Author: Whitestone Chambers

The Commercial Court decision in Invest Bank PSC v El-Husseini & Ors [2024] EWHC 1804 (Comm) provides a useful reminder of the strict procedural consequences that can follow from failing to comply with the rules governing notices to prove documents. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Calver, arose during the course of a four-week Commercial Court trial and concerned an application by the claimant bank for relief from sanctions.

The underlying proceedings were brought under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986. This provision allows the court to set aside transactions entered into at an undervalue where the purpose of the transaction was to prejudice the interests of creditors. The Bank alleged that certain transactions involving members of the El-Husseini family and associated parties had been structured with that objective in mind. The issue arose on day six of the trial and concerned a Divorce Agreement disclosed by the Sixth Defendant. The Bank wished to challenge the date on which the agreement had been executed.

The Notice to Prove

Under Civil Procedure Rules r.32.19, a party is deemed to admit the authenticity of a document disclosed to it unless it serves notice requiring the document to be proved at trial. The notice must be served by the latest date for serving witness statements or within seven days of disclosure, whichever is later. In this case, the deadline for witness statements was 1 March 2024. The Bank did not serve a notice to prove by that date. Instead, it served one on 14 March 2024 seeking to challenge the date of execution recorded on the Divorce Agreement.

The Bank argued that the notice was nevertheless valid because the court had later ordered the service of supplemental witness statements by 17 June 2024. On that basis, it contended that the “latest date for serving witness statements” within CPR 32.19 included the later deadline for supplemental statements.

Calver J rejected that argument. Although he observed that CPR 32.19 is “poorly worded”, he held that the rule refers to the deadline for primary witness statements rather than any later supplemental statements. If the Bank’s interpretation were correct, parties could remain uncertain about whether documents might be challenged at a much later stage in the litigation. This would undermine the purpose of the rule, which is to give the party relying on the document sufficient time to gather evidence proving its authenticity. The consequence was that the Bank had been deemed to admit the authenticity of the Divorce Agreement once the 1 March deadline passed.

Relief from Sanctions

The Bank therefore required relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9. The court approached the issue using the familiar three stage framework established in Denton v TH White Ltd., concluding that the breach was both serious and significant. Although the notice had been served only two weeks late, the Bank waited almost three months before applying for relief. The issue ultimately had to be addressed during the trial itself, requiring the court to interrupt the hearing to determine the application.

The Forgery Issue

Ultimately, the decisive factor was that granting relief would serve no useful purpose. The Bank’s objective in serving the notice to prove was to challenge the date on which the Divorce Agreement had been executed. As the court explained, alleging that a document was not executed on the date appearing on its face amounts, in law, to an allegation of forgery.

Relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Eco 3 Capital Ltd v Ludsin Overseas Ltd, the judge held that such an allegation must be clearly pleaded. A party cannot avoid pleading forgery by simply requiring the opposing party to prove the document’s authenticity. The Bank had not pleaded forgery and accepted that it could not do so. Allowing the notice to prove would therefore permit what the authorities describe as a covert and unpleaded case of forgery. In those circumstances the application could achieve nothing of practical value.

The Bank’s application for relief from sanctions was accordingly refused and dismissed with costs.

Significance

The decision highlights two practical points for litigators.

First, it clarifies that the “latest date for serving witness statements” in CPR 32.19 refers to the deadline for primary witness statements, not any later deadline for supplemental statements. Parties should therefore ensure that notices to prove are served by the original witness statement deadline.

Secondly, the judgment demonstrates the limits of challenging the authenticity of documents without properly articulating the case being advanced. Where the substance of the challenge amounts to an allegation of forgery, that allegation must be clearly pleaded.

The Invest Bank PSC case serves as a reminder that even relatively minor procedural oversights can have significant consequences on the potential outcome of a trial, particularly once it is already underway.

© Whitestone Chambers 2026

Sources:

Invest Bank Judgment: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2024/1804.html

Denton v TH White ltd. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/906.html

Eco 3 Judgment: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/413.html

I return to aviation and I recall my work regarding the Shoreham Air Disaster.

It is nearly one year after a fatal midair collision over the Potomac River, Washington DC – the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, (NTSB), has concluded that the crash on January 29 2025  between an American Airlines regional jet and a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter was the result of systemic regulatory and operational failures, not isolated human error. 

The collision, which occurred near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA), killed all 67 people aboard both aircraft, making it the deadliest U.S. commercial aviation accident in more than two decades. 

The Probable Cause

In its final public board meeting, the NTSB sharply criticised the Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), for placing helicopter routes in dangerous proximity to active runway approach paths without adequate procedural safeguards. The Board formally adopted a probable cause finding that faulted the FAA for multiple issues:

• designing helicopter routes with minimal vertical separation from landing aircraft,
• failing to regularly review and evaluate helicopter traffic data,
• ignoring years of near collision data and
• internal warnings and failing to act on prior safety recommendations aimed at mitigating midair collision risk at DCA. 

According to NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy, the FAA possessed data showing more than 15,000 close proximity events, including 85 serious incidents over a number of years, yet failed to meaningfully analyse or act upon it. Investigators identified an average of 18 close calls per year between helicopters and airplanes operating near the airport. 

The Visual Separation

The Board also identified an over reliance on pilot applied ‘visual separation’, which was particularly problematic in congested, night time airspace such as DCA. Investigators concluded that this reliance introduced risk because of cockpit blind spots, background city lighting and the limitations of human perception. 

Recreated flight simulations showed how the commercial jet blended into Washington’s night lights from the helicopter cockpit, while cockpit structure and aircraft geometry significantly limited what the airline pilots could see. The NTSB found it would have been extremely difficult for the jet’s crew to visually detect or avoid the helicopter in time. 

The Air Traffic Control

Although the NTSB determined that staffing levels alone did not cause the crash, it is not surprising that investigators highlighted controller workload and combined control positions as contributing factors. At the time of the collision, a single controller was communicating with six airplanes and five helicopters. 

Crucially, the FAA acknowledged that the control tower failed to warn the airline pilots of nearby helicopter traffic. While the helicopter crew was instructed to pass behind the jet, a partially blocked radio transmission meant they did not hear the full instruction. Believing they had the correct aircraft in sight, a phenomenon attributed to expectation bias, the helicopter crew requested visual seperation. 

The Technology Gaps

The investigation also focused heavily on the absence of effective collision avoidance technology, including the Automatic Dependant Surveillance- Broadcast, (ADS-B), a system that transmits an aircraft’s GPS based position, altitude and speed to controllers and nearby aircraft, enabling real time collision alerts.

At the time, the Army Black Hawk was allowed to fly with ADS-B turned off and the regional jet lacked ADS-B In, which would have received alerts. Investigators concluded that, if fully equipped, both crews could have received warnings up to a minute before the collision, potentially preventing the crash.

The findings underscore calls for broader ADS-B equipage, now central to the bipartisan ROTOR Act, which would mandate the system for civil and military aircraft operating near congested airspace.    

The Altitude Discrepancies 

Investigators also identified discrepancies in the helicopter’s altitude readings. Although the published route capped helicopter altitude at 200 feet, the collision occurred at nearly 300 feet. Allowable equipment tolerances and Army altitude holding standards meant aircraft could unintentionally fly closer to commercial traffic than intended. The NTSB cited shortcomings in the Army’s safety culture, including failures to ensure pilots fully understood altimeter tolerances and route limitations.

The Legal Implications 

In December 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice formally admitted federal liability, citing the actions of both the Army helicopter crew and the FAA air traffic controller. During the NTSB hearing, board members emphasised that individual errors were set up for failure, to some extent, by the systems around them.

The Safety Recommendations 

The NTSB approved 50 new safety recommendations; the majority quite rightly directed at the FAA. These include redesigning helicopter routes near DCA, integrating helicopter route data into approach procedures, enhancing controller training and conflict alert systems, improving staffing practices and expanding and improving airborne collision avoidance systems. 

The Board also warned that similar risk hotspots may exist elsewhere, citing concerns raised by airlines about airports such as Hollywood Burbank in California. We should look for this here in the UK as well.

The Next Steps

An executive summary of the findings is expected shortly, with the full final report, approximately 500 pages, to be released in the coming weeks. While the FAA has implemented some post-crash measures, including reduced arrival rates and increased staffing at DCA, the NTSB stressed that lasting safety reform will depend on sustained regulatory action. 

© Lawrence Power 2026

Sources 

https://avweb.com/flight-safety/accidents-ntsb/ntsb-dca-midair-collision-was-preventable

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/27/us/ntsb-plane-crash-dc-potomac?utm_medium=email&ut m_source=rasa_io&utm_campaign=newsletter

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fatal-american-airlines-jet-army-helicopter-collision-resultmulitude-errors-2026-01-27/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

The Regional Court of Munich’s November 2025 decision in GEMA v OpenAI marks a defining moment for the global conversation around copyright and AI. The court held that OpenAI’s ChatGPT had violated German copyright law by reproducing song lyrics from GEMA’s catalogue without proper licensing. In my opinion this ruling resonates far beyond Germany, signalling that in the age of generative AI, creators’ rights remain firmly protected. [i]

Background

GEMA, which represents composers, lyricists, and music publishers in Germany, brought the case over nine of the country’s best-known songs. These included Herbert Grönemeyer’s 1984 hit Männer and Helene Fischer’s Atemlos Durch die Nacht, which was the unofficial anthem of the German side during the 2014 Football World Cup. [ii]

When prompted by users, ChatGPT generated full or nearly complete versions of these copyrighted lyrics, showing that OpenAI’s system had “memorised” the works during training. OpenAI’s lawyers argued that its model did not store copyrighted text but generated new material based on statistical patterns. It also invoked the EU’s “text and data mining” (TDM) exception[iii], which allows limited use of data for machine learning. The court rejected this defence, concluding that reproducing song lyrics went beyond permissible data mining and amounted to infringement. As a result, GEMA was entitled to the claims for injunctive relief, information and damages.[iv]

Significance

This ruling should reshape how AI companies interact with creative industries. It establishes a clear precedent that “memorisation” within an AI system, where models can regenerate copyrighted works, may constitute reproduction under copyright law.

This is one of the first European judgments to hold an AI developer liable not for traditional copying, but for what its model learned and could later output. The court’s reasoning will likely influence how AI developers manage training data and licensing obligations. Developers may now need to obtain explicit permissions for copyrighted content used to train generative models, particularly music, literature, and art. The ruling may also push AI developers to disclose what data their models use, promoting transparency but also adding compliance challenges.

Interestingly, this strict interpretation contrasts with the UK’s Getty Images v Stability AI case[v]. There, the High Court found that Stability AI’s model had not infringed copyright because it learned from data statistically rather than storing it.[vi] This divergence highlights a growing legal gap between the EU and UK courts. While the UK leans toward a permissive view of machine learning, the EU appears to prioritise creators’ rights – even when innovation is at stake.

Key Takeaways

• Memorisation equals reproduction: If an AI model can regenerate protected works, that may amount to infringement.
• Dual exposure: Liability can arise both during training (embedding copyrighted works) and generation (reproducing them).
• Licensing obligations: Developers should secure rights for creative data sets before training.
• Jurisdictional divergence: Europe’s stricter approach diverges from the UK’s more flexible stance, creating compliance complexities for global developers.

Conclusion

GEMA v OpenAI [vii] underscores a pivotal shift in how courts interpret AI’s relationship with copyright. By recognising that training an AI can infringe when memorisation leads to faithful reproduction, the Munich court has drawn new lines in the sand. For AI developers, innovation must now consider alignment with established copyright principles. Whitestone will certainly working with it’s creative clients in music and the arts to look further into protecting their intellectual property rights.

© Lawrence Power 2025

---

[i] GEMA v OpenAI (Munich District Court I, 11 November 2025) < https://media.licdn.com/dms/document/media/v2/D4E1FAQGoTQ9DKfW1uw/feedshare-document-pdf-analyzed/B4EZp0_lp_IwAc-/0/1762899432336?e=1764201600&v=beta&t=HborRwy3RYuqCH4P0PabjE-jXUYKK7My5_vCGX7pTmg> accessed on 13 November 2025.

[ii] The Guardian, ‘ChatGPT violated copyright law by ‘learning’ from song lyrics German court rules’ , 2025, <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/nov/11/chatgpt-violated-copyright-laws-german-court-rules > accessed on 13 November 2025.

[iii] TDM, exception cite

[iv] GEMA v OpenAI (Munich District Court I, 11 November 2025) <  > accessed on 13 November 2025.

[v] Getty Images v Stability AI [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch).

[vi] Getty Images v Stability AI [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) [554].

[vii] GEMA v OpenAI (Munich District Court I, 11 November 2025) <  > accessed on 13 November 2025.

The newly appointed Chair of the Bar Council has called for renewed collaboration between barristers and solicitors to promote a fairer allocation of work at the Bar. Speaking at the start of her term, Kirsty Brimelow KC identified briefing practices as a key area where collective action could help address structural inequalities within the profession.

Brimelow’s remarks reflect long-standing concerns about how work is distributed across the Bar, particularly in relation to women, junior practitioners, and those from underrepresented backgrounds. While progress has been made in widening access to the profession, disparities in the allocation of briefs continue to affect career development, earnings, and retention. The new Chair has emphasised that meaningful reform in this area depends not only on the Bar itself, but also on the role of solicitors as gatekeepers of work.

Central to this agenda is closer engagement with the Law Society. Brimelow has indicated that cooperation between the two professional bodies will be essential if fairer briefing practices are to be embedded across the legal services market. By encouraging solicitors to take a more active and transparent approach to the choice of counsel, the Bar Council hopes to foster a culture in which opportunity is more evenly distributed.

The focus on briefing sits alongside a broader programme of reform outlined by the new Chair, which includes addressing pay gaps, improving wellbeing at the Bar, and supporting Chambers in reviewing internal practices. In particular, attention has been drawn to the cumulative impact of uneven briefing on long-term progression. Where certain groups are consistently overlooked for complex or high-value work, the effects can compound over time, reinforcing disparities in seniority and visibility.

Brimelow has also highlighted the importance of practical measures to support fairness, including greater awareness of briefing data and more open conversations between solicitors and Chambers about expectations and expertise. Rather than prescribing rigid rules, the emphasis has been placed on collaboration and professional responsibility, with the aim of achieving cultural change that is sustainable and widely supported.

The renewed focus on fair allocation comes at a time when the barristers profession continues to navigate wider pressures, including increased workloads, recruitment challenges and ongoing concerns about access to justice. Within this context, ensuring that work is distributed equitably is increasingly viewed as central to supporting a resilient and diverse Bar. For junior barristers in particular, access to a broad range of instructions can be decisive in building skills, confidence and long-term viability in practice. However, the truth is it is going to be very difficult to reform age old practice and relationships let alone navigate the internal office politics of who is fed what by whom. Any initiative needs to be monitored, audited and actually have teeth if it is to succeed.

The success of the Bar Council’s initiative will depend on the extent to which solicitors engage with and support these aims. If sustained cooperation can be achieved, the call for fairer briefing practices may mark an important step toward addressing entrenched inequalities and strengthening professional relationships across the legal sector. As Brimelow’s tenure begins, the issue of how work is distributed at the Bar is firmly positioned as a shared responsibility rather than an internal concern of Chambers alone.

© Whitestone Chambers 2026

The BBC sued again. More people refuse to pay the annual TV License Fee. Top jobs are lost. Crisis?

In the past 2 years we (@whitestonechambers) have acted in both Strictly Come Dancing & MasterChef to take legal action against the BBC.

Now a new Plaintiff (Claimant) arrives in FL…….

CNN, ABC, and Paramount/CBS are just a few of the five news agencies that Donald Trump has sued in recent years and as of December 2024, the BBC, (“Auntie”), can now add itself to this list after being hit with a $10 billion lawsuit seeking a minimum payout of $5 billion in damages across two separate issues.

The case surrounds part of the Panorama documentary, which was broadcast on October 28, 2024, in the wake of the upcoming presidential election. The video cropped together two parts of a speech Trump gave on January 6, 2021, where he stated, “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.” Later in the same speech, Trump proceeded to state, “And we fight. We fight like hell.” Ultimately, the clip in the video appeared to show President Trump say, “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol… and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.” In the eyes of the Trump team, this editing suggests that Trump was inciting the violence that would later take place during the January 6 Capitol riots, which led to multiple deaths and injured over 100 police officers.

In the lawsuit filed by the Trump legal team, the BBC is accused of both defamation and violating Florida law through its “deceptive” and “malicious” editing, which they state was done as an attempt to “interfere in and influence the [2024] election’s outcome to President Trump’s detriment.”

The BBC did apologise for the clip, acknowledging it gave a “mistaken impression” and both Tim Davie, (former BBC Corporation Director General), and Deborah Turness (former BBC Head of News) seemingly resigned in light of the situation. However, the BBC did not accept that the program was maliciously distributed to harm the Trump presidential campaign, which became the first element of the claim. The second element of this case is that the BBC violated trade practice law, as the program was available to viewers in the US through distribution rights acquired by Blue Ant Media.

The BBC has made clear that it intends to defend this case in multiple statements it has released, and its disagreement with both claims laid out in the suit comes as no surprise. However, BBC Chairman, Samir Shah, has also personally contacted the White House, offering a personal apology on behalf of the corporation. Legally, the BBC has laid out five arguments to refute the Trump team’s claims, stating that it did not stream Panorama in the US and that the shortening of the clip did not cause harm nor was it meant to mislead, as it simply shortened a long speech and should be considered in the larger context of the hour-long program.

In the end, as the Trump team seems set on pursuing this case, the BBC is left with the choice of agreeing a settlement or proceeding with the case. Either way, this case will present an interesting outcome not only due to its connection to freedom of speech and media but also in its effect on UK-US relations. Even though Prime Minister Keir Starmer has explicitly distanced the UK government from the BBC’s actions, Trump’s past conflicts with countries such as Canada and Mexico over the actions of private companies has demonstrated the possibility of backlash for US-UK relations.

© Lawrence Power 2026

References

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpvd81470v1o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kifz8BS0AWc

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0mx28vlp4wo

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/trump-sues-bbc-defamation-over-editing-january-6-speech-2025-12-16

On 5 December 2025, Gulfstream Aerospace announced that its newest entrant in the business aviation market, the Gulfstream G300 super-midsize jet, had completed its maiden flight, signalling the formal launch of its flight-test programme and advancing the company’s strategic expansion in executive aviation.

The first prototype of the G300 took off from Ben Gurion International Airport in Israel at approximately 8:05 a.m. local time, where Gulfstream is collaborating with Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) on assembly for this model. The aircraft remained airborne for around two hours and 25 minutes, climbing to an altitude of roughly 30,000 feet and sustaining a cruise speed around Mach 0.75. 

This milestone follows an extensive period of ground testing, with the programme completing over 2,000 hours of preliminary trials before flying. The successful maiden sortie represents a significant step forward for Gulfstream’s development process and sets a structured path toward certification, with additional test aircraft already in production to expand the flight-test regimen. 

Redefining the Super-Midsize Segment

The G300 was first unveiled publicly in September 2025 at Gulfstream’s headquarters in Savannah, Georgia, as a modern successor to the company’s long-serving G280 model. Designed to bridge the gap between traditional midsize and long-range categories, the G300 seeks to offer operators a blend of long-range capability, advanced technology, and superior cabin comfort that challenges conventional segment boundaries.

According to Gulfstream’s published performance figures, the G300 is capable of flying approximately 3,600 nautical miles (about 6,667 kilometres) at a long-range cruise speed of Mach 0.80, with a slightly reduced range of around 3,000 nautical miles at the higher Mach 0.84 cruise setting. These figures position the aircraft competitively in the super-midsize class, offering operators trans-continental capability while maintaining operational flexibility.

To put these figures into perspective, if you are considering acquiring the G300, it offers seamless journeys from London to Dubai’s desert luxury or even nonstop travel from London to New York.  

Technology and Comfort at the Forefront

A chief selling point of the G300 is its cabin environment, which Gulfstream claims is the largest in its class, capable of accommodating up to ten passengers across two living areas. The design incorporates Gulfstream’s signature panoramic oval windows, ensuring a bright and open interior, alongside systems aimed at improving passenger comfort, including a low cabin altitude and advanced air filtration technologies. 

The aircraft’s avionics and cockpit systems are equally forward-looking. The G300 features Gulfstream’s Harmony Flight Deck, which integrates intuitive touchscreen controls and synthetic vision displays designed to enhance situational awareness and reduce pilot workload. Combined with performance attributes such as short-field capability and robust climb performance, these systems aim to deliver a class-leading operational experience. 

Implications for the Business Aviation Market

The G300’s inaugural flight comes at a time of sustained growth in the business aviation sector, where demand for flexible, long-range private travel continues to rise. By introducing a new aircraft that blends range, comfort, and technological sophistication, Gulfstream appears poised to reinforce its competitive position in the super-midsize segment against both legacy models and rival manufacturers. 

Looking ahead, the successful first flight lays the groundwork for subsequent phases of testing and regulatory certification. If the programme progresses on schedule, Gulfstream may soon offer operators an aircraft that embodies next-generation performance standards, which further shape expectations around capability, efficiency, and passenger experience in business jet travel.

Source: AeroTime

© Lawrence Power 2025

When the UK formally left the European Union on 1 January 2021, all registered EU Trade Marks (EUTMs) were automatically cloned into equivalent UK registrations – approximately 2 million entries onto the UKIPO register. This mechanism ensured continuity of protection for brand owners without the need for re-filing or additional cost. To soften the impact of Brexit, a transitional period of five years was introduced, allowing rights holders to rely on use of their mark anywhere in the EU to demonstrate genuine use of the corresponding UK registration. As this transitional period draws to a close on 1 January 2026, brand owners must now assess whether their UK trademarks are adequately protected, and whether they can withstand scrutiny based on non-use.

The Importance of Genuine Use.

Under UK trademark law, registration alone is not sufficient to maintain enforceable rights. A trademark must be put to genuine commercial use within five years of registration, failing which it becomes vulnerable to revocation. Third parties, such as competitors seeking to clear the path for a new brand, may apply to revoke a registration on the grounds of non-use. According to UK Intellectual Property Office statistics, non-use revocation actions account for a significant proportion of contentious trademark proceedings each year, reflecting the strategic value of such challenges.

In infringement proceedings, lack of use is also commonly deployed as a defensive tactic. A defendant may counterclaim for revocation of the claimant’s trademark, potentially undermining the basis of the enforcement action entirely. This risk is particularly acute for cloned UK registrations that have remained unused since Brexit.

What Constitutes Use.

Use must be genuine and commercial in nature and not merely token activity intended to preserve rights. UK courts have consistently held that genuine use requires real economic activity, assessed considering the nature of the goods or services and the characteristics of the relevant market. For example, a single high value transaction, may suffice in a specialist industrial sector, whereas more frequent sales would be expected for consumer goods.

Evidence of use may include sales invoices, product packaging, marketing campaigns, website activity targeting UK consumers, or participation in UK trade fairs. Importantly, use must be in the United Kingdom. From 1 January 2026, use of a mark solely within the EU will no longer be capable of supporting the validity of the UK registration.

What Brand Owners Should Do Right Now.

With the deadline approaching, trademark owners should undertake a strategic review of their UK portfolios. This includes identifying cloned registrations that have not yet been used in the UK and assessing their commercial importance. Where use exists, owners should gather and organise evidence now, as reconstructing proof retrospectively can be difficult and costly.

Where marks are commercially valuable but unused, businesses should consider whether it is feasible to commence genuine UK use, even on a modest scale. Early steps such as launching a UK facing website, appointing a distributor, or undertaking targeted advertising may be sufficient, provided the activity is commercially credible.

Let Whitestone assist you for failure to act before the end of the transitional period may result in the loss of valuable UK trademark rights, increased exposure to competitors, and reduced leverage in enforcement actions. Proactive preparation is therefore essential to ensure continued brand protection in the UK in a post Brexit landscape.

© Lawrence Power 2025

Sources

Abion, Brexit-Cloned UK Trade Marks: Preparing for the 31 December Deadline
Brexit-Cloned UK Trade Marks: Preparing for The Deadline

UK Intellectual Property Office, EU trade mark protection and comparable UK trade marks: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/eu-trade-mark-protection-and-comparable-uk-trade-marks

Trade Marks Act 1994, Section 46 (Revocation for non use) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/26/section/46

Mewburn Ellis: Genuine Use of Trademarks: Genuine use of trade marks

UKIPO decision O/540/21 at passages (5) and (6) – summarises the principles to be applied in testing whether there is genuine commercial exploitation: https://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-challenge-decision-results/o54021.pdf

Evidence of Use: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trade-marks-standard-opposition/guidance-standard-opposition-proceedings-before-the-trade-marks-tribunal

The Supreme Court’s October 2025 decision in Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation v Revenue and Customs [i] is a landmark moment for how VAT applies to NHS-generated income. The ruling closes a long-running debate about whether NHS Trusts can treat car parking as exempt from VAT under the ‘special legal regime’, (‘SLR’).

Background

The dispute began when Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust appealed a decision by HMRC, which refused to recognise the Trust’s car parking revenues as exempt from VAT on the grounds of being provided under a ‘special legal regime’ (SLR), a status that can allow public bodies to act as public authorities outside the usual VAT rules. The Trust argued its parking operations were governed by Department of Health guidance, implying a binding obligation and SLR status, and therefore that VAT should not be charged. Initial judgments by the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal did not support the Trust’s interpretation, but in 2024, the Court of Appeal sided with the Trust, stating its statutory duties brought the activity within the regime. [ii]

The Supreme Court Ruling

On appeal, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Court of Appeal, concluding that merely following guidance or public law duties does not establish a binding ‘special legal regime’ sufficient for VAT exemption. The Court affirmed that the Trust’s hospital car parking services compete with private operators and that exempting the NHS from VAT would distort competition [iii], which is contrary to VAT law’s objectives. As a result, NHS Trusts providing car parking are classified as taxable persons for VAT purposes rather than public authorities acting under SLR.​

Legal and Financial Impact of The Ruling

This decision provides long-awaited clarity across the NHS. Nearly 70 other NHS Trusts had made or were considering similar appeals[iv], with around £100 million in VAT at stake. Under the Supreme Court’s ruling, those claims will now be reversed or withdrawn, and VAT payments will have to be made to HMRC.

For HMRC, the decision affirms its long-held view that income from hospital parking is a taxable commercial supply. For the NHS, it means new financial planning pressures, as parking revenue is an important source of income; often used to fund site maintenance or patient access improvements.

Implications for NHS Trusts

The ruling sends a definitive message: NHS bodies engaged in revenue-generating activities similar to private businesses cannot claim public authority exemption from VAT under Article 13(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC, (the Principal VAT Directive). This will impact the operational policies of NHS trusts nationwide. Financial planners and legal advisors in NHS organisations must factor VAT considerations into all income-generating activities unless a clearly defined SLR exists. Trusts will likely review parking pricing and operations to mitigate the impact, while HMRC stands to recover substantial backdated VAT from institutions across the UK.​

The Precedent Set

Beyond its financial repercussions, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation v Revenue and Customs establishes an authoritative interpretation of how the VAT regime applies to public bodies undertaking commercial activities, closing the door to further appeals based on SLR status. This sets a clear framework for future taxation and competition rules for NHS and other public services in the UK.

© Lawrence Power 2025

---

[i] Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation v Revenue and Customs [2025] UKSC 37.

[ii] Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation v Revenue and Customs [2024] EWCA Civ 177.

[iii] [2025] UKSC 37.

[iv] [2025] UKSC 37 [1].

Each year, the legal profession reaffirms its commitment to merit, where skill and dedication are meant to be the sole architects of success. Yet the Bar Council’s latest Earnings at the Bar report for 2025 presents a contrasting reality, one where a persistent gender earnings gap challenges this ideal. This comprehensive analysis of the self-employed Bar reveals not just disparities in income, but a clear pattern that follows women from their first years in practice to the highest echelons of King’s Counsel.

The Data

Before examining the findings, it’s important to understand what the data represents. The Bar Council’s 2025 report focuses on gross fee income – the total earnings a barrister generates before deducting substantial professional expenses, which typically account for 20-40% of that figure. By using post-qualification experience (PQE) rather than year of call, the report provides a more accurate reflection of a barrister’s career based on years of active practice. 

The analysis deliberately uses median earnings- the middle point where half earn more and half earn less- to avoid skew from exceptionally high earners. This approach gives us a clearer picture of the typical barrister’s experience.

The Pattern

The central finding is depressingly unambiguous: at every stage of a self-employed barrister’s career, women earn less than men.

The gap begins early. Among the most junior barristers, women’s median earnings are 24% lower than men’s. This disparity is not a temporary hurdle; it widens significantly during the mid-career years, when practices are being solidified and reputations cemented. For barristers with 11 to 20 years of experience, women earn approximately 28% less.

Even at the pinnacle of the profession, the divide remains stark. Women who have attained the rank of King’s Counsel have a median income that is 28% lower than that of their male counterparts. This translates to a difference of £145,600 in median gross earnings between male KCs (£520,100) and female KCs (£374,500). Perhaps more telling is the gap among the very highest of earners: the top quarter of male silks earn over a million pounds on average, while the top quarter of female silks earn significantly less. 

The Trend

Perhaps the most concerning insight is the direction of travel. While median earnings have increased for all barristers over the past four years, they have risen more quickly for men. This means the proportional gap between men and women is not static; it is actively growing wider over time. Without intervention, the data suggests this trend will continue, entrenching inequality rather than eroding it.

The Variations 

While the gender earnings gap is present across all specialisms, its nature varies, offering clues to its underlying causes.

In Criminal Practice, the gap is most pronounced at the very start of a career but becomes the smallest of any area at KC level, standing at 9%. In Family law, where women make up almost two-thirds of practitioners, a consistent earnings disadvantage persists, including at silk level.

The most pronounced disparities are found in Commercial and Chancery law. Here, women are significantly underrepresented, comprising only 22% of practitioners. Their share of total earnings is even lower, at just 15%. For barristers with 21-25 years of experience in this field, the median earnings gap widens to a striking 43%, the largest identified in the report.

The Implications

These figures represent more than just annual income; they reflect systemic factors within the profession. They speak to patterns in work distribution, access to cases, and the internal dynamics of chambers that have not been addressed by the regulator.

The 2025 report is a powerful call of introspection and action. It urges chambers to move beyond general awareness and conduct their own detailed reviews of work allocation and earnings. The goal must be to identify and address the specific causes of disparity within each set, ensuring all members have equitable access to opportunities and the support needed to build successful, sustainable practices. 

The challenge laid out by the data is clear. The legal profession prides itself on logic, evidence, and justice. The report provides compelling evidence of an ongoing injustice within its own structure. The question now is whether the Bar will apply its formidable analytical and advocacy skills to solving this problem within its ranks. Addressing the earnings gap is not merely an issue of fairness; it is essential for upholding the profession’s integrity and securing its future challenge. 

 © Lawrence Power 2025

Reference

The Bar Council, Gross earnings by sex and practice area at the self-employed Bar (The General Council of the Bar, 2025). Accessible at:

https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/static/3bed67ba-8b7d-482b-b82feb4579022345/Bar-Cou ncil-gross-earnings-at-the-self-employed-Bar-report-2025.pdf 

Seventeen years after the “Crashgate” scandal shook Formula One, Felipe Massa has returned to the story in a way few expected. On November 20, 2025, the High Court in London handed down a ruling, deciding that the core of Massa’s lawsuit can proceed to trial. Mr Massa argues that the alleged mishandling of the affair cost him not only a world championship but millions in future earnings. At first glance, the case looks like a former driver trying to rewrite an old heartbreak. But beneath the headlines lies something far more consequential. The judge’s reasoning didn’t just keep a personal grievance alive; it quietly authorised a profound test of how far civil law can reach into the self-governed fortress of modern sport.

For casual fans, a quick recap. The 2008 Singapore Grand Prix was deliberately manipulated when Nelson Piquet Jr. crashed on instruction from his Renault team, causing a Safety Car period that helped his teammate win and derailed Massa’s own race. A year later, the truth emerged, long after the championship had been awarded. Massa lost that title by a single point to Lewis Hamilton. The episode became part of F1 lore, a settled controversy, or so it seemed.

Massa’s lawsuit insists that story is not over. Crucially, it does not formally seek to have the 2008 title overturned, something the court, in the same 2025 judgment (para 209-219), already signalled it would not do. Instead, the case now centres on a specific, surviving allegation. The High Court judge found that Massa has a “real prospect of success” (para 134-142) in proving that senior figures, notably, then-F1 CEO Bernie Ecclestone and then-FIA President Max Mosley, engaged in an “unlawful means conspiracy” (para 143) to conceal credible allegations about Crashgate in 2008 and prevent a timely investigation.

This distinction is the key to the case’s wider significance. The judge threw out Massa’s simpler claim that the FIA breached a contract with him directly. Instead, the ruling pivots on a more complex legal pathway: the judge found a real prospect that the FIA owed a duty (para 138-141) to its own member organisations to investigate serious fraud and that a conspiracy by individuals to breach that duty could form the basis of a claim for damages by a wronged athlete. In essence, Massa is not asking a judge to make him champion; he is asking the court to rule that a corrupt bargain in the sport’s backrooms has a legal price.

At stake, therefore, is not simply a trophy from a decade and a half ago, but a potentially revolutionary legal principle. The traditional assumption is that sport polices itself. By allowing this narrow, explosive allegation of a cover-up conspiracy to proceed, the High Court has effectively said (para 116-117) that the most egregious forms of administrative failure, those involving alleged collusion and concealment, may not be immune from legal scrutiny after all.

The implications ripple outward. If Massa succeeds at trial in proving the conspiracy the judge has allowed him to argue, governing bodies across world sport may be forced to confront uncomfortable questions. How robust must their internal whistleblower protocols be? What constitutes a “credible allegation” that demands immediate action? What legal duties do they owe, through their members, to the athletes in their care? Even a partial victory for Massa could pressure sports organisations into adopting more transparent, proactive procedures, not just because their rulebooks suggest it, but because the civil courts might now demand it.

The case also challenges the sacred idea of finality in sport. Results are meaningful because they are definitive. Yet, in a critical part of the 2025 ruling, the judge also decided that the six-year time limit for such a claim might not have started ticking until Massa could have reasonably discovered the alleged conspiracy, potentially resetting the clock (para 205-207) with Ecclestone’s 2023 interview. This means the consequences of a scandal, and the liability for mismanaging it, do not neatly expire once the trophy is handed over. The legal and financial risks of secrecy have just been amplified.

Beyond Formula One, the ruling sends a message to athletes everywhere. Historically, when controversies arose, doping cover-ups, corrupt officiating, safety failures, the assumption was that participants had little recourse beyond the sport’s own, often conflicted, internal channels. Massa’s lawsuit, having cleared this major procedural hurdle defined by the 2025 judgment, suggests that avenue may be wider than once thought. If officials fail in their core responsibilities through collusion and concealment, the matter may evolve from a mere sporting dispute into an actionable legal claim for conspiracy.

All of this places Formula One at a crossroads. The sport has grown into a global entertainment giant with billions in revenue. With that scale comes a level of legal and public accountability that an insular, discretionary model of governance may no longer withstand. The Massa case and the legal door the 2025 judgment has opened, accelerates that reckoning. It compels F1 to confront the gap between its glossy, high-tech public image and the opaque, “old boys’ club” decision-making that the lawsuit alleges, and the court has deemed triable, permitted the 2008 cover-up.

The final trial judgment, when it comes, will not rewrite history or declare a new champion. But the November 2025 ruling has already done the heavy lifting (para 220): it has defined the narrow, explosive legal pathway through which sporting justice might, for the first time, hold its most powerful architects directly accountable for an alleged conspiracy to bury the truth. In that sense, the Massa lawsuit is no longer about re-opening 2008. It is a landmark case about what sporting justice must look like in an era where the stakes; financial, reputational and ethical, have never been higher and where the courts are now prepared to listen.

© Lawrence Power 2025

Sources

• Tom Burrows, ‘F1 “Crashgate” “one of the biggest scandals in sports history”, says Felipe Massa’s lawyer’ (The New York Times, 31 October 2025) https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6764002/2025/10/30/f1-crashgate-felipe-massa/
• Massa v Formula One Management Ltd [2025] EWHC 3064 (KB) (Judiciary UK, 20 November 2025) https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Felipe-Massa-v-Formula-One-and-others.pdf
  • Cited paragraphs 116-220
• ‘Nelson Piquet’s crash in Singapore: what really happened?’ (The Guardian, 16 September 2009) https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/sep/16/nelson-piquet-singapore-flavio-briatore-inquiry
• Dominic Tobin, ‘Felipe Massa’s claim to be 2008 F1 champion: how Crashgate led to court battle’ (Motor Sport, 28 October 2025) https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/articles/single-seaters/f1/felipe-massas-claim-to-be-2008-f1-champion-how-crashgate-led-to-court-battle/
• Lorraine McKenna, ‘Mistakes not “Crashgate” cost Massa title, court hears’ (BBC, 29 October 2025) https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/articles/cn0g280r57wo
• Ben Topliss, ‘The Felipe Massa “Crashgate” Fallout’ (Atwell Solicitors, 24 November 2025) https://attwells.com/the-felipe-massa-crashgate-fallout/
• A. A. Murugan and L. Panchalingam, ‘The Final Lap of Justice: Reforming FIA Governance in Formula 1’ (2025) 23(1) Entertainment and Sports Law Journal https://www.entsportslawjournal.com/article/id/1784/
• Rahemma Azwar, ‘The biggest scandals in Formula 1 history’ (GQ Australia, 18 July 2024) https://www.gq.com.au/gq-sports/f1-most-controversial-moments/image-gallery/855b150473fa2b5ca8fc098b11317da5
• PA Media, ‘Felipe Massa’s £64m claim over Crashgate can go to trial, rules judge’ (The Guardian, 20 November 2025) https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/nov/20/felipe-massa-claim-2008-f1-title-trial-formula-one
• ‘Part of Massa’s UK lawsuit against F1, FIA and Ecclestone can continue’ (Reuters, 20 November 2025) https://www.reuters.com/sports/formula1/part-massas-uk-lawsuit-against-f1-fia-ecclestone-can-continue-2025-11-20/
• ‘Massa can continue part of £64m “Crashgate” lawsuit’ (BBC, 20 November 2025) https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/articles/c4gpg757j2lo