The Employment Rights Act 2025 is introducing significant changes to the collective redundancy framework. While some of the detail is still to be confirmed, the direction of travel is clear: more employers will be required to collectively consult, and the consequences of getting it wrong will be more severe.

What is the current position?

Under the existing regime, employers are required to collectively consult where they propose 20 or more redundancies at one establishment within a 90-day period.

This “single establishment” test has, in practice, allowed employers to structure redundancy exercises across different sites in a way that avoids triggering collective consultation obligations altogether.

However, the risk of non-compliance has already increased. From April 2026, the maximum protective award for failing to collectively consult has doubled from 90 days’ to 180 days’ pay per affected employee, significantly increasing financial exposure for employers.

What is changing?

The Employment Rights Act 2025 will retain the current test, but introduces a new, additional trigger. In future, employers will also need to collectively consult where redundancies reach a specified threshold across the organisation as a whole, even if no individual site meets the 20-employee threshold.

The precise threshold is yet to be set and will be determined by further regulations. However, the policy rationale is clear: to prevent large-scale redundancy programmes from falling outside the collective consultation regime simply because they are spread across multiple locations.

What does this mean for employers?

Although the new organisation-wide threshold is not expected to come into force until 2027, employers should begin factoring it into workforce planning now.

First, the scope for avoiding collective consultation by structuring redundancies across different sites is likely to reduce significantly. Employers will need to consider redundancy numbers across the whole employing entity, rather than looking at individual locations in isolation.

Secondly, this change places a greater emphasis on early-stage planning. Whether collective consultation is required is a threshold question which will shape the timeline of any redundancy exercise. That assessment will become more complex where multiple teams or sites are involved.

Finally, the increased protective award underlines the importance of getting the process right. Collective consultation is not simply an administrative step – it requires meaningful engagement with employee representatives about the proposals, including ways to avoid redundancies, reduce numbers, and mitigate their impact.

What should employers be doing now?

Our key tips are:

• Train managers: ensure those leading restructures understand the distinction between collective and individual consultation, and that collective consultation may be triggered more easily once the new organisation‑wide test comes into force
• Stress-test your process: sense-check whether your current approach would withstand scrutiny in a scenario where consultation is required across multiple sites or teams, and ensure the focus remains on genuine consultation and mitigation
• Keep records: maintain a clear audit trail of how redundancy numbers have been assessed across the organisation and how consultation has been conducted, particularly given the increased financial exposure
• Take advice early: particularly where redundancies are being considered across different parts of the business, as the new rules will make the threshold analysis more complex and fact-sensitive

The London Stock Exchange has today published AIM Notice 62 (4 June 2026), which launches an important consultation on proposed far-reaching amendments to the AIM Rules for Companies and the AIM disciplinary framework. These proposals form part of the ongoing “Shaping the Future of AIM” initiative commenced in April 2025 and progressed in November 2025  “Discussion Paper Feedback Statement” and represent a continued move towards a more flexible, proportionate regulatory regime for AIM issuers.

Key themes

The consultation reflects a clear strategic direction to:

• Reduce regulatory burden, particularly at IPO/admission stage
• Facilitate fundraisings and transactions
• Better support founder‑led and growth companies
• Attract international issuers
• Enhance the role of nominated advisers (Nomads)
• Reinforce AIM’s “buyer beware” model, with greater reliance on investor judgement

Headline proposals

Streamlining AIM admissions – The Exchange recognises that the AIM admission document has become increasingly complex and resource‑intensive and is proposing to simplify and modernise the document to reduce cost and duplication.

Codifying existing regulatory flexibility – A number of changes already being applied in practice (via guidance and derogations) will be formalised into the AIM Rules, improving certainty for issuers and advisers.

Continued deregulatory approach – The proposals reflect a broader shift towards a lighter‑touch regime, with more proportionate disclosure and increased flexibility in relation to

• capital raisings
• corporate transactions
• ongoing compliance requirements

Greater reliance on Nomads – The consultation signals a continued recalibration of the Nomad role, with an emphasis on corporate finance judgement over procedural compliance.

Updates to enforcement framework – Changes are also proposed to the AIM Disciplinary Procedures and Appeals Handbook to align with the revised rules.

Proposed material changes to the AIM Rules

Removing the requirement to provide a working capital statement – on the basis that this is a narrow absolute statement based on a short-horizon, the proposal is to substitute a requirement to clearly disclose certain details of the capital resources available and the financial obligations of the applicant, together with details of proposed future 12-month fundraising needs.

Expanding Accepted Accounting Standards – given the cost of IFRS conversion and complexity, it is proposed that AIM companies that are UK incorporated may now use UK GAAP (FRS 102) instead of IFRS.

Clarifying exceptions to Rule 7 regulatory lock-ins – in line with current policy it is proposed to allow a sell down in the first 12 months post-admission to AIM in the following circumstances:

• transfers between spouses or into a pension plan;
• intra-group transfers; or
• in the event of financial hardship.

Introduction of Trading Halts (Capital Access Windows) – Given the challenges of ensuring confidentiality when fundraising (with the creation of market volatility) it is proposed that an AIM company undertaking an equity fundraise will be entitled to voluntarily request a temporary suspension in the trading of its shares whist it manages a fundraising. The duration of such suspension is intended to be agreed a case by case basis.

Relaxing the circumstances where an acquisition triggers an RTO – it is proposed that an acquisition will not be considered a reverse takeover solely because it exceeds 100% in the class tests, where there is no fundamental change to the AIM company’s business (with guidance on this being provided in the rules), board and/or voting control. In such circumstance the transaction will be classified as a substantial transaction pursuant to AIM Rule 12 with disclosure calibrated to what investors need in order to understand the acquisition and its impact.

Avoiding a suspension of trading on the announcement of a possible RTO – It is proposed that the nominated adviser to a company can request that an AIM company is not suspended on the announcement of a reverse takeover in contemplation, where the nominated adviser is satisfied that appropriate alternative disclosure can be made to enable investors to make an informed assessment of the proposed enlarged group. This is intended to preserve market orderliness through disclosure.

Increasing the threshold for a “Substantial Transaction” – It is proposed to align AIM with the Main Market by amending AIM Rule 12 to increase the class test threshold for determining whether a transaction constitutes a substantial transaction from 10 per cent to 25 per cent

Responding to Bulletin Boards and Social Media speculation – Given the negative impact of certain conduct on these on-line forums, it is proposed that AIM companies will be given a voluntary ‘right of reply’. This will mean that an AIM company can, if it chooses, respond to any third-party commentary, speculation or criticism.

Why this matters

If implemented, the reforms are expected to:

• Reduce cost and execution timelines for AIM IPOs and fundraisings
• Enhance AIM’s attractiveness for growth and international companies
• Increase reliance on advisers and disclosure quality, rather than prescriptive rules
• Further position AIM as a flexible capital markets venue distinct from the UK Main Market

Next steps

The Exchange is currently seeking feedback from market participants, with further detailed rule changes and implementation timelines expected following the consultation process.

Please contact Ian Binnie or Dearbhla Quigley if you would like to discuss how these proposals may impact your business or any forthcoming AIM transaction.

Wastewater has increasingly become a critical constraint on development.

Although developers benefit from statutory rights to connect and water companies are under a duty to provide adequate sewerage systems, local planning authorities are now frequently delaying or refusing permissions, or imposing conditions preventing occupation, where there is uncertainty as to whether sufficient capacity will be available. These capacity pressures, regulatory scrutiny and infrastructure delivery risk mean that securing a connection is no longer a routine technical step. For many schemes, it is a determinative issue affecting planning, construction program and scheme viability.

It is a constraint that needs developers’ early attention. Developers now need to consider a range of delivery routes, each with different cost, risk and timing implications.

The starting point: can the development connect to the public network?

In most cases, the preferred outcome is a connection to the existing public sewer network, with infrastructure installed by the developer and then adopted by a sewerage undertaker.

Where capacity is available, this is typically the most straightforward and lowest-risk solution. Where it is not, developers need to consider alternative delivery routes at an early stage. It requires the completion of a section 104 agreement (under the Water Industry Act 1991) which remains the primary mechanism for securing adoption of new sewerage infrastructure.

In broad terms, the developer designs and constructs the network and the sewerage undertaker adopts it once it has been completed to the required standard.

Key points in practice:

• Infrastructure must meet approved technical standards to secure the sewerage undertaker’s technical approval
• Adoption follows inspection and a maintenance period
• Agreements are largely in standard form with limited scope for negotiation

Adoption is typically essential to satisfy funders, transfer maintenance responsibility and align with planning.

A delay in the adoption of sewers can impact on plot sales and can cause the adoption of the estate roads to be delayed, which can also impact on plot sales. So avoiding delay is advisable.

Adoption can be derailed if ‘non-developer’ parties need to be party to the section 104 agreement, such as the owners of the new plots or adjacent owners on whose land an easement is required. Good design and timing is essential to avoid these issues.

Once adopted, the sewer and any pumping or balancing infrastructure vests in the sewerage undertaker, so the future upkeep is for them, and they can charge the individual owners and occupiers for the treatment of sewerage.

Requisitions: delivering new infrastructure

Where there is no readily available sewer connection point, developers can rely on the statutory requisition regime to require the undertaker to deliver new infrastructure.

This involves:

• The undertaker designing and delivering the works
• The developer funding the infrastructure
• Formal agreements and security requirements

Requisitions can unlock sites. A sewer requisition effectively removes the need for the developer to assemble third‑party rights upfront, by shifting the burden onto the undertaker’s statutory powers. However, the sewerage undertaker’s costs have to be covered, and the delivery program will be outside the developer’s control.

Appeals and dispute resolution: managing disagreement

The Water Industry Act 1991 provides for disputes with sewerage undertakers—such as the reasonableness of conditions, costs or refusal to connect—to be referred to the regulator (principally Ofwat) for determination.

In practice, while these appeal mechanisms can provide useful leverage in negotiations, they are often time-consuming and are typically used as a last resort where commercial resolution cannot be reached.

Licensed wastewater providers (NAVs): a growing alternative

An increasingly common alternative to dealing with the traditional water companies is for developers to make arrangements with licensed wastewater operators (NAVs), such as ICOSA, IWNL and ESP.

They can offer:

• Greater commercial flexibility
• Potential program advantages
• Alternative security arrangements

However, they often involve bespoke arrangements, including asset transfers and easements, and require careful consideration of long-term operational and funding implications.

On-site solutions: package treatment plants

Where connection is not viable, developers may be able to consider on-site wastewater treatment, such as package treatment plants discharging to a watercourse.

Key considerations include:

• Environmental permitting requirements
• Private ownership and management arrangements
• Planning acceptability and long-term maintenance

These solutions can unlock sites but shift long-term risk away from the statutory regime. Arrangements will be needed to ensure these treatment plants are properly maintained.

Conclusion

Wastewater is now a front-end development issue.

Developers need to identify delivery routes early and integrate them into planning, design and viability.

Handled proactively, wastewater need not delay development. Left too late, it can become a critical barrier to delivery.

The UK remains an attractive destination for international investment and growth. Access to a deep talent pool, a stable legal system and a strong global reputation continue to make it a compelling market for international businesses.  However, the practical reality of bringing staff into the UK has shifted significantly. Recent updates to the Home Office sponsor licence guidance (May 2026), alongside a marked increase in enforcement activity, signal a fundamental change in approach.

The sponsorship framework has moved decisively from a system that facilitates international recruitment to one that is compliance-driven, actively enforced and increasingly risk-based. For business leaders, this has important implications – not just for hiring, but for operational planning, governance and risk management.

1. Accessing international talent in the UK is no longer straightforward

For most international businesses, a sponsor licence is now the essential gateway to deploying staff into the UK. Without it, the ability to recruit or relocate overseas talent is significantly constrained.

The challenge is that obtaining that licence is becoming more difficult in practice. The Home Office is placing far greater emphasis on whether an organisation is genuinely operating in the UK, whether its roles are credible and aligned with its business model, and whether it has the systems in place to meet ongoing compliance obligations.

As a result, what was once seen as a relatively procedural application, has become a more rigorous and, in some cases, more uncertain process.  For businesses entering the UK market, this introduces an additional layer of complexity. Workforce planning, timings for market entry and even corporate structuring decisions are increasingly interconnected with immigration considerations.

2. A sponsor licence is not a one-off approval – it is an ongoing regulatory burden

A common misconception is that once a sponsor licence is granted, the key hurdle has been cleared. In reality, the position is the opposite.

The sponsor licence regime imposes ongoing and active obligations on employers, including monitoring sponsored workers, maintaining detailed records, reporting changes to the Home Office and ensuring that roles remain compliant throughout the period of sponsorship.

Recent changes reinforce this approach. For example, sponsors must now ensure that workers are informed of their UK employment rights and retain evidence of this, while also demonstrating that sponsored roles remain “eligible” and aligned with the business’s operations.

In this context, a sponsor licence is no longer simply a permission to hire overseas workers. It is a continuous compliance framework, requiring sustained oversight and internal coordination between HR, operations and senior management.

3. Increased enforcement is elevating immigration compliance to a business-critical risk

Alongside these changes, the Home Office has significantly increased its enforcement activity. Sponsor licences are now subject to greater scrutiny, including data‑driven checks, unannounced audits and closer alignment with HMRC and Companies House records.

Crucially, enforcement action can now be taken on the basis of “reasonable suspicion” of non-compliance, rather than requiring proven breaches. This materially lowers the threshold for intervention.

The consequences of getting this wrong are significant. Suspension or revocation of a sponsor licence removes an organisation’s ability to recruit internationally and, in some cases, to continue employing existing sponsored workers. This can have immediate operational and commercial implications, particularly for businesses reliant on global talent.

In this environment, immigration compliance should be understood not as an administrative task, but as a core business risk with direct impact on workforce stability and growth.

4. Where international businesses are most exposed

In practice, the highest risk does not usually arise from deliberate non-compliance, but from structural gaps in how organisations approach the sponsorship regime.

For businesses entering the UK, a common issue is that immigration considerations are addressed too late. Entities are established, hiring plans are agreed and roles are advertised before the sponsor licence framework has been properly assessed.

For established UK operations, the challenge is often different. Processes evolve over time, workforce models become more complex, and compliance systems do not always keep pace. What appears to be a functioning system on the surface may not meet the level of documentary evidence and consistency now expected by the Home Office.

Recent guidance changes underscore this risk. Greater scrutiny is being applied to whether:

• organisations are genuinely operating or trading in the UK;
• roles are commercially credible and sustainable; and
• businesses are, in substance, operating as employers rather than simply facilitating immigration.

These are not technical points – they go to the core of how a business is structured and how it operates in practice.

5. Why early immigration strategy is now essential

Against this backdrop, early and strategic immigration advice has become increasingly important for international businesses.

For organisations planning to enter the UK market, immigration considerations should be integrated into initial planning. This includes aligning corporate structure, hiring strategy and timelines with the requirements of the sponsor licence regime, and ensuring that the UK entity can demonstrate both genuine activity and compliance capability from the outset.

For those already operating in the UK, there is a growing need to take a more proactive approach. This typically involves conducting an audit of existing sponsor licence arrangements, reviewing HR systems and ensuring that processes are not only compliant, but clearly documented and capable of being evidenced if challenged.

In both cases, the objective is the same: to ensure that access to international talent is not disrupted by avoidable compliance issues.

6. A changing operating environment

The UK continues to offer significant opportunities for international businesses. However, the framework for accessing talent has evolved.

The sponsor licence regime now sits at the intersection of immigration control, corporate governance and operational risk. Businesses that approach it strategically – embedding compliance within their structures and processes – will be best placed to continue accessing global talent with confidence.

Those that do not may find that what was once a routine administrative step has become a point of friction in their growth strategy.

Demand for automated warehouse solutions is growing as businesses seek greater efficiency, resilience and scalability within their operations. Whether driven by labour costs, increased throughput demands or a need for integrated data insights, automated solutions can deliver significant benefits – but realising these benefits comes with considerable investment and businesses face a blend of technical, commercial, legal and operational challenges when procuring automated systems.

Careful planning at the outset is essential to help ensure smooth procurement and installation of the system and to ensure the system delivers as expected. This article series explores some of the many property, construction, technical and operational considerations which businesses need to explore when embarking on a warehouse automation project.

In this first article, we consider issues which a business should considered at the very early stages of any warehouse automation project. Article two then discusses key pre-contract operational and contractual considerations and article three takes a look at post installation issues, as well as what can go wrong when a warehouse installation project is not carefully managed.

Early stage considerations

Building suitability and physical constraints: can you automate your current building and what do you need to change?

• Clear height and configuration: automation lends itself to taller buildings of 15-21m. The building’s height, column grids and tolerances need to be considered by the relevant consultant/structural engineer to establish the level of structural alterations required. Extension of eaves height will likely require planning permission and the timescales involved could necessitate a wholesale reconsideration of the current premises and search for a new appropriate shell elsewhere.
• Floor slab capacity: many automated systems especially those in taller buildings exceed standard warehouse point load assumptions. Uneven slabs can also compromise autonomous vehicle navigation and conveyor alignment. Intrusive investigations need to be carried out prior to any installation to inform whether any slab strengthening and alteration is required.
• Fire suppression compatibility: high-density automated racking often triggers enhanced sprinkler, smoke extraction or compartmentation requirements.

Power

Can you power the automation with your current supply and are there any alternative sources?

• Increased power requirement may be hard to procure from the grid in a timely fashion. Installation of roof-top solar combined with onsite battery storage installed either by you or secured from a third party could supplement and potentially replace the current energy source.
• If there are any adjacent (or within 10km) renewable generators such as a ground mounted solar or wind turbine developments a private wire arrangement could be considered subject to the necessary cable permissions from adjacent owners.
• Could the heat emitted from the automation equipment be harnessed to heat the building and where significant could it be monetised and heat adjacent buildings?

Third Party Consents

Leasehold Property: will the Landlord consent to your automation?

• The alterations provisions in the lease need to be reviewed at the outset of the automation project and early landlord engagement is fundamental before you incur significant capex. Is the landlord required not to unreasonably withhold its consent.
• How long is your lease? Do you need to agree an extension to the term now linked with the lifetime of the equipment being installed?
• Landlords will also want to understand timescales, third party approvals (planning and building control), structural impacts, fire safety, building insurance variations (noting that any premium increases will be passed on to you) you’re your reinstatement obligations.
• If additional mezzanine floors are required will the Landlord seek to rentalise these?
• Permitted hours – if the building will operate for longer are there any permitted hours restrictions in the lease which need amending?
• Capital allowances – the terms of the licence permitting the installation need to make it clear that the plant and machinery belongs to you along with the capital allowances associated with it which you will seek to account for over the equipment’s lifetime.

Procurement

Procurement of a warehouse automation solution can be very complex. Most projects involve the physical construction of high-tech software and robotics in addition to the purchase and installation of equipment, typically these contracts are based on an industry standard form construction contract, such as the JCT MF1.

However, as warehouse automation projects do not entirely fit the traditional structure of standard form construction contracts, most standard form contracts will need considerable tailoring so to create a hybrid agreement which merges construction, software and engineering elements. At Michelmores, we are familiar with the shortcomings of standard construction (and sale and purchase) contracts in this context and have considerable experience creating tailored agreements which better address the unique risks presented by automation projects.

We strongly recommend giving due thought to (and, where necessary, obtaining legal advice on) the form of agreement to be entered into with a chosen supplier as soon as possible and being upfront about your expectations with them. This can help to reduce delays at a later stage.

In any event, it is critical that the parties consider and agree key commercial principles of the agreement as soon as possible to ensure that key risks are considered, allocated and priced for to avoid subsequent protracted contractual negotiations. We recommend that these key terms are then documented in an agreed set of Heads of Terms. Whilst these Heads of Terms will not being legally binding, the process of discussing and agreeing them will highlight potential mismatches and areas of concern which need to be worked through before a final decision on a provider and solution is made.

Typical issues to consider under Heads of Terms may include:

• Who is taking the existing site/building risk? Contractors will typically seek to exclude liability for pre‑existing defects, meaning the employer often retains the risk of latent issues in the structure, slab or services, with potential cost and programme consequences if these emerge during installation.
• What are the guaranteed performance requirements/ levels and what are the consequences should these not meet the requisite thresholds? These can be quite varied in practice ranging from performance liquidated damages, rectification at the cost of the contractor, withholding of payment, through to termination.
• When might the performance levels dictate that works need to be redone?
• What kit and parts are being specified and are these readily available in the market from alternative providers? Being beholden to just one contractor for the warehouse to function is high risk but the market offering is limited in this sector.
• Similarly, what software is involved and embedded in the kit? Is this proprietary to the supplier or licensed by a third party and does this create a potential risk of dependency on the supplier/third party provider for on-going maintenance?
• What are the testing parameters i.e. when should testing occur, what testing is required and what are the consequences of a failure of all or part of the kit following testing?
• What insurances might be required in terms of delay and disruption and who is carrying the cost of the premium for this (noting that it is very costly)?
• How is payment to operate? Typically this is linked to milestones but it is recognised that there is often a huge upfront offsite manufacturing cost which the contractor will want covered through advance payments. Linked to this is how will the client protect itself against such costs and will bonds be required?
• If the kit is coming from abroad, who is responsible for the transport risk and cost?
• What are the consequences for delay in supplying and installing the kit?
• Is a liability cap agreed and if so at what level and what carve-outs apply?
• Who will ongoing maintenance be undertaken by if not the supply and installation contractor as typically the right to deduct performance damages is conditional on the same contractor maintaining it?
• If the supply and installation contractor is also undertaking on-going support and maintenance have terms been agreed regarding on-going support and maintenance?
• What form of support and maintenance contract is envisaged and what are the timings around this? Ideally key terms should be agreed in advance with a view to the support and maintenance contract being entered into at the same time as the main supply contract. Leaving this until a later date often opens the door to risk and uncertainty.

Michelmores’ Commercial, Construction and Real Estate teams have extensive experience advising organisations implementing warehouse automation systems. We support clients throughout the procurement and installation process. Please get in touch if you would like to find out more.

The shortlist for the prestigious Michelmores Property Awards 2026 has been unveiled, showcasing the best property, construction and development projects across the West of England and South West of the UK. The Awards, which celebrate excellence and innovation, bring together professionals from across the region to highlight outstanding achievements in the property sector over the past year.

Now in their 23^rd year, the Michelmores Property Awards continue to champion the most sustainable, impactful and creative developments. This year’s shortlist represents a wide range of impressive projects across multiple categories, spanning healthcare, regeneration, education, residential, heritage, leisure and community-led development.

The Awards encompass nine categories, and the judging panel comprises esteemed professionals from across the property industry. The 2026 shortlist includes:

Category 1: Project of the Year (Under £10m)

• BOWA MEDICAL UK HQ
• Langage South
• Tamar Valley Crematorium
• West Cornwall Hospital

Category 2: Project of the Year (Over £10m)

• Dartmoor Building
• Musgrove Park Hospital – Surgical Centre
• The Brook, Langdon Hospital
• Welcome Building

Category 3: Regeneration Project of the Year

• Factory Cooperage at Royal William Yard
• Gap House
• Rockfish + Salcombe Brewery
• Spitfire Hangar, Brabazon
• The Hub at Foulston Park

Category 4: Education Project of the Year

• Centre for Law & Social Sciences, Exeter College
• Sky Primary & Eden Project Nursery
• The Paddock Cabin, Poole Farm
• University of Plymouth – PDSE Dental Education Practice

Category 5: Leisure & Tourism Project of the Year

• Broadmeadow Sports Centre Decarbonisation & Refurbishment Project
• Rockfish + Salcombe Brewery
• Shoemakers Museum
• The Hub at Foulston Park

Category 6: Heritage Project of the Year

• Factory Cooperage at Royal William Yard
• Plymouth Tinside Lido
• Spitfire Hangar, Brabazon
• West Wall Revive, St Philip & St James, Ilfracombe

Category 7: Residential Project of the Year (36 homes and over)

• Millstream, The Chocolate Quarter
• Monument View

Category 8: Residential Project of the Year (35 homes and under)

• Brampton House
• Factory Cooperage at Royal William Yard
• Gap House
• Weavers Way

Category 9: Building of the Year

• To be announced on the night

About Michelmores Property Awards

The Michelmores Property Awards present some of the South West’s most prestigious accolades, recognising achievements in property development, construction and regeneration. Now in their 23^rd year, the Awards celebrate projects that contribute to the region’s economy and community, with a particular focus on environmental sustainability, innovation and social impact.

The Awards continue to place emphasis on sustainability, innovation and the broader positive impact of projects within their communities. With categories designed to reflect the diversity and quality of development across the West of England and South West, the Awards highlight the growing importance of responsible, future-focused design.

The Awards Dinner and Ceremony will take place at the Sandy Park Conference Centre in Exeter on Thursday 25 June 2026.

For the full shortlist and table bookings, visit the Michelmores Property Awards website.

Special thanks to our panel of judges

Gordon Isgrove (Avison Young), Iestyn John (Bell Cornwell Town Planning Consultants), Nathan McLoughlin (McLoughlin Planning), Claire Pearce (Real Growth Ltd), Ron Persaud (Change Real Estate), Ajay Sharma (KTA Architects), and Thelma Sorensen OBE, Honorary President of South West Women in Construction.

Sponsoring the Awards

The Michelmores Property Awards reach across the West of England and South West’s property, real estate and construction sectors. Sponsorship offers an excellent opportunity to raise your organisation’s profile and be part of a high-profile networking and hospitality event.

Email [email protected] to request a sponsorship brochure and find out more.

Demand for automated warehouse solutions is growing as businesses seek greater efficiency, resilience and scalability within their operations. Whether driven by labour costs, increased throughput demands or a need for integrated data insights, automated solutions can deliver significant benefits – but realising these benefits comes with considerable investment and businesses face a blend of technical, commercial, legal and operational challenges when procuring automated systems.

Careful planning at the outset is essential to help ensure the system delivers as expected and mitigates the risks of disruption later in the delivery lifecycle. This article (being article two in this Warehouse Automation article series) explores some of the many operational considerations which businesses need to explore prior to contracting with a chosen supplier.

1. Defining technical and performance requirements

A successful automation project begins with clarity between both supplier and customer on what the system must achieve. If performance outcomes are critical to business operations (for example prescribed throughput rates), these should be translated into clear contractual requirements rather than remaining mere assumptions or expectations of the new system.

2. Software architecture and licensing

Automated systems often involve multiple layers of software – from embedded machine-level code to system-wide platforms and potentially AI-driven optimisation tools. Some of this software may be supplied by a third party and any business acquiring automated systems should ensure it has clarity surrounding the software elements which make up the system, as well as of the ownership position and any licensing terms attached to each software element. The purchase contract will need to clearly reflect this position, as well as any licensing and/or assignment arrangements and the associated costs. Businesses should also consider whether it is necessary to have software continuity protections in place, such as an escrow arrangement or an on-site code repository. Such arrangements need to be agreed with the supplier (and any third party licensor) at the outset to avoid subsequent delays.

3. Data handling and systems integration

Automated systems typically collect and process large volumes of data. Understanding the data landscape early is essential and businesses should give thought to any system integration requirements, together with related cybersecurity and data protection considerations – particularly where a supplier has access to this data when providing ongoing maintenance and support.

4. Ongoing support and maintenance

Once a system is delivered, ongoing maintenance and support (whether provided in-house or by the system supplier or a third party) will likely be necessary to ensure the system continues to operate efficiently and in accordance with technical and performance specifications. Having a clear sense of ongoing support and maintenance requirements at an early stage can help to reduce delays further down the line in the contract negotiation process (especially where a customer wishes to obtain support from the system supplier). When evaluating support and maintenance requirements, thought should be given to the following key points:

• nature of support required (for example, remote (helpline) support, on-site remote or a mixture of the two). This is likely to be shaped by the criticality of relevant warehouse operations to the customer’s business;
• required support hours;
• required service levels and fix times;
• any on-site spare parts inventory requirements; and
• cost (in particular, what is included in “base” prices and which costs (for example, spare parts, call-out charges and out-of-hours support) will be out-of-scope.

Where a customer wishes to obtain this support from the original supplier, thought should also be given to how support commitments will interact with any equipment warranty provided by the supplier.

5. Training

Smooth and successful adoption of automated systems relies on effective staff training. Again, early planning should identify customer training needs, formats, and cost structures. Consider the business’s initial training needs, as well as the likelihood that follow-up/refresher training may be required.

Michelmores’ Commercial, Construction and Real Estate teams have extensive experience advising organisations implementing warehouse automation systems. We support clients throughout the procurement and installation process. Please get in touch if you would like to find out more.

The headline from the recent High Court decision in the case of Wild Justice v Dartmoor Commoners Council (“Council“) is that the Council failed in its fundamental duty to assess the proper number of livestock that should be allowed to graze the common land on Dartmoor.

The High Court determined that reliance on anecdotal evidence as to stocking levels was not a legally sufficient basis for performance of such a core statutory function. Wild Justice’s chief complaint was that the common land was overgrazed but under-grazing is equally problematic and the court agreed that the grazing capacity of the commons, viewed wholly and in part, had to be properly assessed in terms of quality and quantity.

Underlying statutes

Dartmoor is a unique landscape and this is perhaps why it is the only commoners association to be governed by its own statute, the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985.There are other statutory commoners organisations created by the Commons Act 2006, such as Brendon Commons on Exmoor and Bodmin Moor. The same statutory duty to assess appropriate grazing levels will apply to those protected landscapes as well.

Wider application for competent authority status

Of wider application though is the confirmation that the Council (along with Brendon and Bodmin) is a competent authority for the purposes of both the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

This will have implications for the evolution of such protected landscapes in the context of Landscape Recovery and other environmental schemes. In exercising their functions, the statutory commoners councils will have to have regard to the aims of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981(“1981 Act“) and the EU Habitats Directive (92/42EEC).

SSSI statutory obligations

In this case, the court found that a failure to issue grazing limitation notices was not unlawful and so the Council had not breached their duties in this regard. However, future decision making will be influenced by the need to comply with the 1981 Act on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (“SSSI“), to:

take reasonable steps, consistent with the proper exercise of the authority’s functions, to further the conservation and enhancement of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the site is of special scientific interest; and

have regard to the requirements of the relevant EU habitat and wild bird directives in respect of Special Areas of Conservation (“SAC.“)

Greater pressure on stocking levels

This may result in even greater pressure on stocking levels in such protected landscapes as Landscape Recovery and other catchment scale schemes are rolled out. Many will argue that these safeguards are already in place through the oversight of Natural England but there is now a much more direct means of enforcement, following the court’s confirmation of the statutory duty to properly assess grazing intensity.

Squeeze on commoner’s funding

Judgment was issued in this case in the same week as DEFRA announced that commoners would not be able to claim payments under the Sustainable Farming Initiative or Countryside Stewardship due to the RPA’s computer system being unable to cope with applications across such large land parcels. This will see reduced levels of public funding for some of the most important landscapes, unless Landscape Recovery schemes can help reduce the impact of such cuts in support.

Historically, it has been problematic getting wholesale buy in across an entire common, when it comes to environmental schemes; a combination of an overriding statutory duty and reduced public funding may in the future encourage a more collaborative approach.

Michelmores has advised the shareholders of 3Keel Group Ltd (3Keel) on the sale of the business to Fera Science Ltd (Fera), a portfolio company of Bridgepoint Group PLC.

The transaction brings together Fera and 3Keel to establish a platform providing end‑to‑end support to organisations operating across the life‑science sector. 3Keel’s experience in strategy development, stakeholder engagement and supporting clients to deliver sustainability programmes will be complemented by Fera’s scientific expertise.

Michelmores acted for the shareholders in relation to all aspects of the transaction process. The deal was led by Managing Associate Chris Smedley from the firm’s Corporate team, alongside Richard Cobb and Gruff Cartwright. Support was provided by Partners Cathy Bryant (Tax), David Thompson (Commercial) and Rachael Lloyd (Employment). The team worked closely with the Grant Thornton team, as corporate finance lead advisers to the shareholder group in relation to the deal.

Commenting on the transaction, Chris Smedley said:

“We were pleased to have been able to advise the shareholders of 3Keel in relation to this exciting transaction for all parties. The sale to Fera represents an important step for the 3Keel business and provides a strong platform to support the next phase of growth for the company with the support and backing from Fera.”

Simon Miller, 3Keel’s Managing Director, commented on behalf of the founder shareholders:

“Michelmores provided clear, constructive advice throughout the process. The team worked closely with us to help deliver a successful outcome in a swift and smooth manner. What an amazing, unflagging, undaunted, hardworking team!”

This transaction is one of a series where Michelmores have been chosen to advise on deals in the sustainability consultancy sector, in part because of demonstrably aligned values and our strategic focus on significance of impact.

Michelmores’ award‑winning Corporate team of 35 specialist lawyers advises clients across the UK, US and beyond on mergers and acquisitions, capital markets, management buyouts, share options, impact investing, energy projects and more. For more information, please visit our website.

Starting my seat in the Planning & Environment team at Michelmores has been a fascinating opportunity to see how planning law operates at the intersection of law, policy and development on the ground. Planning is a broad and constantly evolving area, and one that plays a critical role in shaping places, communities and the environment. From large-scale housing schemes to infrastructure projects, the team advises on matters that are both legally complex and socially significant.

Planning at Michelmores

One of the aspects that has stood out most during my seat so far is the sheer breadth of work the team covers. The Planning team at Michelmores advises across the full lifecycle of development, supporting landowners, commercial developers, regional house builders, government bodies and planning authorities from site acquisition through to delivery. This includes advising on the interpretation and application of planning policy, supporting planning applications, and navigating the increasingly technical regulatory landscape.

A key area of work is planning agreements, particularly section 106 agreements – legal agreements entered into between a developer and the local planning authority when planning permission is granted to ensure that a development pays for and/or provides things needed to deal with its impact on the local area. During the first half of my seat, I have observed the drafting and negotiation of section 106 obligations, advising on triggers, phasing and enforceability, and liaising with local planning authorities and other stakeholders to progress agreements towards completion. Seeing how planning obligations are used to balance development with infrastructure and community benefits has been a valuable learning experience.

The team also undertakes significant work in relation to biodiversity net gain (BNG), an area that has become central to modern planning practice. I have observed the team advise clients on their BNG obligations, reviewing biodiversity metric calculations and drafting BNG-related provisions in planning agreements. Keeping up to date with the ever-evolving statutory framework and guidance in this area has proven to be a very interesting and topical subject area.

The Planning team also works closely with colleagues across the firm, particularly in Real Estate, Property Litigation and Agriculture. This collaboration reflects the reality that planning issues rarely arise in isolation. Being involved in matters that cut across multiple practice areas has given me insight into how the firm delivers cohesive, commercial advice to clients.

Planning Primer

Attending the most recent Planning Primer at Cheltenham Racecourse was an excellent opportunity to put my planning knowledge and understanding to the test. We hosted Lord Charles Banner KC, a leading planning and environmental silk at Keating Chambers, alongside Tim Goodwin, Director of Bennu Environmental and one of the UK’s leading ecologists. Led by Helen Hutton, a Partner in the firm’s Planning & Environment team, each speaker explored whether planning consent has become quicker and more predictable to obtain in the current climate, offering their respective professional perspectives.

Against the backdrop of wide‑ranging recent planning reforms – many of which represent a positive shift for the development industry – the Planning Primer provided an invaluable platform to explore the impact of changes already being felt across different types of development, as well as to hear informed commentary on the reforms that are imminently expected.

Overall, my planning seat at Michelmores has been interesting and varied, offering exposure to high-quality work from an early stage. For trainees interested in a practice area that combines technical law with real-world impact, planning is an excellent choice.

For more insight on the team’s work, please visit our webpage: Planning Law.

Introduction

On 24 March 2026 the UK Government released the findings of a consultation undertaken with UK businesses in relation to late payment issues and what steps can be taken to address these (the Consultation).

Whilst both the Consultation and the proposed legislative changes had cross-sector breadth, there were specific parts focused on the construction industry.

The underlying Late Payments Research published by the Department for Business & Trade in July 2025 states that late payments cost the UK economy almost £11 billion per year. The econometric analysis estimated that over 14,000 businesses close every year as a result of these late payments.

The Government has accordingly committed to introducing new legislation as soon as Parliamentary time allows to tackle late payments. In particular, the Government has proposed, amongst other steps, to:

• Impose a maximum payment term of 60 days, with limited exemptions, to ensure smaller business are paid promptly;
• Make commercial contracts contain a right to claim statutory interest at 8% above the Bank of England base rate; and
• Ban the practice of deducting and withhold retention payments under construction contracts.

Retention payments are commonly used in construction contracts, so much so that many standard form contracts are drafted to account for these deductions (see for example Option x16 in NEC4, and clauses 4.16 to 4.18 in the JCT D&B 2024 edition). The retention withheld typically accounts for 1.5% to 5% of the contract sum. This mechanism has traditionally been used as a means of incentivising the contractor to return to site to remedy any defects identified in the works. This prohibition will therefore mark a significant shake up in how parties have contracted in recent years, and standard form contracts will need to be amended accordingly.

In the addition to applying a prohibition on retention payments, the Government has stated it will give the Small Business Commissioner additional powers to investigate suspected poor payment practices, to adjudicate over payment disputes and issue fines to large companies that persistently make late payments to its suppliers.

Consultation outcomes

The Consultation ran from 31 July 2025 until 23 October 2025, and received 867 responses from a wide range of businesses across the UK of various sizes and within different sectors.

As part of the Consultation, respondents were presented with two proposals in respect of how retention payments should be managed. These were broadly:

• Option A: prohibit the use of retention clauses in construction contracts; or
• Option B: allow the use of retention clauses within construction contracts and require any retention sums withheld to be protected.

The Consultation responses demonstrated broad agreement that retention practices contribute to unjustified late, partial, or non‑payment, with a disproportionate impact on small and medium‑sized contractors. The withholding of retention sums was widely seen as undermining cash flow by restricting working capital and limiting the funds available for day‑to‑day operations and investment, increasing financial pressure across the supply chain.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, it appears many tier one contractors have been positive about the proposed amendments. Though housebuilders and developers may be less open to the proposed reforms, often being the parties sitting at the top of the construction payment chain.

Impact

The government has said that whilst they fully intend to introduce legislation prohibiting retention payments, they will “consult further with interested parties on the impact of this measure before taking a final decision on implementation“.

Whilst a ban on retention payments could help secure cash flow for small and medium sized contractors, it is unclear how this measure could impact relationships between employers and contractors, especially where retention payments have often been used as a way to encourage contractors to return to site to rectify snagging and defects. If the proposal goes ahead, it will likely bring other forms of security to the forefront, including, but not limited to:

• Performance Bonds: this provides the employer with third‑party financial security if the contractor fails to perform, without withholding sums otherwise due under the contract. Though requiring a bond typically increases the contract sum, as the contractor will look to pass on the increased costs associated with procuring the bond; and
• Parent Company Guarantees (PCGs): This may provide the employer recourse against the contractor’s parent company for non‑performance or insolvency, strengthening contractual security without restricting cash flow. PCGs can increase the contract price indirectly, particularly where additional risk is assumed or where corporate support is not routinely provided.

Paying parties will not freely give up a potential protection without seeking an alternative protection. Contractors are unlikely to provide those alternative protections without increasing prices to reflect the additional cost and risk, although employers are likely to argue that the absence of retention is already adequate compensation. The proposed reforms therefore represent a reallocation of risk through contract pricing and security mechanisms, rather than a removal of risk altogether.

Only time will tell whether a ban on retention payments has the intended impact of helping protect the cashflow of smaller contractors, whether alternative security measures take priority, or both.

Should you require any advice on retention payments, recovering unpaid retention, security measures or the preparation of your construction contracts, do not hesitate to get in contact with Anna Wood, Ashley Pigott or Maria Greener in the Michelmores’ Construction & Engineering team.

Michelmores has strengthened its London private wealth offering with the appointment of Lorna du Sautoy in April 2026, who joins the Firm as a partner in its Private Property & Landed Estates team.

With over 15 years’ experience, Lorna advises UK and international high and ultra‑high‑net worth individuals, family offices and trusts on the acquisition and disposal of residential property in prime central London and across the UK. Her work typically involves high‑value luxury properties with complex structuring, cross‑border considerations and a requirement for absolute discretion.

In addition to transactional work, Lorna advises on wider strategic estate management matters, including development potential, refinancing and the resolution of sensitive issues affecting heritage property and rural landholdings. She regularly works alongside private client teams, family offices, private banks, brokers and buying agents to deliver seamless outcomes for internationally mobile and privacy‑conscious clients.

Her recent experience includes acting on the purchase of a £48 million prime central London residential property, advising on the purchase of a £15 million property in Notting Hill with exchange taking place within 24 hours, leading real estate due diligence on a property portfolio valued in excess of £200 million, and acting on the acquisition of a significant mixed‑use country estate for over £35 million.

Commenting on her appointment, Lorna said:

“I am thrilled to be joining Michelmores’ London private wealth team, whose high-calibre offering and deeply client-focused approach strongly aligns with my own. My practice sits at the intersection of complex real estate transactions, long-term stewardship of high-value property assets and the nuanced personal considerations that often accompany them. I look forward to contributing to the continued growth of the practice and building long-term relationships grounded in trust, discretion and practical insight.”

Christian Massey, Partner in Michelmores’ Private Property & Landed Estates team, and head of the Private Wealth team, adds:

“Lorna’s arrival is an important step in the continued growth of our private wealth and property offering in London. She brings exceptional experience advising high and ultra‑high‑net worth clients on complex, high‑value transactions, and her approach aligns closely with the discreet, strategic and highly personal service our clients expect. We are delighted to welcome her to the Firm.”

Read more about Michelmores’ Private Property & Landed Estates team on our website.