Business

Britain’s bond market delivered its sharpest rebuke yet to Sir Keir Starmer’s premiership on Tuesday, with 30-year gilt yields climbing to their highest level this century as the prime minister stared down a growing chorus of Labour MPs demanding he step aside.

The sell-off, which dragged sterling and equities lower in lockstep, wiped out the relief rally that followed Starmer’s defiant intervention last week. Tuesday’s cabinet meeting, at which the prime minister once again refused to countenance resignation, did little to settle nerves. Investors are now openly pricing in the prospect of a leftward lurch in Labour policy, with the attendant risks of looser fiscal rules, higher gilt issuance and a further squeeze on the cost of capital for British business.

For the country’s 5.5 million small and medium-sized enterprises, the implications are far from academic. Higher long-dated gilt yields feed directly into the swap rates that underpin commercial lending, business mortgages and asset finance, raising the prospect of yet another leg up in the borrowing costs faced by Britain’s corporate backbone at a time when many are still nursing the legacy of post-pandemic debt.

The 30-year gilt yield rose 13 basis points to 5.81 per cent, the highest since May 1998. The benchmark 10-year yield gained 10 basis points to 5.1 per cent, within a whisker of breaching the post-2008 peak it set earlier this month. Bond prices move inversely to yields.

“A new Labour leader may face pressure to ease the fiscal rules and raise gilt issuance,” warned Jim Reid, analyst at Deutsche Bank, capturing the City’s central concern that any successor would lean towards higher spending and heavier taxation of the very businesses the Treasury is counting on to drive growth.

Sterling’s slide alongside government bonds will draw uncomfortable parallels with the dark days of Liz Truss’s mini-budget. When a currency weakens in concert with rising borrowing costs, it is the trading pattern of an emerging market that has lost the confidence of foreign capital, not that of a G7 economy. The pound fell 0.64 per cent against the dollar to a two-week low of $1.352, and shed 0.21 per cent against the euro to €1.152, its weakest since mid-April.

Some of the pressure is undeniably imported. Bunds, OATs and BTPs all sold off as President Trump declared the Iran ceasefire was “on life support”, sending Brent crude up 2.8 per cent to $107.17 a barrel and reigniting inflation fears across advanced economies. The Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of global oil and gas once flowed, remains largely shut. Germany’s Dax bore the brunt of the European sell-off, falling more than 1 per cent. But gilts underperformed by a substantial margin, marking out Westminster’s political turmoil as a uniquely British risk premium.

Mohit Kumar, chief European economist at Jefferies, urged clients to short sterling, arguing any change in the composition of government “would likely be left-leaning”. Anthony Willis, senior economist at Columbia Threadneedle Investments, cautioned that the bond market was unlikely to settle “until greater clarity emerges”.

Equities followed suit. The FTSE 100 surrendered 0.3 per cent having opened the week with a 0.4 per cent gain, while the more domestically focused FTSE 250 dropped 211 points, or 0.9 per cent, extending its losing streak to a second day. Mid-cap stocks, dominated by UK-facing businesses, are the clearest read on how the City judges Britain’s economic prospects.

The grim verdict from Andrew Goodwin, chief UK economist at Oxford Economics, is that there is little prospect of meaningful relief. He expects 10-year borrowing costs to remain stuck above 5 per cent for the remainder of the year, regardless of who occupies Number 10. “Markets clearly perceive the UK has a bigger inflation problem and that tighter monetary policy will be needed to limit second-round effects from the energy shock, while political uncertainty has added to pressures at the long end,” he said.

Even were Starmer to dig in, Goodwin argued, the bond market would have little to celebrate, with the prime minister’s “attempts to regain popularity, or, more likely, from a successor implementing more costly left-wing economic policies” weighing on sentiment. “If Starmer sets out a timetable to stand down, the uncertainty premium will persist.”

For owner-managers already navigating a punishing cost base, a softening consumer and the fallout from this spring’s National Insurance changes, the message from the bond vigilantes is unambiguous: brace for borrowing to stay dear, and for political risk to remain firmly on the balance sheet.

Read more:
Gilts plunge to 28-year low as Starmer clings on, leaving SMEs braced for borrowing squeeze

Few retailers wear their politics quite so visibly as Alan Roper. Stand the managing director of Blue Diamond, the UK’s leading garden centre group, with 54 destination sites across Britain and the Channel Islands, in front of a microphone and the easy West Country charm gives way to something rather more pointed.

In recent weeks Roper has gone on the record claiming that successive minimum wage rises, layered on top of higher employers’ national insurance, have stripped £12.6m from Blue Diamond’s bottom line, money, he says, that would otherwise have been reinvested in stores, suppliers and people.

“I’m not against the minimum wage,” he insists, in the office above one of his flagship centres. “But you have to recognise that prior to Labour, it was the Conservatives who increased it by ten per cent for two years in succession. Then Labour came in with another 6.7 per cent, plus the 3.5 per cent employers’ NI rise. That is a major hit. I don’t know anyone who has not seen a pub go under recently because of these costs. Sometimes I wonder if politicians realise the level of impact this has.”

The £12.6m figure, he is at pains to stress, is not back-of-an-envelope. Blue Diamond benchmarks profit per employee across the group and Roper can trace the number precisely. It also reflects his own choices as an employer. “It is not just the people on the minimum wage. The colleagues who were earning a pound or one-fifty above it, as a good employer, I chose to maintain that gap. When their pay moved up, the department managers’ salaries moved up. That is where the 12.6 million comes from. I wish it had happened over eight years; instead, it happened in three.”

The consequence has been a quietly ruthless review of full-time equivalent hours, first across the garden retail estate and now in the restaurants. “We benchmarked the most efficient centres against the rest and got everybody working on the same page in terms of hours recruited per day,” he says. “Restaurants are naturally trickier because we won’t compromise service. But we have reduced man-hours, and we’re not the only retailer doing it.”

He is sceptical of those who claim artificial intelligence will fill the gap. “In this format I don’t think AI is going to have a big impact on man-hour reduction. Although I am trialling a full-size salesman avatar in one of our centres this year, I saw one at the Retail Tech Show in London and thought, well, that’s novel, give it a go.”

Such pragmatism has guided 27 years of growth at Blue Diamond, which has now completed its fifty-fourth deal. Yet for every acquisition there is a much larger pile of opportunities Roper has walked away from, something he attributes, only half-jokingly, to the cautionary tale of Wyevale, the once-mighty chain whose collapse he watched at uncomfortably close quarters.

“Wyevale at one point was close to £300m of turnover from about 130 sites,” he says. “That is barely £2m per centre, and at that size you are going to struggle to make money. They got into this mindset of: we want to be national, we’ll just buy centres. Small, large, the demographics didn’t matter. There was no filter on their judgement. It had a garden centre on the tin, so they bought it. The problem was in their DNA from very early doors. Private equity may have finished it off, but the issue was already there.”

Blue Diamond’s filter has remained narrow: demographics, footprint, location, and what Roper calls the “shape” of the opportunity. “I have never said, where’s my fifty-fifth centre,” he says. “That megalomaniac approach is a disaster. It is about the quality of the opportunity, growing sustainably, with low debt on the balance sheet.” Asked where Blue Diamond will be in five years, however, he answers without theatre: “If the right opportunities come, we could easily double in size.”

The most striking strategic shift in the wider sector is one Roper saw coming long before his rivals. In February last year, catering sales overtook live plant sales across the UK garden centre industry for the first time in four years. Blue Diamond’s restaurant arm grew faster than its retail business in 2025. Walk into a busy Blue Diamond at lunch on a Saturday and the queue for breakfast, cake and afternoon tea can resemble that of a casual dining group.

Roper bridles, mildly, at the suggestion that his stores have drifted into hospitality. “Catering goes back 30 years here. I had a large restaurant in a garden centre 30 years ago. What is happening is that other operators have belatedly caught up. Garden centres are a destination, a day out. Customers expect a nice restaurant where they can have breakfast or afternoon tea. It is a prerequisite. Without a restaurant, I think you would lose half your customers.”

The catering footprint, he points out, is far smaller than the planteria and almost always sits at the end of the customer’s natural route through the store. “It is part of the heartbeat. The pressure on us is always to find more space to grow the restaurants. Increasingly, customers demonstrate an insatiable desire for them.”

The same instinct for the local sits behind one of the more counter-intuitive parts of Blue Diamond’s playbook: a refusal to slap a single masterbrand on every site. Acquisitions at Wilton House, the Chatsworth Estate, the Grosvenor Estate and others have all retained their original names, with Blue Diamond co-branded.

“Wilton was my first big move, back in 2001,” he says. “People came there because it was the Wilton House Estate. You couldn’t simply call it Blue Diamond. So we kept the name and put Blue Diamond on it. The same is true at Chatsworth, at Grosvenor, and at the new centre we are building on Lord Iveagh’s Elveden Estate, which will be Elveden Garden Centre.” He bats away the standard corporate playbook. “Customers see their garden centre as part of their local community. Over the years the Blue Diamond brand has caught up alongside the local brand. We’re now in a sweet spot where they see it as both. When we rebadged three of the former Dobbies sites as Huntingdon Garden Centre last year, we were getting emails saying ‘glad you’re coming’ before we had even opened.”

Equally distinctive is Blue Diamond’s commitment to British growers. Unusually for a retailer of its scale, the group will exhibit at the National Horticulture Trade Association plant show at Stoneleigh in June with the explicit aim of meeting smaller suppliers it does not yet stock. “A lot of growers don’t approach groups because they assume we won’t be interested,” Roper says. “We will be. The challenge is volume. Where we can’t take a grower nationally, we’ll regionalise them, the south-west or the north-west. Knowing the family that grows the fuchsias is a strong USP. It’s a win for the grower, a win for us, and it’s something the customer really wants.”

Underpinning everything is data. Two decades ago Roper built what he calls his Best Practice Indicator, or BPI, an internal benchmarking engine that ranks every centre, department, category and individual line on its conversion of footfall into profit. A weekly league table places the 54 centres in order, one to 54. Where a centre underperforms, a BPI calculator now being rebuilt with artificial intelligence will tell the team exactly which lines were missed and why.

“It is the eighty-twenty rule,” he says. “Twenty per cent of your product does most of the work – hydrangeas, salvias, the genuses you cannot get wrong. The right plant, the right product, in the right place at the right time, at the right price. If you get all of that right, conversion goes up. If you don’t, customers feel it is hard work and they switch off.” It is, he argues, what makes growth safe. “I wrote my own retail ethos. I tell my team to define their church and then write their religion. Once everyone is on the same page, you can give people ownership. But you can only give them ownership if you can measure their decisions. BPI does that.”

On consumer demand, Roper concedes the macro picture is hard to read while weather still dominates. “We are up against a very hot, very dry March and April last year. So it is hard to tell what is real.” At the high-ticket end, suites of garden furniture at £2,000 and pergolas at £4,000, he says he is not yet seeing softness, “but I am not stupid enough to think it isn’t coming. I’m introducing an easy-payment system because I think recalibration is coming.” Last year’s business rates reform was, he says, a marginal win: smaller stores benefited, larger sites took six-figure increases, “but if it helps small businesses, I’m all for it.”

What would he do with a day in Number 11? He pauses, then offers something close to a manifesto. “I understand the need to get debt down. But instead of punitive solutions that suppress growth, this government needs to consult the business community on creating a more Thatcherite environment – or, to use a horticultural analogy, a growing environment where businesses can prosper, employ more people and pay more tax. At the moment, reactions feel knee-jerk and we end up on the back foot, repairing profitability.” He sighs, briefly. “Some days I look at it all and think it would be easier to retire.” Then a grin. “I won’t be doing that.”

Read more:
Alan Roper: ‘wage and tax policy has stripped £12.6m out of our profits’

Sir Keir Starmer has confirmed that British Steel will be taken into full public ownership, ending months of speculation about the future of the loss-making Scunthorpe plant and drawing a line under fraught negotiations with its Chinese owner, Jingye.

In a speech designed in part to head off a brewing leadership challenge after Labour’s bruising local election results, the prime minister told supporters that emergency legislation would be laid before Parliament this week to grant ministers the powers needed to take “full ownership” of the business, subject to a public interest test.

“Public ownership is in the public interest,” Sir Keir said, adding that he intended to prove his “doubters” wrong and that, for the British public, “change cannot come quickly enough.”

The decision marks a significant shift in approach. Whitehall had previously stopped short of full nationalisation, preferring instead to court private investors while keeping the blast furnaces alight through an emergency supervision regime. That regime was imposed last April after the government seized operational control of the Scunthorpe site amid mounting concerns that Jingye was preparing to switch the furnaces off, a step that would almost certainly have ended the United Kingdom’s ability to produce so-called virgin steel.

Virgin steel, smelted from iron ore rather than recycled scrap, is the grade used in heavy infrastructure projects, from new rail lines to large-scale construction. Restarting a blast furnace once it has gone cold is both technically forbidding and extraordinarily expensive, and the loss of that domestic capability has been viewed in Westminster as a strategic red line.

Talks with Jingye, the prime minister confirmed, had failed to produce a workable deal. “A commercial sale has not been possible, and now a public test could be met,” he said.

The response from the steel sector was swift and broadly supportive. Gareth Stace, director-general of trade body UK Steel, said the announcement offered “vital certainty” to the 2,700-strong Scunthorpe workforce, as well as the customers who rely on British Steel for rail, structural sections and specialist products.

“Maintaining domestic production capability for British Steel’s products is essential not only for economic growth but also for our national security and resilience,” Stace said.

However, he was clear that nationalisation alone would not be sufficient. “It is not an end goal,” he cautioned, urging ministers to use the moment as the “beginning of a clear and credible long-term plan for British Steel,” underpinned by a proper investment strategy.

The unions echoed that sentiment. In a joint statement, Roy Rickhuss, general secretary of the Community union, and Unite’s Sharon Graham said they “fully support” nationalisation, arguing that British Steel had a “bright future, with a world class highly skilled workforce making strategically important steels for the UK’s rail and infrastructure.” The pair also pressed the Treasury to mandate that government-funded projects source British-made steel — a long-standing demand of the domestic industry.

Charlotte Brumpton-Childs, national secretary of the GMB Union, said it was “right the government does everything in its power to secure its long term future.”

The Exchequer’s bill for propping up the company has already proved eye-watering. The National Audit Office reported in March that £377 million had been spent in just nine months to fund operations, wages and raw materials at Scunthorpe. Should the present rate of spending persist, the NAO warned, the total could exceed £1.5 billion by 2028, “depending on policy choices that may be taken in the future.”

The BBC understands the government is currently spending in the region of £1 million a day to keep the business afloat. Jingye, for its part, claimed the site was haemorrhaging £700,000 a day and was no longer commercially viable before ministers intervened.

No headline figure has yet been put on the cost of full nationalisation. Officials say an independent valuation of the business will be carried out once legislation is in place, with any compensation due to Jingye to be determined on the basis of that exercise.

It is not the first time the state has stepped in. The Insolvency Service ran British Steel for nine months following its 2019 collapse, at a cost to the taxpayer of around £600 million, before its sale to Jingye.

For the SME supply chain, the fabricators, hauliers and engineering firms clustered around Scunthorpe and across the wider Humber industrial corridor, the announcement removes the immediate threat of a catastrophic shutdown. Many of these businesses operate on tight margins and would have struggled to survive the loss of their principal customer.

The broader question, however, is whether public ownership can deliver the modernisation that successive private owners have failed to fund. Decarbonising primary steelmaking, replacing ageing blast furnaces with electric arc technology, and securing reliable long-term contracts with British infrastructure projects will all require capital commitments measured in billions, not millions.

The public interest test required to complete the takeover will weigh national security, the protection of critical national infrastructure and broader economic considerations. On all three counts, the government appears to have concluded that the case for intervention is now unanswerable.

Read more:
Starmer moves to nationalise British Steel as commercial rescue collapses

Britain’s largest poultry processor has handed supermarkets a £70m bill for the Chancellor’s tax-and-wage squeeze, in one of the clearest signals yet that Labour’s labour-cost reforms are working their way through the nation’s grocery aisles.

2Sisters Food Group, the West Bromwich-based business founded by Midlands entrepreneur Ranjit Boparan (pictured), confirmed it has passed on the entire additional cost to Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Marks & Spencer and other major retail customers. The increase, the company said, was the direct consequence of Rachel Reeves’s decision last spring to raise employers’ National Insurance contributions and lift the national minimum wage, measures the British Retail Consortium warned at the time would make price rises “inevitable”.

The disclosure lands in the middle of an increasingly heated debate over the cumulative impact of the Chancellor’s Budget on Britain’s productive economy. For a business that supplies roughly one in every three poultry products sold in the UK, slaughtering and processing 10.4 million birds a week from a network of more than 700 farms, even a marginal tweak to employment costs reverberates a long way down the till receipt.

2Sisters employs 13,500 people, making it one of the most heavily exposed companies in the country to changes in payroll taxation. Mr Boparan, long dubbed the “chicken king” of British food, has built a sprawling operation that touches almost every fridge in the land, and the group’s pricing decisions are watched closely by Whitehall and the Competition and Markets Authority alike.

Concern over the wider chilling effect of the National Insurance increase has spread well beyond the food sector. Malcolm Gomersall, chief executive of Grant Thornton’s UK business, said this week that the rise was “not great for businesses who are looking to grow”. He added: “There is a hidden cost of growth and if I could wave a wand, it would be to try and make it easy to employ more people with less related taxes on the employer. UK growth would be supported by lower national insurance contributions.”

It is not the first time 2Sisters has weighed in on government policy. Richard Pennycook, the seasoned retailer who chairs the group on a non-executive basis, warned last year that the curtailment of agricultural property relief would persuade many family farmers to “give up”. His intervention helped galvanise a rural revolt that ultimately pushed Sir Keir Starmer into diluting the inheritance tax measure earlier this year.

Yet for all the political noise, the underlying business is humming. Accounts for the twelve months to July 2025 show pre-tax profits soaring to £108m, up from £35.5m the previous year, helped by a 9 per cent rise in turnover to £2.38bn. The figures were also flattered by the sale of the group’s European poultry interests to the Boparan family’s private office, a transaction that has simplified the corporate structure and concentrated management attention on the home market.

Feed costs, historically the swing factor in poultry margins, fell by 5 per cent over the period. Mr Boparan’s team said those savings had been handed back to customers, partially offsetting the labour-cost increases pushed through elsewhere.

Looking ahead, the company describes itself as “cautiously optimistic”, but the outlook is far from straightforward. The escalating conflict in the Middle East threatens to send food and energy inflation higher, and the Food and Drink Federation has cautioned that grocery inflation could touch 10 per cent before the year is out. Some suppliers are already understood to be levying so-called “Donald Trump surcharges” on imported produce, reflecting the knock-on effect of the White House’s tariff regime on fertiliser and fuel costs.

Working in the group’s favour is a marked consumer pivot back to traditional animal proteins, accelerated by Robert F Kennedy Jr’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda across the Atlantic, which has lent fresh momentum to demand for chicken, eggs and unprocessed meats.

“We remain committed to investing in our factories and utilising advanced technologies, helping to grow our core business while supporting our sustainability ambitions,” Mr Boparan said.

For Britain’s SME-rich food supply chain, and for the millions of shoppers who buy 2Sisters’ chicken without ever seeing the brand, the message from West Bromwich is unmistakable. The Treasury may have collected its National Insurance windfall, but the bill has not disappeared. It has simply moved further down the trolley.

Read more:
Poultry powerhouse 2Sisters lifts supermarket prices by £70m to absorb Labour’s National Insurance shock

The cost of UK government borrowing climbed to its highest level in nearly two decades on Tuesday, as mounting speculation over the future of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer collided with fresh inflation fears stoked by the Iran conflict, leaving the country’s small and mid-sized businesses staring down the barrel of yet another period of squeezed credit and weaker sterling.

The effective interest rate on 10-year gilts briefly touched 5.13% in morning trading, a level not seen since the depths of the 2008 global financial crisis. Yields on two-, five- and 30-year debt also pushed higher, with the 30-year benchmark hitting 5.80% — the steepest reading since 1998.

For Britain’s 5.5 million SMEs, already grappling with stubborn input costs and a softening consumer, the move in the bond market is no abstract Westminster drama. The two- and five-year gilt yields directly underpin fixed-rate mortgage pricing, and by extension the working capital pressures on owner-managers whose households and balance sheets remain tightly interwoven.

The FTSE 100 slid 0.5%, with the high-street banks leading the retreat amid chatter that any successor administration could green-light a fresh tax raid on the sector. Sterling weakened by the same margin against the dollar, slipping to $1.35.

A toxic cocktail of geopolitics and Westminster jitters

Markets have been on edge for weeks as the war in Iran has driven crude above $100 a barrel, threatening to reignite the very inflationary fire the Bank of England has spent two years dousing. But while peer economies have weathered the oil shock with comparatively muted moves in their debt markets, Britain’s gilts have been singled out for punishment.

The reason, according to City analysts, is political. With Sir Keir’s grip on Number 10 looking increasingly precarious, allies emerged from a cabinet meeting on Tuesday insisting the Prime Minister would “get on with governing”, investors are pricing in the very real prospect of a leadership contest that could deliver a Chancellor less wedded to fiscal restraint.

Sir Keir and Chancellor Rachel Reeves have spent the better part of a year repeating their commitment to “iron-clad” borrowing rules, a mantra designed to keep the bond vigilantes at bay. Yet a growing chorus of Labour backbenchers on the party’s left have begun openly questioning whether those self-imposed limits are “fit for long-term renewal”.

Capital Economics put the matter bluntly in a note to clients. “The UK’s already fragile fiscal position means that investors will be on edge for any signs of fiscal loosening,” its analysts wrote. “The likely replacements for Starmer/Reeves would probably not be as fiscally disciplined.” The firm flagged Andy Burnham, Angela Rayner and Wes Streeting, the names most frequently cited as potential challengers, as candidates who would “probably raise public spending”.

Why the City is nervous

Anna Macdonald, investment strategy director at Hargreaves Lansdown, said the gilts market had been “frazzled” by the prospect of a new occupant of Number 11 taking a more relaxed view of the public finances. “This would mean that investors, of which 25-30% are overseas buyers of UK government bonds, demand a higher risk premium,” she warned.

That risk premium matters far beyond the trading floors of the Square Mile. Governments raise most of their revenue through taxation, but routinely spend more than the Exchequer takes in. The shortfall is plugged by issuing gilts, IOUs sold to pension funds, insurers and foreign investors who, in exchange for parting with their cash, demand certainty above almost everything else.

When that certainty evaporates, the price of borrowing rises. And the bill for Britain’s existing stock of public debt, already swollen by years of crisis-era spending — now accounts for roughly £1 in every £10 the government spends. Each tick higher in yields translates directly into less fiscal headroom for the productivity-boosting investment SMEs have been calling for, from full-expensing reforms to business rates overhaul.

For owner-managers, the immediate read-through is threefold. Mortgage rates, already a drag on consumer discretionary spend, are likely to remain stickier for longer. Sterling weakness will sharpen the import bill for any business reliant on dollar-priced inputs, from manufacturers to hospitality operators sourcing food and drink from overseas. And the cost of business borrowing, whether through term loans or asset finance, is unlikely to ease until the bond market regains its composure.

Until Westminster offers a clearer answer to the question of who will be running the country by the autumn, that composure looks some way off.

Read more:
Uk borrowing costs spike to 18-year high as Starmer leadership crisis spooks markets

Mike Ashley’s retail empire has scored a notable courtroom victory after the Court of Appeal threw out a substantial damages award handed down in a protracted trademark infringement dispute, sparing the FTSE-listed group what could have proved a punishing financial blow.

The ruling brings to a head a long-running tussle between the Shirebrook-based discount sports chain, rebranded as Frasers Group in 2019, and Lifestyle Equities, the company that owns and licenses the Beverly Hills Polo Club marque. Lifestyle Equities had alleged that Ashley’s group infringed its trademark by flogging goods under the rival ‘Santa Monica Polo Club’ label, a claim it first lodged back in 2018.

Frasers had lost the underlying infringement case seven years ago but mounted a fresh challenge against the scale of damages it was ordered to stump up. At an appeal hearing in April, the retailer’s lawyers argued that the bill should be slashed because the third-party companies trading under the Beverly Hills Polo Club name, and on whose behalf Lifestyle Equities was attempting to recover losses, had never been officially registered as licensees in the United Kingdom.

The Court of Appeal duly sided with the high street giant, ruling that it was “too late” for Lifestyle Equities to retrospectively register the licences in question. With the original claim dating back to 2018 and the licensing arrangements stretching back nearly a decade, the court concluded that the additional claims “appear to be well out of time” and that allowing them through would amount to an “unprincipled windfall” for businesses that had not properly placed themselves on the public register.

Counsel for Frasers warned during the appeal that permitting such claims to succeed would expose accused infringers to ambush litigation, leaving defendants “suddenly confronted with a Trojan Horse full of licensees claiming damages” of whose existence they had no prior knowledge. Without strict adherence to public registration, the retailer’s legal team argued, the regime risked becoming “a charter of unjust enrichment”, allowing trademark owners to scoop up compensation for unregistered partners alongside their own losses.

The judgment represents a material win for Frasers, which has shrugged off a potentially eye-watering damages bill that, had it stood, would have set an awkward precedent for the wider retail sector. The decision is likely to be studied closely by intellectual property lawyers and brand owners alike, given the implications for how licensing arrangements must be formally documented to be enforceable in the British courts.

The legal win follows news first reported by City AM that the magic circle-adjacent law firm RPC has lost one of its highest-billing partners, Jeremy Drew, who represents Ashley personally, to Taylor Wessing.

The trademark victory comes hard on the heels of an extraordinary admission by Ashley, the man who founded Sports Direct in his native Burnham in 1982 and ran it as chief executive until handing the reins to son-in-law Michael Murray in 2022.

The 61-year-old billionaire has confirmed publicly for the first time that he engineered the downfall of his most prominent retail adversary, the former JD Sports executive chairman Peter Cowgill.

Cowgill stepped down from the FTSE 100 trainer chain in 2022 in the wake of a Competition and Markets Authority probe, triggered after leaked footage emerged of him in a clandestine car park meeting with Footasylum chief executive Barry Brown. The pair had been expressly barred from exchanging commercially sensitive information while JD Sports was attempting to acquire Footasylum, and the leaked footage led the CMA to impose fines of nearly £5m on the two businesses.

In an interview with the Financial Times last weekend, Ashley conceded that the footage had been obtained by one of his own employees and said he was “not hiding from the fact” that he was the architect of Cowgill’s removal, a candid acknowledgement that lifts the lid on one of the more colourful boardroom feuds in recent British retail history.

Read more:
Ashley’s Frasers group dodges hefty damages bill in trademark appeal victory

The share of new-build homes snapped up “off plan” before a single brick is laid has tumbled to its lowest level in more than a decade, in a fresh blow to the government’s ambition of delivering 1.5 million homes by the end of this parliament.

Research published by estate agency Hamptons reveals that just 33 per cent of new properties across England and Wales were sold prior to completion in 2025, down sharply from a peak of 49 per cent in 2016. The slide reflects a perfect storm battering the housebuilding sector, with buy-to-let landlords beating a retreat from the market, stubbornly high interest rates dampening buyer appetite, and construction costs continuing to spiral.

Off-plan sales have long served as the lifeblood of housebuilders’ cash flow, allowing developers to bank deposits and secure financing well before a project reaches completion. Their decline now threatens to push up the cost of capital across the industry at precisely the moment ministers are pressing for an acceleration in delivery.

The contraction has been driven, in large part, by the steady withdrawal of buy-to-let investors who have historically been voracious purchasers of off-plan stock, particularly flats in regeneration areas. The introduction of the 3 per cent second-home stamp duty surcharge in 2016 began the rot. That surcharge was hiked to 5 per cent at the end of 2024, and the Renters’ Rights Act, which came into force this month, has prompted a further wave of landlords to head for the exits rather than wrestle with rising costs and ever-tightening regulation.

First-time buyers, the other traditional mainstay of the off-plan market, are similarly hamstrung. Chain-free and typically flexible on timing, they have historically been natural candidates for purchases months ahead of completion. But higher borrowing costs, coupled with the closure of the government’s Help to Buy equity loan scheme in 2023, have squeezed many of them out of the picture entirely.

The pain is most acute in the flats sector, where investor and first-time buyer demand traditionally overlap. Just 22 per cent of new flats were sold off plan last year, a startling drop from 54 per cent in 2007.

Investors who remain in the game are increasingly looking north, where rental yields comfortably outstrip those available in the southern counties. In Oldham, Greater Manchester, an extraordinary 94 per cent of new flats were sold off plan last year, the highest share of any local authority in the country. London, by contrast, managed 65 per cent.

David Fell, lead analyst at Hamptons, warned that the structural shift away from high-density flats was creating fresh obstacles for ministers. “This move towards lower-density, house-led development is likely to make it harder for the government to significantly ramp up housing delivery,” he said.

Housebuilders, increasingly wary of carrying large blocks of flats on their balance sheets while they wait for buyers, are instead pivoting towards suburban housing schemes that sell more rapidly and limit exposure to rising financing costs. A Ministry of Housing assessment published at the end of March predicted the government would fall short of its 1.5 million target by some 400,000 homes.

The financial mathematics is becoming increasingly punishing for developers. Interest rates on construction loans are typically far higher than those attached to standard residential mortgages, meaning that every week a property sits unsold during the build phase adds materially to the cost base. Hamptons calculates that additional finance costs added £3,125 to the build cost per home last year, up from £2,934 in 2024. Roughly half of that increase, it says, is directly attributable to higher interest rates.

Material costs have piled further pressure on the sector. “Many of the materials needed to build new homes are highly energy-intensive, meaning their costs have risen far faster than wider inflation,” Fell added.

Separate research from the Home Builders Federation underlines the scale of the squeeze. The trade body calculates that the cost of building a new home has risen by an average of £76,000 since 2020, equivalent to 20 per cent of the total cost of constructing the average UK home. Some 40 per cent of that increase, it says, is attributable to government regulations and taxes, with the balance accounted for by material inflation and labour costs.

The financial consultancy RSM UK is among those calling for ministers to act decisively to revive momentum, with a particular focus on planning reform, lighter regulation and lower taxes on new construction.

Stacy Eden, partner and national head of real estate at RSM UK, said the picture was set to deteriorate further without intervention. “With costs set to escalate further due to the economic impact of the Iran conflict, the real estate industry urgently needs further support from government to make housebuilding more viable,” she warned.

For SME housebuilders in particular, who lack the deep balance sheets of the volume players, the squeeze on off-plan sales risks tipping marginal sites from viable to uneconomic, threatening both jobs and the government’s headline housing ambitions.

Read more:
Off-plan new home sales slump to 12-year low as landlords retreat and rates bite

Britain’s labour market is bracing for its sharpest contraction in years, with more than 160,000 roles forecast to vanish over the course of 2026 as anaemic growth and stubbornly high energy bills combine to squeeze employers across the country’s industrial heartlands.

The grim assessment comes from the Item Club, the independent forecaster that runs its projections through the very same economic model used by the Treasury to stress-test government policy. According to its latest analysis, a net 163,000 jobs will disappear this year, representing a 0.4 per cent decline in total employment and dealing a fresh blow to a workforce already feeling the strain of 18 months of cooling demand.

For Britain’s small and medium-sized employers, the report makes for sobering reading. The pain, the Item Club warns, will fall disproportionately on energy-intensive manufacturers, the construction trade and the high street, three sectors that between them prop up tens of thousands of SMEs and the supply chains that orbit them. As disposable incomes are eroded, consumer-facing businesses in retail, hospitality and food service are expected to feel a secondary shockwave.

“The hit will be felt in lower-income regions where consumers typically have less rainy-day savings, which will reduce spending in the retail and hospitality sectors,” said Tim Lyne, an adviser to the Item Club, in a candid assessment of how the downturn will play out beyond the M25.

The geographical pattern of the squeeze will be uneven and, in places, severe. Birmingham’s unemployment rate is forecast to climb from 6.7 per cent to 7.8 per cent over the year, while Glasgow is on course to break through the 5 per cent mark from a 4.3 per cent average in 2025. Cambridge stands as the lone exception among Britain’s major cities, with overall employment expected to edge modestly higher on the back of its knowledge-economy base.

Nationally, the jobless rate, which brushed 5 per cent at the close of last year, is heading for 5.1 per cent in the coming months, up from 4.9 per cent in the most recent official figures published by the Bank of England.

Official growth data due this week is expected to confirm that the economy expanded by around 0.3 per cent in the first quarter of 2026, a modest improvement on the 0.1 per cent recorded in the final three months of 2025, but hardly the kind of momentum that creates jobs at scale.

A separate survey from KPMG and the Recruitment and Employment Confederation lends weight to the gloomier outlook. Permanent placements across the economy fell in April at their fastest rate since the start of the year, while demand for temporary staff climbed to its highest level since 2023, as employers hedged their bets on hiring commitments.

Neil Carberry, chief executive of the REC, said the trend reflected a “preference for short-term staff at some firms who wanted to push ahead with business development and expansion plans” against an uncertain backdrop. “Businesses will be particularly concerned about the impact on inflation, their borrowing costs and any disruption to wider supply chains,” he added, alluding to the lingering aftershocks of the conflict in Iran.

For business owners, the message is one many will recognise from the past two years: keep options open, keep headcount flexible, and assume that the cost of capital will remain elevated for longer than is comfortable.

The Item Club expects the only meaningful employment growth this year to come from publicly funded corners of the economy, education, health and social care, but its analysts are blunt that this expansion is “unlikely to offset losses in larger, more demand-sensitive sectors”. In short: the state will hire, but it will not hire enough.

For SMEs, the most worrying signal in the report is the speed at which higher interest rates and elevated inflation feed through to recruitment freezes and redundancies. With wage settlements still running ahead of productivity gains, and with energy contracts due for renewal across thousands of mid-sized industrial businesses this summer, the path of least resistance for many owner-managers will be to thin payrolls rather than expand them.

One silver lining is the gradual improvement in economic inactivity rates, as more people who left the workforce during and after the pandemic are now returning to look for work. But with vacancies falling and the labour market loosening, that fresh supply of jobseekers may find conditions tougher than they were even a year ago.

The Item Club’s projections, drawn from the Treasury’s own model, are typically used by policymakers to scrutinise the government’s claims about its economic agenda. On this occasion, they offer ministers little political cover and Britain’s job creators even less.

Read more:
Britain set to shed 160,000 jobs as energy costs and stalling growth bite

Many employers assume that withdrawing a job offer before someone starts work is a low-risk decision.

A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling suggests otherwise. It held that the withdrawal of a conditional job offer amounted to a breach of contract, even though the employee had not actually started work, and that the financial consequences can be significant.

The case of Kankanalapalli v Loesche Energy Systems Ltd is a timely reminder that a job offer, even one labelled “conditional”, can amount to a binding contract the moment a candidate accepts it.

What happened?

A candidate was offered a role as a project manager, subject to satisfactory references, a right to work check, and successful completion of a six-month probationary period. The offer letter referred to key terms such as salary and a start date, but it did not mention a notice period. The employer also agreed to contribute towards relocation costs.

The candidate accepted the offer by email and completed the new-starter paperwork, including providing referee details and the required right to work documents.

A few weeks later, the employer withdrew the job offer because of delays in the project. The candidate brought a claim for breach of contract, citing the withdrawal of the offer and failure to pay any notice pay.

What did the Employment Tribunal and EAT decide?

The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claim. It held that the job offer was conditional and that the employer had not yet received references or completed the right to work checks (which required original documents). The contract had therefore not been formed.

The EAT disagreed. The key question was the nature of the conditions attached to the offer and whether they were:

“Conditions precedent”, that is, conditions that must be satisfied before any contract is formed) or
“Conditions subsequent”: whereby acceptance of an offer gives rise to a binding contract, but if the conditions are not satisfied, the contract terminates.

The conditions were grouped together in the offer letter, and one (passing the probationary period) could only be satisfied after employment began. As there had been no attempt to differentiate between the different conditions, this prevented the EAT from finding that they could be conditions precedent.

The offer letter included the key terms, both parties had treated the contract as binding, and the employer had started the onboarding process. Consequently, the employer did not have an unrestricted right to withdraw the offer for reasons unrelated to the conditions subsequent.

Finally, as the offer letter was silent on notice, the EAT had to imply a reasonable notice period. Taking into account the role’s seniority, the relocation requirement, and the lengthy interview process, it was concluded that three months’ notice would be a reasonable period, which the employer was required to pay.

What does this mean for your business?

The case highlights several practical steps employers should take when making job offers:

Labelling an offer “conditional” is not enough on its own and will not prevent a binding contract from forming or a breach of contract if the job offer is withdrawn. If you intend certain conditions to be met before a contract exists, those conditions need to be clearly spelled out, with pre-contract conditions listed separately from post-start conditions, such as probation.
Always include a notice period in the offer letter, covering both the probationary period and the post-probation standard notice period after probation has been successfully completed. If you don’t, the Employment Tribunal will imply one, and it may be longer than you’d expect.
Before withdrawing any offer, take legal advice to ascertain whether the job offer was conditional or unconditional. Depending on the seniority of the role and the implied or stated notice period, a successful breach of contract claim can mean significant compensation as well as considerable management time.
Finally, it’s worth reviewing your current offer letter templates to ensure key terms are included and that the conditional nature of any offer is clearly and correctly expressed.

A little extra care at the offer stage is far less costly than defending a claim if a job offer is withdrawn.

Read more:
Withdrawing a job offer can cost you more than you think

Britain’s best-loved purveyor of sausage rolls is finally packing its bags for the Costas.

Greggs, the Newcastle-headquartered bakery giant, has confirmed it will open its first shop outside the United Kingdom at Tenerife South Airport within the coming weeks, a landmark moment for a business that has spent more than eight decades feeding the British high street.

The announcement, which is likely to delight sun-seeking holidaymakers in equal measure to City analysts watching for signs of fresh growth, came alongside a trading update in which the FTSE 250 group struck a cautiously optimistic tone for the remainder of the year despite what it described as a “challenging market”.

Greggs told investors it expects “to deliver good first half profit progress” and reiterated its full-year outlook. Management indicated that pre-tax profits for the year are likely to be broadly flat against last year, with any uplift “contingent on a recovery in the consumer backdrop”. Analyst consensus pencils in sales of £2.29bn and pre-tax profit of £172.1m for the full year.

Like-for-like sales at company-managed shops rose 2.5 per cent in the first 19 weeks of the year, slightly below the 2.9 per cent recorded over the first 20 weeks of 2025. Total sales, however, advanced a healthier 7.5 per cent to £800m, buoyed by the continued rollout of new outlets. Encouragingly, the pace of growth has picked up in the most recent ten weeks of trading, with like-for-like sales accelerating to 3.3 per cent.

“We have made encouraging profit progress in the year to date, partly reflecting a weak comparator period but also good operational cost control,” the company said.

Greggs added 41 shops to its estate during the period, 17 of them franchised, and shuttered 21, taking its national footprint to 2,759 outlets. Management is targeting 120 net new openings over the current financial year and has set its sights on growing the chain beyond 3,000 sites in the long term.

Yet the move overseas has not silenced the sceptics. The slowdown in like-for-like growth has reignited debate over whether the Geordie giant is nearing saturation point on the British high street. Shares have shed close to a fifth of their value over the past twelve months, and Greggs remains one of the most heavily shorted stocks on the London market, with an estimated £150m wagered on further declines.

For now, though, attention turns to the Canary Islands, where pasties and steak bakes will soon take their place alongside tapas and tortilla. Whether the format travels, and whether franchising overseas proves a more capital-light route to international growth than building out a directly managed estate, will be the question keeping investors guessing through the summer.

Read more:
Greggs takes the sausage roll abroad with Tenerife debut