Jurit LLP

For many founders, one of the biggest challenges of scaling a business is attracting and retaining exceptional people when larger competitors can often offer higher salaries and bigger benefits packages. That is why the Government's recent expansion of the Enterprise Management Incentive (EMI) scheme could prove to be one of the most significant reforms for UK growth businesses in recent years. EMI has long been regarded as one of the UK's most effective employee share schemes, enabling businesses to reward key employees with a stake in future success in a highly tax-efficient way. However, many companies found themselves growing out of the regime just as they entered their most important phase of expansion. The reforms introduced from April 2026 seek to address that problem. The maximum company-wide value of EMI options has doubled from £3 million to £6 million, while eligibility thresholds have increased substantially. The gross assets limit has risen from £30 million to £120 million, and the employee headcount threshold has increased from 250 to 500 employees. For ambitious scale-ups, this is a significant shift. Businesses that may previously have considered themselves too large for EMI may now qualify, while those already operating schemes can potentially extend and enhance them as part of a broader growth strategy. Perhaps equally important is the extension of the option exercise period from 10 years to 15 years. Many modern growth businesses take longer to reach a sale, IPO or other liquidity event than policymakers anticipated when EMI was first introduced. The longer timeframe gives founders and employees greater flexibility to participate in the value created over the full growth journey. The reforms also simplify certain administrative requirements and support greater flexibility around employee liquidity, making EMI easier to manage and more attractive to participants. The message for entrepreneurs is clear. In a competitive market for talent, equity remains one of the most powerful tools available. The ability to offer meaningful participation in future value creation can help businesses recruit, motivate and retain the people needed to drive sustainable growth. At Jurit LLP, our lawyers are already helping founders, investors and management teams assess how the new rules can support their growth ambitions.

For a growing business, attracting the right management team is only part of the challenge. Keeping those people motivated, rewarding their contribution and giving them a reason to stay through the next stage of growth can be just as important. Share incentives can help align the interests of founders and their leadership teams. But their success depends on more than the percentage offered. However, the timing, valuation, tax treatment and what happens when someone leaves, all influence whether an arrangement delivers what everyone expects. Jeremy Glover, Partner at Jurit, recently joined the International Business Structuring Association (IBSA) podcast for the final episode of its Growth of a Business series, exploring the practical decisions behind tax-efficient management incentive plans. When should a growing business introduce incentives? According to Jeremy, there is a balance to strike between putting incentives in place early and waiting until the right leadership team has taken shape. Introducing a plan while share values are relatively low can give participants greater opportunity to benefit from future growth. However, founders also need to consider who will help deliver that growth and how much ownership they are prepared to share. The starting point should be the commercial objective. Is the business recruiting senior talent, retaining an established team or encouraging management to work towards a future sale? Answering those questions helps determine who should participate, what they should receive and when they should become entitled to it. Avoiding a tax bill without the cash to pay it One of the risks discussed in the podcast is a “dry tax charge”. This is a tax liability arising when an employee has received shares or exercised an option but has no sale proceeds with which to pay it. An award may look attractive on paper, yet create a difficult cash-flow problem if the employee cannot sell their shares. This makes the timing of potential tax charges an essential part of the design process. Businesses should understand the consequences at each stage, from the initial award through to exercise and sale, including any employer National Insurance exposure. Why EMI options can be attractive For eligible businesses and employees, Enterprise Management Incentive (EMI) options can provide a tax-efficient way to share in future growth. An option gives an employee the right to acquire shares later on agreed terms. Qualifying EMI options generally carry no Income Tax or National Insurance charge on grant. Exercise can also be free of those charges where the relevant conditions are met, including an exercise price at least equal to the shares’ market value when the option was granted. Capital Gains Tax may instead arise when the shares are sold. An arrangement allowing exercise at the point of a company sale can therefore help align participation with the availability of cash. However, this treatment is conditional. Eligibility, discounted exercise prices and events affecting qualifying status all need careful consideration. EMI should never be presented as an automatic guarantee of a particular tax outcome. Getting the valuation right Valuation underpins both the commercial offer and its tax treatment. The rights attached to the shares, restrictions and the size of the holding can all matter. A management stake should not simply be priced by applying its percentage to a headline company valuation. For EMI options, businesses can seek agreement of the share valuation with HMRC. Recent investment transactions and changes in the company’s circumstances also need to be considered when establishing an appropriate value. Growth shares offer another approach, allowing employees to participate in value above a specified hurdle. But a hurdle does not necessarily mean the shares have no value when issued. Getting the initial valuation wrong can create unexpected employment tax consequences. Planning for contribution, departure and change The terms governing participation deserve as much attention as the initial award. Vesting provisions can link entitlement to continued service, performance or agreed milestones. Leaver provisions determine what happens if someone departs before the business reaches its intended destination. For founders and management alike, clarity matters. Participants should understand when their rights accrue, what they may retain on leaving and how different departure circumstances will be treated. These discussions can be uncomfortable at the outset, but resolving them early helps reduce uncertainty later. Looking beyond UK borders International growth adds another layer of complexity. A business with an overseas parent, UK employees or plans to expand into the US, for example, needs to consider how its incentive arrangements operate across jurisdictions. An employee’s relocation can also affect the analysis. UK tax advantages should not be assumed to apply elsewhere. The employee’s circumstances, working arrangements and relevant domestic and treaty rules need to be reviewed before conclusions are drawn about the tax treatment. Building incentives around your business A successful incentive plan gives key people a clear understanding of how their contribution can translate into future reward, while supporting the company’s wider growth plans. For founders, that means considering incentives early and reviewing them as the business, its ownership and its management team evolve. Listen to Jeremy Glover’s conversation with the IBSA: Tax Efficient Management Incentive Plans. To discuss management incentives, EMI options or the implications of rewarding an internationally mobile team, contact Jeremy Glover for a no obligation discussion.

Jurit is enhancing access to high‑quality mediation services with the appointment of Founding Partner Robert Marcus to Mediator Locator, a nationwide network that connects businesses, individuals and legal advisers with experienced, legally qualified mediators. With more than 30 years’ experience resolving complex commercial disputes, Robert acts as a mediator in commercial and contractual matters, as well as partnership and shareholder disputes. His work spans sectors including technology, maritime, insurance and renewable energy, giving him a broad commercial perspective and a pragmatic, solutions‑focused approach to mediation. Stuart Lawrence, Founder of Mediator Locator, an accredited mediator, adjudicator and qualified barrister with more than 30 years’ legal and commercial experience, commented: “We are delighted to welcome Robert to the Mediator Locator panel. His extensive experience of complex commercial disputes, combined with his pragmatic and commercially focused approach, makes him an excellent addition to our network.” Mediator Locator enables users to identify mediators whose expertise and style align with the needs of their dispute. Its carefully selected panel comprises qualified lawyers with substantial experience in the areas in which they mediate. Reflecting on his appointment, Robert said: “Mediation gives those involved in a dispute the opportunity to step back, examine the issues from a different perspective and work towards a practical resolution. I am delighted to join Mediator Locator and make my mediation services available at a wider level.” View Robert’s Mediator Locator profile to learn more about his experience and approach.

Quentin Archer, a recognised expert in the field of data privacy and lawyer at Jurit LLP: “Over the last ten years, senior executives have become much more knowledgeable about the impact of the GDPR.  Data privacy aspects are relevant in most larger transactions, and privacy functions are now normal in businesses of any size.  As documentation has gradually become standardised, privacy policies, impact assessments, transfer agreements, data processor agreements and other tools of the privacy trade have become familiar in commerce, and are therefore less likely to be seen as annoying impediments to normal business. “Perhaps the biggest change over the last ten years, however, has been the increasing risk of cyberattacks, which threaten all a business’s data, and not just personal data.  “Although regulators will fine companies for losing personal data, the biggest threat to companies is not the fines themselves, but instead, the prospect that their operations might have to cease entirely if they are locked out of their own data.  There is a much greater emphasis on maintaining security as a result, which benefits individuals as well as the businesses themselves. How is AI impacting the work of a) regulators; and b) companies trying to comply with different sets of legislation “AI has made some things easier, and other things harder.  For example, data subjects can now very easily compile a subject access request in seconds and send this off to the companies they are concerned about, which means that some companies are liable to receive a higher volume of requests.  “Many people who issue Subject Access Requests (SARs) also want to involve the regulator, and so regulators are being inundated with a large number of requests for action which are superficially well drafted.  AI tools can, in some cases, be used to help respond to these requests, but at considerable cost to the businesses concerned.  “On a positive note, there are good examples of common documentation which can be accessed using AI tools, and some useful advice which can be accessed via AI, so companies may find that the initial cost of achieving compliance is lower.  “Unfortunately, however, the answers provided by an AI tool are frequently wrong or misleading, and so rigorous training is needed in order to make sure that the use of AI does not result in embarrassment or worse.” To what extent is AI use making it harder for companies to comply with GDPR? “Companies need to be aware of the potential dangers of AI.  For example, an AI tool which is allowed to have access to confidential personal data might analyse that data in ways which the individual concerned might not reasonably expect, and there are dangers of wrongful misuse or unnecessary disclosure.  “Generally speaking, companies should ensure that databases holding personal data are either shielded from the use of AI, or are subjected to it within very strict limits.  “As AI continues to evolve, there are diverging views as to the dangers of AI, with some people enthused by its abilities, while others are worried about its potential harmful effects.  With that in mind, I would say that AI governance is beginning to overtake GDPR compliance as a key concern.”

Jurit law firm has advised specialist scientific and commercial consultancy E-vate on its transition to employee ownership through the establishment of an Employee Ownership Trust (EOT). Founded in 2010 and based in Knutsford, Cheshire, E-vate supports pharmaceutical and life sciences businesses with evidence-based strategic consultancy across areas including clinical development, translational medicine, market access and strategic communications. Lawyers from Jurit LLP advised on the transaction, supporting the company through the process of establishing the trust and completing the transfer of ownership. The move to employee ownership provides a long-term succession solution for the business while preserving its culture, independence and strategic direction. It also creates a framework to support continued growth and employee engagement. Jeremy Glover, Partner at Jurit and specialist in Employee Ownership Trusts, advised E-vate on the legal aspects of the deal. He said: “Employee Ownership Trusts continue to be an increasingly attractive succession option for founder-led and specialist businesses that want to preserve their independence and reward the people who have contributed to their success. “E-vate has built an excellent reputation in the life sciences and pharmaceutical sectors, and this transition creates a strong platform for the next phase of the company’s development while ensuring employees remain central to its future.” Chris Harrison, director of E-vate, added: “This is a significant and exciting moment for E-vate. Our success has always come from the quality of our people, the strength of our scientific thinking and the trusted relationships we build with clients. “We believe employee ownership gives E-vate a strong platform for the future and reinforces what clients value most about working with us. Jeremy and the team at Jurit provided clear, commercial and pragmatic legal advice throughout the process and were instrumental in helping us complete the transaction successfully.” E-vate’s existing shareholders will retain a minority stake and remain actively involved in the business. Employee Ownership Trusts enable shareholders to transfer a controlling interest in a business into a trust that operates for the long-term benefit of employees. Jurit has extensive experience advising businesses on EOT structures, governance and succession planning. This transaction marks the latest in a series of EOT mandates for the firm, including its recent advice to Marine Product (Scotland) Limited on its transition to employee ownership. Initium Corporate Finance, a specialist sell-side corporate finance advisory firm, acted for E-vate on the transactional side.

A lasting power of attorney (LPA) allows someone to appoint trusted people to make decisions on their behalf. It can provide vital reassurance that their affairs will be managed if they become unable to make those decisions themselves. But when a family suspects an attorney is misusing that responsibility, knowing where to turn and how to explain their concerns, can be difficult. A recent Telegraph investigation has highlighted pressures on the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG), which registers LPAs and investigates concerns about attorneys and deputies in England and Wales. Jo Summers TEP, Head of Private Wealth & Tax at Jurit, spoke to the newspaper on behalf of STEP about the difficulties families can face and why careful planning and early advice matter. In 2025–26, the OPG received more than 1.58 million applications to register lasting powers of attorney (LPAs). Concerns raised about attorneys and deputies increased by 17% to 13,183. Of these, 28% were accepted for investigation, while 72% were signposted to other services. Applications took an average of 45 working days to process, meanwhile investigations, took an average of 198 working days to conclude, against a target of 70. These figures demonstrate growing demand for LPAs and pressure on the OPG to deal with investigations. “More of us are living longer, but not always keeping mental capacity, so the need for LPAs and advice is growing. That puts pressure on the system. Processing times for routine LPA applications haven't changed much,” Jo explains. In her experience, families can find it difficult to secure an investigation when they suspect funds have been misused but lack access to the evidence that might substantiate their concerns. She has also encountered lengthy waits in complex Court of Protection matters. “Some of my clients have raised concerns with the OPG but have found that, without firm evidence, a suspicion alone doesn't seem to be enough to prompt an investigation. And for more complex matters, particularly in the Court of Protection, enquiries can go a long time without a reply, in one case over a year.” Families should not, however, assume they must prove wrongdoing before raising a concern. The OPG’s reporting guidance makes clear that people can submit a report even if they do not have all the information requested. It will then assess whether it has the legal authority to investigate. Jo’s advice is to start keeping a clear record as soon as concerns arise. Write down what you have noticed, when it happened and who was involved. Keep copies of relevant bank statements, bills or messages that you can lawfully access. Specific dates, transactions and examples can help explain the situation when seeking legal advice or reporting it to the OPG. Where concerns involve someone’s care or safety, local adult social services may also be able to help. Suspected criminal offences should be reported to the police, and anyone in immediate danger needs an emergency response through 999. Careful planning when making an LPA is equally valuable. There are two types in England and Wales. Property and financial affairs, and health and welfare. A registered property and financial affairs LPA can be used with the person’s permission while they still have capacity, subject to its terms. A health and welfare LPA can only be used when the person lacks capacity to make the relevant decision. An LPA must be made while the person has the capacity to do so. Choosing attorneys carefully, discussing your wishes and ensuring your attorneys understand the responsibilities involved can help reduce the risk of problems later. Taking specialist legal advice at the outset can also help you consider how the arrangement should work in practice. LPAs remain a valuable way to plan ahead. But if you are worried about someone’s capacity or an attorney’s actions, seeking advice early can help you understand your options without waiting until you have assembled every piece of evidence. For help making an LPA, understanding an attorney’s responsibilities or addressing concerns about how someone’s affairs are being managed, contact Jurit’s Private Wealth & Tax team. Read the full story in The Telegraph.

Employers face stronger duties to prevent workplace harassment and new trade union access rights from 30 October 2026, as the next phase of the Employment Rights Act 2025 takes effect. Further changes follow in January 2027, including a shorter qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal protection and uncapped compensatory awards. For businesses across Great Britain, now is the time to review policies, refresh training and ensure managers understand what is changing. A higher standard for preventing sexual harassment Employers will need to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent sexual harassment, strengthening the existing requirement to take “reasonable steps”. Having a policy on file will not, by itself, demonstrate compliance. Employers should assess where risks arise, make reporting straightforward and ensure managers can respond appropriately. Training should also be relevant to the working environment, with records kept of the action taken. Responsibility extends to customers and clients Employers will also face liability where employees experience harassment by third parties, such as customers, clients or suppliers, and the employer has failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent it. This protection extends beyond sexual harassment. Businesses should consider the risks associated with customer contact, off-site work and work-related events, and give staff a clear route to raise concerns. Managers must be prepared to challenge inappropriate behaviour, including where an important client is involved. Trade union access is changing New provisions will allow independent trade unions to request physical and digital access to workplaces and workers, including where the union is not recognised. Access will operate through a statutory agreement process; it is not an unrestricted right to enter premises or access IT systems. Further changes cover facilities and rights for union representatives. Employers will therefore need to identify who will handle access requests and review existing arrangements where unions are recognised. The separate duty to inform workers of their right to join a trade union is now scheduled for 1 January 2027. We are still awaiting the government’s wording for notifying workers. Why probation procedures need a review From 1 January 2027, the qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal protection will reduce from two years to six months. Employees who already have six months’ service on that date will also benefit. The cap on compensation for unfair dismissal will also be removed. Although this does not impose a statutory limit on probation periods, it makes managing them effectively more important. Extending someone’s probation beyond six months will not delay their entitlement to unfair dismissal protection. Employers should set clear expectations at the start of employment, hold regular reviews and address performance concerns promptly, recording the support provided and decisions taken. Review dates should allow time for a fair process and consideration of contractual and statutory notice requirements. The process needs to be completed within the six-month timeframe. What should employers do now? Review harassment risks, policies, reporting procedures and manager training ahead of 30 October 2026. Assign responsibility for handling union access requests, and prepare for January by reviewing probation procedures and arrangements for informing workers about their trade union rights. Across these changes, written policies will need to be supported by practical action, with clear responsibilities and timely reviews, not to mention professional legal support where necessary. For advice on preparing your business, contact Adrian Hoggarth, Head of Employment Law at Jurit LLP.