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.

For many agricultural landowners their land is their legacy. Yet beneath the surface – literally and legally – there can sometimes lie a hidden complexity. Contaminated land, and the regulatory regime that governs it, has become increasingly important for rural landowners to understand.

Contamination issues can affect farmland in many ways including in tenancy arrangements, farming operations, redevelopment plans, liability exposure and even its value.

This article outlines what agricultural landowners and landlords need to know, the risks they face, and how those risks can be managed.

What is contaminated land?

The law defines contaminated land as any land where substances in, on, or under the ground are causing, or there is a significant possibility that they could cause, significant harm to human health or the ecological systems of which they form part or significant pollution of controlled waters. This legal definition effectively recognises that the mere presence of contamination is not itself enough to classify land as contaminated. That classification only arises if there is an identifiable pathway for the contamination to move off the land in a manner that significantly affects people or sensitive environments.

Some contaminants are distinctly agricultural: old sheep – dip pits, fuel stores or pesticide residues. Others reflect the layered history typical of rural holdings – former airfields, landfills, or ex-military sites.

In some cases, contaminants may have migrated from neighbouring industrial land or roads, creating problems for landowners who were not involved in the original pollution.

How are contaminated sites identified?

Under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, local authorities have a statutory duty to identify and secure the remediation of contaminated land in their area.

Local authorities look for what regulators call a “contaminant linkage” – a link connecting a contaminant by a pathway (such as soil or water) to a receptor (such as people or sensitive natural habitats).

If all three are present and the risk is significant, the land may be formally classified as contaminated. The statutory process then moves to considerations of clean up or containment to reduce the risk of a significant impact on the identified receptor.

Throughout this process, regulators are meant to act proportionately and with a view to avoiding unnecessary disruption or alarm – although in practice, even mention of a contamination review can be unsettling for landowners.

Liability

The primary responsibility for remediation falls on those who caused or knowingly permitted the contamination (Class A persons). But where polluters are long gone, insolvent, or impossible to trace – a common occurrence on historically used farmland – the burden can shift to the current owner or occupier (Class B persons). This means a landowner with no hand in the pollution may nevertheless be required to undertake remediation of the contaminated land.

Tenanted farmland adds a further layer of complexity. Contamination arising during a tenancy – fuel spills, waste disposal, chemical misuse, or poor site management – may leave the landlord exposed if the tenant cannot meet remediation costs.

Remediation

Any remediation imposed by the local authority must be reasonable – considering cost, practicability and environmental impact. It will not always mean excavation or major works and authorities cannot require remediation to a standard beyond what is necessary to make the land suitable for its existing use, which is likely to be agricultural. Containment measures such as covering with a low permeability cap to reduce subsurface water flows, fencing to exclude receptors (both people and animals) and imposing land management practices to reduce dust may be required. The efficacy of these measures will need to be assessed with ongoing monitoring.

Practical tips to manage risk

1. Know the land’s history

Understanding the history of the land is fundamental; many issues can be foreseen simply by reviewing old maps, farm records, and planning files. Past use of the land should be understood, for example establishing former farmyards, disused dumps and pipes.

2. Keep good records

Keeping records relating to the land is key to avoid being treated as the default responsible party under liability rules. Documents relating to sales/tenancies, historic remediation or clearance work should clearly set out the responsibilities of all parties involved.

3. Clear drafting

Well-crafted tenancy clauses can ensure that tenants maintain good environmental practices, notify the landlord promptly of spills, and bear responsibility for their actions. Restrictions can be placed on the tenant’s use and management of suspect land, to avoid the mobilisation of pollutant. The restrictions could be a restriction on borrow pits or the need to maintain continuous cover crops.

4. Environmental due diligence

Conducting a baseline environmental survey before granting a tenancy or acquiring new land can prevent decades of uncertainty about when and by whom contamination was introduced. It is also important to ensure tenants understand what activities are allowed on the land, requiring notification of any pollution incidents and the requirements for hazardous substances.

5. Engage early

Where issues arise, early engagement with regulators is important. Local authorities frequently prefer collaborative solutions and are required to postpone formal determination if voluntary remediation is underway. Authorities are required to seek proportionate and reasonable outcomes, particularly where risks are manageable and interventions would be excessive relative to their benefit. It is important to understand the process of moving from land that is ‘contaminated’ to having the land statutorily designated as ‘contaminated land’.

The outcome of such a designation needs to be carefully considered. Authorities are not as keen to designated new areas of contaminated land as you may think, and working with them to achieve an alternative outcome may be preferable.

6. Consider insurance

Taking out insurance can offer good risk mitigation. Specialist environmental liability policies can cover historical contamination, gradual pollution, remediation costs and third-party claims.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the best protection lies in awareness of the land’s history, the regulatory framework, and the contractual relationships that govern how land is used. With thoughtful management, clear documentation and proactive engagement, agricultural landowners can navigate the contaminated land regime with confidence – protecting both their property and the people who depend on it.

From 11 May 2026, local planning authorities (LPAs) will no longer be able to refuse planning permission for large housing schemes (150 or more homes) without first consulting the Secretary of State. The Direction does not change planning policy or who ultimately decides applications, but it does add an important procedural step before refusal.

For housebuilders with applications for medium to large sites this is likely to be a helpful change, but there are some downsides.

What is a call-in?

That planning decisions are political decisions is evidenced by the Secretary of State’s power (under section 77 of the TCPA 1990) to identify any planning application in the system and ‘direct’ that the LPA pass the determination of that application to him. If the application is called in, Steve Reed, the current Secretary of State, will be the person who will grant or refuse planning permission.

What is a call-in Direction?

The new Direction adds to the list of existing call-in Directions. Together, these call-in Directions describe the types of planning applications (and now scenarios) that might be subject to a call-in. Directions already covered applications for development that may conflict with national policies on important matters, or may have significant long-term impact on economic growth, or which could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality.

Prior to this new Direction, the guidance on call-in directions was that the Secretary of State only considered the use of his call-in powers if planning issues of ‘more than local importance’ are involved.

What is covered by the new Direction?

The Direction applies to planning applications that include 150 or more dwellings (houses, flats or a mix) and which have not been determined before 11 May 2026.

What happens when a call-in Direction applies?

If an LPA is minded to refuse your qualifying application, the LPA must first consult the Secretary of State, providing the details of the application and the proposed reason for refusal. This consultation is mandatory and pauses the decision-making process as the LPA cannot issue a refusal during the next 21 days whilst the Secretary of State considers whether he will exercise his powers.

If your application is not called in, presumably the LPA will refuse and you have the right to appeal. The new appeal procedures favour determination by written representations on the application as submitted. This will streamline the appeal process, but with little or no opportunity to improve your application’s prospects.

If your application is called in, an Inspector is appointed to hear the application, and report to the Secretary of State. The Inspector may cause a public inquiry to be held. When reaching his decision the Secretary of State may follow the Inspector’s Report or may not.

What are the potential consequences of a call-in?

In the face of the above options the consequences of a call-in under this new Direction may appear subtle.

A call-in will introduce a minimum 21-day delay in the determination process. If the Direction avoids refusal altogether, the time savings can be significant, but if the call-in is confirmed the determination timeline will be significantly extended whilst the Inspector hears the application and then the Inspector’s report gets to the top of the Secretary of State’s to-do list and he makes the decision.

Although there are no additional application costs for a developer arising from a call-in, there will be the additional costs of resourcing a public inquiry if that is how the Inspector hears the application evidence. Of course, these additional costs would have already been on the horizon if your application was to be refused and you intended to appeal.

In making the Direction, the government may be hoping that LPAs will respond to the additional scrutiny by refusing fewer qualifying applications. We certainly hope so.

There can be a propensity for LPAs to duck making tricky and locally political decisions by allowing (or causing) an inspector or the Secretary of State to make the decision. Also, whereas the appeal of an outright refusal exposes the LPA to a potential adverse costs award, costs awards for unreasonable behaviour on the LPA’s part under a call-in may be harder to justify. Might these factors combine to make LPA’s more likely to be ‘minded to refuse’ your application so as to engineer a call-in? We hope not.

What should housebuilders do?

It remains the case that submitting an application with the best prospects for approval (or fewest reasons for refusal) is the best risk management.

If a call-in Direction is made you will need to swing promptly into action engaging with the Inspectorate on the determination timeline and method and with the appointment of your appeal team.

Is the Direction positive or negative for housebuilders?

Overall, the Direction is positive.

It raises the bar for refusal of large residential schemes, ought to encourage negotiation, and may reduce the number of unnecessary appeals. While it can introduce short-term delay, it modestly but clearly shifts the balance in favour of major housing development.

The Michelmores 5k Charity Run is returning in 2026, welcoming runners, volunteers and supporters back to Exeter’s Quayside for another lively and community-focused event – and marking a special milestone as the Run celebrates its 25^th anniversary.

Now firmly established as a highlight in the local calendar, the annual Run brings businesses together to promote wellbeing while raising vital funds for Michelmores’ charity partner.

Over its 25-year history, the Michelmores 5k Charity Run has raised more than £400,000 for charitable causes, supporting organisations that make a meaningful difference.

Participants can take part as part of a team or individually, with businesses encouraged to get involved by entering corporate teams or sponsoring the event. Runners of all abilities are welcome, whether aiming for a personal best or simply enjoying the atmosphere of this landmark anniversary year.

As in previous years, there will be a range of prize categories, including:

• Biggest team
• Fastest corporate team (based on the top four fastest runners, mixed-gender)
• Fastest running club (top two runners)
• Fastest male and female runners
• Veteran and youth categories

This year’s event will be hosted by former Exeter Chiefs rugby player, Chris Bentley.

Tim Richards, Managing Partner at Michelmores, comments: “We are delighted that our annual 5k Charity Run is returning in 2026, especially as we celebrate its 25th anniversary. Each year, we bring together our people, clients, families and friends to support an important cause, while also promoting physical and mental wellbeing. The Run is a fantastic example of our culture at Michelmores and the strength of our business community.”

For further details, visit our website.

If your organisation is interested in taking part or sponsoring the 2026 Michelmores 5k Charity Run, please contact the Events team at events@michelmores.com.

Michelmores has advised Greg and Clare Lang, the shareholders of Fire Doors Rite, a specialist fire‑door inspection, maintenance and installation business, on its sale to IDSL Group, a leading UK provider of fire‑door testing, inspection, certification and compliance services, backed by LDC.

The transaction represents a successful exit for the founders and supports IDSL Group’s strategy to build a market‑leading, end‑to‑end fire‑door compliance platform, strengthening its national coverage and enhancing its technical service capability across regulated sectors including commercial, public sector and defence estates.

The Michelmores team was led by Managing Associate Chris Cook in the firm’s Corporate team, alongside Henry Taylor, Hollie Halston and Ellis Arnold. The team worked closely with Greg and Clare Lang throughout the transaction to deliver a smooth and efficient sale process. PKF Francis Clark acted as corporate finance advisers to the sellers, with Chris Bishop and Matt Willmott advising on the transaction.

Greg Lang, co‑founder of Fire Doors Rite, commented:

“This was an important milestone for us, and it was essential to have advisers who understood both the business and our objectives. Chris and the Michelmores team provided clear, practical and commercial advice throughout the process, helping us navigate the transaction with confidence. We were very pleased with the support we received.”

Chris Bishop, Director in PKF Francis Clark’s Corporate Finance team, said:

“We were delighted to help guide Greg and Clare through the financial aspects of the process alongside the team at Michelmores. After all their efforts building a fantastic business over the years, it’s great to have helped achieved a successful exit and we wish them all the best with their future plans!”

Chris Cook added:

“It was a pleasure to advise Greg and Clare on the sale of Fire Doors Rite. They have built a highly respected business with strong technical expertise, and the transaction represents an excellent outcome for them. We worked closely with PKF Francis Clark to deliver a successful result for the sellers.”

This transaction further demonstrates Michelmores’ strong track record of advising founders and shareholders on strategic exits.

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.

From June 2026, all organisations which process personal data must have a clear internal process for handling data protection complaints. This requirement applies to all organisations, regardless of size or sector.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has published guidance to help organisations prepare for the implementation of these complaints processes, which will become a legal requirement from 19 June pursuant to section 103 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA).

The ICO guidance is that organisations must have a process for handling data protection complaints and that there will be “no exemptions” to this position.

The aim of the new process is to make it easier for individuals to raise concerns directly with organisations about how their personal data has been handled, and to resolve issues at an early stage, without the need to involve the ICO unless necessary.

What counts as a data protection complaint?

DUAA provides that a data subject can make a complaint to a controller if there has been any infringement of the UK GDPR or Part 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018. Part 3 covers law enforcement processing, the data protection principles of processing, data subject rights, controller and processor obligations and international transfers of personal data. By way of example, complaints could therefore be about:

• how personal data has been collected or used;
• delays or problems with the organisation responding to a subject access request;
• personal data being shared incorrectly; or
• concerns following a personal data breach.

The ICO makes clear that organisations must accept complaints however they are received, even if they are not submitted through a formal complaints form or designated channel.

What must organisations do?

Under DUAA and the ICO’s guidance, organisations must:

• provide a way for people to make data protection complaints (for example by email, online form, phone or post);
• acknowledge receipt of a complaint within 30 days;
• investigate and respond to the complaint without undue delay, keeping the complainant informed of progress; and
• clearly explain the outcome once the complaint has been concluded.

Organisations are not required to create a brand‑new complaints system – guidance from the ICO is that existing complaints processes can be adapted, provided they properly cover data protection issues.

How detailed does the process need to be?

The ICO has explained that it expects complaints processes to be:

• easy to find, such as being clearly signposted in privacy notices or on websites;
• easy to use, without unnecessary barriers; and
• accessible to everyone; not just customers or employees.

While some elements are mandatory, the ICO recognises that organisations can design a process that is proportionate to their size and structure.

What happens if a complaint goes to the ICO?

Under the new framework, the expectation from the ICO appears to be that individuals will be able to show that they have already raised their complaint with the organisation before the ICO considers acting.

If a complaint is referred to the ICO, the current indications are that the regulator will assess that complaint based on factors such as:

• the seriousness of the issue;
• the potential harm to individuals; and
• whether regulatory intervention is in the public interest

Not every complaint will result in a formal ICO investigation.

When do organisations need to act?

Although the new complaints requirement does not legally take effect until 19 June 2026, the ICO has said that following the guidance now represents good practice and will help organisations demonstrate accountability and readiness.

Organisations should therefore be actively reviewing and updating their existing complaints procedures ahead of June to ensure they meet the new legal requirements

Michelmores has advised Carousel Worldwide, a leading global publisher of calendars and stationery products, on its acquisition of Avonside Publishing, one of the UK’s most established calendar publishers.

The transaction brings together two highly respected names in calendar publishing and supports Carousel Worldwide’s continued international growth strategy. Avonside Publishing’s existing catalogue, including its popular animal and travel calendars, will continue to be produced and distributed under the Avonside brand.

Carousel Worldwide will operate the combined business from its headquarters in Exeter, while the Avonside team will continue to be based in Melksham. Both parties are committed to ensuring a smooth transition for employees, suppliers and customers.

The Michelmores team was led by Managing Associate in the Firm’s Corporate team, Chris Cook, alongside Richard Cobb and Dan O’Sullivan, who provided legal advice to Carousel Worldwide throughout the transaction.

Carousel Worldwide also received tax advice from James Fisher and Ben Herbert of Bishop Fleming.

Chris Cook comments:

“We were delighted to support Carousel Worldwide on this strategic acquisition, which brings together two well-established businesses with a shared commitment to quality and creativity. The transaction reflects the strength of Carousel’s growth ambitions and its confidence in the long-term opportunities within the publishing and gifting sector.”

David Pike, director at Carousel Worldwide adds:

“We are excited to welcome the Avonside team on board and to bring their expertise and titles into Carousel Worldwide’s range. Together we will be even stronger and this enhances our strategy for continued international growth. Chris and the team worked collaboratively with us throughout the transaction to understand our strategic objectives and delivered solutions that kept the deal moving efficiently while protecting our interests. Their approach and responsiveness made them a pleasure to work with on this acquisition.”

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.