Aleena, Author at TV EDWARDS - Page 2 of 4
TV EDWARDS SOLICITORS LLP

The Mayor of London’s Summer Streets Fund to Boost Al Fresco Dining

The Mayor of London’s £400,000 Summer Streets Fund is transforming 13 boroughs into vibrant outdoor destinations.

Our Services Contact Us
← Back to News & Blogs
17 July 2026
Jade James
Solicitor
Blog Licensing Law

The Summer Streets Fund

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has re-launched the Summer Streets Fund this year to boost trade for the hospitality industry, promote employment and create vibrant spaces for dining, events and community cohesion across the capital. 

The announcement was made in the wake of the success of the first Summer Streets Fund in 2025, which was worth £300,000, and boosted al fresco dining in the London boroughs of Lambeth, Hackney, Waltham Forest and Westminster. Businesses in these areas reported an increase in footfall and revenue, as visitors and residents embraced the opportunity to attend more outdoor events.

This year, 13 London boroughs have received a combined grant of £400,000 to support al fresco dining, outdoor events, markets, cultural activities and extended trading hours throughout the summer and into autumn.  Revenue grants of £50,000 to £100,000 were made available for large scale al fresco projects, while “smaller” pocket al fresco schemes secured grants of £2,500 to £10,000, allowing local businesses to expand their outdoor spaces and welcome more customers.   

The Summer Streets initiative notably offered support to venues which hosted match screenings of the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup, enabling them to utilise funding to extend their operating hours and expand their capacity.   

Projects Supported by the Fund

• Large-Scale Projects: 4 projects in the boroughs of Barking & Dagenham, Brent, Greenwich, and Lambeth have received grants of up to £100,000 to transform local areas with outdoor dining, World Cup screenings, markets, and cultural activities.

• Pocket Schemes: 11 smaller projects in Brent, Camden, Ealing, Haringey, Hounslow, Islington, Lewisham, Newham, Sutton, and Waltham Forest have received up to £10,000 each.  These funds will deliver food and drink night markets, DJ sets, live music, and family-friendly community events. 

Additionally, the Mayor has introduced a “Weekend Hopper” travel initiative.  Passengers using London’s trams or buses on Saturdays or Sundays between 25 July and 31 August will pay a single fare for unlimited journeys across the capital on that day.

The Importance of the Summer Streets Fund

London’s hospitality sector has faced difficulties over recent years, due to post-pandemic recovery and the cost of living crisis, both of which have an effect on hospitality operators.  The Summer Streets Fund is a timely response to this pressure, allowing local authorities and businesses to extend trading hours and increase footfall to contribute to high street revival.

The fund also highlights the Mayor’s broader ambition to establish outdoor dining in London as a permanent feature of the city, rather than a seasonal novelty.  This intent is underscored by the Mayor’s decision to override local opposition to new licence applications in Soho, Westminster – one of London’s most prominent nightlife hubs. 

We recently published an article on this topic: ‘The Soho Society’s Decision to Challenge Licence Applications in Westminster’.

Three UK heatwaves so far this summer have further driven consumer demand for outdoor spaces, prompting London residents and visitors to seek relaxing outdoor environments to cool down.

A New Era for Licensing in London

The rollout of the Summer Streets Fund coincides with the launch of the Mayor’s new strategic licensing powers, which formally took effect on 29 June 2026.  This marks the first time the Mayor of London has held a direct, statutory role in the licensing process.

Under these new powers, the Mayor can:

  • Create a London-wide Strategic Licensing Policy;
  • Make formal representations on licensing decisions;
  • Act as a statutory consultee when individual boroughs revise their licensing policies; and
  • “Call-in” strategically significant licensing decisions. 

Through these powers, the Mayor aims to harmonise licensing practices across the capital, establishing a more cohesive system. Ultimately, the Summer Streets Fund serves as a practical tool to encourage local councils to champion and revitalise the capital’s bars, cafes, and broader nightlife economy.

How Our Licensing Solicitors Can Help

We provide comprehensive advice and representation on all aspects of licensing policies and licence applications:

We can help you by:

  • Reviewing and interpreting local authority licensing policies
  • Advising on how policies affect your application
  • Preparing compliant and strategically structured licence applications
  • Representing you in licensing hearings and negotiations
  • Justifying applications that deviate from licensing policies
  • Helping protect your licence from review or revocation

We act for a wide range of businesses, including restaurants, bars, pubs, nightclubs, event venues, and hospitality operators.  Our solicitors routinely deal with contested applications across London, and are specialists in negotiating with responsible authorities, residents’ associations and neighbouring properties to seek a compromise and ensure a suitably licence is obtained.

Why Choose TV Edwards?

  • Highly ranked in legal directories – Legal 500 and Chambers UK 
  • Immediate emergency support – Call us on 0203 440 8000
  • Specialist representation – Police station advisers, solicitors, and higher court advocates
  • Hardworking problem-solvers – We fearlessly challenge evidence, protecting your interests
  • Honest and down-to-earth – We explain your options compassionately and in plain English

Related Services:
Licensing Solicitors
TV EDWARDS SOLICITORS LLP

Understanding the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE)

An overview of TUPE obligations and the Labour government’s proposed reforms that could reshape employee transfer protections for employers.

Our Services Contact Us
← Back to News & Blogs
9 July 2026
Abigail Williams
Solicitor
Blog Dispute Resolution

An employer’s guide to TUPE and the potential future changes 

The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (commonly referred to as TUPE) are a critical set of laws in England & Wales that protect employees when a business, service, or part of a business is transferred from one employer to another. While the regulations are designed to safeguard employees, they also place significant obligations on the employers involved in the transfer process.

TUPE applies to situations where there is a transfer of an undertaking. This generally involves (but which shall not be limited to) the sale of a business, merger of a business and/or the outsourcing of services.

Current obligation under TUPE

For employers, TUPE creates several key obligations, including (but which shall not be limited to):

  1. Automatic Employee Transfer: Employees of the transferred business automatically become employees of the new employer on the same terms and conditions, including their length of service. The new employer must honour existing employment contracts and cannot impose changes unless there are valid economic, technical, or organisational reasons.
  1. Protection from Dismissal: Employees are protected from dismissal solely due to the transfer, unless the employer can show one of the aforementioned reasons for the dismissal. This makes it more difficult for employers to restructure or reduce staff following a transfer, particularly if the reason for doing so is linked to the transfer itself.
  1. Consultation and Information Requirements: Employers involved in a transfer are required to relevantly inform, and consult with, affected employees or their representatives (such as trade unions or employee representatives) before the transfer occurs. This consultation could include, for example, the reasons for the transfer, the impact on employees, and any measures the new employer intends to implement following the transfer.

Change on the horizon

The Labour government has recently launched a ‘call for evidence’, under its “Plan to Make Work Pay”, to obtain information for policy changes to TUPE, and to implement its plan to strengthen the TUPE regulations.

One of Labour’s future plans also includes removing the distinction between employees and workers, however this is still to be consulted on in full. One of the subsequent consequences of this could, therefore, be that all current workers would then fall within scope to transfer under TUPE. However, there are practical difficulties with this in that, for example, workers may not owe ongoing obligations to the employer and workers may not operate under its control, so it may be difficult for an employer to consult with a worker if they only work occasionally. 

Whether workers fall within the scope of TUPE has previously been an area of uncertainty, and the previous Conservative government proposed amending TUPE to clarify the position that workers were not protected, however the government changed before this could be implemented. Labour’s current position means that these changes seem very unlikely to happen now and, instead, Labour will need to address the difficulties of workers being caught within the scope of TUPE.

For employers, TUPE presents both challenges and opportunities. While the regulations are designed to protect employees, they also place significant responsibilities on employers. By understanding the key requirements and changes, employers can navigate TUPE transfers smoothly.

This article was first published in London Business Matters in July 2026.

Disclaimer: The information on the TV Edwards website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication.

TV EDWARDS SOLICITORS LLP

The 7 most common Divorce and Finance mistakes

This article explores some of the most common pitfalls and explains why obtaining expert legal advice early can make all the difference.

Our Services Contact Us
← Back to News & Blogs
8 July 2026
Anesha Pavaday
Associate Solicitor
Blog Family

No one enters a marriage expecting it to end in divorce. If separation has become your reality, it’s normal to feel angry, upset, anxious or scared about your future, finances and family.

During such an emotional time, it’s easy to make decisions that feel right in the moment but could have lasting financial consequences.

Below are 7 of the most common mistakes I have seen people make when negotiating financial settlements during divorce.

  1. Moving out the family home – There can be pressure for one person to leave the family home, either to reduce conflict or for safety. Whilst this may be the right decision in some circumstances, moving out without first obtaining legal advice can have unintended consequences, for example making it more difficult to negotiate practical arrangements later. Before making any significant decision about your living arrangements, it’s important to understand how they may affect your financial position and future negotiations.  
  • Making financial decisions based on emotions – Separation often brings uncertainty and heightened emotions. Closing joint accounts, transferring savings, stopping mortgage payments, hiding assets and spending large amounts of money can complicate matters later and make it harder to reach a fair settlement. This behaviour can also be penalised and your spouse compensated for your actions.
  • Rushing to reach an agreement – Divorce is emotionally exhausting, so it’s natural to want it over as quickly as possible. However, agreeing to terms just to get it ‘finished’ before fully understanding your financial position can lead to regret in the future particularly if you have not secured a fair settlement. Taking a little more time at the outset will help secure a settlement that provides long term financial security for you and your family.
  • Overlooking Pensions – Pensions are often one of the most valuable assets within a marriage, yet they are frequently overlooked in financial negotiations. Unlike savings or property, pensions require careful valuation and should not simply be compared at face value to the family home.  In many situations specialist pension advice is needed to ensure they are divided fairly and appropriately.
  • Focusing on the small things – It’s easy to get caught up arguing over furniture, household items or possessions. Whilst these items may have emotional value it is very often not worth your time and energy, instead it is better to concentrate efforts on the bigger picture like where you will both live.  
  • Relying on advice from friends or social media or Chat GPT – Every family is different. What happened in someone else’s divorce may have very little relevance to your own no matter how similar their circumstances may sound. Chat GPT can be tempting to use for legal guidance but it is not a replacement for a legal professional.  It also carries the risk of putting your personal information on a platform you do not have control over.
  • Waiting too long to seek advice – One of the biggest mistakes people make is delaying legal advice because they hope matters will resolve themselves or because they are concerned about costs.

Early legal advice doesn’t mean increasing conflict, it means understanding your options before important decisions are made. It can often save time, reduce stress, and help avoid expensive mistakes later in the process.

If one person is reluctant for you both to obtain independent legal advice, this can sometimes be a red flag that should not be ignored.

Every divorce is different and there is no one size fits all solution. It is one of life’s most significant financial events. Taking time to understand your options, seek expert advice, and make informed decisions can help you avoid costly mistakes and give you greater confidence about the future.

How We Can Help

Navigating the financial aspects of divorce can feel overwhelming, but you do not have to face it alone. Our experienced family law team provides clear, practical advice tailored to your circumstances, helping you understand your options, protect your financial interests, and avoid costly mistakes.

Whether you are at the beginning of your separation or negotiating a financial settlement, we are here to support you every step of the way and help you achieve the best possible outcome for you and your family.

If you have any questions about financial settlements or would like to speak to one of our specialist family solicitors, please get in touch. Call 020 3440 8000 or email family@tvedwards.com.

Disclaimer: The information on the TV Edwards website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication.

Related Services:
Family Finance Solicitors Divorce Solicitors Family Law Solicitors
TV EDWARDS SOLICITORS LLP

Can a Secured Creditor Serve a Statutory Demand?

The blog explains the rules on statutory demands, security valuation, and the key grounds for challenging a demand before strict deadlines expire.

Our Services Contact Us
← Back to News & Blogs
1 July 2026
Roi Espanillo
Solicitor
Blog Dispute Resolution

TV Edwards recently acted for an individual who received a statutory demand for approximately £600,000 from a lender that also held security over the individual’s property.

The matter raised an important question: can a secured creditor use the statutory demand and bankruptcy process where it already has security for the debt?

Can a secured creditor serve a statutory demand?

Yes. The Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 expressly contemplate a statutory demand being served by a creditor who holds security for the debt. However, the creditor must deal with that security properly in the demand. (Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, rule 10.1(9))

Where security is held, the demand must specify:

  • the full amount of the debt;
  • the nature of the security;
  • the value which the creditor places on the security at the date of the demand; and
  • the amount claimed after deducting the stated value of the security from the full debt. (Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, rule 10.1(9)(a)–(b))

The creditor should therefore not simply present the full secured balance as though no security exists. The demand must distinguish between the total debt and the amount said to remain unsecured after the creditor’s valuation of the security. (Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, rule 10.1(9))

The prescribed contents of an individual statutory demand are strict. The general rule allowing immaterial departures from required document contents does not apply to the contents prescribed by rule 10.1. (Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, rule 1.9(2))

When can the demand be challenged?

A debtor may apply to set aside a statutory demand within 18 days from the date of service. Once the application is filed, time for complying with the demand stops running, subject to any order made by the court. (Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, rule 10.4(1), (2) and (5))

A security-related challenge may arise where the creditor has not complied with rule 10.1(9), or where the value of the security equals or exceeds the full amount of the debt. (Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, rule 10.5(5)(c))

Where the creditor has disclosed the security but has undervalued it, the court may permit the demand to be amended rather than automatically setting it aside. (Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, rule 10.5(7))

 A debtor may also seek to set aside a demand where the debt is genuinely disputed on substantial grounds, where there is a counterclaim, set-off or cross-demand equal to or exceeding the debt, or where other grounds justify setting it aside. (Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, rule 10.5(5))

What happens if the creditor presents a bankruptcy petition?

The security position remains important if the creditor later presents a bankruptcy petition.

A secured debt may form the basis of a bankruptcy petition if the creditor states that it is willing to give up the security on the making of a bankruptcy order for the benefit of all bankruptcy creditors.

Alternatively, the creditor may retain its security but must make clear that the petition is not based on the secured part of the debt and must state the value of the security at the date of the petition. (Insolvency Act 1986, section 269(1))

In practical terms, the creditor has two main routes:

  • Surrender the security: the creditor gives up the security for the benefit of the bankruptcy creditors and petitions on the debt as an unsecured creditor. (Insolvency Act 1986, section 269(1)(a))
  • Retain the security: the creditor values the security and relies only on the alleged unsecured shortfall. (Insolvency Act 1986, section 269(1)(b))

A secured creditor petitioning on an alleged shortfall must be careful when valuing the security.

The creditor may only revalue the security with the trustee’s agreement or the court’s permission.

The trustee may also be entitled to redeem the security at the stated value or require the secured property to be offered for sale. (Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, rules 14.15, 14.17 and 14.18)

What if the secured asset is being sold?

A secured creditor is not necessarily prevented from enforcing its security because bankruptcy proceedings are contemplated or commenced. Bankruptcy does not affect a secured creditor’s right to enforce non-possessory security. (Insolvency Act 1986, section 285(4))

A secured creditor may:

  • rely on the realisation of its security;
  • value the security and prove for an anticipated shortfall;
  • realise the security and then prove for any remaining shortfall; or
  • surrender the security and prove for the whole debt as an unsecured creditor. (Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, rule 14.19; Insolvency Act 1986, section 305(2)

Where the secured asset is being sold, the sale proceeds will affect the amount of any genuine shortfall. Once the security is realised, its value may be adjusted and any excess or insufficient insolvency dividend corrected. (Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, rules 14.19(1)(a) and 14.41)

The sale of the secured asset does not automatically invalidate a previously served statutory demand. However, if the creditor wishes to continue towards bankruptcy, it must still identify and rely on a properly calculated unsecured amount.

Why early advice matters

Statutory demands are subject to short time limits. A debtor should urgently establish:

  • whether the creditor holds security;
  • whether the demand identifies the nature and value of that security;
  • whether the amount demanded deducts the stated security value;
  • whether the debt or valuation is disputed; and
  • whether there is any counterclaim, set-off or cross-demand.

The central question is not simply whether the creditor is secured. It is whether the creditor has properly dealt with the security and accurately identified any genuine unsecured balance.

TV Edwards advises individuals in relation to statutory demands, bankruptcy petitions, secured lending disputes and claims arising from the enforcement of security.

How Can We Help?

Need advice on a statutory demand?

If you have received a statutory demand or bankruptcy petition, seek legal advice promptly as strict time limits apply. Our experienced Dispute Resolution team can advise you on your options. Contact us on 020 3440 8000 or email adam.haffenden@tvedwards.com.

Disclaimer: The information on the TV Edwards website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication.

Related Services:
Dispute Resolution Solicitors
TV EDWARDS SOLICITORS LLP

Live Facial Recognition, Human Rights and the Justice System

As Live Facial Recognition expands, critics argue it masks the structural causes of crime behind a technological solution.

Our Services Contact Us
← Back to News & Blogs
25 June 2026
Adalberto Dionisi
Paralegal
Blog Criminal Defence

Recent years have witnessed fierce debates on the merits and flaws of the use of Live Facial Recognition (LFR) technology by British police, a pendulum swinging from its alleged crime prevention results to its protested effects on people’s right to privacy.

LFR was first deployed by the Metropolitan Police Service (MET) at the 2015 Notting Hill Carnival and is currently used by almost all major police forces in the UK. Its deployment is on the rise: the MET used it 32 times between 2020 and 2023, and 231 times in 2025. 

LFR relies on a software-based facial matching tool which can be applied to videos or image feeds like CCTVs or custody databases without the need for installation. The software first detects a face; it then scans the biometrics of the ‘subject’ and converts them into a unique identifier – the ‘faceprint’; lastly, this digital signature is cross-referenced with other faceprints uploaded by the police on the ‘watchlist’ to find a match. The police use a static camera to record and stream footage in real time to the software. Upon finding a match, an alert is sent to a control room and to on-the-ground officers, both of whom have discretion to act on that alert by approaching the subject. Current watchlists span over 15,000 people, with deployments lasting usually around 6 hours with an average of 15,000 faces scanned per session.

Legal status

Currently, there is no UK legislation specifically regulating the use of LFR. Nonetheless, the technology has faced legal challenges due to its impact on the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.  These rights, afforded to us by the European Convention of Human Rights and the 1998 Human Rights Act, are qualified rights, so an interference with them can only be justified if it is:

  1. For a legitimate purpose,
  2. In accordance with the law (Art.8) or prescribed by law (Art.10, 11), and
  3. Necessary in a democratic society.

In the recent High Court case of The King (Shaun Thompson and Silkie Carlo) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and The Equality and Human Rights Commission (Intervener) the claimants contended that the 2024 MET LFR policy, which except for some changes is still in operation, did not have the quality of law as it left too much discretion to police officers as to where, why and against whom LFR may be used.

The MET Policy, at the time of the challenged policy and now, presents three relatively broad scenarios to determine when and where LFR can be deployed, that is for:

  • Crime hotspots and missing-person hotspots,
  • Protective security operations, including major events and critical national infrastructure,
  • Deployments based on specific intelligence indicating that a sought individual is likely to be present at a particular location.

The list of people who could be placed on a watchlist includes three main categories:

  • Those wanted on a court warrant or subject to certain court orders,
  • Vulnerable and missing persons,
  • Those suspected of having committed, committing or about to commit, a crime.

Before authorising a deployment, an Authorising Officer must consider whether it would be a proportionate means of achieving the MET’s policing objectives, in light of the impact of deployment on the rights and freedoms of members of the public.

The Divisional Court unanimously dismissed the claim. The judges considered that the MET policy’s criteria regarding watchlist, deployment, operation and oversight were detailed and objective enough to have the ‘quality of law’. In particular, the judges cited the mandatory proportionality assessment which Authorising Officers need to carry out before deciding whether to deploy the technology. The claimants have stated their intention to appeal.

The limits of human rights

The Thompson case epitomises the limitations of human rights law to criticise or explain the operation of LFR. To talk about LFR in the language of human rights means that the primary question is one about the legitimacy of state interference in our lives and privacy. The provision and protection of human rights is ultimately always dependent on the state, hence why the human rights mechanism does not seek to question state interference, only to regulate it. This results in the police imposing superficial human-rights compliant safeguards, and the courts accepting them. In fact, the police implemented to the letter the suggestions of the Court of Appeal in the 2020 R v Bridges case, in which the South Wales Police’ LFR policy was deemed to be not ‘in accordance with the law’ as it was not detailed enough.

However, these checks and controls overlook the heart of the matter, in as much as the language of human rights fails to ask the right question. What is shrouded beneath the rights-compliance discourse is an almost bipartisan assumption that LFR is a ‘highly effective and efficient policing tool’, a ‘precision crime-fighting tactic’. The media, legal and political discourse has so far unquestionably accepted this narrative, one which relies on an idea of crime as something static and objective, which can be simplified to measurable data primed for quick-fix technical answers.

In light of the massive overextension of policing responsibility following the austerity cuts of 2010-2019 to statutory, social and mental health services as well as to the police itself, LFR was an alluring prospect which could help the police do more with less. But its perceived objectivity belies a belief that crime can be reduced not by addressing its root causes or social conditions, but rather by acting directly on the data generated by it. However, for data to be acted upon, it needs to be purified, abstracted from its context. Data is by default de-contextualised, and as such acting purely on data ultimately conceals and de-politicises the complex structural issues of inequality which fester within the criminal justice system.

Fixing the justice system  

The criminal justice system, including the penal system and the police, is unsurprisingly riven by long-standing rifts along lines of ethnicity, gender, nationality and class. Black and mixed-race people, especially children, are disproportionately represented in all aspects of the penal system, i.e. stop and searches, convictions and prison population. Social characteristics also shed light on the picture: people who never had a job, were taken into care as children or have attempted suicide at some point in their lives form a much greater proportion of the prison population than they do of the general population. The appeal of LFR is that, rather than addressing these long-term issues of structural inequality, it proposes a seemingly innocuous and technical fix.

Conveniently, this chimes in with some politicians’ craven promises to be ‘tough on crime’, which result in ill-thought vote-grabbing proposals such as limiting the right to jury trial. However, the extent to which LFR, and by extension the criminal justice system itself is equipped to deal with society’s ills is grossly misconceived. A structural example is the youth justice system. England and Wales had an average daily custody population of 420 children in 2024, with around 13,000 being sentenced in that year. Currently, 6 in 10 children released from custody reoffend within a year, and 80% of children cautioned or sentenced are neurodivergent or have SEND. Children in care are 10 times more likely than other children to ever receive a caution or conviction.

These shortcomings are systemic. The uniquely low age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales (10, compared to the average 14.5 in OECD countries), together with the chronic underfunding of key agencies means that issues that should be addressed early on by social services or child psychologists are delegated to the courts, which lack funding for truly ‘child-first’ procedures.

Justice’s blind arms have in recent years extended to embrace more and more political and societal issues, the brief mention of which will suffice to bring to mind the failure of the criminal system in actually ameliorating these problems. The shoplifting epidemic, the mental health crisis, the environmental, pro-Palestine and far-right protests, are all examples of deeper, structural issues which cannot be solved by purely legal or technical solutions.

How can we help

We know the system has its flaws — but we know how to work within them for you. We regularly challenge the admissibility of evidence obtained by the police and fight for our clients’ rights in Court. If you have been identified by LFR or have been accused of committing a crime, get in touch with our experienced Crime team.

You can contact us for a free, no obligation initial discussion on 020 3440 8000 or email enquiries@tvedwards.com.

For an extended version of the analysis behind this article, see: Adalberto Dionisi, ‘What Live Facial Recognition does not see: Human Rights, Discipline and Governmentality’ (2026) 11(1) LSE Law Review

Disclaimer: The information on the TV Edwards website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication.

Related Services:
Criminal Defence Solicitors
TV EDWARDS SOLICITORS LLP

Deprivation of Liberty for 16 and 17 Year Olds

Deprivation of liberty cases involving young people sit at the intersection of care, safeguarding, and complex legal decision-making.

Our Services Contact Us
← Back to News & Blogs
22 June 2026
Nilufer Ozdemir
Senior Associate Solicitor
Kerry Lynch
Solicitor
Blog Court of Protection

Deprivation of liberty cases involving young people can be complex and emotionally challenging for families and professionals alike. These cases usually arise where a vulnerable young person requires a high level of care and supervision to keep them safe.

A deprivation of liberty occurs where a person is under continuous supervision and control and is not free to leave their placement or accommodation, or is subjected to an intense level of restriction that amounts to a dynamic, objective confinement, to which they do not validly consent. Following the recent Supreme Court decision of A Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland of a devolution issue under paragraph 34 of Schedule 10 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 [2026] UKSC 16., we no longer look blindly at a single “acid test”, instead, we must evaluate the type, duration, effects, and purpose of the restrictions alongside the young person’s subjective feelings – this is called the ‘multi factorial approach’. Examples of where a young person may be deprived of their liberty may include locked placements, constant supervision, restrictions on contact with others, or physical intervention to prevent harm.

For children under 16, parents are generally able to consent to restrictions placed upon their child as part of the normal exercise of parental responsibility. However, the legal position changes once a young person reaches the age of 16.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Young People

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 applies to young people aged 16 and 17 in England and Wales. The Act provides the legal framework for deciding whether a young person has mental capacity to make specific decisions for themselves.

A young person must be presumed to have capacity unless it is shown otherwise. If they are unable to understand, retain, use or weigh up relevant information because of an impairment of or a disturbance in the functioning of the mind or brain, they may lack capacity to make that decision.

If a young person does not have the mental capacity to agree to care arrangements that amount to a deprivation of liberty, their parents cannot agree to those arrangements on their behalf. In Re D (A Child) [2019] UKSC 42, the Supreme Court decided that parental responsibility cannot be used to authorise this type of restriction for a young person who lacks capacity to consent.

Crucially, however, following the Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling in the AGNI reference case, a lack of domestic mental capacity does not automatically mean a young person cannot give “valid consent” under Article 5 ECHR. If a 16 or 17-year-old is able to meaningfully express their wishes, possesses a basic understanding of their environment, and demonstrates they are content with their placement, they can be deemed to have given valid consent. In those circumstances, there is no deprivation of liberty, and court intervention may be unnecessary. Where a young person actively objects, shows distress, or cannot express a view, in these cases, approval must usually be obtained from the Court of Protection.

The Role of the Court of Protection

The Court of Protection makes decisions for individuals who lack capacity to make certain decisions for themselves.

For those aged 16 and 17 where a factual deprivation of liberty is established and valid consent is absent, the Court may authorise restrictions which amount to a deprivation of liberty where the arrangements are necessary and in the young person’s best interests.

The Court will consider:

  • The young person’s wishes and feelings;
  • Any risks they pose to themselves or others;
  • Whether the restrictions are necessary and proportionate; and
  • Whether there are less restrictive options available.

Applications are commonly made by local authorities where a young person has complex care, behavioural or mental health needs.

The Link with the Children Act 1989

Many young people involved in deprivation of liberty proceedings are also supported by children’s services under the Children Act 1989.

For example, they may be:

  • Accommodated by the local authority under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989;
  • Subject to a Care Order; or
  • Receiving support due to safeguarding or disability-related needs.

Although the Children Act 1989 provides the framework for a child’s care and welfare, it does not automatically authorise a deprivation of liberty for young people. Separate authorisation from the Court of Protection or the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, depending on the care setting, is often required.

How We Can Help

TV Edwards has experienced Court of Protection solicitors who advise and represent clients in deprivation of liberty cases involving young people. We understand that these proceedings are often legally complex and emotionally difficult for families and professionals alike. Our team provides clear, practical advice and sensitive, expert representation throughout the process, helping clients navigate these challenging cases with confidence.

Related Services:
Court Of Protection Solicitors
TV EDWARDS SOLICITORS LLP

Overruling the Decision in the Cheshire West Case

The 2014 decision introduced the well-known “acid test” for determining whether someone lacking capacity was deprived of their liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Our Services Contact Us
← Back to News & Blogs
18 June 2026
Jamie Callaghan
Solicitor
Joseph Borg
Solicitor
Blog Court of Protection

On 2 June 2026 the Supreme Court of the UK issued a decision that is likely to have a significant impact on the safeguards that are in place for people who lack mental capacity and receive care in care homes, hospitals, other residential settings, and other types of supported accommodation in the community.

The background to the recent decision is the Supreme Court’s previous 2014 ruling in the case of Cheshire West (Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2014] UKSC 19 [2014] AC 896). This case involved the court considering whether three adults who lacked mental capacity to make decisions about their living arrangements were subject to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In their determination, the Supreme Court ruled that the “acid test” for determining whether someone is deprived of liberty is whether a person is subject to continuous supervision and control, and is not free to leave.

This approach effectively meant that when a person lacked the capacity to make decisions around their residence and/or care according to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, they were unable to provide valid consent to the arrangements of their care. The “acid test” set out in Cheshire West meant that many people who lacked mental capacity but were not actively objecting to their care and living arrangements were nonetheless considered as being deprived of their liberty. This idea was famously encapsulated by Baroness Hale who stated: “a gilded cage is still a cage”. The impact of the Cheshire West case was that additional safeguards were required, in the form of independent advocates, best interests assessors, and authorisation by the Court of Protection, to ensure that the care and residential arrangements for people who lacked mental capacity were in their best interests; regardless of whether the incapacitous person was objecting to those arrangements.

The legal position changed on 2 June 2026 following the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in A Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland of a devolution issue under paragraph 34 of Schedule 10 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 [[2026] UKSC16]. The Supreme Court had been asked to consider whether the Minister of Health for Northern Ireland could lawfully issue a revised Code of Practice under the Mental Capacity Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 to allow a vulnerable person (P) who lacks capacity to give valid consent to their care arrangements by expressing their wishes and feelings, and whether this would result in them not being deprived of their liberty under Article 5 ECHR.

In their determination, the Supreme Court exercised its powers under the 1966 Practice Statement to overrule the decision in Cheshire West on the basis that it went beyond the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and departed from the long-standing multifactorial approach to determining when a person is deprived of their liberty. This restored approach involves looking at the particular realities of the individual’s situation and considering factors such as the type of restrictions they live under, their duration, their effects, and the purpose of the measures i.e., to keep P safe. The Supreme Court held that the difference between a deprivation of liberty and a restriction of liberty is one of degree or intensity rather than nature or substance.

The recent ruling also determined that in order to establish whether P is deprived of their liberty, there must be an established objective fact of confinement and, subjectively, a lack of “valid consent”. The introduction of the concept of valid consent  means that while P may lack mental capacity to make decisions regarding their care and residence, if they are able to meaningfully express their wishes, have a basic understanding of their care and living arrangements, and demonstrate that they are happy or content with these arrangements then they can be considered capable of giving valid consent. In such circumstances, they may not be viewed as being deprived of their liberty notwithstanding restrictions like a locked door in a care home.

Additionally, the type of setting in which an individual is being cared for is now deemed to be a relevant factor when considering whether they are deprived of their liberty. For example, the Supreme Court determined that if P is living in their own home according to their wishes and feelings, then it is less likely they are being deprived of their liberty. It was noted by the Supreme Court that in order for there to be a deprivation of liberty at P’s own home there would need to be significant restrictions on P such as a combination of restraint, medication, or seclusion. The potentially controversial implication here is that a deprivation of liberty is now likely to involve some form of coercion or an externally imposed punitive measure, which would represent a significant departure from Baroness Hale’s ‘gilded cage’ concept.

The ruling also held that liberty means the physical freedom to go where one pleases. This is taken to mean that where the nature of P’s health conditions or needs mean they are unable to physically leave where they are, or even consider leaving as being a possibility, this means any deprivation of their liberty is their confinement is a consequence of their organic health conditions and not the result of the actions of a third party such a family or carers. Moving forward, this would indicate that the more freedom of movement P has, the less likely they will be deemed to be deprived of their liberty. This may be the case where P is not be able to leave their home unsupervised but enjoys unlimited access to the remainder of their home. 

What Next?

This ruling has changed the legal landscape around deprivation of liberty that has been in existence since Cheshire West. This has significant and immediate practical implications for the legal profession, local authorities, Integrated Care Boards, advocacy organisations and, most importantly, all the vulnerable persons who were entitled to have safeguards in place because they were deemed as being  deprived of their liberty, as well as their families, friends, or carers. The Supreme Court did not, in its judgment, provide guidance as to how these changes can and should be implemented, though initial guidance has recently been provided by the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Justice for England and Wales.  In the meantime, professionals involved in deprivation of liberty matters are required to apply the new tests immediately and give careful consideration as to what constitutes a deprivation of liberty on the ground, in this post Cheshire West world.

Related Services:
Court Of Protection Solicitors
TV EDWARDS SOLICITORS LLP

The Soho Society’s Decision to Challenge Licence Applications in Westminster

The new licensing landscape could improve and promote equal footing among different types of operators.

Our Services Contact Us
← Back to News & Blogs
15 June 2026
Jade James
Solicitor
Blog Licensing Law

The Decision

The Soho Society is a non-profit organisation established in 1972, which is funded by Westminster Council and aims to “preserve the character of Soho” and protect the interests of residents and businesses in the area. The group retains a formal consultative role to Westminster Council in relation to all planning and licensing applications in Soho.      

Following the group’s annual general meeting in the final week of May 2026, it has made a decision to object to all new licence applications, applications to renew existing licences and applications for venues to stay open beyond “core hours,” which end at 11pm in Westminster. 

With consideration of cumulative impact and licensing objectives, the Soho Society has specified that it will object to: 

  • all applications that wish to trade beyond defined core hours
  • all new applications for betting shops, bars, music, dance and nightclub premises
  • sex shop licences

The Soho Society claims that the decision was made to prevent public nuisance and crime and disorder due to the dense concentration of late-night premises in the Westminster area. However, restaurant and bar owners have expressed concerns that this could undermine the identity of Soho, which is widely considered one of London’s most culturally rich and vibrant neighborhoods. Many have complained that it is difficult to find places to have a meal and drink in central London after 11pm due to the “core hours” policy. Club owners in the area are also reportedly being refused licences to stay open late and are required to close around 1am. 

Furthermore, there have been concerns that the Soho Society’s decision could contribute to a decrease in hospitality jobs and exacerbate the current issue of high levels of youth unemployment in Britain by leading to reduced hours and jobs for young people. 

The Soho Society has been accused of making vexatious and biased complaints in relation to licence applications. Although a spokesperson for the group has stated that its concerns are a reflection of people in the community, the group is estimated to only represent a minor percentage and demographic of the district’s residents. 

The Draft London Strategic Licensing Policy 2026-2031

In February 2026, Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, set out a new London-wide Strategic Licensing Policy to boost the capital’s hospitality and nightlife industries. The policy aims to make licensing more transparent and consistent across London and provide new powers to the Mayor through the Licensing Act 2003 (to be amended by the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill).

Currently, all local authorities in England and Wales are required by the Licensing Act 2003 to prepare and publish a Statement of Licensing Policy establishing the principles and guidelines the authority will use when making decisions on licensing applications, highlighting the fragmented nature of the UK’s licensing framework. This means it is easier to acquire or amend a licence in some areas than in others. The new policy will establish principles that the 33 London boroughs will be required to follow when making licensing decisions, reducing licensing inconsistencies and supporting economic growth across the capital. 

The UK’s licensing framework is largely focused on economic growth and high street regeneration and balancing this alongside public safety and the statutory licensing objectives which are prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, prevention of public nuisance and protecting children from harm.  The Revised Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, also imposes a duty on local authorities to have regard to economic growth, stating, “When making licensing decisions, all licensing authorities should consider the need to promote growth and deliver economic benefits”.

The Soho Society’s decision to challenge new licence applications seemingly misaligns with the goals set out in the new licensing policy, which is why it is being met with objections.

The Mayor of London’s Plan to Overrule the Soho Society’s Decision

Most notably, the Mayor of London has vowed to overrule the Soho Society’s plan to object to all new licence applications in Soho. 

The new powers the Mayor will be granted by the government detailed in the Draft London Strategic Licensing Policy 2026-2031 are set to be fully implemented by the summer of 2026. This is significant as it will be the first time the Mayor has a formal strategic role in London’s licensing system. He has stated that he will use these new licensing powers to help “protect venues” and “extend London’s late-night offer”.

Specifically, the Mayor will be consulted by licensing authorities on their Statement of Licensing Policies, be able to overturn decisions to block pubs and bars from opening and be able to determine licence applications.  The Greater London Authority (GLA) is also being added as a responsible authority that can intervene in licensing decisions, and the Mayor will have the power to “call-in” or review applications in areas that are deemed to be of strategic importance to the night-time economy. This would permit bars to stay open later and increase al-fresco dining in Soho during the summertime. Al fresco dining is currently limited as the Soho Society and other residents took issue with its prominence following the pandemic.   

The new licensing landscape could improve and promote equal footing among different types of operators, as Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) and grassroots organisations are reported to be disproportionately burdened by the current system. There could also be a shift to abolish cumulative impact assessments (CIAs), which are tools that licensing authorities use to identify specific geographic zones where the high concentration of licensed premises negatively affects the local area. Furthermore, it could lead to responsibility for noise nuisance mitigation being placed on residential developers who build near existing hospitality venues.

Ultimately, these policy changes could make it easier for premises to acquire and amend licences and also prevent the imposition of blanket conditions and “core hours” policies, as each application will be assessed on its own merit.

How Our Licensing Solicitors Can Help

We provide comprehensive advice and representation on all aspects of licensing policies and licence applications:

We can help you by:

  • Reviewing and interpreting local authority licensing policies
  • Advising on how policies affect your application
  • Preparing compliant and strategically structured licence applications
  • Representing you in licensing hearings and negotiations
  • Justifying applications that deviate from licensing policies
  • Helping protect your licence from review or revocation

We act for a wide range of businesses, including restaurants, bars, pubs, nightclubs, event venues, and hospitality operators.  Our solicitors routinely deal with contested applications in Soho and across London, and are specialists in negotiating with responsible authorities, residents’ associations and neighbouring properties to seek a compromise and ensure a suitably licence is obtained.

Why Choose TV Edwards?

  • Highly ranked in legal directories – Legal 500 and Chambers UK 
  • Immediate emergency support – call us on 0203 440 8000
  • Specialist representation – police station advisers, solicitors, and higher court advocates
  • Hardworking problem-solvers – we fearlessly challenge evidence, protecting your interests
  • Honest and down-to-earth – we explain your options compassionately and in plain English
Related Services:
Licensing Solicitors
TV EDWARDS SOLICITORS LLP

Cohabitation Reform 2026: The Current Position and the Government Consultation

The 2026 consultation marks a potentially transformative moment in the development of family law in England and Wales

Our Services Contact Us
← Back to News & Blogs
8 June 2026
Mandeep Bhachu
Solicitor
Blog Family

The law relating to cohabiting couples in England and Wales has long been criticised for failing to reflect modern family life. With many couples choosing to live together without getting married or entering a civil partnership, pressure has increased on governments to reform a legal framework that many commentators regard as outdated.

In June 2026, the government launched a consultation on cohabitation reform, indicating the most significant review of cohabitants’ rights in a generation. The consultation seeks views on how greater legal protection can be provided to unmarried couples whilst maintaining the distinct legal status of marriage and civil partnership.

The Current Legal Position

Under the current law of England and Wales, cohabiting couples do not enjoy the same legal rights and responsibilities as married couples or civil partners. Despite the belief in the concept of a “common law marriage”, no such legal status exists. The fact that a couple has lived together for many years does not automatically give either party rights to the other’s property, pension, savings or income upon separation.

When a cohabiting relationship breaks down, disputes concerning property ownership are generally determined by property law rather than family law. A partner who is not a legal owner of the family home may have to establish a beneficial interest through complex trust law claims, often involving arguments about financial contributions or shared intentions. Litigation in this respect can be expensive, uncertain and difficult to pursue.

Limited remedies are available where children are involved. Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 permits applications for financial provision for children, including housing arrangements, but these claims are focused on the child’s needs rather than providing long term financial support for the former partner.

The position following death is also different from that of married couples. Cohabiting partners do not automatically inherit under the intestacy rules. Unless a valid will exists, a surviving partner may need to pursue a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975.

The 2026 Consultation

The government’s 2026 consultation represents a significant policy shift. The consultation seeks views on strengthening the legal rights of cohabiting couples while preserving marriage as a distinct legal institution.

Although the consultation process remains ongoing, reports indicate that the government is considering an opt-out framework under which certain cohabiting couples would become eligible for legal protection after meeting certain criteria. Proposed eligibility requirements may include living together for a minimum period, such as three years, or having a child together. Courts would also need to be satisfied that the parties were in an enduring family relationship.

The consultation explores whether eligible cohabitants should be able to seek financial remedies upon separation, including claims relating to property and other assets. It also considers whether surviving cohabitants should receive greater protection following the death of a partner, particularly in cases where no valid will exists.

Another significant aspect of the consultation concerns domestic abuse. The government has indicated that any future framework may take account of coercive and controlling behaviour, economic abuse and other forms of domestic abuse when determining financial outcomes. This reflects broader developments in family law and an increasing recognition of non-physical forms of abuse within intimate relationships.

Conclusion

The 2026 consultation marks a potentially transformative moment in the development of family law in England and Wales. For many years legal reform has lagged behind changing social patterns and family structures.

No new laws have been formally passed as of yet. Unmarried couples still lack the automatic financial and property protections granted to married couples or civil partners. To bridge this gap many family solicitors encourage unmarried couples to put a cohabitation agreement in place, formalising property ownership status (e.g. specifying joint tenants versus tenants in common) as interim protection.

The current law provides limited protection for cohabiting couples and often produces outcomes that are perceived as unfair, particularly where one partner has suffered economic disadvantage during the relationship.

The government has now prioritised long overdue changes. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the Law Commission are focusing on key areas that would reshape family law. The proposed legal changes are statutory financial schemes, transitional maintenance, bereavement and inheritance and legally binding cohabitation agreements.

While the final shape of the legislation remains uncertain, the consultation demonstrates a clear willingness by the government to revisit a long-standing area of concern. Whether reform ultimately takes the form of an opt-out scheme, enhanced inheritance rights, financial remedies on separation, or a combination of these measures, the outcome is likely to have significant implications for many cohabiting couples.  The consultation therefore represents an important opportunity to shape the future legal framework governing modern family relationships.

How can we help?

If you are living with a partner and would like advice on your current legal position, our family law team can help. Whether you are considering a cohabitation agreement, reviewing property ownership arrangements, or seeking guidance on your rights following separation, we can provide clear and practical advice tailored to your circumstances.

Contact us today to discuss your situation with one of our specialist family solicitors on 0203 400 8000 or email us at family@tvedwards.com.

Related Services:
Cohabitation Agreement Solicitors Family Finance Solicitors Family Law Solicitors
Contact Us
020 3440 8000 enquiries@tvedwards.com Our Offices Contact Us