What are the opening hours?

Monday 9:30am - 5:30pm Tuesday 9:30am - 5:30pm Wednesday 9:30am - 5:30pm Thursday 9:30am - 5:30pm Friday 9:30am - 5:30pm

https://www.msrs.co.uk/, https://www.msrs.co.uk/careers/, https://www.msrs.co.uk/insights/, https://www.msrs.co.uk/conta

MSR Solicitors, 15 New Bridge Street, London (2026)

28/05/2026

Choosing the Right Company Structure: A Legal Decision That Shapes Your Future

Introduction
Setting up a company is more than an administrative process. The legal structure you choose affects liability, tax exposure, governance, investment potential, and how your business can grow over time.

Case Summary
In the UK, most businesses choose to operate as private limited companies because they offer flexibility and limited liability protection. However, other structures - including public limited companies, partnerships, and non-profit entities - may be more suitable depending on the organisation’s objectives and funding strategy.

Recent legal developments have also highlighted that company structure alone does not always shield businesses from liability. Courts are increasingly willing to examine the practical reality of how corporate groups operate, particularly where parent companies exercise significant operational control over subsidiaries.

Legal Takeaways
Company structure directly impacts liability, governance, and regulatory obligations.
Private and public company status can affect investment and fundraising opportunities.
Courts may look beyond legal separation and assess operational control when determining liability within group structures.

Implications
Poorly planned structures can increase legal and commercial risk.
Parent companies may still face liability where control over subsidiaries is significant.
The right structure supports scalability, investment readiness, and operational efficiency.
Restructuring later is often more costly and complex than establishing the right structure from the outset.

So What It Means for Clients
Choosing the right company structure from the start is important, as it affects how the business operates, grows, raises investment, and manages risk. Getting legal advice early can help avoid future problems, reduce liability, and prevent costly restructuring later on.

Contact us at 📞 020 3900 0888 ✉️ [email protected]
📖 Read the full article for more: https://www.msrs.co.uk/through-the-corporate-looking-glass-choosing-the-right-uk-company-structure/

27/05/2026

Who Determines Global Patent Licensing Rates: Courts or Arbitration?

A key legal dispute is developing around who should decide global FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) licensing rates for Standard Essential Patents (SEPs): national courts or international arbitration tribunals.

Case Overview
Nokia is facing UK claims from Acer, Hisense, and ASUS, which are seeking court-determined global royalty rates for SEP licences. Nokia argues these disputes should be resolved through negotiation or arbitration, although UK courts are increasingly willing to set global FRAND terms.

Key Legal Issues
- Whether UK courts can set global FRAND royalty rates for international SEP portfolios
- Whether arbitration should remain the preferred method for resolving SEP valuation disputes
- The balance between court jurisdiction and party-agreed arbitration processes
- The growing role of UK courts in international technology licensing disputes

Commercial Implications
This dispute highlights the growing importance of jurisdiction strategy in international patent litigation. Businesses involved in SEP licensing may face:

- increased forum shopping, where parties choose courts they believe are more favourable
- a stronger role for UK courts in global technology licensing disputes
- greater uncertainty over whether SEP valuation will be decided by courts or arbitration tribunals
- increased pressure during international licensing negotiations

What This Means for Clients

In technology, telecommunications, and IP-focused sectors, SEP disputes are shaped not only by patent strength but also by jurisdiction, which can influence royalties, negotiation leverage, and litigation strategy.

As courts increasingly set global FRAND terms, businesses should carefully assess jurisdiction, enforcement risks, and dispute resolution clauses in international licensing agreements.

Contact us at 📞 020 3900 0888 ✉️ [email protected]
📖 Read the full article for more: https://www.msrs.co.uk/a-new-venue-on-the-standards-stage-nokia-rand-and-the-jurisdiction-question/

20/05/2026

Counsel to Public Inquiries: EAT Confirms No “Public Office” or “Worker” Status

In the UK, employment status determines access to employment and discrimination protections. In Halley v Smith and another [2026] EAT 56, the Employment Appeal Tribunal confirmed that a long-term, publicly funded engagement does not automatically create employee, worker, or public office holder status.

Mr Halley, a barrister engaged by the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry, provided legal services over an extended period, including advising, attending hearings, and preparing reports. Following the end of his engagement, he brought disability discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010. The EAT found he acted as an independent barrister, not an employee or office holder, and therefore could not pursue the claim.

The decision confirms that neither long-term engagement nor public funding determines employment status; instead, courts will focus on the reality of the relationship, particularly the degree of control and professional independence involved. Where professionals retain autonomy and independence, contractor status is more likely to apply.

For organisations, the case highlights the importance of ensuring contractual arrangements accurately reflect the intended relationship from the outset. For professionals engaged in inquiries, tribunals, or other quasi-public functions, it is a reminder not to assume that integration into a long-running project necessarily brings employment protections.

Ultimately, the ruling confirms that legal status depends on substance rather than appearance. Even within highly structured public inquiry settings, independent counsel may remain outside the scope of statutory employment protections unless the underlying relationship demonstrates the characteristics of employment or worker status.

Contact us at 📞 020 3900 0888 ✉️ [email protected]
📖 Read the full article for more: https://www.msrs.co.uk/counselto-public-inquiries/

27/04/2026

Does “indefinite” in a contract mean it can never be terminated?

The problem
Many people think that if a contract says “long-term” or “indefinite,” it means the agreement will last forever and cannot be ended.

What happened
In Zaha Hadid Ltd v Zaha Hadid Foundation [2026] EWCA Civ 192, the UK Court of Appeal considered this exact issue. Zaha Hadid Limited had permission to use the “Zaha Hadid” name and paid fees to the Foundation. The contract stated it would continue “indefinitely,” but only gave the Foundation an express right to terminate. It did not say whether the company could end the agreement. Later, the relationship broke down, and the company wanted to exit. The Foundation argued the contract was effectively permanent. The court disagreed

The key point
The court confirmed:
“Indefinite” does not mean “forever.”
It simply means there is no fixed end date.
If a contract does not clearly state that it is permanent, it can usually be terminated by giving reasonable notice.

What you should do I
- If you want the freedom to leave, include a clear termination clause.
- If you intend the contract to last permanently, this must be stated in very clear terms.
- If the wording is unclear, the law will usually allow termination on reasonable notice.

If you encounter similar "indefinite" clauses or termination rights disputes in trademark licensing, brand use, or long-term cooperation agreements, please contact MSR Solicitor for a free consultation.

Contact us at 📞 020 3900 0888 ✉️ [email protected]
📖 Read the full article for more: https://www.msrs.co.uk/forever-is-a-long-time-zaha-hadid-and-the-limits-of-indefinite-trade-mark-licences/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=EN&utm_campaign=27%2F04%2F2026&utm_term=commercial&utm_content=insight

23/04/2026

Can You Get 3 Months’ Pay If a Job Offer Is Withdrawn?

A 2026 legal ruling has made it clear: you may be entitled to compensation if a job offer is withdrawn - even before your first day.

What Happened?

A senior Project Manager accepted a written job offer. The offer stated it was “subject to satisfactory references and a successful probation period.” After accepting, he arranged international travel and prepared to move for the job. Shortly before his start date, the company withdrew the offer due to project delays. The employer claimed there was no contract because checks were incomplete and the employee had not started work.

What Did the Court Decide?

- A conditional offer can still be legally binding
Accepting a job offer can create a contract, even if it includes conditions like references or probation.
- Withdrawing the offer can be a breach of contract
If a contract exists, withdrawing the offer is treated like dismissing an employee.
- You may be entitled to notice pay
If no notice period is stated, the law may apply a “reasonable” one. This depends on factors such as the role’s seniority and relocation costs.

The Outcome

The court decided that a 3-month notice period was reasonable in this case. The employer was ordered to pay compensation equal to three months’ salary.

How to Protect Yourself

1. Keep all records
Save emails, offer letters, and onboarding documents.
2. Check the terms carefully
Review clauses about notice periods and withdrawal conditions before accepting.
3. Understand your rights
Even if you haven’t started work, you may still have legal protection once you accept an offer.

If you have experienced a withdrawn offer or have questions regarding employment law, please contact MSR Solicitors for a free professional legal consultation.

Contact us at 📞 020 3900 0888 ✉️ [email protected]
📖 Read the full article for more: https://www.msrs.co.uk/conditional-offers-and-implied-notice/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=EN&utm_campaign=23%2F04%2F2026&utm_term=employment&utm_content=insight

21/04/2026

War in the Middle East: Can You Exit Your Contract? It All Depends on the Force Majeure Clause

The ongoing conflict in the Strait of Hormuz has disrupted global shipping routes, prompting many businesses to invoke “force majeure” to pause or avoid their contractual obligations. Under English law, however, force majeure is not a general legal doctrine - it only applies if it is expressly included in the contract. As a result, whether relief is available depends entirely on the clause’s specific wording, not simply on the existence of war.

Legal specialists point to three key areas where disputes commonly arise:

Exact wording matters: Clauses using “prevented” set a high bar, requiring performance to be impossible. By contrast, “hindered” or similar terms are easier to satisfy, as they cover serious difficulty rather than impossibility.

Increased cost is insufficient: Courts have consistently held that a contract becoming more expensive or less profitable—such as due to higher shipping costs - falls within normal commercial risk and does not qualify as force majeure.
Clear causation is required: A party must show that the conflict directly caused the inability to perform. It is not enough to rely on general instability or use the situation to escape an unfavourable deal.

In essence, even during major geopolitical disruptions, English law strongly upholds freedom of contract. Businesses must rely on the precise terms of their agreements and follow any required procedures, such as serving formal notice, rather than assuming external events will automatically release them from their obligations.

If you are facing legal challenges related to cross-border investment disputes, shipping compliance, or the enforcement of arbitral awards, please contact MSR Solicitor for a free consultation.

Contact us at 📞 020 3900 0888 ✉️ [email protected]
📖 Read the full article for more: https://www.msrs.co.uk/clause-and-effect-force-majeure-under-fire/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=EN&utm_campaign=21%2F04%2F2026&utm_term=commercial+&utm_content=insight

15/04/2026

The UK’s First Anti-SLAPP Ruling: Reinforcing That the Law Cannot Be Used to Silence Legitimate Speech

A SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) is a form of abusive litigation in which the claimant’s objective is not to enforce a genuine legal right, but to suppress criticism. By pursuing complex proceedings and seeking disproportionate damages, such claims are designed to place significant financial and psychological pressure on critics, (often journalists, academics, or public commentators), ultimately deterring lawful expression.

The case of Kamal v Tax Policy Associates marks a significant development in this area. The dispute arose after tax expert Dan Neidle published an article critical of a tax avoidance scheme promoted by barrister Setu Kamal. In response, Mr Kamal brought a defamation claim seeking £8 million in damages, along with disclosure of confidential journalistic material. This is the first case to be formally recognised as a SLAPP under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.

In a clear and robust judgment, Mrs Justice Collins Rice struck out the claim, confirming it as a statutory SLAPP. The Court highlighted several indicators of abusive conduct: the excessive level of damages claimed was viewed as intimidatory; there were sustained attempts to obtain confidential subscriber and journalistic information; and reliance on AI-generated, fictitious legal authorities in correspondence further evidenced an oppressive approach to litigation.

This decision proves English courts will decisively against abusive claims. The new framework allows for early dismissal of meritless cases, protecting you from high costs and disruption while penalising those who try to silence legitimate scrutiny.

Contact us at 📞 020 3900 0888 ✉️ [email protected]
📖 Read the full article:https://www.msrs.co.uk/silencing-the-critics-the-high-courts-first-statutory-slapp-ruling/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=EN&utm_campaign=15%2F04%2F2026&utm_term=litigation&utm_content=insight

13/04/2026

Employment Law Alert: Statutory Increase to Vento Bands for Injury to Feelings Awards from 6 April 2026

Effective from 6 April 2026, the Employment Tribunals in England and Wales have increased the Vento bands for injury to feelings awards.

The Vento guidelines provide the judicial framework used to calculate compensation for non-economic losses - such as stress, anxiety, and humiliation - arising from discrimination or whistleblowing detriment claims. These awards are divided into three bands based on the severity of the treatment.

Revised Compensation Thresholds
The new bands apply to claims presented on or after 6 April 2026:

Lower Band: £1,300 – £12,600
Reserved for isolated incidents or less serious cases where the impact on the claimant is short-term.

Middle Band: £12,600 – £37,700
Applied to serious cases that do not merit an award in the upper band, typically involving repeated conduct or significant emotional distress.

Upper Band: £37,700 – £62,900
Reserved for the most serious cases, such as prolonged campaigns of harassment or systemic discrimination resulting in significant and long-term psychological harm.

Exceptional Cases: Over £62,900
In rare and exceptional circumstances, tribunals retain discretion to award compensation exceeding £62,900.

The increase to the Vento bands raises the financial exposure for employers. As the starting point for injury to feelings awards increases, even relatively minor disputes may become more costly. Accordingly, businesses should review and update their Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) policies and ensure that managers receive appropriate training on workplace conduct and grievance handling procedures.

Contact us at 📞 020 3900 0888 ✉️ [email protected]
📖 Read the full article for more: https://www.msrs.co.uk/employment-tribunal-compensation-updates-new-vento-bands-from-april-2026-for-discrimination-and-whistleblowing-detriment-cases/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=EN&utm_campaign=13%2F04%2F2026&utm_term=employment&utm_content=insight

13/04/2026

Picasso’s great-grandson loses trademark lawsuit for whisky: what this means for your brand

Florian Picasso, great-grandson of Pablo Picasso, owns the trademark “FLORIAN PICASSO” for beverages. He recently failed to prevent a third party from registering “PICASSO” for whisky. Here is why even a world-famous name failed to secure a cross-industry monopoly:

1. A Wide Gap Between Industries
The law distinguishes whisky from soft drinks. Whisky is consumed for flavor and alcoholic effect, while soft drinks are for refreshment. Because their purposes, target audiences, and retail channels differ, the court found it unlikely that consumers would confuse “PICASSO” whisky with the claimant’s business.

2. Distinct Visual Differences
The “FLORIAN PICASSO” trademark includes a specific first name, identifying a particular individual. The opposing party used only the surname. The judge ruled that the average consumer is capable of distinguishing these as separate brands.

3. Fame is Not a Cross-Industry Monopoly
While Picasso is legendary in art, that reputation does not automatically extend to beverages. Trademark law protects brand recognition within a specific market, not inherited fame. Unless consumers associate “PICASSO”-branded drinks with your specific business, exclusive rights cannot be claimed.

4. The "Artist vs. Brand" Paradox
Reflecting a 2006 EU case, the strong association with Pablo Picasso meant consumers thought of the artist rather than a commercial brand. Paradoxically, this fame can actually reduce the likelihood of confusion in unrelated industries.

In trademark law, who you are matters less than how consumers perceive your brand. Even the most famous names must rely on clear market recognition to secure protection.

Contact us at 📞 020 3900 0888 ✉️ [email protected]
📖 Read the full article for more: https://www.msrs.co.uk/blue-period-for-famous-names-picasso-and-the-limits-of-trade-mark-protection/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=EN&utm_campaign=10%2F04%2F2026&utm_term=IP&utm_content=insight

08/04/2026

Join us!

MSR Solicitors

28/05/2026

27/05/2026

20/05/2026

27/04/2026

23/04/2026

21/04/2026

15/04/2026

13/04/2026

13/04/2026

08/04/2026

Address

Opening Hours

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Featured

Share

Category

Monday	9:30am - 5:30pm
Tuesday	9:30am - 5:30pm
Wednesday	9:30am - 5:30pm
Thursday	9:30am - 5:30pm
Friday	9:30am - 5:30pm