With Parliament in its summer recess, now is a good time to take stock of recent developments and look ahead to what will be a busy autumn. With many of the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA) reforms still to come into force, attention is turning to what the new prime minister, Andy Burnham, may mean for the future direction of employment law.

The ERA introduced significant changes for employers, with further reforms due to take effect in the autumn and throughout 2027. Although the act was introduced by Sir Keir Starmer’s government, there is little indication that Burnham intends to slow the pace of reform. He has reaffirmed Labour’s commitment to its 2024 manifesto and ministers continue to stress their determination to implement the outstanding ERA measures.

That said, Burnham’s appointment has prompted debate about whether employment rights could go even further. His record as mayor of Greater Manchester offers some clues. The Greater Manchester Good Employment Charter, one of his flagship initiatives, promotes seven characteristics of ‘good employment’: secure work, flexible working, fair pay, employee voice, inclusive recruitment, effective people management, and health and wellbeing.

Many of these themes are already reflected in the ERA. For example:

• Secure work: The charter’s emphasis on predictable hours and limiting zero-hours contracts aligns closely with forthcoming ERA reforms, and also with Burnham’s early emphasis on tackling the cost of living crisis. Its expectation of up to four weeks’ notice of shifts may provide an indication of Burnham’s thinking as consultation continues on what constitutes ‘reasonable notice’ under the new regime.
• Flexible working: The charter supports flexible working practices, which are already being strengthened under the ERA. Further major reform in this area currently appears unlikely.
• Fair pay: The charter encourages payment of the real living wage, although translating that ambition into legal requirements would raise practical and economic challenges in the current climate.
• Employee voice: The charter’s focus on union recognition and workforce engagement mirrors ERA measures expanding trade union access rights. Given the significant changes under the ERA, further changes to the industrial relations landscape seem unlikely in the short term, although Burnham’s commitment to, and support from, the trade unions, may indicate further changes ahead.

In terms of inclusive recruitment, Burnham has consistently championed diversity and inclusion, alongside measures to improve opportunities for young people. Recent announcements on technical education pathways and additional apprenticeships suggest youth employment will be a key priority for the Burnham government. As for health and wellbeing, Burnham has also shown interest in reducing economic inactivity linked to long-term sickness. Current fit note reform pilots could signal future changes aimed at supporting people to remain in, or return to, work.

One area to watch is employment status reform. Labour’s 2024 manifesto proposed replacing the current three-tier employment status framework (ie employee, worker, self-employed) with a simpler two-tier model, although this was not included in the ERA. With renewed calls for reform, Burnham may revisit the issue in due course.

Some have commented on the addition to the ERA implementation timetable, published on the government website, of the statement, in bold type, ‘This was published under the 2024-2026 Starmer Labour Government’. However, such a statement is relatively standard in these circumstances. With much already on his ‘to-do’ list for the autumn term, it is probably safe to assume that Burnham will stick to the existing ERA implementation timetable, and we should not expect major announcements or headline-grabbing legislative change in the short term.

If, however, Burnham can defy the recent revolving door at No. 10 and win a second election on his own manifesto, the next chapter of employment law may evolve in a different direction. For now, that remains a matter of political speculation.

Penningtons Manches Cooper has advised Goonhilly Earth Station Ltd, a Cornwall-based provider of lunar and deep space communications services, on its proposed acquisition by Nasdaq-listed Intuitive Machines, subject to regulatory approval.

Goonhilly Earth Station Ltd operates from Cornwall and provides commercial communications services for lunar and deep space missions. The business has developed specialist expertise in ground station and communications technologies, supporting missions for organisations such as NASA and ESA. Following completion, Goonhilly will operate as a wholly owned subsidiary of Intuitive Machines, retaining its UK presence and continuing to work closely with its US-based COMSAT teleport operations.

The transaction represents the next stage in a longstanding relationship between the parties and is expected to enhance the combined group’s capability to support the growing demand for resilient space-to-ground communications solutions. By bringing together Goonhilly’s deep ground station expertise with Intuitive Machines’ global reach and resources, the acquisition is intended to strengthen the infrastructure underpinning future lunar and deep space missions and broaden the services available to customers operating in increasingly complex space environments.

The Penningtons Manches Cooper team was led by corporate partners, Adam McGiveron and Emma Bryant, and supported by associates, Faryaal Aziz and Georgia Giddings. The wider team included real estate partner, Andrew Mellor, IP, IT and commercial managing associate, Edmund Forey and corporate tax partner, Oliver Gutman.

Kenn Herskind, executive chairman of Goonhilly Earth Station Ltd, commented: “Building on many years of close cooperation with Intuitive Machines, this transaction marks an important step forward for our business. Bringing together our complementary expertise will enhance our ability to support the next generation of space exploration and utilisation. We greatly appreciated the pragmatic, commercially focused advice provided by Penningtons Manches Cooper throughout the process.”

Adam McGiveron, partner at Penningtons Manches Cooper added: “We are pleased to have supported Goonhilly on this strategically important transaction. The acquisition reflects the growing pace of investment and consolidation in the space sector and positions the combined business strongly to meet the evolving needs of customers engaged in lunar and deep space missions.”

Related coverage: ‘US firm set to buy satellite station in £37m deal’ BBC. Read more

From rising costs to changing consumer habits, Britain’s pub sector is facing structural change – and early action is becoming increasingly important for operators and stakeholders under pressure.

Few institutions are as closely associated with British culture as the local pub. Whether serving as a community hub, a venue for live sport and entertainment, or simply a place to socialise, pubs remain an important part of the social fabric of cities, towns and villages across the UK. National Pubs Day on 16 May serves us with an opportunity not only to celebrate our great British pubs, but also to reflect on the significant challenges they continue to face.

For pub operators, lenders, landlords and advisors working in the hospitality sector, the current market presents a difficult combination of economic pressure and longer-term structural change. While the immediate disruption caused by the pandemic has receded, many businesses are now contending with sustained cost inflation, changing consumer habits and tighter trading margins, all against the backdrop of continued financial uncertainty.

Recent data suggests that an average of one pub per day closed permanently across England and Wales during 2025, with more than 360 pubs either demolished or converted to alternative uses. Hospitality insolvencies also remain elevated by historical standards, highlighting a sector that continues to experience significant financial stress.

However, the challenges facing pubs in 2026 are no longer simply about short-term recovery. Increasingly, operators are being required to adapt both commercially and financially to a changing market – and businesses that engage with those pressures early are likely to retain the greatest range of strategic options.

Rising costs and tighter margins

For many pub operators, the current economic climate has created a perfect storm of rising operating costs and reduced consumer confidence.

Labour costs continue to rise following increases to the National Minimum Wage and employer National Insurance contributions. At the same time, many businesses remain exposed to elevated energy bills, higher borrowing expenses, and significant business rates liabilities. Smaller operators in particular may have limited flexibility to absorb these pressures without affecting profitability or cashflow.

Importantly, many businesses are now dealing with the cumulative impact of several years of sustained pressure. While government support measures and additional borrowing enabled many operators to survive the immediate disruption caused by Covid-19, legacy liabilities continue to weigh heavily on balance sheets and working capital.

Consumer spending patterns have also shifted in response to wider economic uncertainty. Customers are spending more cautiously and visiting pubs less frequently, particularly during the working week. Industry commentators have repeatedly identified reduced discretionary spending as one of the key drivers of ongoing distress across the sector.

Even larger and more established hospitality groups have found the environment challenging. In January of this year, the Revel Collected (formerly Revolution Bars Group) entered administration following a sustained period of difficult trading conditions. The group’s administrators cited subdued consumer confidence, changing spending patterns amongst younger customers, increases to National Insurance contributions and wage pressures as significant contributing factors.

The administration ultimately resulted in the closure of 21 venues and almost 600 job losses, although a substantial proportion of the business and more than 1,500 jobs were preserved through a pre-pack sale process.

The situation illustrates a broader point for operators and stakeholders alike: financial distress in the pub sector is no longer confined to small independent businesses. Businesses of all sizes are having to reassess their operating models, cost structures and long-term viability.

A changing market, not simply a shrinking one

Despite the difficult trading conditions, it would be overly simplistic to suggest that British pubs are merely in terminal decline. In reality, the sector is undergoing significant structural change.

Changing consumer behaviour is playing an increasingly important role in shaping the market. Alcohol consumption amongst younger demographics has fallen in recent years, while hybrid and remote working patterns have reduced weekday footfall in many city centres. Consumers are also becoming more selective about how and where they spend their leisure time.

As a result, pubs that rely heavily on traditional ‘wet-led’ trading models find themselves particularly exposed. Many operators are seeking to diversity their offerings and create broader customer experiences capable of generating more resilient revenue streams.

Gastropubs, experiential venues and community-focused operators have generally proven more resilient than businesses dependent solely on drinks sales. Live music, comedy events, quiz nights, and premium dining offerings have all become increasingly common as operators seek to attract customers seeking experiences that cannot easily be replicated at home.

This evolution within the market also has legal and commercial implications. Businesses may need to revisit lease arrangements, financing structures, staffing models and supplier relationships as they adapt to new operating strategies. For some operators, the challenge is no longer simply preserving short-term liquidity, but restructuring the business in a way that remains commercially sustainable over the longer term.

Why early action matters

One of the most common features of formal insolvency processes is that businesses often seek professional advice too late. By the time directors engage restructuring or insolvency advisors, creditor pressure may already have escalated significantly and the options available may have narrowed considerably.

In practice, warning signs frequently emerge long before a formal insolvency event occurs. Persistent cashflow shortages, mounting HMRC arrears, difficulty paying suppliers on time, increasing landlord pressure and reliance on short-term borrowing can all indicate underlying financial distress. Directors may also find themselves injecting personal funds into the business in an attempt to maintain trading, often without a sustainable long-term solution.

Where insolvency risks begin to arise, directors must remain mindful of their statutory and fiduciary duties. As financial difficulties deepen, the interests of creditors become increasingly important, and directors who continue to trade without properly considering those interests may expose themselves to personal risk.

It is important to remember that seeking advice early does not necessarily mean entering into a formal insolvency process. In many cases, early engagement with legal, financial and restructuring advisors can create opportunities to stabilise the business through consensual restructuring measures, refinancing discussions, revised payment arrangements with creditors or operational changes designed to improve profitability.

Formal processes such as company voluntary arrangements or administration may ultimately be necessary in some cases. However, preserving value and maximising available options depends on recognising financial pressure early and taking proactive steps before the position becomes critical.

Looking ahead

British pubs have faced challenges for decades, and the sector has repeatedly demonstrated its resilience and ability to evolve. The current environment is nevertheless proving demanding, even for the most experienced of operators.

The pressures facing the industry in 2026 will extend beyond short-term economic volatility. Rising costs, changing consumer habits and shifting customer expectations are reshaping the sector in more fundamental ways. For some businesses, those changes will create opportunities for growth and reinvention. For others, they may accelerate financial distress where action is delayed.

What appears increasingly clear is that successful operators will need to remain both commercially agile and financially proactive. In a market where margins are tight and trading conditions remain uncertain, early engagement with financial and legal issues is likely to pay an increasingly important role in determining which businesses are able to adapt and survive in the years ahead.

The UK pub sector continues to experience consolidation and distress, driven by rising costs, reduced consumer spending, and pressure on over-leveraged parties, which is increasingly pushing pubs into distressed situations and closures. For trade buyers and investors alike, this creates opportunities to acquire assets – typically including well-located sites – at attractive valuations.

Distressed M&A transactions can, however, present materially more risk than a conventional acquisition. Processes are fast, information is limited, and contractual protection is minimal. Buyers need to act decisively, but with a clear understanding of where legal and commercial liabilities may arise.

This article considers key legal issues for buyers in distressed pub acquisitions and how to move quickly while managing downside risks.

Buyers beware

Distressed pub acquisitions often involve a sale by administrators acting as agents of the troubled business. Their statutory duty is to maximise returns for creditors, not to allocate risk fairly between buyer and seller.

In practice, this usually means a short timetable, restricted access to information, and limited engagement on deal documentation. Administrators often run competitive processes and may require exchange shortly after a preferred bidder is selected. Buyers should assume that the transaction documents will be largely non negotiable and plan their diligence strategy accordingly.

Limited warranties and recourse

Warranty protection in a distressed sale is typically extremely limited. Administrators will usually only give confirmations as to title and capacity, with no warranties relating to trading performance, compliance, employees, or tax.

While warranty and indemnity insurance is sometimes explored, it is often of limited value in distressed pub deals, given the speed of execution and the quality of information available. Buyers should therefore proceed on the basis that risk will not be mitigated contractually and should be managed through transaction structure, targeted diligence, and pricing.

Targeted diligence under time pressure

Accelerated timetables require a disciplined approach to diligence. For pub sector deals, the focus is usually on issues that affect trading continuity or long term value, rather than achieving a comprehensive review.

Property rights, licensing status, employment arrangements, and key operational contracts will typically take priority. The objective is not to eliminate all uncertainty, but to identify any obstacles that would prevent the pub from operating as intended following completion, or materially undermine the investment case.

Asset and share transactions

Asset purchases are commonly favoured in distressed pub deals. They allow buyers to select specific sites and avoid assuming many of the historic liabilities sitting within the distressed company. Asset transactions can also offer greater flexibility to reorganise the business after completion.

Nevertheless, asset deals involve their own complexities, particularly in relation to the transfer of premises licences, the application of TUPE, and the assignment or replacement of key contracts. Share acquisitions may still be required in some circumstances, but buyers should approach them with caution, as liabilities remain with the company and recourse is limited.

Licensing considerations

Licensing is central to the value of a pub business and can present real execution risk in a distressed transaction. Premises licences do not transfer automatically on an asset sale and interim authority arrangements must be put in place to allow trading to continue.

Buyers should also be alert to any historic compliance issues, licence conditions, or ongoing reviews, which may not be apparent from the information provided by administrators. Early input from licensing specialists and prompt engagement with local authorities is often essential.

Employees and TUPE

TUPE is likely to apply to the transfer of a pub business, even in distressed deals. Employees assigned to the transferring activities will generally move to the buyer automatically, along with most associated liabilities.

Although certain pre transfer arrears may be met by the National Insurance Fund, buyers should not assume that employment risk is eliminated. Workforce restructuring needs to be approached carefully to avoid creating additional exposure and unexpected cost pressures emerging after completion.

Retaining people and suppliers

Operational continuity is often critical in distressed pub acquisitions. Site managers and senior operational staff may hold key relationships with customers, suppliers, and local authorities, and their retention can be vital in stabilising the business.

Similarly, continuity of supply for drinks, food, utilities, and other essential services should be considered early. Buyers may need to engage with suppliers ahead of completion to ensure that trading can continue without interruption.

For additional considerations in distressed M&A, click here.

Conclusion

Distressed acquisitions in the pub sector can offer attractive opportunities, but only where buyers move quickly with a clear focus on risk. Limited warranties, constrained diligence, and accelerated processes mean that careful structuring and early identification of material issues are essential. A strategic approach, supported by experienced legal advisers, is key to help buyers secure value while avoiding the legacy issues that often accompany distressed situations.

Penningtons Manches Cooper, a leading UK and international law firm, is pleased to announce the hire of Mark Myles, a Master Mariner and qualified lawyer, to its Singapore office.

Mark, who has more than 20 years’ experience in the global shipping industry as a mariner and lawyer, joins from HFW and will bring extensive hands‑on and technical expertise gained from his time at sea and ashore to the Singapore team. Mark is a seasoned investigator and has extensive experience handling complex marine casualties involving collisions, groundings, salvage operations and total loss cases.

Before entering legal practice, Mark spent over a decade at sea with Shell sailing on all types of tanker vessels up to the rank of Chief Officer before coming ashore to join the company’s ship quality assurance department. Later, he served as a vetting manager and marine safety and quality superintendent with V Ships before joining Norbulk Shipping as their ISM manager, where he oversaw the audits for a fleet of approximately 80 vessels. Mark is a Freeman of the Honourable Company of Master Mariners and an Associate Fellow of the Nautical Institute.

Johan Wong, partner in the Singapore office, commented:

“We are delighted to welcome Mark to the firm. Mark’s dual qualification as a solicitor-mariner will greatly complement the team’s existing strengths and further enhance our ability and capacity to assist clients with complex claims and casualties. Mark is well regarded in the market and he is exactly the individual we hoped to find – in terms of his personality, technical ability and reputation – and we are thrilled to have him on board.”

Mark Myles said:

“I’m very excited to be joining Penningtons Manches Cooper. The firm has a longstanding reputation in shipping, and Johan, Max and the team have gained impressive momentum in Singapore and the wider region over the last few years. I believe the firm is the perfect platform for me to extend my services and showcase my expertise and I’m looking forward to hitting the ground running!”

Mark’s hire follows a series of strategic appointments in the past 12 months that reflect Penningtons Manches Cooper’s continued investment in strengthening its capacity and capabilities in the Asia‑Pacific region. It also comes as the firm prepares to mark 30 years since establishing its Singapore office, a key hub in the firm’s international shipping and trade practice.

A recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Monford Management Ltd v Afina Navigation Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 251 provides the English court’s most detailed exposition to date on the interpretation of rule 14 of the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (COLREGS).

A recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Monford Management Ltd v Afina Navigation Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 251 provides the English court’s most detailed exposition to date on the interpretation of rule 14 of the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (COLREGS).

The case concerned an appeal from a decision of the Admiralty judge, Mr Justice Bryan, in respect of a collision between the bulkers Kiveli and Afina I off the south coast of Greece at 06:01 local time on 13 March 2021. Essentially, having failed to keep a proper lookout, Kiveli made a hard turn to port about two minutes before the collision (C-2), which resulted in her bow striking the port side of Alfina I in way of her no 4 cargo hold at an angle of approximately 90˚. Mr Justice Bryan found Kiveli 80% to blame for causing the incident.

A ‘fatal turn to port’

The Admiralty judge had held that there was a risk of collision from about 05:39 (C-22), when the vessels were 8.688 nautical miles apart and the reciprocal angle between their respective headings was 7˚. The vessels were each displaying two white masthead lights, port (red) and starboard (green) sidelights, and a white stern light. The vessels were in sight of one another by radar and visually, and each was able to see the masthead lights of the other in line or nearly in line.

The judge did not feel able to make findings as to what either vessel could or did see of the other’s sidelights, but nonetheless held that a head-on situation existed according to rule 14 of the COLREGS, which reads as follows:

 ‘(a)  When two power-driven vessels are meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses so as to involve risk of collision each shall alter her course to starboard so that each shall pass on the port side of the other.

 (b)  Such a situation shall be deemed to exist when a vessel sees the other ahead or nearly ahead and by night she could see the mast head lights of the other in a line or nearly in a line and/or both sidelights and by day she observes the corresponding aspect of the other vessel.

 (c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether such a situation exists she shall assume that it does exist and act accordingly.’

The reciprocal angle between the vessels’ headings reduced to 5.3˚ by 05:49 (C-12) and to 4.1˚ by 05:52 (C-8) as a result of a couple of ‘nibbling’ turns to port by Kiveli. By around C-7.5, according to the nautical assessor who assisted Mr Justice Bryan, the relative bearing of the vessels was sufficient to say that Afina I could see Kiveli as being ‘fine to starboard’, rather than ‘ahead or nearly ahead’. At 05:54 (C-7), Afina I used her Aldis lamp to signal Kiveli, but Kiveli did not see the signal, as it had negligently failed to keep a proper lookout.

Afina I made a series of alterations to starboard between C-6 and C-4, such that the reciprocal heading increased to 5.7˚. At about 05:59 (C-2), Kiveli switched to manual steering and commenced its ‘fatal turn to port’, which the judge described as ‘catastrophic (and negligent)’. Consistent with the advice of the nautical assessor, the judge found that Kiveli should have made a bold alteration to starboard, which would have resolved the collision risk.

Court of Appeal

On appeal to the Court of Appeal, comprising Lord Justice Coulson, Lord Justice Nugee, and Lord Justice Foxton, the owners of Kiveli contended that the Admiralty judge had misapplied rule 14. They argued that rule 14(b) set out the definition of what constituted vessels meeting on ‘reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses’ for the purposes of rule 14(a), and had to be complied with.

The appellants further contended that the stipulations regarding sidelights in annex I paragraph 9 of the COLREGS affected how rule 14(b) should be interpreted. Annex I paragraph 9 provides for each sidelight to be visible up to a maximum of 3˚ on the opposite side of the centreline. Allegedly, therefore, in order to be on ‘nearly reciprocal courses’ for the purposes of rule 14(a), vessels had to be on headings within 3˚ to port or starboard of each other’s centreline.

Furthermore, the appellants argued that the rule 14(b) wording requiring that a vessel can ‘see the mast head lights of the other in a line or nearly in a line and/or both sidelights’ means that when the sidelights are in range, all that matters is whether both sidelights are visible. In other words, the use of ‘and/or’ is intended to mean that the visibility of the mast head lights is only relevant at an earlier time when only the mast head lights are within range.

The Court of Appeal did not accept that rule 14(b) imposed any geometric requirement with regard to sidelights. There was no reference to the requirements of annex I paragraph 9 either in rule 14 or elsewhere in part B of the COLREGS. There was also nothing in the legislation’s travaux préparatoires to suggest that the draftspersons had intended the meaning of ‘nearly reciprocal courses’ to be confined to a 3˚ arc to port or starboard of the centreline.

Giving the leading judgment, Lord Justice Foxton also observed that the words ‘and/or’ in rule 14(b) should be given their plain and ordinary meaning and there was nothing in the text of the COLREGS to indicate otherwise. Furthermore:

‘The Appellants’ construction could involve a sudden change in the application of Rule 14(b) as the observing vessel came within sidelight range, even though it may not be aware of the practical cut-off of the observed vessel’s sidelights and even though weather conditions may make observing both sidelights difficult even within visual range.’

The question of whether rule 14(b) sets out the definition of ‘meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses so as to involve risk of collision’ for the purposes of rule 14(a), or was merely an example of such a situation, was left over for another case in which it might be determinative.

The appellants also contended that there came a point during the vessels’ approach when the vessels were no longer on nearly reciprocal courses. Therefore, the prevailing risk of collision ceased to qualify as a head-on situation within the meaning of rule 14 and instead became a crossing situation pursuant to rule 15.

Consistent with the Admiralty judge, the Court of Appeal rejected this argument. Rule 14 does not expressly state any circumstances in which it will cease to apply. Rather, it ‘clearly contemplates that the Rule will continue to apply, requiring a course change so that “each shall pass on the port side of the other”’. Once engaged, therefore, rule 14 applies until the risk of collision has passed. This approach affords certainty as to which rule applies while the same risk of collision persists, and is consistent with the object and purpose of the COLREGS.

As both grounds of appeal failed, there was no basis for reopening the Admiralty judge’s 80:20 apportionment of liability for the collision.

The presence of nautical assessors

The appellants had also expressed some surprise at the commencement of the hearing due to the absence of any nautical assessors. In this regard, paragraph 26B of Practice Direction 52C states that in a collision case ‘involving issues of navigation or seamanship, the Court of Appeal will, unless the court otherwise orders, be assisted by two nautical assessors’. The default position, therefore, is that nautical assessors should be present.

Fortunately, the Court of Appeal was able to reorganise the hearing to take place a week later with two distinguished assessors present. Lord Justice Coulson emphasised in his judgment that ‘[i]t is important to ensure that this unsatisfactory situation … is not repeated. Paragraph 26B of PD52C needs to be looked at again by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, …’ In the meantime, ‘[t]he parties, and in particular the appellant, must be encouraged to be more proactive, and the question of assessors should be dealt with by the LJ giving permission…’ In view of the failure of the grounds of appeal, the assistance of nautical assessors was ultimately not needed.

UK and international law firm Penningtons Manches Cooper has announced its promotions for the forthcoming financial year. Four individuals will join the partnership and one will become an associate director.

The new appointments are:

Adam Crawford – Housing, Basingstoke (partner)
Andrew Jago – Costs, London (associate director)
Matilda Kingham – Family, Reading and London (partner)
Eleanor Moodey – Family, Oxford (partner)
Rachel Taylor – Court of Protection, Basingstoke (partner)

Adam Crawford, who joined the firm in 2022 and has over 20 years of experience as a Licensed Conveyancer in senior client side and advisory-side roles across the housing sector, will join the partnership (subject to regulatory approval). His deep knowledge and excellent reputation amongst clients and wider sector stakeholders have been instrumental in securing a number of new instructions and supporting expansion of the team’s strategic workstreams. In particular, he has significantly strengthened capacity in complex new build site set ups and accelerated the growth of the firm’s asset management offering. His client portfolio spans registered providers, local authorities, and developers. Adam also regularly speaks at industry conferences and has served as a panel judge for the First Time Buyer Magazine Reader’s Awards since 2024.

Specialist costs lawyer Andrew Jago joined the firm’s newly created costs practice in 2020 and has led the team through a period of exceptional growth, doubling the value of work undertaken and developing several bespoke cost services for litigation teams across the business. The team has become an important part of the firm’s full-service offering and a popular value-added service for a number of key clients. Andrew’s 25 years’ experience in the field, includes international arbitration, multi‑jurisdictional litigation and Solicitors Act assessments. He also brings specialist expertise in personal injury, clinical negligence, commercial disputes, and marine, trade and aviation matters. He is also helping steer the costs team’s contribution to the Pro Bono Expert Support Network.

Having joined the firm as a trainee in 2012, Eleanor Moodey is one of the new partners nurtured through the firm’s talent pipeline and a key figure in the firm’s strategy to grow its private wealth offering. Eleanor advises on all aspects of family law, with particular expertise in complex and international matters, including foreign divorces, international relocation and crypto asset issues on separation. Her lifelong personal and academic ties to the city anchor her firmly within the Oxford market, which she complements with a strong and diverse international network. Recent international instructions span a diverse variety of jurisdictions, including Sweden and Australia. Eleanor is an active member of the International Association of Junior Lawyers and has just returned from Berlin, where she helped organise a conference on venture capital and family offices across private wealth law.

Matilda Kingham is another of the firm’s homegrown success stories, having joined as a trainee. Matilda advises on all areas of family law but has a particular focus on complex children and high net worth financial remedy cases. She is integral to the private wealth group’s growth strategy. Although she has a proven track-record in litigation (including the landmark case of Waggott in the Court of Appeal), Matilda believes that separation does not need to be adversarial and has significant experience of using non-court alternatives. She is a qualified mediator and has built a strong reputation for her skills in this area. She also offers the innovative ‘One Couple, One Lawyer’ model of working. Matilda works from both the Reading and London offices and is currently expanding her practice with an impressive list of Berkshire-based clients.

Rachel Taylor is the third new partner to have joined as a trainee. She has established a thriving practice within the Court of Protection (CoP) team and has played an integral role in its continued expansion. A STEP qualified private client and trusts specialist, Rachel advises professional and lay deputies and trustees on complex, high value matters, including deputyship appointments, statutory wills, gifting, and trust related applications. She has a particular focus on acquired brain injury cases. Rachel is involved in industry forums and has strong relationships with key referrer organisations. She works closely with colleagues in other practice areas including private client, tax, personal injury and medical negligence employment and family. She is a director of PennTrust, the firm’s trust corporation, which acts as a deputy for property and financial affairs and professional trustee.

Commenting on the promotions Helen Drayton, Penningtons Manches Cooper’s CEO, said:

“Huge congratulations to Adam, Andrew, Eleanor, Matilda and Rachel on their very well deserved success. All five are brilliant examples of the exceptional talent and commitment to outstanding client service we pride ourselves on. The impact they have already made within their teams and across the wider firm is hugely impressive, and I have no doubt they will continue to make a strong contribution as they step into their new roles. Supporting and developing our people remains at the heart of our strategy, and it is always a pleasure to see colleagues progress who so clearly embody our values and ambition.”

Penningtons Manches Cooper has advised one of the UK’s leading housing providers, SNG (Sovereign Network Group) on a £75 million issue of sustainability notes pursuant to its existing Euro Medium Term Note (EMTN) programme, following the group’s market making £250 million issuance earlier this year.

SNG currently manages over 85,000 homes and aims to create thousands of new affordable homes every year, with a target of 25,000 homes across the South of England over the next decade. This £75 million note issue will help fund ongoing investment in sustainable development across its portfolio.

The transaction was led by partner Naomi Roper (who previously set up SNG’s EMTN Programme), a banking and finance specialist who joined Penningtons Manches Cooper this summer to spearhead the firm’s social housing finance offering.

Anup Dholakia, director of treasury at SNG commented:

“This additional funding under our EMTN programme reinforces our commitment to helping tackle the housing crisis by delivering good affordable homes, while also contributing to our ambitious sustainability targets. We are grateful to Naomi for her expert guidance on this transaction.”

Naomi Roper added:

“I’m delighted to have supported SNG on this transaction as it continues to pursue its objective of being a key market maker in the sector. This transaction is the latest example of how innovative funding structures can help providers deliver sustainable, affordable housing through innovative, tailored approaches to finance.”

Employment Rights Act

This week, news arrived that the protracted ping pong had ended, and the Employment Rights Act 2025 was finally passed into law. With the House of Lords and the House of Commons at loggerheads, it had looked increasingly unlikely that the bill would be passed this year, placing the government’s implementation roadmap in jeopardy. However, on Tuesday, shortly before the parliamentary Christmas recess, the House of Lords finally agreed to the government’s proposals, paving the way for the legislation to receive royal assent.

Of course, the story is far from over, and the coming year will be busy with consultations, as we see aspects of the act take further shape. One of the major sticking points over the last couple of weeks has been the government’s eleventh-hour proposal that the cap on unfair dismissal confirmation be lifted – not simply, as was initially suspected, a lifting of the 52-week cap – but rather the removal of the cap altogether, which as at April 2025 stands at £118,223.

Many were expecting the government to concede that there should be a consultation over the cap. However, after the last-minute climbdown by the House of Lords, no consultation will now take place, although an impact assessment on the whole of the act, including the unfair dismissal cap, will be published shortly.

Time will tell whether pressure from employers’ organisations, plus the further strain that unlimited unfair dismissal compensation will place on an already creaking tribunal system, will lead to a watering-down of this change; however, for now, the position is clear – there will be no cap on unfair dismissal compensation. What is not clear is when this change will take place. Some commentators have suggested it may come into force on 1 January 2027, along with the reduction in the qualifying period from two years to six months.

Consultation on non-compete clauses

Away from the Employment Rights Act, we have a blast from the past – a resurfacing of the previous government’s review of post-termination non-compete clauses. The 2023 review recommended that non-compete clauses should be limited to three months’ duration. Then came the election and the proposals went no further… until now.

On 26 November, the Labour government published a consultation paper setting out options for restricting these clauses by:

• limiting their length;
• limiting them by company size – permitted for smaller companies only;
• banning them altogether (as is the case in California);
• allowing them only for higher paid employees, ie those who are more likely to hold highly sensitive confidential information; and
• combining a ban below a salary threshold with a statutory limit of three months’ duration.

The government is eager for growth and is looking to the science/tech sector in particular. It promised to pull the UK ahead by growing the economy but has had an uncomfortable first year. Its argument for limiting covenants is that doing so will boost labour market dynamism by allowing workers to move jobs or build their own start-up businesses. Companies at critical stages of growth must be able to access the talent they need. Enabling that will promote competition and innovation from entrepreneurs.

The consultation paper recognises that against these arguments is a company’s need to protect its confidential information so that it is able to recruit and grow. For this reason, limiting the use of restrictive covenants to smaller companies would allow for protection at the early stages of growth but, once well established, a company would be expected to weather the disruption naturally caused by staff moves.

The consultation is at an early stage, and only time will tell how these proposals will play out. What seems likely, however, is that:

• the fact that the current government has picked up on this issue (left over from the previous government) means there is some will to make a change;
•  there will be a restriction on the length of non-compete provisions, to three or six months, and they will be permitted for senior staff only;
•  this change will not take place any time soon – the government has enough on its plate;
• any change will affect only ‘non-competes’: the restriction will not extend to non-solicitation or non-dealing clauses. However, as the consultation paper recognises, an extensive prohibition on client solicitation and client dealing, could, in certain industries, amount to the same thing;
• even where permitted, restrictive covenants will only be enforceable to the extent they are reasonable and protect a legitimate business interest of the employer.

Interestingly, the government does not appear to be considering the option of an employer paying the employee for the length of the non-compete, which was one of the proposals made by the previous government.

As always, the strongest protection for a company will be garden leave, where the departing senior employee remains employed and subject to a duty of fidelity, but unable to interact with clients. Solid confidentiality clauses will also be key, ideally ones written in clear English that identify the confidential information, as opposed to a ten-line sentence cobbled together from various precedents, that does not relate to the company’s business.

The consultation hints that restrictions on equity vesting might not fall under the prohibition. If a company can restrict the vesting of equity based on competition, that will still fall under the normal rules of reasonableness/legitimate interest. It may be worth considering an element of vesting that does not cease on termination but is subject to non-competition. This is very common in the USA.

Employers who have strong views on any of these options may wish to participate in the consultation, which closes on 18 February 2026. The consultation paper can be found here.

It is clear that 2026 will be a massive year in the field of employment law. We will continue to keep you up to date on all developments, including in relation to the consultation on non-competes, and the progress of the new Employment Rights Act. In the meantime, for any queries, please contact Paul Mander, Tom Walker or your usual contact in the Penningtons Manches Cooper employment team.