The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has reported that three men have been jailed for defrauding two victims out of their pensions. Simon Hooper, Martin Kelly, and Ryan Allen, were all convicted of fraud offenses at Wood Green Crown Court. Their scam involved convincing two victims to invest in Rationale Asset Management PLC (RAM PLC), a company founded and controlled by Kelly and Hooper. From their Mayfair office in London, they falsely presented RAM PLC as a lucrative real estate company handling millions of pounds. In reality, RAM PLC was worthless, and its shares did not represent a legitimate investment opportunity. Independent financial advisor, Allen, played a crucial role in persuading the victims to transfer their pensions to RAM PLC. Following a guilty verdict, Hooper was sentenced to six years, Kelly five years and Allen four and a half years' imprisonment.

Commercial analysis: David Bridge and Alex Danchenko of CMS consider the recent Court of Appeal decision in Kulkarni v Gwent Holdings Ltd that has provided helpful guidance on the interpretation of contractual clauses allowing for termination, or the compulsory transfer of shares, for ‘material or persistent’ and/or repudiatory breaches, and whether such repudiatory breaches are necessarily incapable of being remedied. While the decision turned, for the most part, on the specific wording of the relevant clauses, any additional clarity is welcome in an area of law which is often difficult for commercial actors (and legal practitioners advising them) to get right.

This Practice Note examines the legal and practical issues for an employer to consider in relation to menopause. What menopause is Menopause is part of the natural ageing process in a woman’s life, usually occurring between the age of 45 and 55, and is medically said to have occurred when a woman’s menstrual cycle has ceased for 12 consecutive months. In the UK, the average age for a woman to reach menopause is 51. In this Practice Note, the terms ‘menopause’ and ‘menopausal’ are used to cover: • perimenopause, ie the period preceding menopause when a woman’s hormonal levels begin to change, which usually begins from around the age of 45 • menopause, and • the post-menopause period, ie the time after menopause has occurred, starting with when a woman has not had a period for a year On average, menopause symptoms last between four and eight years, but for about 10% of women they can continue for up to 12 years. Symptoms can begin during perimenopause and continue post-menopause; they do not cease simply

Law360, London: Employment tribunal claims involving issues linked to the menopause have surged in number since 2022 as employers grapple with the potential inclusion of the menopause and its symptoms within the definition of disability, according to research carried out by a law firm.

The 'guilty mind', the intent element of an offence.

On 1 April 2007, sections 42 and 43 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) came into force. Between them these sections brought into operation a Code of Practice to guide all those involved with matters controlled by MCA 2005. MCA 2005, s 43 covered the procedure such as consultation that had to be dealt with before the code was adopted. As indicated these procedures were concluded and, in accordance with MCA 2005, s 42, a Code of Practice (the Code) was introduced. That section indicates that there would be a number of codes but until 2008 it seemed that it was only ever intended that there should be one composite code. However, on 3 November 2008 a further code, the Deprivation of liberty safeguards Code of Practice (the DOLS Code) came in to force. This was required as a result of the insertion of a number of new sections in and amendments to MCA 2005 by the Mental Health Act 2007 (MHA 2007). This new code is not as long as the first

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: This analysis considers how the Mental Health Act 2025 may influence the assessment of liability in personal injury and clinical negligence claims involving psychiatric care.

The Mental Health Bill 2025 has been introduced in Parliament on 6 October 2024, signalling the start of the Bill’s journey through the Lords. The second reading is scheduled for 25 November 2024. The Bill is similar to the draft Mental Health Bill published in 2022.  It makes provision to amend the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA 1983) in relation to mentally disordered persons. Main changes from the 2022 Bill include a new requirement for the responsible clinician to consult with a second professional when deciding to discharge; amendment of MHA 1983, s 118; introduction of duties to arrange for people at risk of detention to be informed of their ability to make an Advance Choice Document and revisions to the detention criteria.

Mental anguish describes serious emotional suffering, distress or anxiety experienced by a claimant, typically arising from a wrongful act such as negligence, harassment, discrimination, defamation or breach of duty. In UK and Irish legal practice it is a descriptive expression rather than a precise statutory term, and is often used interchangeably with concepts such as emotional distress, psychological injury or injury to feelings, depending on context. Courts in England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland generally require claimants to prove either a recognised psychiatric injury (for personal injury or negligence claims) or a specific cause of action allowing compensation for non‑pecuniary loss, such as damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, damages for distress under data protection or consumer legislation, or injury to feelings in equality and employment law. Mental anguish is therefore most significant as a way of describing the non‑physical impact of a wrong, supporting assessment of quantum, evidential requirements (including medical evidence where psychiatric injury is alleged) and pleading strategy. Usage and underlying principles are broadly consistent across the four jurisdictions, though detailed thresholds and remedies are shaped by local case law and procedure.

Defining mental capacity A person lacks capacity in relation to a matter if, at the relevant time, they are unable to make a decision for themselves in relation to the matter because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain. The inability to make a decision must be caused by an impairment of, or disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain. Individuals with a range of problems such as psychiatric illness, learning disabilities, dementia and brain damage may lack mental capacity. A person may have capacity in relation to some matters but not others. As noted elsewhere, a person may lack litigation capacity but may have capacity for their financial affairs. An individual who lacks capacity to conduct the proceedings is defined as a ‘protected party’. A finding that a party is protected is likely to have significant financial and practical consequences for defendants going beyond the issue of limitation, including: • the substantial costs of deputyship in relation to finances

Private Client analysis: This case concerned a 31-year old woman, EE, who had expressed a desire to become pregnant and have a baby. EE had various disorders which had affected her mental capacity over many years, causing hallucinations, depressive symptoms and challenging and aggressive behaviour. The court agreed with the parties that EE had capacity to make decisions to engage in sexual relations but did not have capacity to decide about contact with others. The substantive issue was whether EE had the capacity to make decisions regarding the use of contraception. In deciding that she did have such capacity, the judgment provides useful guidance on the principles to be applied while at the same time emphasising that the test is always ‘fact specific’. Written by Lynne Counsell, barrister at Addington Chambers.

Solicitors must consider the mental capacity of their clients in everything they do. The consideration of such capacity will occur where: • there is a question as to whether a person lacks the ability to make a decision, which can range from getting married to accepting or refusing medical treatment to making a Will • capacity may have an effect on a transaction to be undertaken and on third parties involved directly or indirectly • there is a need to consider the involvement of third parties in the decision-making process Everyone is entitled to make a decision whether or not that decision may be considered wrong or eccentric by others. For the most part there is no necessity to interfere in that decision-making process. However, while respecting the autonomy of a person to make decisions, English law has always recognised that there are individuals who lack the mental capacity to be held accountable for their decisions. Historically, the law relating to capacity was to be found in a number of case law sources and in