The Mayor of London has launched a £400,000 ‘Renters’ Rights Enforcement Fund’ to support London’s 2.7 million renters ahead of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 (RRA 2025) coming into force on 1 May 2026. The fund will provide advice and guidance to renters, support awareness-raising activities, and finance training for borough enforcement officers to ensure effective implementation of the new law and action against non-compliant landlords. RRA 2025 introduces stronger tenant protections, including the abolition of Section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions and measures to curb unreasonable rent increases, while the Mayor reiterated his call for devolved powers to introduce rent caps, citing majority public support. The initiative fulfils a manifesto commitment and forms part of wider measures to improve the private rented sector, including digital tools to hold landlords accountable, support for licensing schemes and tenant claims, and the use of technology to address housing conditions, alongside plans to deliver 6,000 rent-controlled homes for key workers and continued investment in affordable housing, supported by a public awareness campaign. In response, the British Property Federation, acknowledged the exemption of Build-to-Rent from proposed rent controls but argued that such controls risk reducing investment and housing supply, citing evidence from Scotland, and urged the Greater London Authority to prioritise increasing housing supply and maintaining a stable investment environment.

The Mayor of London has published the London Infrastructure Framework (LIF), developed jointly with London Councils. The framework sets out a long-term plan to unlock growth by addressing increasing pressures on London’s transport, energy, water, waste, and digital connectivity systems. It identifies 51 priority projects across key sectors aimed at securing London’s future competitiveness. These include upgrades to transport routes, electricity tunnels, digital connectivity, and long-term flood protection. The framework is intended to support housing delivery, drive job creation, and upgrade the London transport network. It also outlines how London can remain at the forefront of technological development while responding to the demands of a growing AI sector, alongside the need for additional housing and other forms of development. More broadly, the framework seeks to harness new infrastructure investment.

The Mayor of London has published proposals for a new London-wide Strategic Licensing Policy intended to create a unified licensing system across the capital's 33 local authorities. The proposals include new powers for the Mayor to call-in licensing applications of strategic importance, such as large venues, festivals, temporary use applications, and those in strategically important locations or affecting the capital's reputation. A new London Licensing Playbook is being developed to provide best practice guidance, templates and approaches to ensure consistency across boroughs. The policy requires licensing decisions to be evidence-based, avoid unnecessary costs for businesses, support economic growth and cultural activities, and recognise benefits of well-managed night-time activities. A six-week consultation on the Strategic Licensing Policy and Licensing Playbook commenced on 12 February 2026. The proposals follow the Government's announcement of new licensing powers for the Mayor to support London's night-time economy, which contributes over £139bn annually to the capital.

Planning analysis: An English Devolution White Paper (the Paper) proposes to give Mayors new development management powers, including the ability to call in planning applications of strategic importance and to charge developers a Mayoral Levy to ensure that new developments come with the necessary associated infrastructure. This analysis focuses on the proposals relating to Mayors’ planning powers under the Paper.

Law360, London: On 8 December, costs lawyers said that they predict a rise in the number of costs disputes after the ruling known as Mazur, which clarified that unauthorised law firm staff cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision from a qualified solicitor.

The background to the Court of Appeal decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys (2026) is set out below along with key questions and answers arising from this decision. Consideration is also given to the potential implications of this decision from a costs recovery perspective. Background Charles Russell Speechlys LLP instructed Goldsmith Bowers Solicitors (GBS) to recover unpaid fees from Mrs Mazur. The litigation was handled almost entirely by Mr Middleton, ‘Head of Commercial Litigation’ at GBS. He was employed by a regulated firm but did not hold a current practising certificate. He was unqualified, yet carried out many if not all of the salient steps in the litigation. Mrs Mazur applied for his replacement with a qualified solicitor. A solicitor at GBS filed a witness statement confirming that all of Mr Middleton’s work had been done under his supervision. HHJ Simpkiss, hearing the application, held that Mr Middleton was permitted to conduct litigation under that supervision. The decision was appealed. Sheldon J overturned HHJ Simpkiss’s decision and analysed the effect of

Megabytes

Mega (million) bits per second. A measure of the speed of transfer of digital information.

Law360, London: AIB Group plc said 5 March 2025 it's planning to repurchase €1.2bn worth of shares from the Irish government, as the lender looks to potentially return to full private ownership this year.

Law360, London: Irish metal miner Kenmare Resources plc said 6 March 2025 it has refused a takeover proposal led by Oryx Global Partners Ltd, an asset manager based in the United Arab Emirates, worth £473m.

Law360: The government has said it will further examine allegations by a group of trade unions and a campaigning organisation that McDonald's has failed to appropriately address gender-based violence and harassment in its restaurants and franchises.

McDonald's has lost its EU trade mark Big Mac in respect of poultry products following a judgment of the General Court. It held that McDonald’s did not prove that the contested mark had been put to genuine use within a continuous period of five years as regards the goods ‘chicken sandwiches’, the goods ‘foods prepared from poultry products’ and the ‘services rendered or associated with operating restaurants and other establishments or facilities engaged in providing food and drink prepared for consumption and for drive-through facilities; preparation of carry-out foods’. The evidence which McDonald's submitted did not provide any indication of the extent of use of the mark in connection with those goods, in particular as regards the volume of sales, the length of the period during which the mark was used, and the frequency of use.