Victims and Prisoners Act 2024: changes to non-disclosure agreements for businesses

New rules governing non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) came into force on 1 October 2025 through amendments to the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.

NDAs and confidentiality clauses that seek to prevent victims from informing certain categories of people about a crime, will be unenforceable.

Victims of crime who sign NDAs may now disclose information about relevant criminal conduct to:

• Any person with law enforcement functions, for the purpose of those functions being exercised in relation to relevant conduct.

• A qualified lawyer, for the purpose of seeking legal advice about relevant conduct.

• A regulated professional, for the purpose of obtaining professional support in relation to relevant conduct.

• Victim support services, for the purpose of obtaining support in relation to relevant conduct.

• A regulator, for the purpose of co-operating with the regulator in relation to relevant conduct.

• A child, parent or partner of the person making the disclosure, for the purpose of obtaining support in relation to the relevant conduct.

These changes apply only to NDAs signed from 1 October 2025 onwards, with earlier agreements remaining subject to the previous rules.

How could it impact your business?

NDAs remain valid for protecting:

• Trade secrets;

• Intellectual property;

• Commercially sensitive information; and

• Negotiations about a possible transaction.

However, NDAs cannot be used to suppress disclosures about criminal conduct, harassment, or discrimination.

What steps should you take?

Businesses should review and update all NDA templates and settlement agreements to ensure they include carve-outs for permitted disclosures. If requiring entry into an NDA on sensitive topics, seek legal advice.

European Commission fines Gucci, Chloé and Loewe for Resale Price Maintenance

On 14 October 2025, the European Commission (Commission) announced fines totalling over €157 million against Gucci, Chloé and Loewe for engaging in resale price maintenance (RPM), in breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

The Commission found that the three luxury brands restricted the ability of independent third-party retailers to set their own retail prices by requiring adherence to recommended retail prices, limited maximum discounts imposing specific sale periods and prohibiting certain promotions. The companies monitored compliance and intervened when retailers deviated from their pricing policies.

The Commission emphasised that RPM is a “hardcore restriction” of competition, leaving little scope for exemption or justification. By depriving retailers of the ability to unilaterally decide their own prices, the conduct reduced competition and harmed consumers. Although the companies acted independently, the duration of their practices overlapped and many retailers stocked products from all three brands.

The conduct ended following unannounced inspections (dawn raids) in April 2023. Under the Commission’s cooperation procedure, Gucci and Chloé received 50% fine reductions, while Loewe benefitted from a 15% reduction. The final fines were:

• Gucci: €119.67 million

• Chloé: €19.69 million

• Loewe: just over €18 million

How could it impact your business?

Distributors must be free to set their resale prices independently. While suppliers may recommend resale prices or set maximum resale prices, fixing or indirectly enforcing minimum resale prices is prohibited.

It is important to remember that, for these purposes, “price” isn’t just an item’s retail price but also margins, discounts, rebates, and advertised prices. So any attempts to limit the ability of a distributor to determine the margins it makes on sales or to decide to run promotions will be considered RPM.

RPM can be imposed directly or indirectly, for example by:

• restricting advertised discounts;

• conditioning rebates or supply terms on adherence to recommended prices; or

• threatening termination for non-compliance.

If found guilty of engaging in RPM, businesses can be punished with fines of up to 10% worldwide turnover and in some cases, these fines can be increased if conduct was intentional or the company had received previous warnings about their conduct. In the UK, individuals involved may face personal sanctions such a criminal prosecution, fines and director disqualification for up to 15 years.

What steps should you take?

The Commission’s decision confirms that resale price maintenance remains a top enforcement priority in Europe. Luxury and consumer-facing sectors are under particular scrutiny, especially where brand image is used to justify resale restrictions.

All Suppliers, not just those for luxury goods, should:

• Review distribution agreements and pricing policies for any direct or indirect RPM risks;

• Train sales and marketing teams to distinguish between lawful recommended prices and unlawful enforcement; and

• Ensure compliance programmes cover dawn raid preparedness and leniency opportunities.

The following dos and don’ts will help you stay on the right side of the line:

Do:

• During negotiations with distributors, be clear when you are talking about costs prices as opposed to retail prices;

• You may recommend resale prices (as long as it is a genuine recommendation) and agree maximum resale prices (provided this is not an indirect way to impose a fixed price); and

• Be clear that recommended resale prices are non-binding and the distributor is free to set its own minimum retail price.

Don't:

• Control or attempt to control a distributor’s resale price;

• Seek to restrict the discounts a distributor may make from your recommended retail price;

• Make your supply price or any discounts, rebates etc. payable by the distributor conditional on it observing and complying with a recommended retail price;

• Threaten to terminate a contract or suspend deliveries because a distributor will not adhere to a recommended/fixed resale price;

• Agree with a distributor that you will terminate another distributor’s contract because they have been selling in their territory or undercutting their prices; and

• Prevent your distributors from making online sales, either directly or indirectly.

Enforcement of non-compete restrictive covenants

A restrictive covenant is a contractual promise by a party that they will not do something after a certain date (typically the date of completion in a share sale). A common restrictive covenant given by a seller to a buyer when entering into a share sale and purchase agreement (SPA) is a covenant promising not to compete with the target company following its sale. The aim of restrictions is to protect the goodwill of the business following the buyer’s acquisition.

What it means to be concerned with a competing business was given further meaning by His Honour Judge Halliwell in the recent case of Spill Bidco Ltd v Wishart [2025] EWHC 2513 (Comm). In this case, the seller entered into an SPA and an investment agreement which contained restrictive covenants prohibiting what they could do post sale. One covenant was that he would not be concerned with a competing business.

The judge delved into the detail of the covenant wording to answer the key question: what does it mean to “be concerned in” a competing business? After sifting through historic caselaw, the High Court found that the seller’s overall conduct amounted to breaching the non-compete covenants. Whilst the case initially centred around lending the seller had provided to a competing business post completion, it was also considered alongside other advice and assistance the seller had given to rival businesses. By providing such lending, advice and assistance, the court deemed the seller to be concerned with a competing business.

How could it impact your business?

This case confirmed that non-compete clauses in share sale agreements and investment agreements can be breached not only by direct involvement with a competitor (i.e. joining a competing business as a shareholder and director or setting up a competing business) but also through cumulative support such as ad hoc advice, lending money or offering pricing advice.

What steps should you take?

For anyone who has either sold or is looking to sell their business, has entered into a shareholders’ agreement or is seeking investment, you may encounter or have encountered restrictive covenants. It is wise to check their exact wording to fully understand the breadth and meaning of the words and seek advice as to their interpretation.

A party bound by a restrictive covenant, particularly a non-compete restriction, should take the following action and bear in mind the following points:

• Thoroughly review the wording and seek advice to ensure the scope, duration, and geographical reach are clearly understood. Words such as “engaged in”, “concerned in” and “interested in” can broaden the covenant rather than limiting it to specific activities.

• Restrictive covenants are typically seen in SPAs, investment agreements, employment contracts and shareholders’ agreements. If signing up to multiple covenants at once (which can happen as part of a transaction or series of transactions), each covenant will be different. The wording and time periods are more than likely to differ between agreements. Each agreement and covenant should be considered in their own right and you will need to ensure you are clear on the effects and timings of each. They are not a one size fits all.

• If restrictive covenants are breached, whether directly or indirectly, prompt action is advisable. Breaches may result in legal proceedings, reputational harm, and financial consequences. Some of the remedies for breach of restrictive covenants include payment/performance demands, injunctions and damages. Awareness and clarity are key to avoiding costly disputes. If you think you might have breached a covenant, seek advice as to how best handle the situation.

Ministerial letter on cyber security

The Government has written to all companies in the FTSE100 and FTSE250 to share urgent advice on protecting themselves against cyber-attacks. This letter follows a series of significant cyber-attacks in the UK during 2025, notably on Co-op, Jaguar Land Rover and Marks and Spencer, among others.

This ministerial letter coincides with the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) reporting a rise in cyber-attacks, with an average of four ‘nationally significant’ attacks having taken place every week so far in 2025. Further information on this can be found here.

How could it impact your business?

The aim of the ministerial letter is to raise awareness of cyber-attacks, as well as sharing techniques to mitigate their impact. The full letter, which was sent on 13 October 2025, can be accessed here.

Whilst the now published letter was sent to larger organisations, the Government has emphasised that businesses of any size are susceptible and should use the tools available to them to mitigate against the risk of cyber-attacks. This includes the NCSC’s Cyber Assessment Framework (CAF), which can be accessed here.

What steps should you take?

In addition to the above, the Government set out three clear actions for businesses to adopt to improve their cyber resilience. These have been set out below.

1. Make cyber risk a board-level priority using the Government’s Cyber Governance Code of Practice. This Code sets out critical actions the Government expects Boards and Directors to take to govern cyber risk effectively.

2. Sign up to the NCSC's early warning service; a free service which informs organisations of potential cyber-attacks on its network and can provide invaluable time to detect and contain a cyber incident before it escalates.

3.  Require organisations in its supply chain to be certified to the Cyber Essentials Scheme. The Scheme certifies that organisations have key cyber protections in place to prevent common cyber-attacks.

Harassment outside the workplace - what is considered “in the course of employment”?

Employers know, or ought to know, that anything that occurs “in the course of employment” may cause liabilities under discrimination law. In the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case of AB v Grafters Group Ltd [2025], the Tribunal provided useful guidance on what is considered ‘in the course of employment’ for the purposes of Section 109 of the Equality Act 2010 (s.109 EqA).

Pursuant to s.109 EqA, an employer is vicariously liable for the acts of discrimination, harassment or victimisation carried out by an employee during the course of employment except where the employer has taken “all reasonable steps” to prevent such behaviour.

The case

In this case, AB (the Claimant) mistakenly believed that she was scheduled to work an event at Hereford racecourse. She had missed the transport that was provided by Grafters Group (the Respondent), and was subsequently offered a lift to Hereford by a colleague (CD). During the journey, CD received a call from the Respondent notifying him that the Claimant was not due to work that event. The Claimant subsequently requested that CD drop her off at the bus stop so she could make her way home. CD refused and allegedly sexually assaulted the Claimant. The Claimant brought a claim under s.109 EqA against the Respondent which was dismissed before going to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

The EAT found that the Employment Tribunal had erred in their assessment of whether CD had acted ‘in the course of employment’. They found that the Tribunal had failed to adequately assess whether there was a sufficient connection or nexus with work or whether the circumstances make the situation an extension of work and the workplace. The case was subsequently remitted back to the Employment Tribunal for fresh consideration.

The Judge helpfully provided guidance on what is to be assessed when deciding whether acts of discrimination, harassment or victimisation are ‘in the course of employment’ as follows:

1. The words ‘in the course of employment’ are used in the sense any layperson would understand them;

2. Anti-discrimination legislation should be given a broad interpretation;

3. The question of what is ‘in the course of employment’ is one of fact and the answer will change depending on the facts of each case;

4. The Tribunal must determine the question having regard to all the relevant circumstances (our emphasis added);

5. There are no hard and fast rules, but some factors will generally be relevant such as whether the ‘thing’ was done at work or outside of work;

6. If the ‘thing’ done was outside of work, the Tribunal needs to assess whether there is sufficient nexus or connection with work and whether it is justifiable to make the situation an extension of work and the workplace;

7. Even if the ‘thing’ done was outside of work hours and outside of the workplace, it may still be considered an extension of work and the workplace;

8. Whether the ‘thing’ is done with the employers or principals’ knowledge or approval does not matter; and

9. The decision by a Tribunal as to whether an act was done during the course of employment can only be challenged where there has been an error in law or a perverse decision.

How could it impact your business?

This is a complex area of law, and the risk to your business could be significant. As the above guidance demonstrates, an Employment Tribunal has an obligation to assess the facts of each case very widely and so behaviour outside of the workplace and/or outside of working time could still constitute ‘in the course of employment’.

What steps should you take?

You should maintain clear policies which outlines what is unacceptable behaviour both inside and outside of work. You should carry out regular training on discrimination to ensure all members of staff are kept up to date on expected policies and informed on types of behaviour that would be considered discriminatory or constitute harassment. You should also have clear policies on reporting this type of behaviour, ensuring that any reports received are investigated thoroughly and promptly.

When does the burden of proof shift to the respondent

Discrimination law can sometimes be seen to favour an employee. A burden of proof can easily fall on an employer to prove that its treatment was not discriminatory, rather than putting the burden of proof on the employee who brought the claim in the first place.

The case

Mrs Parmar, a British citizen of Indian heritage, was employed as Head of Service (Locality West) for Leicester City Council (LCC). Following a dispute between Locality West and another district, Mrs Parmar was transferred from her post and subject to a disciplinary investigation.

The investigation was commenced by a Ms Lake before being passed to Ms Tote, who reviewed all interviews which had been conducted to that point. Ms Tote decided that Mrs Parmar had no case to answer, and the disciplinary process was brought to an end. Mrs Parmar brought a claim for direct race discrimination against LCC.

Mrs Parmar was able to identify two white British Heads of Service as comparators, and she argued that they had not been, and would not be, subject to the same treatment as she had been. She also noted, following a data subject access request (DSAR), that two BAME senior managers had been subject to disciplinary action whilst no white senior manager had been disciplined. The Tribunal found that she was treated less favourably by reason of her race pursuant to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. LCC appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

The EAT dismissed the appeal and found that the lower Tribunal had been entitled to find that the comparators identified by Mrs Parmar were sufficiently similar so as to demonstrate any differences in treatment was discriminatory.

LCC argued that the lower Tribunal had misidentified the comparators. Again, this argument was rejected on the basis that the two white British comparators had been found to have sent emails which were very similar in nature to those sent by Mrs Parmer on which she had been criticised, whilst they were not. They also found that using the two BAME colleagues as comparators following her DSAR was also reasonable, and it did not matter that it was a statistically insignificant sample of comparators.

During the investigation process, Mrs Parmar was not given access to the recordings and transcripts of the interviews. The same recording was also not disclosed to the Tribunal and the EAT found that LCC’s failure to disclose did not automatically shift the burden of proof to them, but it was a relevant consideration from which they drew adverse inferences.

How could this impact your business?

This case is a useful reminder to show the importance of maintaining documents and data securely so that, in the event of a Tribunal claim, it can be relied upon. It also demonstrates the importance of preparing for a case properly, and seeking advice where necessary, to ensure that any and all relevant documents are properly disclosed.

What steps should you take?

Businesses should carefully review all available evidence thoroughly before taking disciplinary action to avoid discrimination risks. You should ensure that all disciplinary allegations are dealt with as consistently as possible, with your policies and training of people managers reflecting this approach.

One off acts with ongoing consequences – exploring time limits in the Employment Tribunal

Where a claim is brought before an Employment Tribunal out of time, the Tribunal will assess whether it should extend the deadline on a ‘just and equitable’ basis.

In the case of Ahmed v Capital Arches Group Limited [2025], the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) assessed whether a complaint made about a change in duty, demotion or failure to promote is a one-off act despite their ongoing consequences, or whether there is an underlying discriminatory policy which extended over a period of time.

The case

Mr Ahmed (the Claimant) worked for Capital Arches from October 2018. He went off sick in June 2021 and issued proceedings in October 2022, some four years after the event in which his claim was based on took place. The Tribunal needed to assess whether his complaints of direct discrimination were out of time. This issue was ultimately considered by the EAT.

The EAT found that the distinction between a one-off event which has ongoing consequences and discriminatory conduct extending over a period, is that the latter reflects a general underlying discriminatory policy. The EAT also confirmed that demotions, changes in duty or failure to promote are likely to be one off events - except where it can be shown the decision to change an employee’s duties, failing to promote or demote were taken as a result of a discriminatory policy. On this basis, the appeal was dismissed, and the Claimants claim to extend the deadline for bringing the claim could not be extended.

How could it impact your business?

This case demonstrates there is a high bar for a request to extend the time limits in discrimination claims, particularly where the alleged continuing act is not identified appropriately in original pleadings. It also confirms that where a discrimination claim arises in relation to a specific act of demotion or a change in duties it may be treated as a one-off act with continuing consequences, rather than conduct extending over time.

ISO–GHG Protocol Strategic Partnership

ISO and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) have launched a strategic partnership to harmonize their greenhouse gas (GHG) standards and co-develop new ones. This marks a shift from fragmented carbon accounting frameworks to a unified global standard. The collaboration will integrate ISO’s 1406X series and GHG Protocol’s Corporate, Scope 2, and Scope 3 standards.

How could it impact your business?

This partnership could significantly streamline carbon reporting processes. It will reduce duplication and confusion caused by multiple standards, making it easier to comply with regulatory and investor expectations.

Businesses will benefit from more consistent and credible emissions data, especially in areas like supply chain analysis and product carbon footprints.

Existing sustainability policies and reporting frameworks may need to be updated to align with the new harmonized standards.

There are no penalties for not adopting the unified standards, but as they are likely to be widely taken up, failure to do so may lead to reputational risks or reduced access to green finance and markets.

What steps should you take?

Businesses should begin monitoring the development of the harmonized standards and assess their current GHG reporting frameworks for compatibility. Early engagement with the new standards will help ensure smooth transition and avoid disruption and so operations teams should prepare to revise internal processes and reporting tools. Acting promptly will position businesses as leaders in transparent and credible climate disclosure. Delayed action could result in misalignment with emerging global norms, increased compliance costs and reduced stakeholder confidence.

Waste Framework Directive

In late September, the EU published Directive (EU) 2025/1892 (the Directive), amending the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC). Key changes include binding food waste reduction targets and a new extended producer responsibility (EPR) scheme for textiles.

The Directive entered into force on 16 October 2025. Member States must transpose it into national law within 20 months and implement EPR schemes within 30 months.

How could it impact your business?

Businesses involved in food production, retail, hospitality, and textiles will be directly affected. Food businesses must reduce waste across the supply chain and facilitate food donations. Textile producers (including those selling online or from outside the EU) must fund collection, sorting and recycling of their products. This will require updates to supply chain processes, compliance systems, and possibly product design.

Micro-enterprises have a one-year extension, but all producers must register and comply. Non-compliance could lead to enforcement actions under national laws.

What steps should you take?

Identify whether your business falls within the scope of the new food waste or textile EPR requirements. Those that do should begin to assess current waste practices and supply chain readiness.

Businesses In the textile sector should prepare for registration and cost-sharing mechanisms.

All impacted businesses should engage with industry bodies and regulators early, as implementation timelines are tight (20–30 months). Delayed action could result in missed compliance deadlines, reputational risk, or financial penalties once national laws are in place.

Autumn 2025 immigration rule changes: key implications for UK employers

The Home Office have published their latest Statement of Changes to the immigration rules, introducing  several adjustments that will shape how employers recruit, retain, and plan around sponsored talent in the UK.

Key changes include:

• The English language requirement will increase from level B1 (intermediate) to B2 (Upper intermediate) for work routes such as Skilled Worker;

• Most new entrants to the Graduate Route will have their visa duration reduced to 18 months (previously two years), this shortens the window for graduates to secure skilled employment and transition into sponsorship;

• The High Potential Individual (HPI) route will be expanded by doubling the list of eligible institutions to include graduates from the top 100 global universities;

• Seasonal workers will be limited to a maximum of six months’ employment in the UK within any 10-month rolling period; and

• Implementation will roll out between October 2025 and January 2026, with some provisions (like the Graduate Route change) deferred to 2027.

Separately, a draft Statutory instrument has been laid before parliament to increase the Immigration Skills Charge (ISC) by 32%. This equates to £1,320 per year of sponsorship for a large organisation and £480 per year of sponsorship for a small organisation. If approved, the increase will apply to Certificates of Sponsorship assigned from 16 December 2025.

How could it impact your business?

These changes form part of the proposed reforms that will reshape how UK businesses engage with international talent. They will increase the direct costs of sponsoring workers and restrict access to the global talent pool, particularly affecting sectors that rely on international graduates and entry-level roles. One positive is the expansion of the High Potential Individual route, which is intended to attract highly skilled professionals.

This may offer businesses that have previously relied on entry-level international talent a limited alternative to the shortened Graduate route. However, the effectiveness of this alternative remains to be seen. The Home Office expects the overall impact of these changes on businesses to be negative, with a projected business net present value loss of £1.8 billion over five years.

What steps should you take?

Change in immigration law isn’t slowing down. However, with proactive strategy and clear communication, employers can still stay ahead. However, businesses need to act now to:

• Review workforce plans and budgets to account for the increased ISC from December 2025;

• Adapt recruitment strategies to reflect the shorter post-study work period and higher language threshold;

• Engage early with immigration advisors to align mobility planning with business growth; and

• Explore alternative talent routes, such as the expanded High Potential Individual and Global Talent visas, which aim to attract highly skilled professionals.

“Attack on the clones”: UK Trade Mark validity deadline 1 January 2026

When the UK left the European Union, the intellectual property landscape changed dramatically. One of the most significant changes for brand owners was the creation of so-called “cloned Trade Marks”. These are UK registrations that were automatically generated on 1 January 2021 to replicate existing EU Trade Marks (EUTMs) that had previously covered the UK.

On 1 January 2026, we will reach the fifth anniversary of the creation of these cloned Trade Marks. This is a significant date because, under laws in England and Wales it is necessary to put a Trade Mark registration to genuine use within five years of the date of its registration in order to maintain its validity. Registered marks which are not genuinely used do subsist on the register but, if challenged, are usually found to be invalid and therefore incapable of protecting the brand relative to which they have been registered. In court, this could be potentially disastrous, like stepping into the ring ready to fight, only to find your gloves are missing.

Use in the EU alone will no longer be sufficient to defend such a registration against potential cancellation for non-use.

How could it impact your business?

As stated above, under English Trade Mark laws, a Trade Mark registration can be challenged if a mark hasn’t been used within a five-year period. As the five-year period for UK cloned Trade Marks ends on 1 January 2026, now is a good time for you to check whether you have any of these marks. If you have, and they are of value to you, it would be prudent to consider your plans for the future of these registrations and your brands in general.

What steps should you take?

You should review your Trade Mark portfolio and check whether you hold any registrations with numbers beginning “009” — these are the cloned Trade Marks derived from EU registrations. Depending on your situation, here’s what you can do:

• Already using the mark(s) in the UK? That’s great - it’s worth keeping hold of any supporting material, such as invoices, marketing materials and packaging for the full spectrum of the goods and services which you use under the mark, in case you ever need to demonstrate this use.

• If you haven’t started using the mark(s) in the UK yet there’s still time – just! We would be happy to talk you through practical steps you can take to establish genuine use before the deadline.

• If UK use isn’t part of your current plans, we can explore whether re-applying in the UK might be a better way to maintain protection going forwards.

To reiterate, the upcoming 1 January 2026 deadline represents a pivotal moment for holders of cloned UK Trade Marks. Ensuring that your marks are genuinely used in the UK or taking steps to secure continued protection is essential to avoid losing valuable rights.

If you’d like us to review your current position or talk through next steps, please let us know. This deadline is fast approaching, so it may be necessary for you to make plans urgently.

Building Safety Levy (BSL) Regulations: A new era for residential development in England

The UK Government has introduced the Building Safety Levy (BSL) through the Building Safety Levy (England) Regulations 2025, which were laid before Parliament on 10 July 2025. Subject to parliamentary approval, the BSL is set to come into effect on 1 October 2026.

The levy will apply to most new residential developments in England, including new builds, conversions, and extensions that create or increase residential floorspace. Its primary purpose is to raise funds for the remediation of building safety defects, protecting leaseholders from shouldering these costs.

How could it impact your business?

The BSL will directly affect developers, architects, and project managers involved in residential schemes.

The levy is calculated based on the gross internal area (GIA) of the residential floorspace, with discounted rates for developments on previously developed (brownfield) land. This could significantly affect project budgets, particularly for developments with substantial communal areas, such as Build to Rent (BTR) or Purpose-Built Student Accommodation (PBSA), where communal spaces are included in the GIA but do not generate direct revenue.

Failure to pay the levy before completion or first occupation may delay the issuance of completion certificates, potentially stalling project timelines. Businesses will need to reassess budgeting, risk management, and scheduling to accommodate this new financial obligation.

Landowners will also be affected by the additional charge which is likely to be deducted from any value ascertainable for their land when sold and developed.

What steps should you take?

1. Review upcoming projects: Evaluate all planned residential developments that may be subject to the BSL. This ensures you identify projects affected by the levy early, so you can plan budgets and timelines accordingly.

2. Submit applications promptly: To avoid unnecessary costs, consider submitting building control applications prior to 1 October 2026. Early submission may reduce the levy liability and prevent delays in project completion certificates. However, applications submitted before this date but varied afterwards may still incur the levy. 

3. Incorporate costs into budgets: Factor the potential levy into project budgets and financial planning to ensure cashflow is not disrupted. Accurate budgeting prevents unexpected financial strain and allows projects to remain viable.

4. Monitor legislative updates: Keep up to date with your knowledge of any amendments or exemptions that could affect your developments. Staying informed allows you to adjust strategies quickly and ensures full compliance with the evolving regulations.

Failing to act promptly could result in higher costs, project delays, and potential breaches of compliance, impacting overall project viability.

You should take specific legal advice if you have any particular concerns or are unsure how the BSL is likely to affect proposals.

Tougher UK sanctions regime ahead

The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) has proposed a tougher enforcement framework, aligned more closely with the US OFAC model. Key reforms include higher penalties (up to £2 million or 100% of breach value), reduced discounts for voluntary disclosure, and new settlement and self-investigation options. OFSI also plans fixed penalties for minor breaches. These changes follow a major expansion in enforcement activity since 2022 and signal a more structured, deterrent-based approach to sanctions compliance.

Alongside the proposed changes, OFSI has separately announced plans to merge the two existing sanctions lists (the UK sanctions list published by the FCDO and OFAC’s Asset Freeze Target List) into a single, consolidated list from 28 January 2026.

How could it impact your business?

Whilst merging the sanctions list will streamline compliance checks for businesses, the proposed reforms substantially increase legal and reputational risks. With stricter penalties and narrower disclosure benefits, even minor compliance failures could attract significant fines or public naming.

OFSI’s faster, more transparent enforcement model means businesses will face greater scrutiny, especially where internal controls or reporting timelines are weak. The risk profile for banks, exporters and UK linked multi-nationals is likely to rise.

What steps should you take?

Businesses should:

• Reassess sanctions policies and screening processes for UK specific risks;

• Strengthen internal reporting and investigation procedures;

• Ensure potential breaches can be promptly identified and disclosed; and

• Prepare for increased transparency and potential publication of enforcement actions.

Early compliance reviews will help mitigate exposure and demonstrate proactive engagement with regulators.