If you separate

The key point is that the court does not simply divide assets according to what is fair. There is no general claim for maintenance for a former cohabiting partner, no pension sharing and no matrimonial sharing principle. The main dispute is often about the home, and that is essentially an ownership dispute.

If the home is in joint names

Where a home is owned jointly and there is no express declaration of unequal shares, the starting point is equal beneficial ownership. That starting point can sometimes be displaced, but the court is concerned with the parties’ common intention, not simply with who paid more.

In Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, Lady Hale identified a number of factors which may help the court decide what the parties intended, including:

• what was said when the property was bought;

• why it was put into joint names;

• who provided the deposit;

• how the mortgage was paid;

• whether finances were kept separate or pooled;

• how household expenses were dealt with; and

• whether the parties’ arrangements changed over time.

These are not a mechanical checklist. The court looks at the whole course of dealing. Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 also confirms that a couple’s intentions about ownership can change during the relationship.

If the home is in one name only

This is more difficult. The person who is not on the legal title has to establish a beneficial interest, usually through a common intention constructive trust.

Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107 remains important. Broadly, a claim can arise in two ways:

• There was an actual agreement, arrangement or understanding that the person who was not on the title would have an interest, followed by detrimental reliance.

• A shared intention can be inferred from the parties’ conduct.

The first route remains good law.

The second needs to be read in light of later cases. Rosset placed very heavy emphasis on direct contributions to the purchase price or mortgage. Later authority, particularly Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott, has moved away from treating those contributions as the only possible route to an inferred intention.

That does not mean ordinary household contributions create an interest in property. Paying bills, buying food or simply living together for many years will not, without more, give someone a share of a house.

The real question is whether the evidence shows a shared intention that both were to have a beneficial interest, together with reliance on that intention.

Evidence matters

In most TOLATA cases, the documents and contemporaneous evidence are critical.

That may include:

• the transfer and any declaration of trust;

• evidence of the deposit;

• mortgage payments;

• emails and messages about ownership;

• refinancing;

• major expenditure on the property; and

• evidence showing how the parties actually arranged their finances.

A written declaration of trust is usually far more valuable than trying to reconstruct conversations and intentions years later.

Be careful what you agree in writing

Informal emails and messages can have serious consequences.

In Hudson v Hathway [2022] EWCA Civ 1648, an email exchange was sufficient to dispose of a beneficial interest in property.

A separating couple should therefore be very careful before agreeing in writing that one person can have the property or the other person’s share.

What if there are children?

Children do not automatically create a property interest for either parent.

There may, however, be separate claims for financial provision for a child under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989. In appropriate cases, that can include housing provision.

That is provision for the child, not a redistribution of property between former partners.

If your partner dies

An unmarried partner does not automatically inherit under the intestacy rules. That makes wills particularly important.

There may be a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, but that is not the same as the rights of a surviving spouse and there are strict time limits.

How the home is owned is also important. If it is held as beneficial joint tenants, the survivor normally receives the deceased’s interest automatically. If it is held as tenants in common, the deceased’s share passes under the will or intestacy.

Practical protection

• a declaration of trust recording respective shares;

• wills;

• a cohabitation agreement;

• pension nominations;

• life insurance; and

• lasting powers of attorney.

The cheapest dispute is usually the one avoided by recording intentions clearly while the relationship is still good.

This article provides general information about the law of England and Wales and was reviewed in September 2026. It is not legal advice. Individual cases turn heavily on the ownership documents and the evidence of what the parties actually intended.

The best time to agree who owns what is when the property is purchased or transferred.

The problem is that this is usually when the relationship is at its happiest. You are choosing kitchens, planning holidays, arguing over paint colours and gazing lovingly into each other’s eyes. It does not feel like the moment to say, “Just in case one day we cannot stand the sight of each other, shall we record who owns what?”

So instead, someone says, “I would never do that to you.”

In cohabitation law, that sentence can be remarkably expensive. People change. Relationships change. Memories of what was agreed can become astonishingly flexible.

A declaration of trust may not be romantic, but neither is spending tens of thousands of pounds asking a judge what you both meant 12 years ago.

This update sets out where matters now stand for England and Wales.

What the 25 August update confirms

The core commencement dates for England and Wales employers are unchanged, but the update fills in detail and adds several measures not confirmed before now.

• 25 August 2026 (in force): electronic and workplace balloting is now available for statutory trade union ballots.
• 1 October 2026: the employment tribunal time limit for most claims doubles from three to six months. (The equivalent change for breach of contract claims in Scotland takes effect on 9 November 2026 and does not apply in England and Wales.)
• 30 October 2026: alongside the strengthened sexual harassment duty and third-party harassment liability, the Government has now confirmed this date also brings the remaining trade union recognition and derecognition measures, including freezing the bargaining unit once an application is received, and new rights and protections for trade union representatives.
• October 2026 (also): two further measures not previously flagged — regulations establishing the Fair Pay Agreement Adult Social Care Negotiating Body in England, and reinstatement of the two-tier procurement code covering outsourced public sector staff.
• December 2026: new Seafarer Protection Regulations, of limited relevance to most employers but confirmed for the first time.
• End of 2026: tipping law is to be strengthened, with no firm date yet given.
• 1 January 2027: the unfair dismissal qualifying period drops to six months and the compensatory award cap is abolished; fire and rehire protections also commence.
• 2027 (unscheduled within the year): the Government has, for the first time, explicitly grouped umbrella company regulation and extended blacklisting protections alongside the other 2027 measures — guaranteed hours, flexible working, bereavement leave, mandatory equality action plans and the NDA restrictions.

Consultations: a change of approach

On 10 September 2026 the Government announced it will strip out what it called ‘box-ticking’ consultations to speed up delivery, following a review that identified around 7,000 consultation duties across the statute book. A new vision for public participation is promised in the autumn.

This is a general, cross-government announcement rather than an employment-specific one, but it is directly relevant to the measures still sitting behind an open or closed consultation: guaranteed hours (consultation closed 25 August 2026), non-disclosure agreements (closed 8 July 2026, response still awaited) and flexible working (closed 30 April 2026, response still awaited). Employers should not assume these will move faster as a result, but should be alert to responses landing with less notice than the pattern so far in 2026 might suggest.

What to do now

• Update your internal tracker to reflect the confirmed detail behind the 30 October measures, particularly if you engage with trade union recognition.
• Note the two new October 2026 items if you are a social care provider in England or hold outsourced public sector contracts.
• Keep your January 2027 diary actions in place — probation timetables, document retention, and settlement agreement review — as nothing here affects them.
• Watch for the guaranteed hours, NDA and flexible working responses, which may now be published with shorter lead-in times.

How we can help

We track each commencement date against your contracts and policies and flag what needs to change. If you would like an update against the revised timetable, please get in touch.

This article is general information about the law of England and Wales as at 10 September 2026. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Commencement dates described as Government intention may change. Please take advice on your specific circumstances.

Most private companies are built on a relationship rather than a document. Two or three people go into business together, agree how things will work over a coffee or in an email, and get on with trading. It works, often for years.

Then something changes. One person’s contribution falls away while another’s grows. Someone wants to take money out and someone else wants to reinvest. Someone sets up a second venture. Or there is simply a falling-out of the kind that has nothing to do with business at all. At that point the informal understanding stops being enough, and what governs the situation is the company’s constitution and the Companies Act 2006 – which is concerned with rights and process rather than with who has behaved better.

This article outlines how shareholder disputes in private companies work under the law of England and Wales, and where the pressure points usually are. If your business is a partnership or an LLP the framework is different, and the comments below will not apply.

Start with the paperwork, not the argument

The first question is always what the articles of association and any shareholders’ agreement actually say. Between them they may already answer the dispute: whether shares must be offered to the other shareholders before being sold, how they are to be valued, whether a departing shareholder is a “good” or “bad” leaver, whether there is a deadlock procedure, and whether anyone has a veto or enhanced voting rights. Where those documents exist and are well drafted, the dispute is usually about applying them. Where they do not – and in a great many owner-managed companies there is no shareholders’ agreement at all – the parties fall back on the default statutory position, which is rarely what either of them assumed.

What your percentage actually buys

Shareholders tend to overestimate what a stake delivers – and, more often still, to assume that the percentages settle the question by themselves. They do not. Before looking at the thresholds it is worth understanding how a vote is actually taken, because the two things work together and the outcome can differ markedly depending on the method used.

Unless the articles provide otherwise, a resolution put to a general meeting is decided in the first instance on a show of hands, and on a show of hands each member present in person has one vote whatever the size of their holding (section 284(1) of the Companies Act 2006). A 90% holding and a 5% holding count equally. The consequences of that are easily overlooked. The default quorum under the model articles is two qualifying persons, so where two minority shareholders attend a properly convened meeting they form a quorum between them; if they vote the same way, an ordinary resolution can be carried on a show of hands without the support of the majority shareholder and, if that shareholder does not attend, without their involvement at all. Nothing in the general law requires the majority holder to be present, only that they be given proper notice.

What answers that is a poll. On a poll, voting is by shares – one vote for each share held (section 284(2)) – and it is here that the percentages do the work most people assume they do throughout. A poll may be demanded by the chair, and under section 321 by at least five members entitled to vote, by members representing at least 10% of the total voting rights, or by holders of shares representing at least 10% of the paid-up voting capital; the articles cannot cut those rights down. A majority shareholder who attends can therefore demand a poll and carry the meeting on the strength of the holding. One who stays away, or who attends but does not think to call for a poll, may find the show-of-hands result stands.

The articles ought to spell all of this out, and many do. Not all of them do, and the position on proxies, on the chair’s casting vote and on who may demand a poll varies from company to company. It is worth reading them before either side plans a meeting around what it believes the numbers to be. Written resolutions work differently again: they are decided by reference to shareholdings rather than by a count of those present (section 283), so the show-of-hands point does not arise – though, as set out below, a director cannot be removed that way.

The thresholds themselves are these. More than 50% of the votes cast carries an ordinary resolution, which includes removing a director. More than 25% of the votes cast blocks a special resolution, and therefore changes to the articles – note that these thresholds bite on votes cast rather than on issued capital, so on a poor turnout a smaller holding can be decisive. Holders of at least 5% of the paid-up voting capital can require the directors to call a general meeting under section 303 of the Companies Act 2006.

Below that, a percentage buys very little in terms of control – but it is worth knowing that there is no minimum shareholding for the most important remedy in this area. Any member can bring an unfair prejudice petition, however small the holding. The word doing the work there is member: someone whose shares are held through a nominee, or who is only a beneficial owner and is not entered in the register of members, is generally not a member and cannot petition.

You probably cannot see the books

This is the point that causes the most frustration. There is no general right for a shareholder to inspect a company’s documents. You are entitled to the annual accounts and reports (section 423), to inspect the register of members (section 116), to inspect minutes of general meetings and members’ written resolutions (section 358), and to see directors’ service contracts (sections 228 and 229). That is broadly the extent of it.

There is no right to board minutes, management accounts, bank statements, contracts, budgets or correspondence. Even the register of members is filtered: a company served with a request must either comply or apply to the court within five working days, and the court will direct that it need not comply if the request is not sought for a proper purpose – the purpose having to relate to your interest as a member and the exercise of shareholder rights (section 117; Burry & Knight Ltd v Knight [2014] EWCA Civ 604, where the Court of Appeal made clear the onus is on the company to satisfy the court of an improper purpose).

An important qualification: this describes the position of a shareholder as a shareholder. If you are also still a director, your right of access to the company’s books and records is considerably wider while you remain in office. Where neither applies, formal proceedings and the disclosure that comes with them are sometimes the only realistic route to the documents.

Removing someone as a director changes less than you think

A director can be removed by ordinary resolution under section 168, notwithstanding anything in any agreement with them. Two points about the mechanics matter more than they may appear to. First, the resolution must be passed at a general meeting of the shareholders. It cannot be done by written resolution (section 288(2)), and it cannot be done by the board: a decision of the directors, however unanimous and however it is minuted, has no effect on a person’s office as director under section 168. The point is easily missed in a small company where the same individuals sit on both sides and meetings are not always convened with much formality. Special notice of at least 28 days must be given to the company (section 312), and the director has the right to be heard at the meeting and to have written representations circulated to members (section 169).

Second, the director is not a bystander at that meeting. If they are also a shareholder they vote on the resolution to remove them in the ordinary way, like any other member. There is no rule excluding them from the count, and no read-across from the position of a director who is interested in a transaction. A director-shareholder holding half the votes can defeat the resolution outright; a smaller holding may be enough where turnout is poor, since the threshold is a majority of the votes cast rather than of the issued capital. Anyone planning a removal needs to be confident of the arithmetic on the day, and of how the vote will be taken, before giving special notice.

There are three things removal does not do. It does not touch their shares – absent a compulsory transfer provision in the articles or a shareholders’ agreement, they remain a shareholder. It does not extinguish any claim for compensation or damages for loss of office or employment, which section 168(5) expressly preserves. And it may itself be the unfairly prejudicial conduct that a court later acts on: in Stevens v Kyte [2026] EWHC 1231 (Ch) the dismissal and removal of one of three equal participants in the business were found to be pretextual, aimed at forcing a sale of his interest at as low a price as possible, and a breach of fiduciary duty.

It is also worth checking the articles before counting the votes. A weighted-voting provision – of the kind upheld in Bushell v Faith [1970] AC 1099 – gives a director-shareholder enhanced votes on a resolution to remove him. Section 168 still applies and the resolution can still be proposed; it simply loses on the count.

The main remedy: unfair prejudice

Section 994 allows a member to petition where the company’s affairs are being or have been conducted in a manner unfairly prejudicial to the interests of members generally or of some part of them, including at least the petitioner. If the petition succeeds the court may make any order it thinks fit (section 996), and in practice the usual outcome is an order that the other shareholders or the company buy the petitioner’s shares.

Two threshold points do a lot of work. The conduct must be conduct of the company’s affairs, and the prejudice must be to your interests as a member. A falling-out between shareholders personally is not enough: in Brierley v Howe [2024] EWHC 2789 (Ch) parts of a petition were struck out because a dispute about an agreement to transfer shares between two shareholders was not conduct of the company’s affairs

Unfairness also has to be anchored to something. Following O’Neill v Phillips [1999] 1 WLR 1092, it generally means breaching what was agreed, or using strict legal powers in a way that equity will not permit. Where the company is a “quasi-partnership” – formed on a personal relationship of mutual confidence, with an understanding that the participants would be involved in management – exclusion from management is a classic route to relief. The concept comes from Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd [1973] AC 360 and remains central.

Directors’ duties feed into this. Those duties are owed to the company, not to individual shareholders (section 170(1)), and a shareholder cannot bring a personal claim for loss that merely reflects the company’s own loss. That rule does not, however, limit the court’s powers on an unfair prejudice petition, and a fall in the company’s value caused by the conduct complained of feeds directly into the valuation of the shares to be bought out. A breach of duty is very often the engine of a successful petition. In Saxon Woods Investments Ltd v Costa [2026] UKSC 21 the Supreme Court held that good faith under section 172 extends not only to a director’s thinking but to their conduct in pursuit of what they believe to be the best course – a director cannot pursue their own view by covert or disloyal means, however sincerely it is held – and upheld an unconditional buy-out.

Valuation is often worth more than the merits

Two questions decide the money: whether a minority discount applies, and at what date the shares are valued. Neither has a fixed answer.

In a quasi-partnership the court will commonly order a purchase on a proportionate basis with no minority discount, as in Stevens v Kyte. But that is the exercise of a wide discretion rather than a rule, and it depends on the quasi-partnership finding being made: in Wells v Hornshaw [2024] EWHC 330 (Ch) the company was held not to be a quasi-partnership, the shareholders’ agreement governed the valuation, and a minority discount was applied. On timing, the starting point is the date of the order (Profinance Trust SA v Gladstone [2001] EWCA Civ 1031), but the court will go earlier or later to reach a fair result – in Chave v Farnsworth [2026] EWHC 970 (Ch) an earlier date was chosen because the value at judgment had been depressed by the very conduct complained of, while in Stevens v Kyte a later date was chosen, the court declining to give the petitioner a one-way bet.

If you want to buy the other side out, get the offer right

Where the complaint is exclusion from management, a reasonable offer to buy the petitioner’s shares at fair value will ordinarily remove the unfairness and defeat a petition. It will not necessarily answer a petition founded on something else – misappropriation of assets, or excessive remuneration already extracted – where a buy-out does not cure the past prejudice. The features the court looks for include a fair value, ordinarily without a minority discount; determination by a competent expert acting as an expert if value is not agreed; equal access to information bearing on value and an equal right to make submissions to the expert; and, where the offer comes after costs have been incurred, an offer to meet those costs.

Timing is critical. In Magic Investments SA v Broadbent [2026] EWCA Civ 711 the Court of Appeal reinstated a petition that had been struck out, where the offer came months after the petition was presented and made no provision for costs. The offer is worth making early – before proceedings, if possible.

Deadlock, and the winding-up option

In a 50/50 company neither side can pass an ordinary resolution, so neither can remove the other or force a distribution, and the company drifts. The court can order a meeting to be held where it is impracticable to call one in the ordinary way (section 306), and that can rescue a frustrated majority: in Union Music Ltd v Watson [2003] EWCA Civ 180 an order was made where the holdings were 51/49. It will not help in a true 50/50 company. The power is procedural, and it is not to be used to break a deadlock between equal shareholders (Ross v Telford [1998] 1 BCLC 82) or to override a provision conferring what is in substance a veto (Harman v BML Group Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 893).

Where there is genuine deadlock and an irretrievable breakdown, a company can be wound up on the just and equitable ground under section 122(1)(g) of the Insolvency Act 1986, as it was in Dosanjh v Balendran [2025] EWHC 507 (Ch). It should be approached with care. Winding up realises break-up value rather than going-concern value, a pending petition can disrupt the company’s banking and dealings with its assets, and paragraph 22.1 of the Practice Direction – Insolvency Proceedings draws attention to the undesirability of asking as a matter of course for a winding-up order as an alternative to relief under section 994.

The court can now order you to mediate

This has changed, and older commentary is out of date. In Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416 the Court of Appeal held that the court may lawfully order parties to engage in non-court dispute resolution, provided the order does not impair the right to proceed to a judicial hearing and is proportionate. The Civil Procedure Rules were amended with effect from 1 October 2024 to add an express case management power to order parties to engage in alternative dispute resolution (rule 3.1(2)(o)), and to make failure to comply with such an order, or unreasonable failure to engage, part of the conduct the court takes into account on costs (rule 44.2(5)(e)). Silence in response to an invitation to mediate is itself likely to be treated as unreasonable (Northamber plc v Genee World Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 428).

That is not only a procedural point. Shareholder disputes are expensive, slow and absorbing, and they are fought while the business still has to be run. The commercial answer is frequently a negotiated exit at a sensible valuation, reached before either side has spent a disproportionate amount establishing who was right.

If you are heading into one

Take advice early, before positions harden and before anything is put in writing that will be read out later. Preserve documents and keep a contemporaneous record. Be careful about decisions taken while a dispute is live, and about drawings, payments to connected parties and new ventures – that conduct becomes the evidence. And if your business has no shareholders’ agreement, that is where most of these disputes could have been prevented.

Facing a shareholder dispute, or worried one is coming? Our corporate and dispute resolution solicitors advise on the options, on negotiating an exit and on unfair prejudice proceedings, subject to our usual conflict checks. Please get in touch to discuss your situation.

On 31 July 2026, the Legal Services Board approved changes to the SRA’s rules governing who can act as a firm’s COLP and COFA.

For owner-managed firms, the headline numbers matter:

£600,000+ annual turnover
£2m+ client money
Around 1,660 firms affected
Including around 431 sole owner-manager firms

The changes are being phased in from 2027.

But I think focusing only on who has to appoint whom misses the bigger issue.

The rule isn’t the problem. The stack underneath it is.

What Rule 8 changes

If your firm exceeds the relevant turnover or client-money thresholds, the new rules can restrict an owner or manager who has unilateral authority over significant management decisions from also acting as COLP or COFA.

Multi-owner firms may have options where significant decisions are genuinely made collectively.

For sole owner-managers, the position is more difficult.

If you are the sole owner and manager, there is no meaningful argument that management decisions are collective. Depending on the thresholds your firm crosses, you may therefore need somebody else to take on one or both compliance roles.

The SRA estimates that around 1,660 firms and 431 sole owner-manager firms will need to make changes.

The Authorisation Rules changes are due to take effect from January 2027, with Accounts Rules changes following in April 2027, phased over two years.

There is another detail worth noticing:

If you replace a compliance officer after the new rules begin to apply, the new requirements can apply to that appointment immediately.

Finding another COLP isn’t as simple as changing a job title

A COLP cannot simply be whoever happens to understand your practice best.

The individual must meet the relevant regulatory requirements, including being appropriately authorised to carry on reserved legal activities.

That can rule out an otherwise excellent non-lawyer practice manager.

For a smaller firm, the answer may therefore be one of your employed solicitors.

And that creates another question:

How much does somebody need to be paid to accept personal regulatory responsibility within a business they don’t own?

They may have to challenge decisions made by the person who employs them. They may have reporting responsibilities concerning the firm and its management.

That is not a nominal promotion.

It is a genuine responsibility.

The Rule Isn’t the Problem. The Stack Underneath It Is.

Changing your COLP or COFA does not make the rest of the cost of regulation disappear.

You still have:

• Professional indemnity insurance

• Client-account administration

• AML supervision

• Firm-wide risk assessments

• Identity and source-of-funds checks

• Accountant reporting

• Complaints infrastructure

• Regulatory reporting

• Cyber security

• Case-management technology

• Staff and supervision

• Premises and other overheads

• The management time required to keep everything working

And then there is the compliance work that appears on no ledger at all.

The procedure reviewed on a Sunday evening.

The file that needs checking.

The regulatory update somebody has to understand.

The employee who needs additional supervision.

The process that suddenly needs redesigning.

Nobody decides to leave over any one of those costs. That’s precisely the problem. They arrive one at a time, and each looks unavoidable on its own.

Regulated, Yes. Yours, No.

This is where I think an important distinction gets lost.

The answer is not simply to abandon regulation.

Solicitors carrying out reserved legal activities need to operate through the appropriate authorised structure.

There are also very good reasons to want to practise within a properly regulated firm: professional indemnity protection, client protections and access to work where regulated status matters commercially.

So the question isn’t:

Do I want my legal work to sit within a regulated firm?

For many solicitors, the answer is obviously yes.

The better question is:

Do I need to own the regulated firm myself?

Those are entirely different things.

Owning a Practice and Owning Your Career Are Not the Same Thing

Ask an experienced solicitor what they value about running their own practice and you will often hear things like:

My clients. My relationships. My hours. My earning potential. My professional judgement. My ability to decide what work I take on.

You hear “my client account” rather less often.

The same is true of PII renewal, AML supervision, complaints processes and regulatory reporting.

Historically, professional independence and ownership of the infrastructure have been bundled together.

They don’t necessarily have to be.

What We Built Instead

I founded 360 Law Services because I believed the infrastructure of a law firm could be a shared cost rather than a personal one.

Today, we have more than 130 consultant solicitors practising through 360 Law Services.

We are an SRA-authorised body (638684).

The principle behind our model is straightforward:

You practise law. We provide the regulated infrastructure around you.

Our consultants work within our established framework rather than having to create a regulated practice of their own.

We carry the regulatory infrastructure

That includes the COLP and COFA functions, AML supervision and associated compliance processes.

We hold the client account

The client account belongs to 360 Law Services rather than the individual consultant.

That distinction matters even more when rules are increasingly concerned with client-money risk.

We provide the operational infrastructure

That includes onboarding, identity and source-of-funds processes, complaints infrastructure and other systems required to support regulated legal work.

PII sits within the model

Consultants do not have to arrange an entirely separate professional indemnity policy simply to practise through us.

Our current arrangements include cover of up to £9 million, with a capped PII excess, subject to the applicable terms.

Technology Is What Makes the Economics Work

Simply moving administration from the solicitor to a large back-office team would not solve the underlying problem.

It would just make the infrastructure expensive in a different way.

That is why technology is fundamental to our model.

We operate our own cloud-based case-management environment with pre-built workflows for different matter types and integrations designed to remove as much of the administrative tail from a file as possible.

Our infrastructure is Cyber Essentials Plus certified.

That isn’t a nice extra.

It’s part of the reason the model can work economically at higher fee-share levels.

What Does the Consultant Keep?

Our consultant fee share currently starts at:

70% where we provide the work.

75% where the consultant provides the work.

The percentage then rises through the bands to 90% as billing increases.

The important comparison, however, isn’t:

100% of my fees versus 70–90%.

That ignores the cost of generating the 100%.

The more useful comparison is:

What am I actually left with after paying for everything required to operate my own regulated practice?

PII.

Staff.

Technology.

Compliance.

Accounts.

Premises.

Client-account administration.

Management time.

And risk.

Only then can you compare the economics properly.

There Is Another Side to the Model: Referrals

No solicitor does everything.

A specialist practice regularly receives enquiries it cannot service.

In a traditional standalone practice, that often means referring the client elsewhere and watching the commercial relationship leave with them.

360 Law Services is full service, with other businesses operating across the wider group.

That means work outside a consultant’s own expertise can potentially be referred within the network, with referral income available where applicable.

Work you can’t personally service does not necessarily have to become work you simply turn away.

What You Give Up

This is the part that should not be hidden.

Consultancy has trade-offs.

The fee share is permanent

Over a twenty-year career, the percentage retained by the firm can represent a substantial amount of money.

You don’t build equity in 360 Law Services

If you build your own traditional firm successfully, you may eventually have an asset to sell.

Consultancy does not give you ownership of the regulated firm through which you practise.

Income can fluctuate

You still have to develop relationships, generate work and manage your own commercial pipeline.

Thin months can still be thin.

Consultancy isn’t employment with better hours.

It is running your own legal business without having the regulatory architecture bolted to your back.

Some Firms Should Stay Exactly Where They Are

Consultancy is not the right answer for everybody.

A scaled conveyancing operation may have very good reasons to maintain its own infrastructure.

A high-street practice may have valuable goodwill attached to its name and premises.

A firm may already have a strong management structure and a credible succession plan.

Certain business models simply work better as traditional firms.

And some solicitors want to build an asset they can eventually sell.

For those practices, the cost of carrying the regulation may simply be part of the economics of the business.

There is nothing wrong with that.

So Run the Numbers

Rule 8 should prompt owner-managed firms to do something more useful than simply identify their next compliance officer.

It should prompt them to calculate what owning the infrastructure actually costs.

Look at:

PII + compliance + accounts + AML + technology + staff + premises + client-account administration + management time + regulatory risk.

Then compare that with practising within somebody else’s regulated infrastructure.

And don’t compare headline percentages.

Compare net outcomes.

How much do you earn?

How much do you spend?

How much time do you lose to non-chargeable management?

What risks sit personally with you?

What part of the infrastructure do you actually value owning?

And what would your working week look like if somebody else carried it?

The Question Rule 8 Should Make You Ask

The SRA’s changes are regulatory.

But for owner-managed practices, the consequences are also commercial.

The question isn’t whether your legal practice should be regulated.

For most of us, it should be.

The question is whether you personally need to own, fund, insure and carry the regulated entity through which you practise.

For some firms, the answer will remain an emphatic yes.

For others, what they actually need is to:

Be inside a regulated firm, not be the one carrying it.

Rule 8 has just made the difference between those two options more significant.

This proposal matters because ground rent adds an ongoing cost for many homeowners. In some cases, it also makes it harder to sell or remortgage a leasehold property. As a result, many leaseholders have pushed for reform for years.

In this blog, we explain what ground rent is, what the proposed cap means, and how the reforms could affect leaseholders and buyers.

What Is Ground Rent?

Ground rent is an annual payment that some leaseholders must pay to the freeholder under the terms of their lease.

Unlike service charges, ground rent usually does not pay for building maintenance or repairs. Instead, it forms part of the legal agreement that allows the leaseholder to occupy the property for a set number of years.

In addition, some leases include review clauses that increase ground rent over time. Therefore, costs can rise significantly during the life of the lease.

What Changes Has the Government Proposed?

The draft bill proposes several major changes to the leasehold system. Most importantly, it proposes to:

Cap Ground Rent at £250 a Year

The government plans to cap ground rent at £250 per year for most long residential leases in England and Wales that are not already covered by existing legislation. Consequently, leaseholders who currently pay more than £250 could see their annual ground rent reduced once the cap takes effect.

Reduce Ground Rent to a Peppercorn After 40 Years

The draft bill also proposes to reduce ground rent to a peppercorn rent (effectively £0) after 40 years. In other words, the government intends to phase ground rent out over time.

However, the bill remains in draft form. Therefore, Parliament may still amend the details before it becomes law.

Some leases and arrangements may be exempt or treated differently, so the impact will depend on the type of lease and any exemptions in the final legislation.

Why Does the Ground Rent Cap Matter for Leaseholders?

1. It Could Reduce Annual Costs

If you currently pay more than £250 each year, the cap could lower your ground rent. As a result, you may feel less financial pressure, especially during a period of rising living costs.

2. It Could Create More Predictable Payments

Some leaseholders face ground rent increases linked to inflation or other review clauses. A cap could help limit these increases. Therefore, leaseholders may find it easier to plan their finances.

3. It Could Support Property Sales and Remortgaging

High ground rent can affect buyer confidence. In addition, mortgage lenders sometimes view certain ground rent clauses as higher risk. Consequently, a cap may help some leaseholders sell or remortgage more easily.

That said, the impact will depend on the final law and how lenders apply their criteria.

How Does This Link to the 2022 Ground Rent Rules?

The government introduced major changes in 2022 through the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022. This law restricted ground rents on most new long residential leases in England and Wales. In many cases, new leases now include a peppercorn ground rent (effectively zero).

However, many existing leaseholders still pay ground rent under older leases. Therefore, the new proposal focuses on those existing agreements.

What Should Leaseholders Do Now?

If you own a leasehold property, you should take practical steps now. For example, you can:

• Check your lease to confirm your current ground rent and any review clauses
• Keep records of ground rent demands and payments
• Get legal advice before selling, buying or remortgaging a leasehold property
  

Even small details in a lease can affect your long-term costs. Therefore, it helps to understand your position early.

Final Thoughts

The proposed £250 cap on ground rent could bring real benefits for many leaseholders in England and Wales. It may reduce costs, improve predictability, and support fairer home ownership.

However, the government has not passed the reforms into law yet. Therefore, leaseholders should stay informed and seek advice where needed.

This blog is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific circumstances, please contact a solicitor.

In this blog, we explain what interest rates are, why they matter, and how this latest cut could affect homeowners, first time buyers, and savers.

What Are Interest Rates?

Interest rates represent either:

• The cost of borrowing money – such as on mortgages, loans, or credit cards.

• The return on savings – the amount a bank or building society pays for holding your money.

The Bank of England base rate directly influences the rates banks and lenders offer. Therefore, when the base rate falls, borrowing usually becomes cheaper, but savings rates often drop too.

How Will This Affect Homeowners?

1. Lower Mortgage Payments

If you have a tracker mortgage or a standard variable rate (SVR) mortgage, you will likely see your monthly repayments decrease. Consequently, this can free up extra funds, helping to reduce financial pressure.

2. Fixed-Rate Mortgages

If you are on a fixed-rate mortgage, your payments will remain unchanged until your current term ends. However, when you remortgage, you could benefit from more competitive rates.

What Does This Mean for Home Buyers?

Lower interest rates often make borrowing more affordable, which can encourage more people to buy property. As a result, first time buyers could enjoy:

• Smaller monthly mortgage repayments.

• Better chances of passing affordability checks.

However, increased demand may push property prices higher. Therefore, buyers should weigh the benefits of lower rates against potential changes in the housing market.

What About Savers?

While borrowers may gain, savers could see a reduction in interest earned on their accounts. This means your savings may grow more slowly over time. For this reason, it’s important to compare different accounts and consider other savings or investment options that suit your risk appetite.

Final Thoughts

The Bank of England’s decision to cut rates to 4% is designed to boost spending and investment by reducing the cost of borrowing. For homeowners, this could mean lower mortgage payments. For first time buyers, it might improve affordability. However, for savers, it signals the need to review accounts and potentially seek higher returns elsewhere.

Key Provisional Conclusions

Retention of the “Contracting-Out” Model

First, the Law Commission provisionally concludes that the current “contracting-out” model should stay in place. This model allows landlords and tenants to agree that the statutory right to renew a tenancy will not apply. Significantly, most consultees supported this approach because it balances the interests of landlords and tenants while preventing unnecessary disruption in the commercial leasehold market.

Scope of Tenancies Covered

Currently, the Act excludes certain tenancies, such as agricultural tenancies. During the consultation, the Commission asked whether these exclusions should continue. In the end, most consultees agreed that the current exclusions are appropriate, and the Commission provisionally supports this stance.

Duration Threshold for Security of Tenure

Under current law, tenancies lasting up to six months do not qualify for security of tenure. During the consultation, stakeholders shared mixed views on this rule. However, many supported raising the threshold to create more flexibility in the short-term lettings market. Therefore, the Law Commission provisionally concludes that the threshold should increase and plans to consult on raising it to two years. This proposal will feature in the Commission’s upcoming second consultation paper.

What Happens Next?

Looking ahead, these provisional conclusions will guide the Law Commission as it prepares its second consultation paper. This paper will cover the technical details of the proposed reforms, including potential changes to the contracting-out process. Following this, the Commission will publish its final recommendations for reform in a report.

By improving how data is shared and used across public services and businesses, it ensures greater efficiency. At the same time, the Act prioritises the protection of individual rights and establishes stronger data protection measures.

Consequently, it strikes a balance between innovation and safeguarding privacy, driving progress while maintaining security.

What Is the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025?

The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 creates a robust framework targeting several critical areas:

• Smart Data: The Act enables consumers and businesses to securely share data with authorised third parties. Thereby fostering better competition and driving innovation across industries.

• Digital Identity: It establishes a trusted framework for digital verification services. Offering individuals secure methods to prove their identity online.

• National Underground Asset Register (NUAR): The Act introduces a new statutory register designed to enhance the management and safety of underground infrastructure.

• Data Protection and Privacy: The Act strengthens data protection laws by providing clear guidelines for automated decision-making and regulating international data transfers.

In summary, the Act addresses key areas to improve data security, promote innovation, and protect privacy

Key Benefits of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025

Boosting Economic Growth
The introduction of Smart Data schemes is expected to inject £10 billion into the UK economy over the next decade.
This will be achieved through several key initiatives:

• Facilitating Cost Savings: Consumers will enjoy easier comparisons and the ability to switch services. Such as energy providers, leading to cost savings.

• Driving Innovation: Businesses will gain access to anonymised data, improving decision-making processes and encouraging new innovations.

By fostering a more competitive environment, the Act will contribute significantly to sustained economic growth.

Improving Public Services

The Act simplifies data sharing between public services, resulting in:

• Improved Efficiency: Streamlined data sharing will eliminate duplication and ensure more efficient delivery of services. Benefiting both citizens and government agencies.

• Quicker Response to Emergencies: By enabling real-time data sharing, government services can respond more effectively to public health emergencies and societal needs.

This enhanced coordination will ultimately improve responsiveness and accessibility within public services.

Strengthening Data Protection

The Act includes essential safeguards to ensure individuals’ data remains secure and protected:

• Clear Data Processing Rules: The Act establishes transparent guidelines for data processing and sharing. Building public trust in how personal data is handled.

• Improved Accountability: By strengthening enforcement, the legislation ensures organisations are held accountable for their data practices.

These measures will not only protect individuals’ privacy but also enable the UK to leverage data for innovation.

Safeguards and Oversight in the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025

To maintain public trust, the Act incorporates several key safeguards:

• Digital Identity Certification: Digital verification services must adhere to a government-established trust framework. Ensuring both security and privacy for users.

• Regulatory Oversight: The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) will remain responsible for overseeing data protection practices as well as enhanced enforcement powers to ensure compliance.

• Public Consultation and Impact Assessment: Ongoing public consultations and impact assessments will ensure that data use aligns with the interests and rights of the public, providing transparency and accountability.

By introducing these measures, the Act guarantees safeguards, benefiting everyone while ensuring that data practices are responsibly managed.

What Happens Next?

Following Royal Assent, the government will begin implementing the Act, which will include several crucial steps:

• Establishing the Digital Identity Trust Framework: This framework will ensure that online verification services comply with stringent security and privacy standards, safeguarding user information.
• Launching Smart Data Schemes: These schemes will be rolled out across various sectors, allowing businesses and consumers to securely access data and drive innovation.
• Creating the National Underground Asset Register: The register will play a vital role in managing and ensuring the safety of underground infrastructure, as well as promoting public safety and efficient data use.

Furthermore, the government will continue consulting with stakeholders to ensure smooth implementation.

Conclusion

The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 marks a significant step in modernising the UK’s data landscape. It balances innovation with strong protections, aiming to drive economic growth, enhance public services, and safeguard individual data privacy. Moreover, as the Act is implemented, it will create a more connected, efficient, and secure data environment for businesses, public services, and consumers alike.

At 360 Law Services, we understand the importance of staying informed about the latest legislative developments, such as the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. As a law firm committed to providing expert legal services to businesses and individuals, we recognise how such transformative changes in data governance will impact our clients.

Whether you need advice on data protection or assistance navigating the changes introduced by the Act, 360 Law Services is here to provide tailored legal solutions.

What is Neonatal Care Leave?

Neonatal care leave allows eligible parents to take extra time off to support their baby while receiving care in a neonatal unit. Parents can take neonatal care leave once their baby has been in neonatal care for at least seven consecutive days. Importantly, there is no minimum employment requirement. Parents are entitled to leave from their first day of employment.

What Does Neonatal Care Include?

Neonatal care refers to the medical care provided to newborn babies within their first 28 days of life. This includes:

• Medical care in a hospital
• Ongoing care after discharge from the hospital
• Palliative or end of life care.

This broad definition ensures that all types of neonatal care, whether in hospital or at home, are covered under this new entitlement.

Who Can Take Neonatal Care Leave?

Neonatal care leave is available to:

• The mother or birth parent
• The father
• The partner of the mother or birth parent, including same sex partners
• Parents adopting a child
• Intended parents in a surrogacy arrangement

This wide eligibility ensures that all parents, regardless of family structure, can take neonatal care leave if their baby requires extended care.

How Much Leave Can Parents Take?

The length of neonatal care leave depends on the baby’s time in neonatal care:

• Parents can take a minimum of one week of leave. With the option to extend it up to 12 weeks, depending on the baby’s care needs.
• The leave can be taken at any point during the child’s stay in neonatal care. But must begin after the baby has been in neonatal care for at least seven consecutive days.

This flexibility ensures parents can take the necessary time to support their child, whether the stay is short or longer.

Statutory Neonatal Care Pay

Eligible parents may also receive Statutory Neonatal Care Pay (SNCP). The pay is:

• Available to employees who have completed 26 weeks of continuous service by the relevant date
• Paid at the same rate as statutory maternity or paternity pay, ensuring that parents don’t face financial strain while taking leave to care for their baby

It’s worth noting that neonatal care leave is in addition to other leave entitlements, such as maternity or paternity leave, meaning parents can benefit from both.

The Impact of the Neonatal Care Leave Act

The Neonatal Care Leave Act 2023 is a positive change, offering parents essential support during one of life’s most challenging times. By providing both additional leave and pay, the law ensures that parents can focus on their baby’s health without the added stress of work or financial hardship.

For employers, this law underscores the importance of flexible workplace policies that support employees during personal and family challenges. As the law is now in effect, employers must be prepared to implement these changes and inform employees of their new rights.

At 360 Law Services, we understand the importance of supporting parents during such critical times. As experts in employment law, we can guide both businesses and employees through the complexities of the new Neonatal Care Leave and Pay Act. If you have any questions or need assistance with this new entitlement, our team is here to help.

The Law Commission’s final report, Modernising Wills Law, published last month, marks a significant stride toward updating the outdated legal framework governing wills in England and Wales.

The law governing Wills dates from 1837 and case law from the nearly 200 years since that legislation. Inevitably it has not kept pace with the vast social and technological changes in the intervening years.

The key proposals are far-reaching with their stated aim of addressing issues such as outdated and often unhelpful and off-putting formalities, the protection of vulnerable individuals, and the integration of technology into the will-making process.

The Law Commission’s Recognition

The Commission recognises that:

• Many people are living longer than their ancestors did, and more people will suffer from ill health and a decline in their mental capacity that are commonly associated with old age.
• The property that the average person owns may be more valuable than it was in the past.
• Documents in electronic form are now far more prevalent than paper documents.

The Law Commission seeks to strengthen the exercise of testamentary freedom -a person’s right to make their Will and determine the disposition of their estates with the minimum of legal restraint while protecting testators from undue influence and fraud. All this while increasing clarity and certainty in the law.

Main Recommendations of the Report

• Replace outdated Victorian case law on testamentary capacity with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to reflect modern medical understanding.
• End automatic revocation of wills on marriage to prevent unintended disinheritance and protect individuals, especially in predatory marriage cases.
• Allow existing wills to remain valid post-marriage unless the individual chooses to create a new one.
• This change offers greater autonomy and protection for those vulnerable to exploitation or coercion.
• Introduce a separate doctrine of testamentary undue influence to better protect vulnerable individuals from coercion and exploitation.
• Empower courts to infer undue influence when reasonable evidence is available, reducing the current high burden of proof.
• Lower the legal age for making a will from 18 to 16 to align with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
• Embrace electronic wills to modernise the will-making process in line with everyday technological use.
• Permit digital creation and execution of wills, building on practices like remote witnessing seen during the Covid pandemic.
• Relax rigid formalities from 19th-century legislation that often invalidate testamentary documents over technicalities.
• Allow courts to recognise wills that clearly reflect a testator’s intention, even if not formally executed in time.

Potential Pitfalls

While the proposed reforms aim to modernise and protect, they also present potential challenges. The introduction of electronic wills, for instance, could lead to an increase in disputes over authenticity and intent.

Without stringent safeguards, there is a risk that individuals could be coerced into creating or modifying wills digitally, especially if they are isolated or under duress.

Additionally, the shift in the testamentary capacity test may lead to increased litigation as individuals challenge the validity of wills based on perceived capacity issues. While the intention is to protect vulnerable individuals, the practical implications could strain the legal system and create uncertainties in estate administration.

Next steps

The government has welcomed the report and stated its intention to give serious consideration to the recommendations and the draft bill contained in the Commission’s report.  This will entail parliamentary scrutiny, a process which could take a further 12 months.

The final report does tackle this major issue in a way which boldly addresses the complexities of contemporary society. The proposals to lower the age for making a will, align the capacity test with modern standards, protect against undue influence, and integrate technology into the will-making process are an attempt to create a more inclusive and protective legal framework.

However, these reforms must be implemented with caution, ensuring that adequate safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and maintain the integrity of the will-making process. As society continues to evolve, so too must the laws which govern it, but this evolution must be carefully managed to balance innovation with protection.

Meanwhile the Report is a useful prompt to us all to consider making or reviewing our Wills and the dedicated Wills and Estate Planning Team at 360 Law Services is ready to assist you.