Latest Posts

The Real Cost of Avoiding Difficult Conversations

This article was published in the May/June 2025 edition of London Business Matters.

In the evolving landscape of Employment Law, one of the most overlooked risk management tools remains having timely, honest and evidence-based conversations. Employers and their managers who shy away from addressing performance issues, interpersonal conflicts, or inappropriate behaviour may find themselves not only presiding over a dysfunctional workplace – but also facing costly employment tribunal claims.

At the heart of many legal disputes lies a missed opportunity: the chance to address an issue when it first emerged. Whether it’s concerns around an employee’s capability, conduct, or fit within a team, early intervention – when handled correctly – can defuse tension, provide clarity, and create a constructive path forward. Crucially, it can also demonstrate that an employer acted reasonably, a central test in many legal claims.

Delaying these conversations, often out of discomfort or fear of confrontation, can send the wrong message. Employees may feel blindsided by sudden disciplinary action or formal procedures, particularly if they were never made aware of concerns informally. This perceived unfairness can become the seed of future grievances, claims of discrimination, or unfair dismissal cases.

From a legal perspective, employers may be able to prove they have a fair reason for any formal legal action however, tribunals will also examine whether the employer followed a fair process, and the employee treated fairly and reasonably. Was there open communication? Was the employee given a chance to improve or respond? Early, documented conversations – rooted in professionalism rather than blame – can become vital evidence that the employer acted appropriately.

So why do managers avoid difficult conversations?

Having practised Law for over 25 years, I’ve supported countless businesses with costly tribunal claims many of which may have been avoided if managers had embraced having those initial difficult conversations.

Below are some of the most common reasons managers avoid difficult conversations:

1. Fear of conflict or damaging relationships
2. Not knowing where to start after they have let concerns slide
3. Lack of time and capacity
4. Fear of creating a legal claim
5. A culture of blame creating a fear of finger pointing

Training managers in conversation frameworks, emotional intelligence techniques, and a working understanding of employment law principles is essential if they are to feel empowered to manage situations fairly and confidently. It is well worth the investment and may just save your business a costly tribunal claim further down the line.

If you would like to get in touch about our employment law offerings, please contact us via the form below.

Read More

Yesterday’s Losses, Tomorrow’s Gains

The 2024/25 tax year has just come to a close, which means the window is now open to submit that year’s tax returns.

If you have been investing in cryptoassets, you need to think carefully about whether you have a tax liability, and whether you need to submit a tax return. Now would be a good time to review our previous guidance on cryptoasset taxation.

Hopefully you have some big gains to report. However, sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose. Not every year is necessarily going to be a success: sometimes you may find that your losses in a tax year outweigh your gains.

While no-one enjoys losses, there is one silver lining, as you can carry them forward to future years. This means that when (hopefully) you make gains in the future, you will be able to offset these losses, and so reduce your Capital Gains Tax bill.

However, there is a catch, as you can only make use of losses that you have reported to HMRC within four years of the end of the tax year in which they arose. If you fail to tell HMRC about them within this period, then they are simply wasted.

You can of course report losses within a tax return, but if you are not required to submit a tax return for the relevant tax year, you can still simply write to HMRC to claim the losses. They will then be available to carry forward indefinitely until you have capital gains to offset them against.

For example, after a bad year of cryptoasset investments you might find yourself with net losses of £100,000. Then, in a future year, you might end up with net gains of £200,000. Provided you remembered to claim the losses in time, you can offset the loss, which (at a top Capital Gains Tax rate of 24%) will save you £24,000 in tax.

It’s not just your actual losses that can be claimed. If you have tokens that have become worthless, or if you have lost one of your keys, you may be able to put in a negligible value claim, which generates a loss as though you had sold the token for a nil value.

The cryptoasset experts in the Private Wealth & Tax team at Quastels can help with these issues. They are able to calculate your income and gains (or losses) and can assist in reporting this to HMRC. They can also provide advice on tax and estate planning with cryptoassets, as well as advising on the law regarding digital assets and digital estate planning generally.

Read More

Investor Confidence and the UK’s Crossroads: Why the Reintroduction of the Investor Visa Matters

The UK finds itself at a delicate juncture. In the wake of recent tax reforms, most notably the abolition of the non-dom regime and the extension of inheritance tax to foreign assets, the country is facing a sustained departure of high net worth individuals. For many international investors, the UK’s longstanding appeal as a secure and tax-efficient destination is being reconsidered.

This shift is more than symbolic. The movement of wealth, capital, and confidence away from the UK poses tangible economic consequences: reduced inward investment, a shrinking tax base, and a weakening of the UK’s position as a global financial hub. The figures are stark. Thousands of millionaires are now exploring or executing relocation strategies. In their wake, they leave behind not only tax contributions, but also the entrepreneurial energy, philanthropic support, and ecosystem investment that underpin vibrant economies.

In this context, discussions around reviving the UK’s investor visa take on renewed significance. Once viewed as a flawed and underutilised route, the Tier 1 Investor Visa was closed in 2022 following criticism over its due diligence framework and the lack of demonstrable economic benefit. However, a modern and fit for purpose investor route, anchored in transparency, strategic alignment, and economic substance, could form part of a broader effort to reframe the UK’s value proposition to globally mobile individuals.

What Might the New Investor Visa Look Like?

In his earlier article The Return of the Investor Visa, Jayesh Jethwa explored the potential contours of a revised scheme—one that reflects both political realities and economic imperatives. Based on that vision and recent reporting, the reintroduced visa is likely to move away from passive wealth migration and instead favour targeted, high-impact investment aligned with the UK’s industrial strategy.

Key features may include:

1. Strategic Investment Sectors: Applicants may be required to invest in designated sectors such as artificial intelligence, life sciences, green technology, advanced manufacturing, and infrastructure.
2. Increased Thresholds: The minimum investment may be raised significantly from the previous £2 million benchmark, possibly starting from £5 million or higher, with incentives for greater economic contribution.
3. Active Participation: Rather than allowing wholly passive investment, applicants could be encouraged or required to take a substantive role in business operations, innovation partnerships, or job creation.
4. Enhanced Due Diligence: Learning from the failings of the previous scheme, there will likely be a more robust vetting process, with heightened scrutiny of source of funds and investor background.
5. Performance-Based Extensions: Continued leave or settlement may depend on demonstrable economic impact, such as job creation, capital deployment in qualifying businesses, or technology transfer.

This would mark a departure from the model of “residence for capital” that defined the original investor route, replacing it with a framework rooted in contribution, alignment with national priorities, and reputational safeguards.

Crucially, a reimagined investor visa must avoid the pitfalls of its predecessor. Rather than merely attracting capital for capital’s sake, it should be designed to channel investment into sectors that support long term national priorities such as technology, clean energy, infrastructure, and life sciences. It must also go hand in hand with enhanced scrutiny of applicants, ensuring the integrity of funds and alignment with the UK’s legal and ethical standards.

This is not about selling visas. It is about recognising the contribution that responsible and engaged investors can make to a country’s prosperity and designing policy accordingly. In doing so, the UK has an opportunity to regain ground lost in recent months, rebuild investor confidence, and signal a strategic openness to the world.

At Quastels, we have long advised clients on routes that combine personal relocation with meaningful economic engagement. As pressure mounts for a more globally competitive immigration framework, we are working closely with our clients and partners to anticipate developments and design long term strategies.

The return of the investor visa, if done right, offers a chance not just to stem the tide of departures, but to recalibrate the UK’s approach to global talent, capital, and economic partnership.

Read More