The government recently announced that the LPA registration fee is increasing from £82 to £92 per LPA.

Paid to the Office of the Public Guardian, these registration fees are required before any LPA can be registered.

What is an LPA?

An LPA is a legal document that allows you to formally appoint one or more trusted individuals to make certain decisions on your behalf.

For this reason, LPAs may give you more control over what happens to you if you have an accident or illness leading to an inability to make your own decisions.

There are two types of LPA:

Health and Welfare LPA: This can be used for decisions relating to medical care, moving into a care home or obtaining life-sustaining treatment.

Property and financial affairs LPA: This can be used for decisions relating to managing bank accounts, paying bills or selling your home.

You can create one or both types of LPA depending on your needs.

When is the fee increase happening?

While subject to parliamentary approval, the fee increase is expected to take effect from 17 November 2025 and will affect LPA applications submitted from that date. This means that if you are currently in the process of creating an LPA, you should consider finalising your application before the implementation, to ensure that you benefit from the current lower fee.

Final Thoughts

Overall, the government has explained that the key reason for the fee increase is to ensure that the fee better reflects the cost of processing applications.

It also follows a rise in the number of LPA registrations in the previous financial year. We await to see what (if any) impact the fee increase will have on the volume of LPA registrations going forward.

If you are considering creating an LPA or would like any further information, please contact a member of the Private Client Team at Glaisyers ETL.

As we’ve referred to previously, the UK is currently avoiding the active regulation of AI in favour of passing responsibility down to regulators in the hope that they will police its ethical use through self-regulation. That doesn’t mean, of course, that the lawyers aren’t stepping in to try and fill the void, whether via various court cases that could help to set the tone for the responsible development and deployment of AI models until regulation sets it in stone or in conducting exercises in legal theory. 

In July, the Law Commission of England and Wales published a Discussion Paper on AI and the Law. It maps the legal challenges of advanced AI, and asks the central question of whether we should give AI its own separate legal “personality” – the same legal fiction that lets limited companies own property, sign contracts, and be sued.  

Having grown up watching I, Robot and Terminator, the prospect of AI with “legal personality” could easily resurface repressed robophobia. However, while we may eventually find ourselves in a dystopian nightmare come true unless meaningful guardrails and guidelines are put in place and enforced, the real and immediate challenges and risks with AI come from existing legal concepts. Without careful reform, the everyday use of AI could create legal risks that are difficult to manage for both those deploying systems as well as their users.  

Alignment and Behavioural Control 

The central technical challenge is alignment: ensuring AI acts in line with human values and legal norms. Advanced models don’t just follow these rules, they adapt and optimise. Sometimes they reward hacks, achieving goals in ways no one intended. In tests, models have lied, sabotaged shutdowns and attempted to manipulate humans to achieve their goals. This deception isn’t a product of malice, its intelligence optimising for goals we never intended.  If we continue to deploy AI without aligning its goals, ethical expectations and legal obligations with ours, harm will surely follow. 

Law For The Robots? 

From a legal perspective, AI misbehaviour raises a number of potential legal issues. A claim in negligence assumes that harm is reasonably foreseeable, and criminal liability requires a guilty mind. As AI autonomy increases, we will encounter scenarios where no natural or legal person can readily be identified as responsible – and liable – for harm caused by an AI system. 

Data and IP 

AI is already straining existing IP and data protection rules. As we’ve set out in previous articles, training large language models requires the ingesting of vast datasets that inevitably contain copyright “works” and personal data. Many models are non-interpretable, meaning even  their developers can’t identify exactly what went into them, or how it shaped the output. This frustrates transparency, lawful basis, and proportionality requirements under the UKG DPR and EU GDPR, and leaves rights holders unable to check whether their content has been used unlawfully. 

For now, Judges are being asked to work all of this out. In the US, Anthropic has proposed a settlement of $1.5 billion for allegedly downloading pirated books to train its model, Claude. In a separate lawsuit filed by music publishers against Anthropic in 2023, it’s alleged that song lyrics were used to train Claude without permission. In the UK, Getty Images claims that Stability AI unlawfully used millions of Getty’s photographs to train its image-generating model, Stable Diffusion. The legal system is slowly catching up to AI companies who have been training models for free and without any consideration of the position of the owners of the content and data used to do so.  

Accountability Gaps & Complex Supply Chains  

Traditional duty-of-care and product liability legal frameworks were introduced in relation to products where risks and potential harms can be traced to identifiable actors at identifiable moments. Many AI systems disrupt that traceability: models evolve through data pipelines, fine-tuning, and updates, behaviour is partly opaque and non-deterministic, and failures can emerge only in deployment contexts the developer cannot fully simulate. Those features complicate proof of defect, legal causation and muddy attribution of fault between developers, integrators, and deployers. While strict liability, contribution and contractual indemnities mitigate some of these issues, residual gaps remain – particularly for continuously updated, service-like AI and for agentic systems that initiate actions without fresh human prompts.  

Legal Personality 

Granting AI models legal personality could help address the accountability gaps. If an AI system itself could own assets or enter contracts, claimants would have a clear defendant to sue, and regulators a clearer framework for enforcement. That structural clarity is attractive where responsibility is diffused across developers, deployers, and users. 

However, it’s likely to introduce more complex risks. Without strong alignment and transparency, legal personality could be exploited as a sophisticated liability shield. Developers might hide behind the “AI entity,” insulating themselves from responsibility in the same way corporate structures are sometimes misused to obscure accountability. Enforcement could become hollow – a legal entity with no assets, no decision-makers, and no capacity to form intent risks becoming an empty shell, frustrating victims’ ability to obtain redress. 

Unless carefully designed, it could weaken deterrence, complicate litigation, and blur accountability. And if that happens, we’ll be moving to a lodge in the woods. 

Proportionate Reform 

The Commission’s central message is that reform is essential but must be proportionate. Near-term priorities are clearer duties for high-risk AI, enforceable transparency standards, and sharper liability allocation across supply chains.  

Businesses developing or deploying AI must anticipate regulatory change, assess how data and IP are being used, and understand where accountability might fall in complex supply chains. We’re tracking these developments and advising clients on how to prepare, specifically within the Creative, Digital & Marketing Sector. If your organisation is investing in AI, concerned about the use of its data, or seeking clarity on liability and compliance, our team can help you navigate this rapidly shifting landscape both on our own and as part of our ComplyAI offering, a joint project with BrandXYZ. 

Artificial Intelligence may raise any number of issues, but authentic insight can help you to navigate them.  

As the final quarter of the year approaches, businesses across the UK are turning their attention to performance reviews, budgeting and strategic planning for the year ahead. While financial and operational matters often take centre stage during this period, legal and structural considerations are equally vital and too frequently overlooked.

At Glaisyers ETL, our Corporate team works closely with SMEs, owner-managed businesses and growth companies to ensure they are entering the new year on a strong legal footing. Below, we outline five key areas every business should be reviewing as Q4 gets underway:

1. Corporate governance and compliance review

Begin with a review of your company’s governance framework. Are all filings up to date with Companies House? Are statutory registers accurate and complete? Now is an opportune time to identify and resolve any compliance gaps particularly in light of the ongoing reforms under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act.

2. Shareholder agreements and ownership structures

For companies with multiple shareholders, it is essential to revisit the shareholder agreement. Does it still reflect the commercial and operational realities of the business? Are minority protections and exit mechanisms appropriately structured?

Why this matters: Clear and up-to-date shareholder documentation can help avoid disputes, attract investment and facilitate a smoother process in the event of a sale, succession or restructuring.

3. Contracts and commercial risk

Year-end presents an ideal opportunity to review and audit key contractual arrangements including supplier agreements, client terms and conditions, non-disclosure agreements and employment contracts. Are there any auto-renewal clauses approaching activation? Are the liability provisions, termination clauses or other commercial terms still appropriate?

A legal audit in this area can help identify risks, support renegotiation efforts and strengthen your contractual position heading into the new year.

4. Restructuring and group simplification

If your business operates as part of a group structure, or if there are dormant subsidiaries within the group, now may be the right time to consider whether simplification could bring operational or tax efficiencies. Our team frequently supports clients with intra-group restructures, share reclassifications and other corporate housekeeping matters as part of longer-term strategic planning.

5. Preparing for investment or exit in 2026

If your business is contemplating a capital raise or preparing for a potential sale in 2026, the groundwork should begin now. Investors and acquirers will expect well-maintained records, a clear ownership structure and clean governance documentation. Starting preparations early not only helps avoid delays but also positions your business as more attractive and investment ready.

Final thoughts

Legal housekeeping rarely feels urgent until it is. Proactive planning in Q4 provides the opportunity to address minor issues before they become significant obstacles, mitigate future risks and enter the new year with clarity and confidence. 

At Glaisyers ETL, we support businesses at every stage of their growth journey. Whether you are preparing for investment, planning an exit or simply seeking to optimise your legal structure, our Corporate team is here to help. 

To discuss how we can support your business through Q4 and beyond, get in touch with our team today. 

Side letters are a versatile tool in commercial property transactions, allowing landlords and tenants to document agreements that modify or supplement the terms of a lease.

Understanding the common uses and implications of side letters can help both parties manage their lease agreements more effectively.

Why do parties use a side letter?

Parties use side letters for various reasons, such as documenting temporary or personal arrangements, avoiding reworking approved documents or addressing last-minute changes. For example, a landlord may agree to accept monthly rent payments instead of quarterly payments, as required by the lease.

This arrangement can provide flexibility for tenants facing financial difficulties and help landlords maintain a steady cash flow. However, it is essential to ensure that the side letter clearly outlines the terms of the agreement to avoid misunderstandings and disputes.

When not to use a side letter

Side letters can be a convenient way to clarify or correct mistakes in a lease. Whether a side letter is appropriate depends on the nature of the mistake and its context within the lease. For example, side letters should not be used to extend the term of the lease or add additional property to the demise.

Instead, they can address minor errors or provide supplementary information. If the mistake is significant, the parties may need to consider rectification or other legal remedies, like the use of a Deed of Variation or even surrendering the agreement and entering into a new agreement that contains the correct agreed terms between the parties.

Registration of side letters

Side letters do not affect a registrable disposition and are not required to be registered at the Land Registry. This allows the parties to keep the contents of the side letter off the register.

However, whether a side letter is binding on successors depends on its construction rather than registration. A side letter may bind a buyer of the landlord’s interest if the benefit is not expressed to be personal to the landlord, even if the buyer is unaware of the side letter’s existence.

Binding successors

Determining whether a side letter binds successors involves a two-stage process:

1. Interpretation

The drafting of the side letter will indicate whether it is intended to be personal or to bind successors. If the side letter is clearly personal, it will not bind successors.

2. Transmission of covenants

If the side letter is intended to bind successors or is silent on the issue, the transmission of the benefit and burden of landlord and tenant covenants must be considered.

For new leases, covenants in a tenancy include covenants in a collateral agreement and bind successors, except for personal covenants. For old leases, covenants that “touch and concern” the land pass to successors.

Third-party implications

Whether a third party can enforce the side letter depends on its drafting. The relevant ‘rights of third parties’ legislation will apply, which can be of particular concern where associated companies might want to enforce the obligations in the side letter.

Key points to consider before entering into a side letter:

– 1. Personal or binding

Determine if the side letter is intended to be personal to the particular landlord/tenant or should bind their successors.

– 2. Legally binding

Ensure the terms of the side letter are intended to be legally binding on the parties.

– 3. Temporary variation

Clarify if the side letter documents a temporary variation and specify the duration.

– 4. Breach provisions

Define if the provisions of the side letter end if the tenant breaches any obligations under the lease or side letter.

– 5. Guarantor involvement

If there is a guarantor to the lease, they should also sign the side letter.

– 6. Lender consent

If the landlord’s property is subject to a charge, the lender should consent to the side letter.

Side letters are a valuable tool for landlords and tenants to manage and modify lease agreements. However, if not drawn up with the correct level of care, they can leave the parties trying to unscramble a confusion or to enforce a loosely attempted contractual relationship.

If you require further guidance regarding the use of a side letter or on commercial leases in general, please contact us to speak to a member of our Real Estate team.

Denmark has just made history by becoming the first European country to grant its people copyright protection over their own likeness – their face, body, and voice. In a digital driven world, where deepfakes are becoming alarmingly convincing, this new legislation gives individuals more control by providing the right to demand takedowns and seek compensation if their image is used without consent. In short, you own the rights to your own face.

Deepfakes: From Funny to Frightening

The law comes as a reaction to the increased use of deepfakes – AI-generated videos impersonating individuals using their publicly available personal data. While some might be good for a cheap laugh (light-hearted AI adaptations of yourself or your friends), the darker side is far less amusing. Deepfakes have been used to spread disinformation, harass individuals, and undermine trust.

Denmark has decided enough is enough. Under the new framework, if someone creates a fake video of you spouting nonsense, you can get it taken down and, potentially, collect damages. At the same time, satire and parody are safe – hoping to protect the creativity of comedy.

How does the UK do it? 

In the UK, our legal protection against deepfakes is, frankly, a bit patchy. Public figures may have the resources to be able to rely on defamation or privacy rights, but for most of us, it’s not so easy to defend yourself against this risk. 

Many people assume that “image rights” already fall neatly under intellectual property law. After all, we talk about owning our likeness in the same way we talk about owning a logo or a piece of music. But that’s not quite true. In the UK, your image is primarily protected through data protection and privacy law, not intellectual property rights. 

That means remedies are often more about how your data is used than about owning the rights to your face in a legal sense. This is what makes Denmark’s move so interesting -it reframes image and likeness as something closer to copyright – a clear, transferable right – rather than leaving it tucked away under privacy legislation. It’s a subtle but important shift that could make enforcement much simpler for individuals.  

Time for the UK to Step Up? 

Denmark has set the pace. The UK faces a choice: wait and see how much damage deepfakes can cause domestically, or (attempt to) get ahead of the curve with legislation that protects people from the start. It’s not just about preventing embarrassment online; it’s about safeguarding dignity, trust, and truth in an era where seeing isn’t always believing.