be aware of the standards that are expected of them, and should expect ongoing feedback, whether informal or formal.
• Keeping up with timetabled processes
  It should go without saying that probation reviews should be carried out on time and any extension to a probation period should be considered carefully before the process is documented; however, it is not uncommon for managers to not deal with the expiry of probation periods when they come up, meaning employees can find themselves effectively having their employment confirmed without any performance review.Equally, some employers can be lax with carrying out appraisals in a timely manner or sticking to the agreed timeframes in performance improvement plans, which may be due to a lack of time, or a lack of confidence in tackling issues of concern head on. These issues cause problems for HR professionals and employment lawyers when reviewing cases where there is alleged underperformance or misconduct, as there is often limited evidence for it. Regular meetings and reviews, whether through one-to-ones, probation reviews or appraisals, are essential in order to manage issues effectively and reduce the risk of unfair dismissal claims.
• Think about dismissals
  Employers should consider whether they have any employees who are not performing to the required standard, who do not currently have two years’ service, and/or who will have six months’ service by 1 January. Grasping the nettle and tackling performance issues now could avoid the potentially greater risks of doing so in 2027. Similarly, in certain circumstances, it may make sense to consider exiting senior executives while the compensation cap remains in place and disputes may be easier to settle.
• Consider timing of recruitment
  It may also be important for employers to think about the timing of recruitment, and only recruit when they will have capacity to manage new employees. This may mean, for example, avoiding taking on new staff at their busiest time of year, or not recruiting just before Christmas or the summer, when both new recruits and line managers may take longer periods of time off and/or there could be less work, making it more difficult to assess performance.

Effectively managing employee performance and conduct undoubtedly involves time and effort, however, doing it well should not only reduce the likelihood of Employment Tribunal claims but should also, and more importantly, lead to better performing employees.

There is no better time than now to start improving performance and conduct management processes. The next few months present the perfect opportunity for employers to put in place effective procedures and ensure that managers are properly trained in readiness for the forthcoming changes.

This article provides guidance on the key aspects of family law that may impact fertility planning and modern family-building options, including egg freezing, fertility treatment, and surrogacy – all of which are increasingly relevant to athletes and sports professionals. It was written for and first published by LawInSport in December 2025 and can also be viewed here.

Picture this, you are 24, you came fourth in the women’s 800m at the 2024 Olympic Games. You and your coaches know you’ve got one more ‘Games’ in you, your sponsors are supporting you, you’re landing brand deals and your professional life is going great. You put your personal life on hold for another four years. Now you are 28, the Games are a triumph and you win a medal, while you won’t compete in the next Games, you have to make the most of the opportunities and commercial prospects before you retire. A few years pass, the window of your professional peak felt so small and it was never the right time to prioritise having a baby.

Or maybe you have finally been transferred to Arsenal W.F.C., you have worked towards this for years, playing in teams all over to rise to this level. You are 25, and you give it everything you have for four years. You put off having a family until you step down from the team, but then you are offered a media role and you need to make the most of that opportunity to keep saving for your retirement (especially because most female players will not earn enough in their professional years to be able to retire early compared to their male counterparts). Another few years pass and still it is never the right time.

Another scenario, you are a professional netball player, you are thinking about having a baby with your partner and you have some basic fertility testing done. Your doctor advises you that your AMH (anti-Müllerian hormone) levels are very low and she recommends you start IVF (in vitro fertilisation) immediately. You are about to start the new season, and you are worried about how the fertility drugs will impact your performance if you go ahead.

Family planning and having a baby can be a wonderful time, but it can also be stressful. Timing is everything and it does not always go to plan. The sorts of dilemmas described affect women in all walks of life but they are especially acute for professional sportswomen whose careers are built around peak physical performance, gruelling training schedules, travel commitments and maximising a small window of opportunity. It is not easy to know when the right time is to start a family.

Some people choose to delay this next step in their personal lives until they have met their professional goals, others may find they face unexpected fertility struggles which they have to balance with their demanding professional lives.

This article provides guidance on the key aspects of family law that may impact fertility planning and modern family-building options, including egg freezing, fertility treatment, and surrogacy – all of which are increasingly relevant to athletes and sports professionals.

It looks at:

• Egg freezing: preserving fertility for the future
• Legal updates on storage limits
• Consent forms & planning ahead
• Eggs vs embryos: what’s the best option?
• Fertility treatment: what to know as a single woman or couple
• Surrogacy: a pathway for women who cannot carry
• Legal parentage & parental orders
• Reform on the horizon?

Egg freezing is becoming an increasingly popular option for women who may want to delay starting a family. For athletes, this can provide peace of mind and flexibility, allowing them to focus on training and competition during peak performance years, while (hopefully) preserving the chance of starting a family later in life.

Until recently, the rules around storage were restrictive. Before 1 July 2022, you could only store eggs, sperm, or embryos for up to 10 years, unless facing premature infertility due to medical treatment. Fortunately, the law has changed. Now, eggs can be stored for up to 55 years, subject to a review and renewal every 10 years.[1]

If your eggs were stored before 1 July 2022, you may be able to extend storage by signing updated consent forms. Clinics can advise, but if stored for medical reasons, renewal every 10 years is mandatory or the eggs risk being disposed of.[2]

When undergoing fertility treatment to freeze eggs, you should be offered counselling and provided with comprehensive information [3]. One of the most important steps is completing a set of consent forms. These outline:

• What can be done with your eggs now and in the future
• What should happen to them if you die or become incapacitated
• Whether your eggs can be used by a partner, donated for research, or destroyed

A landmark 2015 case involved a couple fighting to honour their deceased daughter’s wish to use her eggs to conceive a grandchild [4]. Because her consent forms hadn’t been completed correctly, her parents had to go through extensive litigation. They ultimately won but the emotional and financial toll was significant. The takeaway: complete the forms carefully and seek legal advice if needed.

In the author’s experience, clinics often advise that embryos (eggs already fertilised with sperm) are more viable for future use than eggs alone. Embryos tend to survive thawing better and have a higher implantation success rate. However, freezing embryos with a partner carries risks – if you later separate and they withdraw consent, the embryos may have to be destroyed potentially leaving you with no ability to have a biological child. It is worth weighing up your options and considering what is right for you taking into account the risks of both eggs and embryos. You could consider freezing both eggs and embryos, but this will come with the additional cost of time and money, as well having to choose which eggs to freeze and which to fertilise.

Single women:
If you are considering fertility treatment as a single woman, you will be looking at sperm donation.

A donor can be found via a UK fertility clinic. The clinic will:

• Ensure the sperm is checked for genetic diseases
• Provide a physical description of the donor (and sometimes a personal description or goodwill message); and
• Provide medical history, year and country of birth, ethnicity, marital status and whether the donor has any other children when they donated, and if so, how many and their gender

The child will be able to obtain identifying information about the donor when they are aged 18 including name, date of birth and last known address [6].

The donor is not considered the legal father and will have no legal rights. They are not named on the birth certificate and have no financial responsibilities [7].

Using an overseas clinic (depending on the country and the formalities) or an informal donor can complicate matters. There is a risk that the donor might be recognised as the legal father and it is vital to take legal advice ahead of undergoing any treatment this way to understand the implications. You may require a sperm donor agreement or even a co-parenting agreement depending on the intentions.

Couples:
If you are undergoing IVF as a couple, the legalities are usually straightforward. In standard treatment, both parents have a biological link to the child and the mother will automatically acquire parental responsibility by giving birth to the child [8]. Parental responsibility means that a parent has legal rights and duties relating to a child, this includes providing a home for a child and protecting and maintaining that child. It also means that a parent is responsible for decisions regarding the child’s welfare such as what school they may attend, where they might live, giving permission to receive medical treatment and agreeing to name the child, including any changes of name [9].

The father can acquire parental responsibility by either being married to the mother at birth or being named on the birth certificate if unmarried, or later by entering into a parenting agreement (also known as a parental responsibility agreement) [10] (see format of a parental responsibility agreement here [11]). There are no further legal requirements. Even if you use donor sperm or eggs via a UK fertility clinic, the law determining parental responsibility still applies (as above, if you seek treatment abroad or use an informal donor, please take legal advice ahead of time).

It is, however, important to plan for all eventualities during treatment before a child is born and for ongoing embryo storage, regardless of whether you are using donors or your biological sperm or egg. In the author’s experience, both will be asked to sign consent forms setting out:

• Whether either of you can use embryos in the future; and
• What should happen to stored embryos if one party withdraws consent or dies

If intended parents are married or in a civil partnership, the partner is automatically recognised as the second legal parent [12]. If you are unmarried, additional legal forms must be completed at the clinic to ensure parentage is correctly recorded. Past audits at clinics (notably around 2015–2016) revealed widespread errors in how these forms were completed, resulting in High Court applications and stressful legal proceedings [13]. Because these forms carry significant legal consequences, a review by a solicitor is highly advisable if you have any concerns.

From a sports performance perspective, it’s worth noting that fertility treatment typically involves hormone injections and timed cycles. This can affect training, performance, and competition schedules. Whilst there is a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) on female infertility [14], careful consideration with medical advise would need to be given to the impact of any hormone treatment in an anti-doping capacity – something to plan for cautiously.

Surrogacy can also be an option for athletes and others in the industry who are unable or advised not to carry a pregnancy due to medical or physical concerns.

There are two types of surrogacy:

• Host or gestational surrogacy: Intended mother or donor egg is used, so the surrogate has no genetic link to the baby (this is the more common of the two)
• Straight or traditional surrogacy: Surrogate uses her own egg, creating a biological link to the child

Finding a surrogate can be difficult in the UK. Advertising for surrogates is illegal as is entering into a commercial, contractual relationship with the surrogate, and many people rely on known contacts or regulated non-profit agencies [15]. Due to legal uncertainties and a shortage of UK surrogates, many pursue surrogacy overseas (e.g., in the US or Canada).

Regardless of where the child is born, the biological connections or the use of donors, under English law, the surrogate is the legal mother at birth, and if married, her spouse is the legal second parent [16]. Even if a U.S. court names you as the legal parents, the UK will not recognise that birth certificate and parents absolutely must ensure the legal position is secured separately in the UK.

To become the legal parents in the UK, you must apply for a Parental Order [17] post-birth, and within six months of the child’s birth. This transfers legal parenthood and parental responsibility (PR) from the surrogate to the intended parents. It is a full legal solution and the child is legally treated as if they were always yours.

Current UK surrogacy law is outdated and many lawyers are calling for reform because the law has failed to keep up with evolving social attitudes and family structures. The Law Commission’s 2023 report proposed reforms to better regulate domestic surrogacy arrangements and protect both surrogates and intended parents. However, these reforms have not yet been adopted by the UK Government, but hopefully they will be in the future [19].

For now, anyone pursuing surrogacy, especially overseas, must navigate a legal framework that remains restrictive and uncertain.

For athletes and women working in the sports industry, the demands of career and performance often push family planning to the margins, but early planning and legal advice can make all the difference.

Whether you are freezing eggs, choosing a sperm donor, or considering surrogacy, taking legal advice at the outset will ensure that your future family’s position is secure. A short consultation now could prevent difficulties later down the line.

International note: If you work or compete abroad, be aware that legal parenthood is not automatically recognised across borders. What is valid in the UK may not hold elsewhere, another reason to get advice tailored to your personal circumstances.

[1] Health and Care Act 2022 Part 1, Schedule 17, Section 2(3)(a)

[2] Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority, ‘New law comes into force giving greater flexibility for fertility parents’, www.hfea.gov.uk (last accessed 9 December 2025)

[3] Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority, Code of Practice 9th edition (October 2023), Guidance note 3 ‘Counselling and patient support’ page 22.

[4] R (on the application of IM and MM) v HFEA [2015] EWHC 1706. Available here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/1706.html (last accessed 9 December 2025)

[5] Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Code of Practice 9th edition (October 2022), Guidance note 11 ‘Donor recruitment, assessment and screening’, page 109.

[6] Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Code of Practice 9th edition (October 2022), Guidance note 20, page 217, paragraph 20.9.

[7] Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (HFA) Act 2008, Part 2, Section 41 (1).

[8] Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (HFA) 2008, Part 2, Section 33(1).

[9] Children Act 1989 Part 1 Section 3

[10] Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (HFA) 2008, Part 2, Section 35(1)(a), Section 37(1)(a)

[11] Parental Responsibility Agreement, Gov.UK, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65cc883639a8a7000f60d4fd/C_PRA1__0224.pdf (last accessed 9 December 2025)

[12] Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (HFEA) 2008, Part 2, Section 35(1)(a) and Section 42(1).

[13] A & Ors (Human Fertilisations and Embryology Act 2008 [2015] EWHC 2602 (Fam). Available here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/parentage.pdf (last accessed 9 December 2025)

[14] See Physician’s Guidelines issued by WADA: tue_physician_guidelines_female_infertility_-_version_2.0_-_january_2026.pdf (last accessed 9 December 2025)

[15] Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985, Section 2(1).

[16] Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (HFEA) 2008, Part 2, Section 33(1).

[17] Section 54 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008

[18] SurrogacyUK, https://surrogacyuk.org/legal-reform/ (last accessed 9 December 2025)

[19] Available here: https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/surrogacy/ (last accessed 9 December 2025)

Penningtons Manches Cooper has advised Trismik, a pioneering deeptech company focused on revolutionising the evaluation of large language models (LLMs), on its spin-out from the University of Cambridge and £2 million Pre-Seed funding round. The funding round was led by Twinpath Ventures, with support from Cambridge Enterprise Ventures, Parkwalk Advisors, Fund F, Vento Ventures, and angel network Ventures Together. 

Trismik’s platform provides cutting-edge solutions for testing and validating LLMs, enabling developers and organisations to identify weaknesses, benchmark performance, and strengthen trust in AI deployment. Building on research originating at the University of Cambridge, the company’s technology addresses one of the most pressing challenges in today’s AI landscape: ensuring that advanced models are robust, reliable, and safe to use.

Trismik is led by repeat founder Rebekka Mikkola, as CEO, Professor Nigel Collier, a leading NLP researcher at the University of Cambridge, as CSO, and ex-Amazon scientist Marco Basaldella, as CTO.

The transaction reflects Penningtons Manches Cooper’s strength in supporting early-stage companies at the intersection of academia, technology and investment. The firm has a strong track record of working with deeptech clients to unlock commercial potential, protect intellectual property, and secure the right structures and funding for growth.

The corporate team was led by corporate partner James Went, with support from senior associate Anoushka Gangji, paralegal Jen Brewah and trainee solicitor Elizabeth Ahmad. The wider team providing specialist advice on this transaction included commercial partner Rachel Bradley, corporate tax partner Kathy Potter, corporate tax paralegal Victoria Goldstraw and employment senior associate Victoria Spires.

Commenting on the deal, James Went said: “We are delighted to have supported Trismik on its journey from academic research to commercialisation. Their work is tackling one of the most important issues in the AI sector, ensuring we can trust and validate the systems we increasingly rely on. It is another example of the exciting deeptech ventures emerging from Cambridge, and we look forward to seeing Trismik’s impact in this space grow.”

Rebekka Mikkola, Trismik’s chief executive officer, said “We’re excited to secure £2.2 million to advance Trismik’s mission of redefining AI evaluation. This funding accelerates our vision to make AI measurable and trustworthy. The team at Penningtons Manches Cooper were crucial to the smooth completion of our spin out and Pre-Seed funding round.”

Click here to read more about Trismik.

As medical negligence solicitors, we often support clients whose lives have been profoundly affected by surgical errors. One area of concern is the impact of negligent appendix surgery on female fertility. While appendectomies are common and generally safe procedures, when things go wrong the consequences can be life-altering – particularly for women of childbearing age.

In this article, we explore how negligent appendix surgery can affect fertility, the types of errors that can occur and what compensation may be available. We also share two anonymised case studies to illustrate the real-world impact of such negligence.

How can appendix surgery affect fertility?

The appendix is located near the reproductive organs, particularly the fallopian tubes and ovaries. When surgery is performed negligently, whether due to delays, incomplete removal or post-operative complications, it can lead to infections, scarring (adhesions) or damage to surrounding structures. These complications can, in turn, impair fertility.

Some of the ways that negligent appendix surgery can affect fertility include:

• Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID): Infection spreading from a perforated appendix can cause PID, which may damage the fallopian tubes.
• Adhesions: Internal scarring can distort pelvic anatomy, making natural conception more difficult.
• Tubal blockage: Inflammation or infection can block the fallopian tubes, preventing the egg from reaching the sperm.
• Need for IVF: In some cases, natural conception becomes impossible and assisted reproductive techniques like IVF are required.

We have seen a number of cases where negligent care has been provided to patients with appendicitis. In one case, our client attended A&E with severe abdominal pain, nausea and fever, all signs of appendicitis. Despite this, there were delays in arranging appropriate imaging and surgical review. Her appendix perforated while she waited, leading to a widespread infection in her abdominal cavity.

She underwent emergency surgery and suffered a severe infection that prolonged her recovery period and may have affected her fertility. Our evidence confirmed that, had she been operated on sooner, the appendix would not have ruptured and the infection would not have spread. However, we were able to settle the claim.

In another case, our client underwent surgery to remove her appendix after presenting with the classic symptoms of appendicitis. Initially, she was told the operation had gone well. However, she continued to suffer from abdominal pain, fever and fatigue in the following weeks. Eventually, it was discovered that a portion of her appendix known as the “appendix stump” had been left behind and the retained tissue had become infected. She required several further investigations and procedures.

Unfortunately, the infection had spread to her pelvic region, causing adhesions and damage between the uterus and rectum. She was advised that she would likely require IVF to conceive in the future.

What can you claim for?

The emotional toll that surgical negligence can take – especially when it affects something as personal and life-changing as fertility – is, of course, impossible to fully compensate. However, a successful medical negligence claim can cover general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, as well as special damages for financial losses caused by the negligent treatment.

These include:

• Cost of fertility treatment such as IVF
• Loss of earnings
• Travel and care expenses
• Future losses such as reduced earning capacity or ongoing medical costs.

Each case is assessed individually and compensation will depend on the severity of the injury and its impact on the patient’s life.

Changes are on the horizon for businesses that rely on flexible labour arrangements, so employment businesses and companies engaging with casual or self-employed workers will need to take note.

HMRC has long been concerned with the widespread use of umbrella companies given their reputation as tax avoidance schemes. Draft legislation seeking to address this may, however, have significant hidden consequences for all companies – including small companies who engage self-employed individuals through their own personal service limited companies (PSCs) by potentially extending tax liability beyond the scope of the current IR35 tax regime.

‘Umbrella company’ is the term used to refer to a business that acts as the employer of workers supplied to end user clients. They take care of the payroll and employment administration allowing a flexible and ‘risk free’ supply of casual labour. They are frequently used by employment businesses to outsource payroll services and/or for the supply of ‘self-employed’ consultants or contractors to reduce the risk of the end user being caught by IR35. However, a number of umbrella companies have been found by the courts to operate unlawful tax avoidance schemes, often to the detriment of the workers they employ.

This is why it is no surprise that HMRC has recently announced a change to the tax regime targeted at the use of umbrella companies and due to come into force in April 2026 under the Finance Bill 2026. The draft legislation introduces a new Chapter 11 into the Income Tax (Earnngs and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA) (‘the umbrella rules’).

What will change?

The new legislation will make liability for PAYE deductions ‘joint and several’ between the umbrella company and either the employment agency who has hired them or the end client if there is no employment agency or if the party the client contracts with is outside the UK. This means that if an employment agency or client hires an umbrella company which does not properly account for PAYE, HMRC can seek to recover any shortfall from either the agency or the client as well as from the umbrella company.

While this may be a welcome step to address misuse of umbrella companies, a closer eye on the detail reveals significant hidden risks, particularly for businesses sourcing workers either through another company such as an employment agency or directly through a PSC. This is owing to the new concept of a ‘purported umbrella company’ which is widely defined and covers a situation where a company supplies the services of an individual who has a material interest in that company which would include a PSC.

If a company is classed as a purported umbrella company, a tax liability will arise on either the agency contracting with them or the end client if there is no agency. The liability would arise if it could be reasonably presumed that one or more parties in the chain believe that the majority of the payments made to the company in respect of the individual’s services would be taxed as the individual’s employment income but that is not in fact the case.

Of particular note is that the IR35 rules and the off-payroll rules under chapter 10 ITEPA (the ‘off-payroll rules’) are disapplied so the umbrella rules will take precedence and apply automatically. This means the question of whether the individual is genuinely self-employed or operating ‘outside’ of IR35 becomes irrelevant and will not be a defence.

What does this mean in practice?

Currently, when a small company – as defined by the IR35 legislation – hires a consultant via the consultant’s PSC either directly or through an agency, the off-payroll rules do not apply. As a result, the company is not required to carry out an employment status test nor is it or the agency required to make any tax deductions. Instead, chapter 8 ITEPA (the ‘old IR35 rules’) applies which means that any tax liability – and therefore risk – under IR35 sits with the consultant’s PSC and not the end client or the agency.

Under the government’s current proposals, from April 2026, this will change. If the consultant receives the majority of their pay through dividend payments (which is common) or does not otherwise take the contract ‘profits’ out of the PSC as a salary, HMRC could determine that there has been a shortfall of income tax and national insurance contributions and, under the new umbrella rules, the company (as the ‘client’ of the PSC) or the agency that hires them could be liable for that shortfall.

It is not just small companies at risk. Medium to large companies and employment agencies engaging contractors through PSCs will also face the same issue if it is ‘reasonable to suppose that they would assume a substantial amount of the payments made to the PSC will be treated as earnings’, and will be taxed accordingly.

What can companies and agencies do to protect themselves?

It is not clear what is meant by ‘reasonable to suppose that [one of the other companies] would assume a substantial amount of the payments made to the [PSC] will be treated as earnings’ and it is hoped that further guidance on this point will be published before the change comes into effect.

However, it may be considered a reasonable supposition if one of the other companies believed that the consultant (engaged via a PSC) was operating inside IR35, as if they were ’employed’ by the end client or, alternatively, where the client or agency just simply had not turned their mind to the issue.

This should be less of a problem for medium or large companies as they are already required to issue a Status Determination Statement (SDS) when engaging a contractor via a PSC under the off-payroll rules. If an individual is found to be inside IR35, their earnings will be taxed at source and there should be no shortfall provided, of course, this has been done correctly. If an individual is found to be outside IR35, the SDS serves as evidence that there was no assumption that the majority of the payments would be treated as income.

What about small companies engaging with PSCs?

As small companies are not required to comply with IR35, most do not apply their minds to the tax or employment position of contractors they engage via a PSC. However, this will need to change and they (or the agencies they engage) will need to carry out due diligence to satisfy themselves that either the contractor is genuinely self-employed or that the majority of the payments made to them are taxed as income. Companies should also ensure that appropriately-worded warranties and indemnities are included in commercial terms with any agencies or contractors they engage.

The legislation is currently in draft format and is subject to change. Further, HMRC’s likely intention is to tackle rogue umbrella companies and not small companies engaging with contractors via limited companies. However, this consequence – even if unintended – will be a welcome one for HMRC. Whether this legislation stays as drafted remains to be seen but prudent businesses should start taking action now by looking closely at their policies and procedures for off-payroll and labour supply chain compliance to ensure these are robust and well documented.

If you would like further information on your IR35, labour supply chain or employment status compliance issues, please contact Kathy Potter, Katie Harris or your usual Penningtons Manches Cooper contact. 

Penningtons Manches Cooper has once again been recognised for its outstanding performance in the latest legal directories, with the Legal 500 and Chambers UK both commending the firm’s excellence across a wide range of practice areas. The firm has also been featured in The Times Best Law Firms 2026 and ranked in The Lawyer’s Litigation 50 Report, reaffirming its position as a leading legal practice in England and Wales.

The independent analyses provided by these directories and reports are widely regarded as the most authoritative sources on the UK legal market. Their thorough research methodologies draw on both qualitative and quantitative analysis, covering a range of criteria from legal technical ability to commercial awareness and client service, and with client testimonials, endorsements from fellow lawyers, and feedback from industry experts playing a key role. The Times’ list is compiled by international market research agency Statista, while The Lawyer’s Litigation 50 Report highlights the UK’s most prominent disputes practices based on headcount and revenue.

In the Legal 500, Penningtons Manches Cooper has been ranked as a top tier firm in 12 practice areas, with recommendations in a further 75. Among the standout performers was the family law department, which was described as ‘the best in the country’. The commercial dispute resolution team was noted for providing ‘an exceptionally high level of service’ and being ‘a very safe pair of hands’, with one client highlighting its position as ‘a market leader in technology and AI’. The commercial property team meanwhile was lauded for its ‘superbly sharp minds giving fast, effective and reliable advice’ and for combining ‘great communication skills’, ‘modern technology’ and ‘the personal touch’. The medical negligence team was described as ‘engaging, caring and highly professional’ and praised for being ‘professional and forceful when required, yet always good-humoured and caring’. Similarly, the personal injury team was commended for going ‘above and beyond to help… in any way they can’ and for being ‘always kind, respectful and compassionate’.

Elsewhere, the intellectual property team stood out for its ‘combination of deep sector expertise, international reach, and client-focused innovation’, while the IT and telecoms practice was praised for ‘a rare blend of technical excellence, commercial acumen, and emotional intelligence’. The private client team was recognised for offering ‘a more sophisticated service addressing the more complex needs of higher net worth individuals’, and, finally, the social housing team was commended for being ‘responsive’, ‘proactive’ and ‘collaborative’. Individual recognition across the firm was equally impressive, with 97 rankings for individual lawyers, including seven in the prestigious ‘Hall of Fame’, 46 ‘leading partners’, 19 ‘next generation partners’, and 25 ‘leading associates’.

In Chambers UK, the firm achieved 46 department rankings, including eight in band 1, with glowing feedback across its top-ranked teams. The family law team was described as ‘a major player in family finance’, praised for its ‘strategic thinking’, and noted for a ‘client-focused’ culture where ‘every single lawyer from paralegals to senior partners is ten out of ten’. The commercial property team was commended for its ‘excellent breadth of knowledge and acumen on real estate and development’, while the intellectual property team impressed with its ‘deep bench of experience’ and ‘business-minded… client-ready advice’. The ‘highly skilled’ real estate litigation team was described as having ‘real expertise in any matter thrown at them’. Clients spoke of the medical negligence team as being, ‘during… an exceptionally difficult time… outstanding’ and ‘relentless’ in pursuit of the case, while the IT team was praised for its ‘hands-on approach and a huge pool of experience combined with good project management’. In total, 98 individual rankings were also achieved, with 20 in band 1.

Adding to these successes, the firm was also featured in The Lawyer’s Litigation 50 Report, with its dispute resolution teams collectively recognised as ‘heavyweight’ in terms of headcount and revenue, reflecting the breadth and depth of the firm’s contentious offering.

Finally, the firm has also been recognised in The Times Best Law Firms list for 2026, with commendation for its expertise in commercial dispute resolution, employment, family law, private client and tax, real estate litigation, personal injury and medical negligence.

For full details of Penningtons Manches Cooper’s directory rankings, please click here for the Legal 500, here for Chambers UK, here for The Times Best Law Firms list, and here for The Lawyer’s Litigation 50 Report.