Jide Ogundimu SRA Regulated Independent Solicitor of England and Wales

Call Website Contact the business

Jide Ogundimu SRA Regulated Independent Solicitor of England and Wales Jide Ogundimu is an SRA Regulated Independent Solicitor of England and Wales providing legal services to the public.

11/09/2026

Practice points
Targeting abuse of position fraud
By Amanda Wolf 11 September 2026

When people think about fraud, they often picture sophisticated online fraud, phishing emails or criminals operating from behind a screen. However, some of the most damaging frauds are committed not by strangers, but by people in positions of trust.

New analysis of reports made to Report Fraud – the UK’s cybercrime and fraud reporting service – highlights the scale of fraud by abuse of position, a crime that occurs when someone exploits a position of responsibility, authority or trust for financial gain. During the 2025/26 financial year, victims reported losses of almost £94m through this crime. More than £51m of those losses were suffered by people aged 70 and over.

Unlike many other frauds, abuse of position frequently takes place within existing personal or professional relationships. Offenders may be family members, friends, carers, employees or others entrusted to support a person’s financial affairs. The trust placed in these individuals can provide direct access to money, assets and personal information, making offending easier to conceal and harder to detect.

For legal professionals, the findings highlight a growing risk affecting some of society’s most vulnerable people.

Report Fraud received 628 reports involving the alleged misuse of power of attorney during the reporting period, resulting in reported losses of tens of millions of pounds. While powers of attorney are an important safeguard and, in the overwhelming majority of cases, are used appropriately, they can also be exploited by individuals seeking to benefit financially from their position.

We also continue to receive reports involving wills, probate and the administration of estates. In some cases, allegations suggest offenders have exploited bereavement, family disputes or vulnerabilities to gain financial advantage. These situations can blur the line between criminal conduct, undue influence and civil dispute, making them particularly complex for victims and legal practitioners alike.

Too often, abuse of position can be viewed primarily as a family matter, safeguarding concern or civil dispute. While those elements may be present, we should also recognise that, in some cases, it is serious fraud causing significant financial and emotional harm. Viewing these cases through that broader lens is essential if we are to identify risk earlier, protect vulnerable individuals and intervene before losses escalate.

Solicitors are often among the first professionals to identify signs that something may be wrong. A client who appears reluctant to speak in front of a family member, unexplained changes to legal arrangements, unusual financial decisions, concerns around capacity, or sudden requests to amend wills or powers of attorney can all warrant closer scrutiny.

As our population ages and more people rely on others to help manage their affairs, vigilance will become increasingly important.

The impact of abuse of position fraud extends well beyond the financial loss itself. Victims often experience a profound sense of betrayal because the offender is someone they trusted. Confidence can be damaged, relationships break down and, in some cases, victims may lose their independence altogether. That is why prevention is so important.

For legal professionals, safeguarding is not simply about compliance. It is about recognising risk, asking the right questions and taking appropriate action when concerns arise. Opportunities to intervene often emerge long before a matter reaches law enforcement.

Fraud by abuse of position remains significantly underreported. Victims may be reluctant to come forward because they are dependent on the offender, embarrassed by what has happened, or concerned about the consequences for family members. In some cases, they may not even know they have become a victim of fraud. This makes the role of trusted professionals even more important.

By identifying warning signs early and encouraging reporting, the legal sector can play a crucial role in protecting clients and preventing harm. In many cases, legal professionals may be the only independent party with visibility of emerging concerns. Recognising those warning signs early can make the difference between preventing harm and responding to it after significant losses have occurred.

Our ambition must be to move beyond responding to harm and towards preventing it. Earlier reporting, better intelligence sharing and stronger collaboration between safeguarding, legal and law enforcement partners can help identify risk before significant losses occur.

How to protect against abuse of position fraud

l Review financial statements regularly: Review bank statements and financial records with elderly or vulnerable clients, relatives or individuals you support. Early identification of unauthorised transactions can help prevent further losses.

l Watch for warning signs: Be alert to unpaid bills, missing possessions, unexplained withdrawals, sudden changes to a will, power of attorney or financial accounts. These can all be indicators of financial abuse.

l Act quickly if something feels wrong: If concerns arise, speak to the individual privately where appropriate. Safeguarding concerns can also be raised with the local authority’s adult social care team. Concerns about an attorney or deputy can be reported to the Office of the Public Guardian.

l Encourage reporting: Financial abuse often remains hidden. Early reporting can help protect victims and prevent further offending. Reports can be made through Report Fraud.

By remaining alert to the warning signs of abuse of position fraud, legal professionals can help ensure that positions of trust are used to protect vulnerable people, not exploit them.

10/09/2026

Analysis

Blaming judicial review - here we go again
By Eduardo Reyes 10 September 2026

The attorney general has reheated Conservative attacks on judicial review

It is practically a rite of passage for many a UK government: settling on the view that what is stopping the administration from delivering on its promises is the existence of judicial review. Rather than, say, Whitehall going the wrong way about implementation, or pledges having been made on the basis of chronology or financial calculations that were adjacent to magical thinking.

It has taken Andy Burnham’s government 50 days to settle on JR as the roadblock to its ambitions.

JR is one target in a fairly extraordinary letter sent to ministers by Burnham’s attorney general, Ellie Reeves KC, chancellor of the exchequer, John Healey, and chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Louise Haigh.

Headed ‘The simplification and agency of government’, it urges ministers to take more legal risks, before turning attention to JR.

‘In some instances it has become clear that the system of judicial review is out of balance. That is why the government took action last year to limit the number of attempts that can be made to bring a judicial review against nationally significant infrastructure projects, and why the Government has been advancing further reforms to limit the scope for judicial review where Parliament has had a say in authorising a project.

‘The government intends to progress these reforms, and to broaden the range of projects to which they can apply, from only energy projects to all nationally significant infrastructure projects. This will mean that transport, water and other types of major infrastructure can benefit from the parliamentary authorisation route once we have passed the necessary legislation.’

We were last here in earnest in 2020 when justice secretary Robert Buckland QC tasked Lord Faulks QC with reviewing what could be done about JR. When Faulks reported in March 2021, Buckland claimed the findings showed: ‘Judicial overreach increasingly threatens the rule of law and effective, democratic government.’

He added: ‘The panel found courts were increasingly considering the merits of government decisions themselves, instead of how those decisions were made – moving beyond the remit of judicial review.’

Which was in line with the arguments of right-wing thinktank Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project, but a total misrepresentation of the Faulks review’s findings. It left members of the review panel, though circumspect in public, fuming.

Having looked into the problems JR was alleged to be causing, they concluded, unanimously: ‘The independence of our judiciary and the high reputation in which it is held internationally should cause the government to think long and hard before seeking to curtail its powers.’

They continued: ‘Our view is that the government and parliament can be confident that the courts will respect institutional boundaries in exercising their inherent powers to review the legality of government action. Politicians should, in turn, afford the judiciary the respect which it is undoubtedly due when it exercises these powers.’

Government ministers feel the burden of delivering promises keenly. Public finances and growth are not where they would like them to be. Perhaps egged on by Whitehall, many also chafe at accountability.

Yet nothing about JR or the conduct of the courts has changed since 2021. A new review, if informed by evidence, would not reach a different conclusion to Faulks.

Among the ideas Buckland then consulted on, completely unsupported by the review’s findings, were ‘ouster clauses’ in legislation. These were a cunning ruse to shove lines into bills that said nothing in them could be challenged.

It was an extreme idea, ultimately lost in the political instability of the time. If Reeves, Healey and Haigh prevail upon the justice secretary to revisit it, it would be a sign of desperation.

For now, JR being pre-emptively raised as a reason for failing to deliver on political promises and public expectations reads like a sick note with no supporting pathology.

11/06/2026

Obiter

Lawyer referee warms up for World Cup debut
11 June 2026

Obiter’s desperate attempts to shoehorn the World Cup into these pages had proved fruitless, until a late beacon of light in the form of Ali Omar.

The Egyptian referee has been named as the main official for the second match of the tournament, South Korea v Czech Republic, which kicks off at the unappealing UK time of 3am on Friday.

Omar is listed in various media outlets as a lawyer, although we could find no record online of his legal career.

Perhaps a long run in the tournament might raise his profile and help to fill in the blanks. Such a run of games would be a surprise given this is his first senior World Cup, but the Korean media is upbeat on his prospects, one outlet describing that ‘his willingness to maintain the flow of the game rather than blowing the whistle on every contact will be a true asset’. We can judge for ourselves on Friday – if anyone can still be up in those small hours.

10/06/2026

Legal updates

Court clarifies what counts as a 'building'
By James Holton and Philip Byrne 5 June 2026

The Court of Appeal decision in SGL 1 Ltd v FSV Freeholders Ltd is an important development for landlords, investors, developers and advisers dealing with residential leasehold property and rights of first refusal under Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (LTA 1987).

The case considered a practical but difficult question: what is a ‘building’ for the purposes of section 5(3)?

Part I of the act gives qualifying tenants of flats a right of first refusal where a landlord proposes to dispose of the relevant freehold or other interest. Section 5(3) requires a landlord, where a transaction involves more than one building, to sever the transaction so as to deal with each building separately. The difficulty is that the act does not define what a ‘building’ actually is.

The appeal arose from a development in Liverpool in which the freehold title encompassed multiple blocks on a single Land Registry title. Notices had been served on the basis that block A was one building, and blocks B, C and E were another (block D had been demolished following a fire).

At first instance, however, the court had concluded that blocks A, B, C and E together constituted a single building for the purposes of Part I of the 1987 act, rendering the notices invalid.

The issue for the Court of Appeal was to determine how one decides whether the disposal of a freehold under the 1987 act is a disposal of more than one building; and, if it is, then how should one decide on the number of buildings comprised within the disposal?

The Court of Appeal overturned the first instance judgment. It held that the earlier legal test had been applied incorrectly, allowed the appeal, and decided that block A was a separate building, while blocks B, C and E together formed another building. Block A was a refurbished and redeveloped warehouse building which stood on its own and had its own supply of services, whereas blocks B, C and E had shared services. On that basis, the section 5 notices were valid.

One of the most notable aspects of the judgment is the Court of Appeal’s treatment of the earlier case law in this area. The court made clear that previous authority had taken the law in the wrong direction and that a different approach was required.

The court accepted that it is difficult to formulate one universal test for what amounts to a building. However, it said that the central question is likely to be whether the structures are within a ‘functionally integrated built envelope’.

Applying that approach, block A was treated as a separate structure with its own services and utilities, whereas blocks B, C and E were sufficiently integrated, including through shared access arrangements, plant and servicing, to be treated as one building.

Importantly, the court also made clear that the existence of shared amenity areas or rights over common parts does not necessarily mean that otherwise separate structures must be treated as a single building.

This decision is important because it provides clearer guidance to those structuring transactions involving mixed or multi-block residential developments.

It suggests that the focus should be less on broad estate-wide connections and more on whether the structures in question are physically and functionally integrated as part of the same built envelope.

That said, the judgment does not remove all uncertainty. The court acknowledged that the legislation is difficult to interpret and indicated that there is a strong case for the secretary of state to use existing powers to provide a clearer definition.

From our perspective, the decision is a timely reminder that investors, developers and landlords need to think carefully about how multi-block sites are configured, managed and ultimately disposed of.

Particular care is needed where:

multiple buildings sit within a single freehold title;

there are shared facilities, plant, accessways or utility arrangements;

common parts or external areas are used by occupiers across different blocks; and

a future sale of the freehold may engage the rights of first refusal regime under the 1987 act (including the transfer of the freehold to a residents’ management company, which is common upon completion of a development).

Those acquiring, developing or restructuring residential estates should not assume that title boundaries alone will answer the question. Equally, shared amenity arrangements will not automatically mean that several structures amount to a single building.

The analysis is likely to remain highly fact-sensitive, but the Court of Appeal’s ‘functionally integrated built envelope’ test will now be central.

Unless and until the legislation is clarified, this is an area where careful early advice is essential.

The consequences of getting it wrong can be serious. If a freeholder transfers the freehold without serving notices upon the qualifying tenants pursuant to section 5 of the LTA 1987, then they may be guilty of a criminal offence under section 10A of the LTA 1987, punishable by a fine. The qualifying tenants would also acquire statutory rights against the purchaser to obtain information about the disposal and to compel the purchaser to transfer the property to them on the same terms. It is also possible that property disposed of in breach of the LTA 1987 could be ‘criminal property’, as defined under section 340 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

For those involved in acquiring or disposing of freehold interests in residential estates, SGL 1 Ltd v FSV Freeholders Ltd is an important case. It provides welcome appellate guidance, but it also underlines the continuing need for caution where developments involve multiple buildings and shared infrastructure.

31/03/2026

News
Judge orders naming of barrister who cited AI-faked cases
By John Hyde 30 March 2026

A recorder has ruled that a barrister who presented the court with incorrect information produced by AI searches should be named. Recorder Howard, sitting at Bournemouth Family Court, said that Layla Parsons had held herself out as a lawyer offering paid legal work to the public, so it was in the public interest to name her.

It was agreed by all the advocates in A, B, C, D, Re (Extension of assessment; Use of AI: hallucinations) that Parsons had presented a skeleton argument presenting four cases or propositions that were not real. She accepted that she had used a widely known AI tool to help prepare the skeleton and apologised for inadvertently misleading the court. But she urged the court not to publish either the judgment or her name, saying this would amount to ‘character assassination’ which would place her at risk of actual and psychological harm.

The recorder ruled however that the judgment should be published as it was another example where AI hallucinations have led to the court being misled by a person representing themselves relying on the AI tool without reference to their duty to check the citations.

He added: ‘There is a real and not fanciful possibility that Ms Parsons will in the future offer legal services to members of the public. I consider that this factor, and the need for any person engaging the services of Ms Parsons in legal proceedings, to know that she has misled the court (albeit unintentionally) and does not in my judgement properly understand what she has done wrong is a strong and overwhelming factor in favour of naming Ms Parsons.

‘When I balance that factor against the risks Ms Parsons asserts, I consider it strongly outweighs the risks to her, and that naming her is a necessary and proportionate interference with her right to family life.’

The court heard that Parsons had acted as a lay advocate for her friend, a mother of four who was involved in Children Act proceedings. In the proceedings, she had sought to support the mother and put herself forward to care for all the children if they could not remain in the mother’s care.

Parsons works as a therapist but also held herself out as a lawyer. She is an unregistered barrister who had also done paid legal work as recently as last November. She had made applications in the case to be joined as a party, and for a special guardianship assessment and then as an interim kinship carer.

Following a hearing in January, at which it was discovered that the false cases had been cited, the recorder invited written submissions about whether the judgment should be published and Parsons named. In her submissions, Parsons offered immediate apologies for misleading the court having relied on the output of the AI tool. She was now fully aware that the AI tool may give incorrect information.

The recorder absolved her of any intention to mislead the court, but said he remained concerned that Parsons ‘minimises the seriousness’ of what had happened. He also rejected her suggestion that criticism of AI risks setting a harmful precedent for disabled litigants in person and would discourage access to justice.

20/03/2026

Commentary and opinion
For employment lawyers, the M&S chief compliments officer creates a minefield
By Emma-Jane Taylor-Moran 20 March 2026

The advice to companies? Keep it professional and beware unwelcome familiarity

A major high street store is running a campaign this season based on dressing well and being complimented, with actress Gillian Anderson appointed CCO (Chief Compliments Officer).

Personally, I’m a giver not a taker. I enjoy dishing out compliments (when merited), but in a truly British way, I often struggle to accept them. We are conditioned to be modest and self-deprecating.

But what about in the workplace? Compliments at work are a veritable minefield, and as an employment lawyer my instinct is to say, 'proceed with caution'.

Have you ever tried to say something nice to someone in the office and immediately worried you’ve said something dreadful? That foot-in-mouth moment. A simple 'you look nice today' can unleash the sort of panic usually caused by an unexpected 'can we have a catchup?’ email from HR.

On the other hand, have you ever received a 'love that dress on you!' comment from a colleague, and instead of invoking a happy glow, it made you feel a bit icky?

In employment law, innocent intent doesn’t override impact. In other words, you may think you’re being charming but the recipient may feel they’ve been ambushed by an unsolicited character reference on their physical appearance. And that’s enough to land an employer in potential trouble.

Workplace compliments fall generally into two camps:

Safe, sensible, HR‑approved remarks, like 'your presentation was crystal clear' or 'you handled that client like a Jedi'.

Personal comments about physical appearance or attributes, which is where the problems usually begin.

Appearance‑based compliments about someone’s body, outfit or hairstyle are in my view 'no bueno' because they can be read in multiple ways. They can feel personal, overly familiar or just plain intrusive. That doesn’t mean everyone reacts badly, but it does mean employers must assume someone might. Whereas compliments about professional competence are much less likely to be misinterpreted. And to be honest, it is the actual work someone does that should be the focus of their workplace experience, not whether Brian likes your shoes.

That brings me on to context. Compliments do not exist in a vacuum; they land within a network of cultural expectations, social conditioning, gender norms and power dynamics.

Let’s address the elephant in the meeting room: a male colleague telling a female colleague, 'you look lovely today,' is not the same as if it were two female colleagues chatting. That’s not about villainising men or assuming women can’t make others uncomfortable, it’s about historic societal imbalances, differing expectations and longstanding inequality of power between the sexes.

When men compliment women on their appearance, it is more likely to be perceived as:

inappropriately personal rather than professional

linked to sexual attractiveness rather than job competence

potentially sexual in tone, even if unintentional

When women compliment women on their appearance, it tends to be interpreted as:

socially normalised and perhaps even welcome

rooted in 'sisterhood' and devoid of sexual connotations

less entangled with power dynamics

None of this is absolute - anyone can cross a line, and anyone can feel uncomfortable, but context forms part of the backdrop that employment tribunals consider when deciding whether conduct was reasonable or harassing. NB I am referring to heterosexual colleagues here, and of course other sexualities create different dynamics in the same scenario.

What can employers do? I’m not a killjoy or a compliment-phobe, and employers don’t need to extinguish all warmth from the workplace, but they do need to set clear boundaries. I would suggest they:

Provide interactive training on harassment, conduct and the law - if you wouldn’t put it in a reference, don’t say it in the lift.

Encourage work‑related praise - say good things about productivity, creativity, hard work or innovation. Steer clear of comments about appearance.

Create easy reporting channels to line managers and HR, and foster a culture of openness - employees shouldn’t have to decide whether a comment was 'bad enough' to mention, and most employers don’t hear about these until it has been going on for too long already.

Respond proportionately and promptly - small everyday issues are easier to resolve than festering ones.

A simple rule for those who like to say nice things to colleagues but fear accidental awkwardness, or a grievance raised against them: if in doubt, rely on the 'Email Test' - would you feel comfortable putting this exact compliment in writing and sending it to their work inbox?

If typing it would make you squirm, or worse you suspect it could be sex-pest territory, then think of it as future evidence in an employment tribunal, and avoid, avoid, avoid. If you’d happily press 'send' and wouldn’t break out in a cold sweat if it were forwarded to HR, then you’re probably in safe territory. I hope. Unless you lack all sensible human judgment, and sadly I have seen many people in tribunals who seem to lack that.

A final word in praise of safer praise: workplace compliments aren’t completely doomed; they just need a little caution. They can strengthen teams, reinforce confidence and combat the British instinct to apologise for existing. BUT, keep them in the professional lane and away from anything that could be mistaken for a commentary on someone’s desirability.

If you focus on effort, skill, insight, and collaboration, then you might brighten someone’s day without drifting into the realm of unintended innuendo or unwelcome familiarity, because nothing kills a compliment faster than accidentally turning it into evidence.

17/03/2026

Commentary and opinion
Tackling predatory marriage will not be easy
By Rachel Rothwell 17 March 2026

Last week, as the ‘Free Wills Month’ initiative got into full swing, the Law Society called on government to update a 19th-century wills law that is ‘not fit for the future’.

Last May, the Law Commission recommended a raft of changes to the current law, which is still largely based on the Wills Act 1837. The proposals include updating the law on capacity, formalities and electronic wills. One of the more controversial recommendations is to abolish the rule that a will is automatically revoked by a marriage or civil partnership – in an attempt to tackle the growing problem of ‘predatory marriage’.

Predatory marriage is where someone coerces or manipulates a vulnerable elderly person into marrying them, so they can inherit their estate. Under current law, once the marriage or civil partnership takes place, any will previously in place is invalidated.

The true extent of predatory marriage is hard to quantify, because it does not usually come to light until the victim has died; and by law, a marriage cannot be challenged after the death of one of the parties. In its report, the commission said that while predatory marriage is not necessarily common, it is ‘far from uncommon’ and ‘far more widespread’ than it had previously thought.

When BBC Radio 4’s ‘File on 4’ contacted 176 solicitors about predatory marriage, it discovered that 98 suspected cases had been received by their firms during 2020. Meanwhile, Predatory Marriage UK told the commission it was contacted by around two families per month with suspicions of predatory marriage.

Facts often followed the same pattern. The predator moves in fast on the elderly person. They befriend family members before becoming more hostile and isolating the victim, marrying them in secret and keeping the marriage hidden even after the death. The behaviour patterns are so similar that the organisation reported rumours that a ‘how-to’ guide to predatory marriage may be circulating on the dark web.

One solicitor told the commission of a particularly harrowing example of attempted predatory marriage. The younger, female partner – of a few months – of an elderly male client arranged a marriage at the local registry office. The client did not turn up, as he did not want to marry her. Then she tried to force him to change his will, leaving everything to her – but he had a heart attack and died in the firm’s reception before signing the new will. The solicitor believed the predatory partner had seen marriage as an easier option than getting the victim to change his will. Her coercive behaviour did not come to light until after the client’s death.

This evidence of abuse is clearly worrying, but there is another side to the coin. The rule that a will is automatically revoked by marriage or civil partnership offers financial protection to surviving spouses and civil partners. Marriage is a positive action, a new chapter in someone’s life. If no new will is made after marriage, should the law really assume that any existing will, no matter how old, no matter if it was made before the testator had even met their marital partner, still represents their true intentions – ignoring the more recent action of getting married? The risk of unintended financial hardship for surviving spouses is clear, and potentially far more widespread than the issue of predatory marriage, concerning as that is.

In its proposals, the commission acknowledges that a change in the law would disadvantage spouses and civil partners compared to the current position. However, it suggests they will still be ‘protected’ by the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, enabling them to make a claim against the estate for reasonable financial provision if needed. This is where legal rights shatter into tiny pieces as they slam against the cold, hard reality of legal costs.

Bringing a claim under the 1975 act is very expensive and out of reach for the ordinary person. This is not an area of the law where it is easy to find a lawyer willing to act under a no win, no fee agreement. Depending on the outcome, the potential bill could run into tens of thousands of pounds. Ironically, the more the surviving spouse is in need of financial support, the less likely they are to be in a position to bring a claim for it.

Tackling the growing issue of predatory marriage while safeguarding the financial needs of surviving spouses is not easy and I do not claim to have the answer. Whatever steps are taken, however, legislators must be clear-eyed about the cost of using our court system, and how difficult it is for parties to enforce their rights in this area of law.

Address

London

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 6pm
Tuesday 9am - 6pm
Wednesday 9am - 6pm
Thursday 9am - 6pm
Friday 9am - 6pm

Telephone

+447956503531

Website

,

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Jide Ogundimu SRA Regulated Independent Solicitor of England and Wales posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Jide Ogundimu SRA Regulated Independent Solicitor of England and Wales:

Shortcuts

Sponsored

Share

Category