ISOLAS joined Gibraltar’s judiciary and legal profession at the Supreme Court for the Opening of the Legal Year, an occasion to reflect on the past year and the priorities ahead.

Our Partner and Chair of the Gibraltar Law Council, Emma Azopardi Lejeune, addressed the court on behalf of the profession and formally seconded the motion to open the new legal year. Emma highlighted significant developments, including Gibraltar’s removal from the grey list and progress on the Gibraltar–EU treaty.

Emma said: “The Opening of the Legal Year is an opportunity to reflect on what Gibraltar’s legal profession has achieved and the challenges ahead. The Law Council will continue to support and represent the profession as it responds to those changes.”

ISOLAS Commercial Litigation Partner James Montado added: “The Chief Justice reflected on how the Court needs to adapt as the work before it becomes increasingly complex and specialised. The move towards digitisation as a way of improving the administration of justice was of particular interest to us and we very much look forward to seeing how this develops.”

Neil Costa | Jamie Trinidad KC | James Castle | Shakira Marsh-Finch | Anna Hernandez | Emily Rose Pott | Solomon Kench | Rachel Soobiah | Annie White | Alannah Brittenden

Annie graduated from the University of Liverpool with Honours in Law and Spanish. She went on to complete the Legal Practice Course, achieving a Distinction, before successfully passing SQE2. Annie subsequently completed her legal training in the UK and qualified as a UK solicitor.

Alannah graduated from Leeds Beckett University with First Class Honours before completing the Bar Practice Course earlier this year, achieving a Distinction.

During their two-year training programme, Annie and Alannah will work across several departments, including Corporate & Commercial, Private Client, Property and Litigation.

Senior Partner The Hon Albert Isola CBE said: “Our trainee programme provides a strong foundation for a career in law, with the opportunity to learn from colleagues across the firm. We are delighted to welcome Annie and Alannah and look forward to supporting them throughout their training.”

ISOLAS LLP is pleased to announce the appointment of Partner The Hon. Neil Costa as a legally qualified member of Gibraltar’s newly established Gambling Appeal Tribunal.

Neil’s appointment took effect on 1 September 2026 and is for a term of three years.

Established under the Gambling Act 2025, the Tribunal will hear and determine appeals from decisions of the Gambling Authority or the Gambling Commissioner where a right of appeal is provided for under the Act.

The appointment comes at an important time for Gibraltar’s gambling sector, following the introduction of the Gambling Act 2025 and the continued development of the jurisdiction’s regulatory framework.

Senior Partner of ISOLAS LLP, Peter Isola, commented:

“We are delighted to see Neil appointed to the Gambling Appeal Tribunal. His extensive legal experience and distinguished career in both public service and private practice will bring considerable value to the work of the Tribunal. This also reflects the continued recognition of our Partners in key roles across Gibraltar’s legal, regulatory and business community. We congratulate him on this well-deserved appointment.”

Neil has been appointed alongside The Hon. Sir Peter Caruana KC, who will serve as Chairperson, The Hon. Daniel Feetham KC, Nathan Catania and Targ Patience.

ISOLAS LLP Senior Associate Danielle Victor represented the First Defendant throughout complex fatal accident proceedings arising from a road traffic collision which tragically resulted in the death of a motorcyclist.

The matter involved extensive case management, court appearances, expert evidence, and detailed legal argument concerning medical causation and the apportionment of liability between multiple defendants.

The proceedings arose from a road traffic collision on Queensway Road in April 2021. The deceased, a 55-year-old motorcyclist, sustained serious injuries when a vehicle turned across his path, resulting in a collision. He sadly died two days later. The circumstances of the claim required careful and sensitive handling given the loss of life at the centre of the proceedings.

While responsibility for the occurrence of the collision was not, in itself, disputed, the subsequent civil proceedings raised complex legal argument as to causation of the death and, if a causal link could be proven, the extent to which medical treatment provided following the accident contributed to the deceased’s death. The litigation therefore extended beyond the circumstances of the collision itself.

The claim was brought by the deceased’s estate against both the driver involved in the collision and the Gibraltar Health Authority. The proceedings involved extensive medical evidence and expert opinion addressing the relationship between the injuries sustained in the collision and the treatment provided thereafter. The matter raised difficult issues concerning causation, breach of duty and the allocation of responsibility between defendants.

The ISOLAS team, led by Senior Associate Danielle Victor and assisted by Associate Emily Pott, represented the First Defendant throughout the proceedings. The issues raised in the civil proceedings were also considered during a public inquest, which found that the deceased’s death was “a direct consequence of the injuries sustained in the road traffic collision, contributed to by a delay in recognising the intra-abdominal haemorrhage”.

Following detailed analysis of the evidence and extensive negotiations between the parties, the matter was ultimately resolved without the need for a contested trial. The case highlights the complexity that can arise in fatal accident litigation where issues of medical causation are disputed and multiple defendants are involved. It demonstrates ISOLAS’ experience in managing complex, multi-party litigation involving extensive medical evidence, contested legal issues and sensitive factual circumstances, while guiding clients through all stages of the court process.

Overview and Purpose

The Minister with responsibility for gambling has made the Prediction Market (Fees and Duties) Regulations 2026 (LN.2026/316). Enacted pursuant to the enabling powers under sections 155 and 175 of the Gambling Act 2025, this subsidiary legislation establishes the fiscal and licensing fee framework for prediction market operators in Gibraltar, aligning with the jurisdiction’s updated regulatory standards for the gambling sector.

Authorisation Fees

Regulation 3 prescribes the specific administrative fees required to obtain and maintain a prediction market authorisation. Operators must pay an initial application fee of £30,000. To maintain the authorisation, an annual fee of £100,000 is payable to the regulatory authority.

General Prediction Market Duty

In addition to the flat authorisation fees, the regulations introduce a transactional levy. A “General prediction market duty” is established at a rate of 0.15% of the commission charged by the operator. The regulations specify that no exemptions are applicable to this duty.

Commencement

The Prediction Market (Fees and Duties) Regulations 2026 came into operation on their date of publication, 13 August 2026.

Click here to see the full subsidiary legislation: Prediction Market (Fees And Duties) Regulations 2026

Following the entry into force of the Treaty on Gibraltar and the European Union, HM Government of Gibraltar has now published the TGEU Implementation (Frontier Workers) Regulations 2026 (LN.2026/319), which came into force on 13 August 2026.

The Regulations establish a new legal framework governing the rights of certain cross-border workers living in Spain and working in Gibraltar. They form part of Gibraltar’s implementation of Titles I and II of Part Four of the Treaty and are intended to provide legal certainty for frontier workers whilst facilitating continued labour mobility across the border.

For many years, Gibraltar’s economy has relied heavily on workers who reside in Spain and commute daily or weekly to Gibraltar for employment or self-employment. The new Regulations place those arrangements on a formal Treaty-based footing and set out both the rights afforded to frontier workers and the circumstances in which those rights may be restricted.

Who Qualifies as a Frontier Worker?
The Regulations define a frontier worker as a Union citizen who is legally resident in Spain and who either:
• Works as an employee in Gibraltar and returns to Spain at least once a week; or
• Carries on self-employed activities both in Gibraltar and Spain and returns to Spain at least once a week.
The framework is therefore designed specifically for genuinely cross-border workers who maintain their residence in Spain whilst carrying out economic activity in Gibraltar.
The Regulations also extend certain rights to qualifying family members, including:
• Spouses;
• Registered partners (where recognised under the relevant legislation);
• Dependent children and descendants under 21; and
• Dependent parents and grandparents.

Importantly, family members may qualify regardless of their nationality, provided they are legally resident in Spain.

Right to Work in Gibraltar
One of the key purposes of the Regulations is to preserve the ability of eligible frontier workers to access employment and self-employment opportunities in Gibraltar.
Eligible workers are granted the right to:
• Take up and pursue employment in Gibraltar;
• Register with Gibraltar’s employment services;
• Enter, stay in and leave Gibraltar for employment-related purposes; and
• Carry on self-employed activities in Gibraltar.

The Regulations expressly provide that these activities are to be undertaken in accordance with the same domestic rules that apply to British nationals in Gibraltar.

Equal Treatment Protections
A central feature of the new framework is the principle of equal treatment.
Employed frontier workers are entitled to the same treatment as employed British nationals legally resident in Gibraltar in relation to:
• Employment conditions;
• Pay and remuneration;
• Dismissal protections;
• Re-employment rights;
• Social and tax advantages;
• Trade union membership and participation; and
• Access to vocational training and retraining.

Self-employed frontier workers are afforded similar protections, particularly in relation to working conditions, social and tax advantages and training opportunities.
These provisions are intended to ensure that eligible frontier workers are not disadvantaged solely because they reside in Spain rather than Gibraltar.

Certain Public Service Roles Remain Restricted
Whilst the Regulations create significant employment rights, they do not guarantee access to every role.

Gibraltar may continue to restrict access to certain public service positions where the post involves participation in the exercise of public authority or responsibility for safeguarding Gibraltar’s general interests.

This reflects long-established principles found in European free movement law and recognises that some public functions may legitimately be reserved.

Retaining Frontier Worker Status
The Regulations also recognise that employment circumstances can change.
Frontier worker status may be retained in a number of situations, including where the individual:
• Is temporarily unable to work due to illness or accident;
• Becomes involuntarily unemployed after more than one year of employment;
• Becomes involuntarily unemployed following a short-term contract;
• Undertakes vocational training whilst unemployed; or
• Voluntarily leaves employment to undertake vocational training connected to previous employment.

In the case of certain shorter-term employment arrangements, retained status may continue for up to six months.

These provisions provide an important degree of protection during periods of temporary disruption or transition.

Rights of Family Members
The Regulations also contain provisions designed to protect family life.

Qualifying family members may benefit from equal treatment in relation to certain social and tax advantages where the frontier worker is employed or self-employed in Gibraltar.

In addition, children of frontier workers who reside in Gibraltar are entitled to equal access to education, apprenticeships and vocational training on the same basis as the children of British nationals working in Gibraltar.

Introduction of Frontier Worker Certificates
A practical and important change is the introduction of a formal certificate of status.
Applications are made electronically through eGov and must be supported by:
• Valid identification documentation; and
• Evidence that the applicant qualifies as a frontier worker.

The certificate serves as official proof of frontier worker status and will be valid for one year.

Applications for renewal will generally follow the same process.

The Director of Employment may refuse to renew or may revoke a certificate where the individual ceases to qualify as a frontier worker or becomes subject to a restriction measure under the Regulations.

The introduction of these certificates is likely to provide greater certainty for both workers and employers, particularly when demonstrating Treaty rights and employment eligibility.

Posted Workers
The Regulations also address the position of certain posted workers.

These provisions apply where a worker employed by a business established in Spain is temporarily posted to Gibraltar to provide services within the contiguous frontier area.

In those circumstances, posted workers are entitled to benefit from Gibraltar employment protections relating to matters such as:
• Working time and rest periods;
• Paid annual leave;
• Remuneration;
• Health and safety;
• Equality and non-discrimination protections;
• Protection of young workers and pregnant workers; and
• Certain travel and accommodation rights.

These provisions are intended to ensure fair competition whilst preventing undercutting of applicable labour standards.

Public Policy, Security and Health Restrictions
Although the Regulations confer significant rights, those rights are not absolute.

The authorities retain the power to impose restrictions on grounds of:
• Public policy;
• Public security; or
• Public health.

However, the Regulations impose important safeguards.

Any restriction must be proportionate, objectively justified and based on the personal conduct of the individual concerned.

Importantly, previous criminal convictions alone cannot automatically justify a restriction.

Public health measures are also limited and may only be imposed in specific circumstances.

Right of Appeal
Where a restriction measure is imposed, affected persons must be notified in writing and informed of:
• The reasons for the decision;
• Their right to appeal; and
• The applicable appeal deadlines.

Appeals are brought before the Supreme Court and generally must be commenced within 28 days.

The Court is empowered to consider:
• The legality of the decision;
• The factual basis for the restriction; and
• Whether the measure is proportionate.

This provides an important safeguard against arbitrary or excessive interference with frontier worker rights.

Our Observations

The Frontier Workers Regulations 2026 represent another significant step in Gibraltar’s implementation of the Treaty on Gibraltar and the European Union.

Unlike the recently introduced Residency Regulations 2026, which focus on the right to reside in Gibraltar, these Regulations are primarily concerned with protecting the rights of individuals who continue to reside in Spain whilst carrying out economic activity in Gibraltar.

For employers, the new framework provides a clearer legal basis for employing frontier workers and introduces a formal certification process that may assist in demonstrating employment eligibility and Treaty rights. For workers, the Regulations provide important protections regarding equal treatment, family rights and access to employment.

Given the economic importance of cross-border labour to Gibraltar, the practical operation of these provisions will be closely watched by employers, workers and advisers alike as the new Treaty framework begins to take effect.

ISOLAS regularly advises employers, employees, self-employed individuals and families on Gibraltar immigration, residency and cross-border matters. If you would like to discuss how the Frontier Workers Regulations 2026 may affect you or your business, please contact a member of our Private Client team.

ISOLAS LLP Partner, the Hon. Neil Costa, successfully represented Mr Saldana, who was acquitted of attempted rape following a criminal trial before the Supreme Court of Gibraltar. Neil appeared together with Arcelia Hernandez-Cordero of Ellul & Cruz.

The jury trial spanned 7 days, and Neil cross-examined various Crown witnesses. Neil was able to expose several material inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence under oath, including as against the physical evidence and the CCTV footage in the case. Most notably, at several point during his cross-examination of the complainant, Neil was able to elicit responses on important issues in which the complainant admitted to giving evidence that was contradicted by the CCTV footage. This adroit ability to cross-examine the witness may have proven crucial in the case.

Additionally, a legal issue arose after the Crown commented in its closing address upon Mr Saldana’s decision not to give evidence. Neil, relying upon section 337(2) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act 2011, submitted that the prosecution was prohibited from making Mr Saldana’s legally protected right not to give evidence the subject of any comment whatsoever.

Consequently, the Supreme Court Justice presiding over the trial directed the jury that the comment should not have been made and must be disregarded. The jury was expressly reminded that Mr Saldana did not have to give evidence or prove anything and that no assumption of guilt could be made because he had not given evidence.

Following its deliberations, the jury returned a majority verdict of not guilty.

For further information, please contact ISOLAS LLP.

ISOLAS LLP contributes to Chambers and Partners Doing Business In… 2026 Guide

ISOLAS LLP is pleased to announce its contribution to the Gibraltar chapter of the Chambers and Partners Doing Business In… 2026 Guide.

Partners Emma Lejeune, Adrian Pilcher, Stuart Dalmedo and Nick Isola, together with Senior Associates Danielle Victor and James Castle, and Associates Louise Anne Turnock and Danielle Curtis, provide expert insights into Gibraltar’s legal framework and business environment.

The chapter offers a comprehensive overview of Gibraltar’s jurisdiction, including its legal system, court structure and regulatory landscape, providing valuable guidance for businesses considering Gibraltar as a jurisdiction of choice.

Commenting on the contribution, ISOLAS Partner Adrian Pilcher said:

“We are delighted to contribute to the 2026 edition of this guide. Our insights reflect Gibraltar’s continued commitment to providing a robust, transparent and internationally recognised framework for business and investment. We are proud to share our knowledge of the jurisdiction and support businesses seeking to understand the opportunities available in Gibraltar.”

The full Gibraltar chapter is available here: ➡️Doing Business In… 2026 – Gibraltar | Global Practice Guides | Chambers and Partners

ISOLAS LLP is delighted to announce that it has once again retained its Band 1 ranking in the Chambers and Partners High Net Worth (HNW) Guide 2026, reaffirming its position as a leading private client firm in Gibraltar.

Senior Partner Peter Isola, and Partners Emma Azopardi Lejeune and Adrian Pilcher TEP, continue to be recognised as Band 1 lawyers.

Partner Stuart Dalmedo has retained his Up and Coming ranking, further recognising his growing reputation in the private client sector, particularly in the area of taxation.

Chambers HNW Guide recognises the leading advisers to high net worth clients globally. Clients praised ISOLAS for its “highly experienced team with broad depth of legal knowledge” and highlighted the firm’s expertise across estate planning, trusts, foundations, taxation and corporate structures.

Clients also recognised the firm’s responsive and practical approach, noting that ISOLAS “provided excellent service and high quality of staff” and guided matters through from start to finish with professionalism and efficiency.
Individual recognition included:

Peter Isola, described by clients as “a man of great depth and experience”, with his extensive knowledge of Gibraltar’s legal landscape providing significant value to clients.

Emma Lejeune, praised for being “incredibly responsive and resourceful” and fully dedicated to meeting client needs.

Adrian Pilcher, recognised for his exceptional commercial awareness and strategic advice.

Stuart Dalmedo described as “outstanding throughout”, with clients highlighting his clear advice, responsiveness and professionalism.

Senior Partner The Hon Albert Isola CBE said:

“We are delighted to once again receive Band 1 recognition in the Chambers and Partners High Net Worth Guide. This reflects the strength, expertise and dedication of our private client team and the trust our clients place in us.”

ISOLAS LLP Partner, the Hon. Neil F Costa, acted for Mr Karl Danino in his partly successful appeal against sentence before the Court of Appeal for Gibraltar (the ‘Court’). Neil Costa appeared together with Jeevan Daswani of Attias & Levy who instructed ISOLAS LLP.

In a judgment delivered on 13 July 2026, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part and reduced the Appellant’s overall sentence from eight and a half years’ imprisonment to seven and a half years. The original sentence comprised two elements: 8 years 1 month for an offence of aggravated burglary and a 20-week consecutive sentence for an offence of threats to kill. The judgment, Danino v Rex [2026] GCA 009, was given by Sir Patrick Elias JA with Sir Nicholas Underhill JA and Sir Nigel Davis P agreeing.

Background to the appeal

The appeal’s principal focus was the sentence for aggravated burglary. The appeal advanced four principal grounds concerning errors in: (a) the categorisation of the aggravated burglary offence; (b) the treatment of the aggravating and mitigating factors; (c) the reduction afforded for the guilty plea; and (d) the application of the totality principle. The appeal raised questions concerning the relevance of a mental disorder to an offender’s culpability and the correct approach to psychological and emotional harm described in victim personal statements.

Aggravating and mitigating factors

The appeal succeeded in relation to the treatment of the aggravating and mitigating factors. The Court concluded that there had been a material degree of double counting as follows:

(a) in treating the fact that the burglary was of a dwelling house as an aggravating factor. The Court held that the harm suffered by the victims in having their privacy and security infringed had already been taken into account when assessing the emotional harm both to the victim and, more especially, to her parents;

(b) in treating the fact that the offence occurred shortly after 8.00 pm as an aggravating factor. In so far as the timing of the offence may have aggravated the experience for the victims, this had already been taken into account when assessing the victims’ emotional and psychological harm; and

(c) in treating the use of drink and drugs as an aggravating factor. The taking of illicit substances was an important feature in evaluating the impact of the Appellant’s mental disorder on his offending. It should not have been given weight again.

In considering the relevant matters in the round, Sir Patrick Elias concluded that: ‘…the aggravating and mitigating factors are properly to be viewed as cancelling each other out.’ The appropriate sentence for aggravated burglary, before the application of the reduction for the guilty plea, was, therefore, eight years rather than nine years.

The Court also considered fresh evidence concerning the Appellant’s conduct while in custody. The evidence demonstrated that the Appellant had behaved constructively in prison, had participated voluntarily in drug testing with negative results, and had entered into a compact committing himself to good behaviour. The Court regarded those matters as lending support to the genuineness of the Appellant’s remorse and to the efforts he had made to address his longstanding difficulties.

The Court’s decision

After applying the 10% reduction for the guilty plea and adding the consecutive sentence imposed for the offence of threats to kill, the Court imposed an overall sentence of seven years and seven months. The Court rounded that term down to seven and a half years partly in recognition of the Appellant’s constructive conduct in custody.