UK ban on advertising ‘junk food’

As of 5 January 2026, food and drinks high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) are banned from being advertised on television before 9.00pm, and online at all times.

This legislation is guided by the government’s pledge to tackle childhood obesity. Products will be subject to a scoring tool which will consider their level of nutrients such as protein and fibre against their fat, salt or sugar content - meaning that, whilst HFSS products include expected items such as soft drinks, chocolates, sweets, and pizzas, the legislation may also affect other products such as breakfast cereals, sandwiches, flavoured yoghurts, and main meals.

How could it impact your business?

Alongside advertising on television before 9.00pm, these regulations also prevent businesses from advertising through influencer posts, videos and stories on platforms such as Instagram and TikTok. This may affect a business’s marketing campaign, as it prevents any content involving payment, gifting or incentives to promote any HFSS products - although organic content produced by influencers independently is not restricted, even if it features HFSS products. It is also important to note that whilst the legislation prevents a brand from advertising HFSS products, it does not preclude them from advertising generally.

Businesses which do not comply with the new rules risk action by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), which may include content removal and inclusion on a list of non-compliance; the ASA may also impose a maximum fine of up to either 5% of annual turnover of the business’s combined HFSS brands, or up to £250,000 - whichever is highest.

However, if you are a business which employs fewer than 250 people (including international and franchise staff) as at the first date of the UK financial year in question, your business will be exempt from the rules.

What steps should you take?

Businesses will need to assess whether their products fall within the category of HFSS and, if so, review their marketing strategy to ensure compliance with the restrictions.

Businesses can be proactive in advertising agreements by including provisions which acknowledge each party’s obligations. We would also suggest retaining records in relation to briefs and approvals so that they could be referenced if a complaint were to occur.

As this is a relatively new piece of legislation, clarity around what may and may not constitute a breach will become clearer, so it is important to remain abreast of any developments.

Competition and Markets Authority – Making green claims across the supply chain 

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has published a short explainer to supplement its Green Claims Code clarifying who is responsible for environmental claims across supply chains - including brands, manufacturers, suppliers and retailers.

A ‘green claim’ (sometimes called an environmental claim, eco-friendly claim or sustainability claim), is a claim made by a business to a consumer which suggests how a product, service, brand or business provides a benefit, or is less harmful, to the environment.

Supply chains are often complex, meaning that the evidence needed to substantiate a claim may sit with different parties; this increases the risk of inaccurate or misleading claims - particularly where information is incomplete or withheld. Consumer protection law in relation to green claims applies throughout the supply chain, requiring all claims to be accurate and not misleading - whether made directly by a business, or on its behalf.

Misleading green claims have been an enforcement priority for the CMA when exercising its new enforcement powers in relation to consumer law, with multiple investigations being concluded in recent years. Failure to comply with CMA guidance on green claims puts organisations at risk of breaching consumer laws, which could lead to a CMA investigation, fines of up to 10% of group worldwide turnover, and directions to compensate customers and/or remedy non-compliant behaviours.

How could it impact your business?

As consumers become increasingly environmentally conscious, businesses selling to consumers seek to promote their green credentials in order to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Green claims which are accurate, backed up by evidence, and verifiable are permissible and encouraged by the CMA, who highlight that, with the right information, consumers can make informed choices - in turn building consumer confidence, and increasing the incentive to invest in green initiatives. However, green claims frequently fall foul of CMA guidance.

The CMA guidance, 'Making green claims: Getting it right, across the supply chain' seeks to clarify the position regarding who in the supply chain bears the burden of ensuring compliance, and which teams should be responsible for green claims compliance:

• Procurement teams: Ensuring that suppliers can verify their claims (including a contractual obligation to provide supporting information and verification), and evaluating relationships with suppliers that refuse to verify their claims;
  
  
• Marketing teams: Investigating whether claims can be substantiated before they are made or repeated; and
  
  
• Legal and compliance teams: Ensuring that appropriate internal processes and procedures are in place to foster compliance.

  
  Importantly for retailers, the CMA guidance sets out that even where a retailer is merely displaying a misleading green claim made by a manufacturer, both the manufacturer and the retailer may be liable for engaging in an unfair commercial practice - creating a significant risk for retailers.

What steps should you take?

The guidance issued by the CMA builds on legislation already in force. With no transitional period for implementation, compliance measures should be implemented swiftly to avoid CMA enforcement action.

In summary, all businesses should:

• Review all green claims made across all sales channels, perform a risk analysis on them, identify any liability gaps or exposure to risk, and take proactive steps to address any issues.

• Regularly review green claims, re-verify information, and document compliance efforts on an ongoing basis considering varying requirements across different sectors.

• Supplier relationships: Ensure that contracts with suppliers address green claims - including appropriate obligations, warranties, and indemnities to manage the risk, and self-certifying supplier questionnaires in relation to green claims.

• Provide training to sales and marketing teams on the importance of making compliant claims, giving details of internal policies and procedures.

Further guidance from the CMA is available here.

If you require further assistance on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our Competition and ESG specialists.

For more insights on this topic, see the ESG section below.

Providence Building Services Ltd v. Hexagon Housing Association Ltd

On 15 January 2026, the Supreme Court overturned a Court of Appeal decision that termination under a Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) contract was possible, even where the original breach had been remedied, returning clarity to the interpretation of termination under a JCT for repeated breaches.

Clause 8.9 of the JCT Design and Build Contract 2016 outlines how a contractor can terminate a contract for employer defaults, including for non-payment. This involves issuing a Default Notice, allowing 28 days for the default to be remedied, then issuing a further notice to terminate if the breach is not remedied. Clause 8.9.4 goes on to allow termination for repeated breaches.

The Supreme Court reinstated the early Technology and Construction Court (TCC) ruling that the right to terminate for a repeated breach depends on the contractor having the right to issue a further notice (i.e. if the breach exceeded 28 days). If the original breach (the subject of the Default Notice) was remedied, this right never arose. Regarding the original Court of Appeal ruling, Lord Reed said that allowing a contractor to terminate because they received two separate late payments, by a single day each, would be like using 'a sledgehammer to crack a nut'.

This approach is much more commercially minded, avoiding the 'two strikes and you’re out' scenario the CA’s ruling created, being valid termination where the employer had, ultimately, cured the breach(es).

How could it impact your business?

Unlike after the Court of Appeal ruling, employers no longer need to rush to amend standard JCT contracts to avoid such a termination risk as the Court of Appeal's ruling allowed. However, it is likely that there will need to be a thorough review when the next edition of the JCT is produced - and both employers and contractors should be aware of what may be crucial changes.

Employers can breathe a bit easier in the sense of avoiding being penalised where they feel they remedied a breach. However, for contractors, it is important to be aware that this ruling could essentially allow employers to consistently continue to pay late, so long as they remedy a breach within the 28 days allowed by the Default Notice. If an employer pays late again, an earlier default cannot be relied upon unless it previously matured into a termination right. This therefore limits a contractor’s ability to rely further on clause 8.9.4.

What steps should you take?

Contractors should be mindful of the need to amend their JCT contracts to ensure they still have the termination rights they need to rely on in such scenarios as late payment breaches.

As is always the case, employers should continue to ensure they are aware of the JCT payment mechanisms, and have in place an organised and diligent payment system - regardless of the Supreme Court reducing this termination risk.

For all parties, this should be seen as a commercially beneficial decision, allowing clearer understanding and application of termination mechanisms under the JCT.

Delayed: Companies House delays implementation of compulsory verification and registration for Authorised Corporate Service Providers (ACSPs)

Both the compulsory identity (ID) verification for any presenter filing a document at Companies House and the requirement for any third-party agent filing on behalf of a company to be registered as an ACSP have been postponed from spring 2026 until at least November 2026.

The postponement is to enable Companies House to prioritise completion of the transitional period for identity verification of directors and Persons with Significant Control (PSCs), and to address feedback received from stakeholders before the next wave of changes.

Since November 2025, Companies House made identity verification a compulsory part of incorporation and appointments for new directors and PSCs, and began the 12-month transition phase to require more than 7 million existing directors and PSCs to verify their identities. Companies may have noticed when filing their latest confirmation statement that the identity verification will happen as part of their annual filing.

How could it impact your business?

By the end of 2026, Companies House aims to:

• Complete the transitional period for all individuals on the register requiring identity verification;

• Start a campaign of active compliance against those who are yet to verify their identity;

• Be able to conduct broader cross-checking of data and information between its records and other public and private sector bodies; and

• Reject documents delivered by disqualified directors.

What steps should you take?

Providing there are no further delays to the timeline, the range of persons who can file documents at Companies House will be restricted by the end of 2026. An individual will only be able to file documents on their own behalf or on behalf of another individual if the filer has first completed their identity verification.

Filings on behalf of a company will need to be made by an ID-verified officer, employee of the company, or ACSP.

With identity verification becoming mandatory, individuals looking to file documents at Companies House, directors (or their equivalent), PSCs and ACSPs should look to get their identities verified before the point at which it becomes compulsory to prevent any unexpected delays, issues or falling foul of the regulations.

ICO report on data protection implications of agentic AI (Artificial Intelligence)

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has recently published a report highlighting the potential data risks and opportunities associated with using agentic AI. The report outlines how the ICO intends to keep agentic AI’s development and use under review.

Agentic AI systems can independently set goals and execute complex tasks with minimal human intervention. The rapidly expanding potential uses of agentic AI mean these systems are increasingly attractive to businesses looking to make efficiencies. The ICO emphasises that, 'as developing agentic AI increases the potential for automation, organisations remain responsible for data protection compliance of the agentic AI they develop, deploy or integrate in their systems and processes'.

Click here to access the ICO’s full report.

How could it impact your business?

The ICO’s report highlights novel agentic AI data protection risks (considering the pace of development since its recent consultation series on generative AI), which include:

• Issues around determining controller and processor responsibilities through the agentic AI supply chain;

• Rapid automation of increasingly complex tasks resulting in an increase in automated decision-making;

• Purposes for agentic processing of personal information being set too broadly to allow for open-ended tasks and general-purpose agents;

• Agentic systems processing personal information beyond what is necessary to achieve instructions or aims;

• Potential unintended use or inference of special category data;

• Increased complexity impacting transparency and the ease with which people can exercise their information rights;

• New threats to cyber-security resulting from the nature of agentic AI; and

• Concentration of personal information facilitating Personal Agents (PAs).

All businesses considering deploying agentic AI must be aware that they are exposed to these risks.

What steps should you take?

The ICO is not disincentivising the use of agentic AI. Rather, it states that it exists to ‘encourage and support data protection-focused opportunities’. The ICO’s intention is to clearly set out the risks of agentic AI’s use, along with the need for pause and detailed consideration by organisations before adopting such systems (privacy by design).

The ICO will continue to review the use and development of agentic AI to ensure that innovation is not at the expense of people’s privacy.

Until further regulatory guidance is published, organisations may look to the ICO’s innovation support services, such as Innovation Advice and the ICO’s Regulatory Sandbox, for further information and guidance

In summary, organisations must guard against overreliance on agentic AI. They must adopt a privacy-by-design approach to be confident that the associated risks are fully assessed and mitigated - both prior to use, and on an ongoing basis.

Sanctions list consolidation – a new risk for businesses

On 28 January 2026, the UK moved to a single list for all UK sanctions designations, replacing the two separate lists currently operated (the UK Sanctions List, published by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and the Consolidated List of Asset Freeze Targets, published by the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI)).

The single list will remove duplication of effort and simplify checks of who is subject to UK sanctions. Following this change, the OFSI Consolidated List and its search tool will no longer be updated.

Reporting a breach

In line with its focus on encouraging enforcement, OTSI (Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation) has also published a blog post detailing best practices for those wishing to report breaches of trade sanctions. You can read the blog by clicking here. 

A report to OTSI can be made via GOV.UK, and the report should include your contact details, details of the suspected breach, other parties’ details, and any supporting documents. The substance of the report should consider when the activity took place, the parties involved, and what specific goods or services were provided. This is an existing process, and the OTSI blog should assist companies in reporting any breach(es).

How could it impact your business?

The publication of a single UK Sanctions List will have a direct impact on any internal processes that refer to either of the existing sanctions lists, or that rely on the OSFI search tool.

What steps should you take?

Companies and their compliance teams will need to update their compliance processes to ensure that all checks are made against the UK Sanctions List. They should also make themselves aware of the details required to report a breach to the OTSI, ensuring that the substance of the report contains a clear narrative, details of the rules broken, and how the activity is connected with the UK.

Maritime and Coastguard Agency v. Groom [2026] – can volunteers be workers?

Broadly speaking, the question of who gets employment rights in the UK is determined by distinguishing between three categories in the workforce:

1. Employees;
2. 'Workers'; or
3. The genuinely self-employed.

The second category ('worker') is a broad test. It applies to those who contract to provide their own labour to an organisation, and where that contract is not at arms-length (i.e. for a 'customer' or 'client'). On the margins, identifying the precise boundary for worker status can be tricky, but it is key. This is because 'workers' are entitled to key statutory rights such as National Minimum Wage, paid holiday, and whistleblowing protections.

Whilst the category of a volunteer is often too casual to be regarded as a worker, this isn’t always the case. The courts have previously pointed out that volunteer arrangements come in all shapes and sizes, with different legal implications.

Mr. Groom volunteered for Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) as a Coastguard Rescue Officer. Despite having the status of a volunteer, he was able to claim remuneration for his time. He was also subject to a Code of Conduct and a Volunteer Handbook.

Mr. Groom was dismissed from his role with the MCA in 2020; he asked the MCA whether he could be accompanied to his appeal hearing against dismissal, but they refused - and this was the claim that ultimately went forward. The employment tribunal later found that Mr. Groom was not a 'worker' entitled to bring that claim, and that there was no contractual obligation for him to provide work and services. This was, in turn, overturned by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). It held that a worker contract arose for each activity Mr. Groom attended for work with MCA. The matter ultimately went to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the EAT’s decision that, when attending activities, Mr Groom was a worker within the meaning of s.230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that, whilst an MCA volunteer is not obliged to attend a call-out (as confirmed in the MCA’s handbook), if volunteers do attend, they are entitled to claim remuneration. This, together with the contractual framework within which they worked, went beyond ‘genuine volunteer’ status found in other cases where only reasonable expenses can be claimed. The EAT therefore found that there is a contract each and every time a volunteer attends an MCA call-out. The Court of Appeal relied on the cases of Uber v. Aslam and Professional Game Match Officials Ltd v. HMRC to establish that a right to reject work did not preclude worker status.

How could it impact your business?

This case may have significant implications on any organisation that relies on volunteers, such as those in the charity sector. This is especially relevant for those 'volunteers' who are subject to detailed arrangements and policies around how they volunteer, and who are entitled to receive a form of compensation for their time (beyond basic expenses). It confirms that organisations can’t get around worker status by labelling individuals as volunteers or stating there is no contract in place. The court will look at the practical realities on the ground to establish the presence and nature of the contractual relationship.

What steps should you take?

Organisations which rely on highly experienced, skilled volunteers such as mountain rescue, lifeboat services and emergency services should review their arrangements and documentation - be it their handbooks, code of conduct, or renumeration documents - to assess the risk in relation to whether their ‘volunteers’ could in fact be workers in the opinion of a court or tribunal.

Micro Focus Ltd v. Mildenhall [2025] – the duty to consult on mass redundancies

Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA) imposes a duty on employers to carry out collective consultation where large-scale redundancies (or similar mass dismissals) are proposed. Large-scale, for these purposes, means 20 or more redundancies at one establishment within a period of 90 days.

The duty is to consult with representatives on the proposals about key topics, and to do so whilst plans are still at a formative stage.

The obligation applies independently of any individual consultation the employer may have to carry out.

A long-standing question on such collective consultations is from which point the employer has to judge or evaluate how many people they are 'proposing to dismiss'. If, for example, one phase of redundancies proves to be insufficient and plans are made for a second round, are both sets of numbers to be counted towards the trigger number (20)?

Past EU case law (prior to Brexit) in UQ v. Marclean Technologies SLU indicated that it was necessary for the employer to look forwards and backwards to determine if the threshold is met. Essentially, this was a rolling threshold test. The EAT has clarified that this is incorrect – the employer should look forwards from the point of its proposal only. If you have already carried out redundancies, you do not need to include them when calculating the numbers where circumstances change and further dismissals are necessary.

Mr. Mildenhall (the Claimant) was employed by Micro Focus Ltd from 2015 until his dismissal by reason of redundancy on 29 July 2022. Micro Focus announced large-scale restructuring in 2021 which led to the decision to dismiss him. The Claimant brought a claim for unfair dismissal and a protective award for failing to collectively consult under TULRCA. The decision was appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

The EAT found that the language and structure of TULRCA was clear; they also found that what mattered was the situation at the point an employer proposes dismissals in the future, and not how many dismissals were in fact effected when looking at the situation retrospectively - confirming that TULRCA is forward-looking only. Accordingly, collective consultation duties arise under TULRCA when an employer proposes to dismiss 20 or more employees within 90 days in the future.

How could it impact your business?

This is a timely reminder of the consultation obligations where an organisation is proposing to make 20 or more individuals redundant. This is particularly important given the introduction of the Employment Rights Act 2025 which will provide for significant changes to the collective consultation obligations and enhanced rights for trade unions. Additionally, from April 2026, the protective award for failing to consult will also increase from 90 days' salary to 180 days' salary - meaning that ensuring your obligations under TULRCA are met is of increasing importance, as the financial impacts for failing to do so could be significant.

What steps should you take?

You should take opportunities to review your structures and any proposals in respect of restructuring. Any decision in respect of restructuring should be recorded clearly so you can evidence when these plans were in fact proposed.  

Umbrella companies and new rules coming 6 April 2026

Umbrella companies are, broadly speaking, employers of convenience. They employ individuals who are engaged to work at different end user clients. Such arrangements are typically at the behest of employment agencies.

The government recently consulted on tackling non-compliance in the umbrella company market, following which they introduced the Finance Bill 2026 to parliament. The new additions to the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 will make end clients, umbrella companies and agencies potentially jointly and severally liable for deducting and paying over Pay As You Earn (PAYE) and National Insurance contributions.

This means that, should the umbrella company fail to deduct and pay the right amount to HMRC, not only can the umbrella company be pursued - but so too can the recruitment agency in the contractual chain. If there is no recruitment agency (or where they are overseas or connected to the company concerned), then the end user client will be responsible.

How could it impact your business?

If you are an umbrella company, recruitment agency or end user of labour supplied via an umbrella company, there is now an increased risk regarding your employment tax obligations. You need to ensure that the companies you engage with are operating their tax affairs properly - and where they are not, it is important to understand that liability could rest with you and start taking steps to manage that risk.

What steps should you take?

You should carry out the following checks:

• Ensure you understand the complete chain back to the worker(s) concerned;
  
  
• Check HMRC’s list of named tax avoidance schemes;
  
  
• Make sure you know which legal entity provides the worker;

• Check whether the real hourly cost of labour supply makes sense;

• Check example payslips and Real Time Information (RTI), and keep records;
  
  
• Take care when working with umbrella companies that are offshore or incentivise clients to use their services; and
  
  
• Educate workers by sharing information on tax avoidance schemes.

Rapidly increasing enforcement against environmental and sustainability claims

UK regulators have entered a new phase of coordinated scrutiny on sustainability-related claims.

The Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) anti-greenwashing rule now applies to all authorised firms, alongside the new Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR) for labelling, naming and marketing rules already in force for asset managers.

Meanwhile, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) gained direct fining powers (up to 10% of global turnover) on 6 April 2025 under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA), with green claims prioritised for early enforcement.

The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) also continues to clamp down on unsubstantiated environmental claims, issuing updated guidance and rulings throughout 2025–26.

How could it impact your business?

Any sustainability-related messaging (marketing, reporting, investor decks, website copy, product literature or even imagery) now carries material regulatory, litigation and reputational risk. The FCA expects claims to be fair, clear and not misleading, with evidence and internal approvals mirroring those used for financial disclosures. The CMA’s new powers mean that weaknesses in substantiation, vague claims or omission of context can now trigger direct enforcement, accelerated investigations and significant fines. ASA decisions continue to shape acceptable wording - particularly around life-cycle impacts and absolute claims.

Businesses may need to tighten internal governance, update approval flows, revisit product messaging, and ensure that evidence packs exist for every sustainability claim.

What steps should you take?

Businesses need to act quickly, as regulators are already in supervisory mode. Create or update a central claims register, build evidence files for all sustainability statements, and ensure all marketing and communications teams follow a formal green-claims review process. Teams should be trained on CMA, FCA and ASA expectations - especially the requirement to avoid broad, absolute or misleading impressions created by visuals or headlines.

Failure to act could result in significant regulatory intervention, product relabelling, campaign withdrawal, compulsory corrections, or (under the CMA regime) substantial penalties and reputational fallout.

For more insights on this topic, see the Competition section above.

AGA Rangemaster Group Ltd v. UK Innovations Group Ltd

On 15 December 2025, the Court of Appeal delivered a decision in the case of AGA Rangemaster Group Ltd v. UK Innovations Group Ltd (UKGI), and another concerning the sale of genuine but modified goods (refurbished or pre-used).

The dispute arose after UKIG began taking second-hand fossil-fuel AGA cookers and converted them to run on electricity, incorporating UKIG’s own control panel in place of the AGA control panel, and retaining AGA branding. On its website, UKIG referred to the goods with terms like ‘an eControl AGA’, and in a range of ‘AGA colours’.

AGA brought proceedings, alleging trademark infringement and copyright infringement of its design drawing for its control panel.

The Court of Appeal concluded that UKIG’s presentation of the goods gave a false impression of a commercial connection between AGA and UKIG (which UKIG should have done more to actively dispel), but that UKIG’s control panel did not infringe AGA’s copyright in its design drawing because UKIG did not reproduce the drawing itself - but rather created an object based on the drawing.

How could it impact your business?

For brand owners, this decision emphasises the need to monitor the activity of those selling refurbished or pre-used versions of your goods. The court in this case did not find that such use is unlawful, but rather that such use must not give a false impression of a commercial connection between the brand owner and the secondary seller. Importantly, each case turns on its own facts.

Businesses seeking to sell modified versions of third-party goods must tread a careful line in how they use the third-party trademark. There are obvious commercial advantages in drawing attention to the origin of the goods, and this can be done lawfully - but you need to be aware that if you cross the line, you could easily find yourself in legal proceedings.

What steps should you take?

To mitigate the risks highlighted by this decision, businesses should consider the following:

1. For brand owners: Monitor the secondary market and the use to which third parties are putting your brand. Be prepared to take action if the third party crosses the line, causing potential customer confusion.

2. For businesses using third-party brands: Carefully review your naming conventions, documentation, online content, and advertising material. You may well be entitled to use the third-party brand name, but extreme care must be taken not give a false impression of a commercial connection between you and the brand owner. This particularly applies when seeking to use a product name which features the third-party brand name.

Our Intellectual Property specialists can assist you in reviewing your product designs, assessing trademark portfolios, and addressing potential disputes with competitors. Whether you’re seeking to protect your brand or introduce a new product, we’re here to help ensure compliance and safeguard your commercial interests.

Abbott v. Dexcom - Court of Appeal overturns revocation of a patent

In the recent case of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc and others v. Dexcom Inc and others [2025] EWCA Civ. 1633, the Court of Appeal allowed Abbott’s appeal and overturned the revocation of its European (UK) patent for a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device.

The original case centred on a patent owned by Abbott for the CGM device (which covered the sensor, electronics and insertion device), which they claimed had been infringed by Dexcom. However, Dexcom challenged the patent on the basis on its similarities to an earlier ‘Heller’ patent in the US, claiming it would have been ‘obvious’ to a skilled designer based on the earlier patent. The High Court agreed with this argument, and the patent was revoked.

The Court of Appeal found that the High Court judge had misapplied the standard 'obviousness' test, had conflated different embodiments of the invention, and had copied Dexcom’s homework when reaching the original decision.

Unusually, the dispute between the commercial parties had already settled before the appeal was heard - however, Abbott wished to reinstate the patent. The Comptroller therefore stepped in to defend the High Court’s judgment.

How could it impact your business?

This case underlines the importance of viewing Intellectual Property (IP) rights within their broader commercial context, rather than as isolated legal assets. Patents can, of course, be used to stop competitors from copying a product, but crucially (as illustrated here), they also play a major role in global commercial settlements, licensing negotiations and cross‑border deals.

The CGM market is worth billions, and Abbott was willing to bear the substantial cost of restoring its patent via the Court of Appeal, even though the case with Dexcom had settled. The patent itself held significant strategic and commercial value far beyond the immediate litigation.

Additionally, the judgment highlights the importance of taking a proactive approach when faced with delayed decisions. In this case, the High Court judgment under appeal took more than 14 months to be handed down, which increases the likelihood of internal inconsistencies in a judgement and creates uncertainty for businesses.

What steps should you take?

This dispute formed part of a wider international litigation involving the UK, Europe and the US. The resources required to engage in litigation of this scale underscores the importance of maintaining a robust and well‑managed IP portfolio.

Companies should consider undertaking a full audit of their IP to ensure that:

• Relevant rights are properly registered and up to date;

• Commercial agreements, such as licences and collaborations, are fit for purpose; and

• The IP is being fully leveraged - for example, to obtain tax reliefs such as the Patent Box.

Although this case settled, the settlement was possible only because both parties held relatively strong IP positions. A well‑prepared IP strategy can provide similar leverage, even outside the courtroom.

Can you transfer a beneficial interest in property via WhatsApp?

In the recent High Court case of Maxine Reid-Roberts & Brian Burke (as joint trustees in bankruptcy of Audun Mar Gudmundsson) v. Hsiao Mei-Lin & Audun Mar Gudmundsson, the court found that a WhatsApp message did not constitute a transfer of a beneficial interest in a property. As part of divorce proceedings, a WhatsApp message was exchanged stating, ‘I suggest the responsibility of taking care of the kids goes to u 100%, then I can sign over my share of southcote road to u’.

The court held that the message was part of informal negotiations within divorce proceedings, without an intent to be legally binding and used language indicating a future transaction.

The court also looked at whether, regardless of intent, a WhatsApp exchange could form a legally binding contract for the purposes of s.53(1) Law of Property Act 1925, which requires the transfer of a beneficial interest in land to be in writing and signed by the seller. The court concluded that the automatic display of a sender’s name in a WhatsApp header could not amount to a deliberate signature by the sender, and did not satisfy the legal requirements for a valid transfer.

How could it impact your business?

The court has confirmed the position taken in previous cases: that a platform-generated header that appears incidentally does not suffice, similarly to the automatic appearance of an email address at the start of an email.

More importantly, it confirmed that there are instances in which a WhatsApp message may constitute a legally binding contract. Had there been no conditionality to the message, and had the sender signed their name (i.e. ‘I transfer my share of southcote road to you, Sender’) the outcome may have been very different.

This case is a helpful reminder of the law around creation of contracts via email. Signing off an email with your name, or sending an email knowing an automatic signature will be added, can both construe a legally binding contract.

What steps should you take?

Companies and individuals should be wary of promising anything in open correspondence - even informal messaging apps such as WhatsApp.

For those who intentionally want to transfer an interest in land, we suggest getting in touch so that we can help you to do this properly and ensure it is registered correctly at HM Land Registry.