In the context of employment law, one of the biggest risks to employers is the, often overlooked, two-pronged nature of unfair dismissal; a need for a valid reason for dismissal and procedural fairness. The requirement to ensure fair process ensures employees are given advance notice of performance or conduct issues and opportunity and support to either turn things around, where possible, or defend themselves. To avoid the risks of failing to meet these standards, employers need to plan and implement disciplinary procedures, which include an opportunity for the employee to hear the case, respond to it and present their side. This usually takes place in the context of a formal disciplinary hearing.

The use of a script at a disciplinary hearing therefore requires care and consideration; they may help ensure consistency and prevent accidental oversight or omission of any relevant matter in the moment, but misuse could also lead to a lack of authenticity, stilted or unnatural dialogue that prevents real communication and, in the worst case scenario, either pre-judgement or the appearance of the same. These could all lead to challenges to the fairness of the disciplinary process as a whole.

The Rationale behind Scripts

Scripts in any meeting have some fairly obvious advantages, particularly where it comes to maintaining organisation, structure and consistency.

Consistency in treatment ensures fairness between all employees, holding them to the same standard, as well as ensuring managers hearing a case are themselves clear in their instruction and responsibilities. This ensures the process is smoother, and clear expectations for all parties in advance is useful considering that the situation will often be new, and by nature uncomfortable, for those involved. The structure provided by a script can be useful in reducing combative feelings that may emerge when an employee feels personally attacked by allegations, and a manager can feel justified by having agreed points of discussion to cover.

Prompts can help ensure that the manager conducting the hearing remembers to raise all issues and evidence relevant to the disciplinary matter in question. This is critical when a failure to take something important into consideration in their decision could challenge the fairness of the process. Lord Denning, in a case brought to the Court of Appeal in the UK (Abernathy v Mott, Hay and Anderson), noted that ‘[an] employer can only rely on the reason in fact for which he dismissed the man, if the facts are sufficiently made known to the man’, and Lord Cairns’ agreed that ‘it could constitute a breach of procedural fairness [to not give] the worker the accurate charge’. A script for a hearing can ensure there is clear evidence both that all reasons behind the disciplinary have been put to the employee for their fair response and that the employer has clear evidence that the response has been considered if challenged later. A plan will also help ensure that key procedural and compliance steps are followed, such as confirming the employee is aware of their right to be accompanied. Though seemingly small, these matters and records can prove to be crucial evidence that the employer has been fair, unbiased and met established reasonable standards.

The Drawbacks of Scripts

However, an employer should be cautious of the risks of a script leading to, whether actual or perceived, lack of impartiality. If too strictly followed, employees may feel the process is predetermined and that can lead to a case that is flawed in its very nature, and open to later legal challenge. Employers need to keep in mind that the purpose of a disciplinary hearing, as mentioned, is to give the employee a fair hearing and opportunity to defend themselves against any allegations in front of an unbiased decision-maker. If a script is so rigid as to limit or prevent full and fair consideration of evidence and arguments, there is a risk that any subsequent dismissal could be rendered unfair on the procedural ground. Employers should note that the Employment Act, governing unfair dismissal in Gibraltar, explicitly puts the onus on them to show that they acted ‘reasonably in treating [the reason for dismissal] as sufficient reason for dismissing the employee’ – the disciplinary hearing is also the employer’s opportunity to demonstrate that they have sufficiently investigated the matter.
Quite apart from these legal implications of improper use of a script in a disciplinary hearing, there is also the effect that such inflexibility will have on the individuals in the room. Employees may feel frustrated by a lack of perceived empathy and due attention to the specifics of their case, which can in turn lead to a breakdown in trust and morale with management and their employer. For the managers involved too, this can limit their ability to respond dynamically to new information or adapt their communication-style to different circumstances, as may be helpful. The purpose of a disciplinary hearing, it is worth remembering, is not just a procedural exercise to mitigate legal risks, but an important opportunity to attempt to improve a situation, for both the employee and employer.

Finding the Balance

The key when using a script in a disciplinary hearing, then, is to find the balance between management going in blind and insufficiently prepared and following a uniform plan so mechanically as to be too rigid and potentially giving the perception of unfairness. It is advisable to use a script to create a structure for the hearing, ensuring all relevant points known in advance are raised and procedural matters are covered, to better enhance consistency, compliance and fairness to the employee. However, it should be stressed that a script should not be used to limit full explanation, clarification or investigation of further points that may arise and be relevant, not least for potential future legal defensibility. Open-ended questions are advisable, as well as active listening and further pursuit of any lines of interest before return to the general plan, rather than pre-defined back-and-forth closed questioning. Employers should view scripts as a supportive tool to help them ensure consistent treatment and full consideration of disciplinary matters prior to judgement and not as a tick-boxing exercise prior to a predetermined outcome.

Changes to the rules of cross-border law between Gibraltar and the UK and Gibraltar and Europe: looking forward

In the previous article of this two-part series (available here), we explored the key changes to Gibraltarian law on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments brought in by the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) Act 2025.

In this article we look forwards, examining how these changes are being implemented for legal cases which are already in progress. This article will also set out the future changes which are coming in this area, like the implementation of the 2019 Hague Convention in Gibraltarian law under the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (2019 Hague Convention etc.) Regulations 2025.

The impact on cases already in progress

Some cases with international elements will already be in progress, with arguments soon to be made about whether the courts of Gibraltar should have jurisdiction or whether a judgment should be recognised or enforced. For such cases, there are provisions in the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) Act 2025 which mean that the old procedures for determining jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement as contained in the Lugano Convention, the Brussels Conventions and the Brussels Recast Regulation may continue to apply in Gibraltarian law.

In legal cases which were begun in a Gibraltarian court before 1 January 2021, the question of whether the Gibraltarian court or the courts of an EU or EFTA country or the UK should have jurisdiction to determine that claim will be decided in line with the Brussels Conventions, the Lugano Convention and the Brussels Recast Regulation, so long as these procedures would have applied before 1 January 2021.

Similarly, if a person obtained a judgment following a legal case that was started in the court of an EU or EFTA country or the UK before 1 January 2021, the question of whether that judgment can be recognised or enforced in Gibraltar will be decided in line with the Brussels Conventions, the Lugano Convention and the Brussels Recast Regulation so long as these procedures would have applied before 1 January 2021.

It is notable that the cut-off for the application of the Brussels Conventions is not 7 November 2025 (the date of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) Act 2025) but is earlier: 31 December 2020. Therefore, it might not be possible for a person who has obtained a judgment in a case that started in July 2023, while the Brussels Conventions were treated as being in effect in Gibraltarian law, to now rely on the Brussels Conventions to enforce the judgment in Gibraltar. Instead, that person would need to attempt to enforce the judgment under currently applicable procedures such as the 2005 Hague Convention or the common law procedure or (if they are applicable) the Brussels Recast Regulation or the Lugano Convention. Similarly, if a case were started in July 2023 in Gibraltar and there was a question as to jurisdiction which has not yet been decided, this might not be able to be determined under the Brussels Conventions.

The continued application of the Lugano Convention and the Brussels Recast Regulation for in-progress cases is slightly different. Apart from applying in respect of cases arising or judgments given before 1 January 2021, the processes set out in the Brussels Recast Regulation and the Lugano Convention also continue to apply for determining jurisdiction in legal cases begun in a Gibraltarian court before 7 November 2025, or recognition or enforcement of a judgment given by a court in an EU or EFTA country or the UK after 31 December 2020 but before 7 November 2025.

The correct procedure to follow for determining jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in cases that are already ongoing is thus something of a patchwork.

The 2019 Hague Convention

The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) Act 2025 also creates a power for the Minister for Justice to make regulations to implement into Gibraltarian law any international agreement which relates to private international law. This power has already been used, in the form of the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (2019 Hague Convention etc.) Regulations 2025 which were published on 13 November 2025. These Regulations will implement into Gibraltarian law the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters concluded on 2nd July 2019 at The Hague (known as the 2019 Hague Convention). It is notable, however, that the implementation of the 2019 Hague Convention into Gibraltarian law has not yet happened, as the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (2019 Hague Convention etc.) Regulations 2025 will not take effect until a further notice is published in this respect in the Gibraltar Gazette.

The 2019 Hague Convention relates to the recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial foreign judgments and, when implemented, it will allow more types of foreign judgments to be recognised and enforced in Gibraltar. To date, the contracting states are the UK, the EU (except Denmark), Ukraine, Montenegro, Uruguay, Andorra, and Albania. However, it is notable that unlike the Brussels Conventions, the Lugano Convention, the Brussels Recast Regulation or the 2005 Hague Convention, the 2019 Hague Convention does not apply to jurisdiction, only recognition and enforcement of judgments. Even in respect of recognition and enforcement of judgments, various matters are excluded from the scope of the 2019 Hague Convention, such as, among others, judgments on family law matters, insolvency, defamation and intellectual property.

Circumstances where the 2019 Hague Convention will apply include (among others): where the person against whom recognition or enforcement is sought was habitually resident or had their place of business in the country where judgment was given; where the person against whom recognition or enforcement is sought brought the claim in question or otherwise submitted to the jurisdiction of the country where judgment was given; where the judgment relates to obligations arising out of land situated in the country where the judgment was given; or where there is a contract, and the judgment is from a court in the country where performance of the contractual obligations happened (apart from in certain circumstances).

There is one other notable ground for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment under the 2019 Hague Convention which may plug a gap in the sort of judgments that can be recognised and enforced in Gibraltar under the 2005 Hague Convention (which already applies in Gibraltarian law). Under the 2005 Hague Convention, judgments can only be recognised and enforced from a country chosen by the parties under an exclusive choice of court agreement. Under an exclusive choice of court agreement, both parties agree that one specific court (and no others) will determine any dispute that arises between them, no matter which party starts the dispute. However, it might not be possible to recognise and enforce a judgment under the 2005 Hague Convention when that judgment has been obtained from a court in a country chosen by the parties through an asymmetric jurisdiction clause- e.g. Party A can sue Party B in any country, but Party B can only sue Party A in Gibraltar.

The 2019 Hague Convention, however, when implemented, will include a ground for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment from a court in a country which the parties to the judgment had chosen (so long as the parties’ choice of court is not an exclusive choice of court agreement). This may therefore allow judgments obtained under asymmetric jurisdiction clauses to be enforced in Gibraltar, as for this ground of the 2019 Hague Convention to apply the parties need not agree that all proceedings be brought in the same court in the same country. This may give parties more flexibility in agreeing which country disputes between them should be brought in, while still allowing any judgment obtained under their agreement to be recognised and enforced in Gibraltar.

Even when the 2019 Hague Convention is implemented into Gibraltarian law, however, there will be exclusions as to its effect. In particular, it will not be possible to recognise and enforce certain judgments in relation to rights to land under the 2019 Hague Convention and certain judgments will not be able to be recognised or enforced against consumers.

Changes to appeals in respect of the 2005 Hague Convention

Apart from giving effect to the 2019 Hague Convention in Gibraltar law, when the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (2019 Hague Convention etc.) Regulations 2025 come into effect they will also alter the procedures for recognising and enforcing judgments in Gibraltar under the 2005 Hague Convention.

In particular, these new regulations will alter the appeals procedure for a decision of the Supreme Court to register a judgment so that it can be recognised and/or enforced in Gibraltarian law under the 2005 Hague Convention. Rather than appeals being made to the Court of Appeal, as they are now, they would instead return to the Supreme Court.

These new regulations will also introduce a new test setting out when the Supreme Court must overturn a decision to not register a judgment under the 2005 Hague Convention. Previously, the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1993 was silent as to how the Supreme Court should decide an appeal against such refusals to register judgments.

Where next?

The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) Act 2025 is just the latest example of Gibraltar making amendments to EU-derived law and other law connected with the EU. In this case, these amendments were due to the decision by EU and EFTA countries to not reciprocate in applying the rules in the Lugano Convention, the Brussels Conventions and the Brussels Recast Regulation to Gibraltar in the same way that Gibraltar was applying them to EU and EFTA countries. This is, however, very unlikely to be the end of the road for divergence between Gibraltarian law and EU law.

However, this may also not be the end of the Minister for Justice’s use of his power in the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) Act 2025 to implement international agreements into Gibraltarian law. Gibraltar is, after all, included in the UK’s application to rejoin the Lugano Convention in its own right- though this application has been blocked for now. This may therefore be an interesting space to watch, particularly in the context of the new relationship being forged between Gibraltar and the EU in the post-Brexit treaty on Gibraltar and the EU, with a potential for future convergence instead of divergence from EU law.

As Gibraltar’s relationship with the EU continues to evolve, reliable advice on the law is more important than ever. ISOLAS LLP, your trusted advisor since 1892, can help you cut through the noise and confusion of the post-Brexit landscape to give you confidence and clarity in your cross-border transactions or disputes. Get in touch here.

Changes to the rules of cross-border law between Gibraltar and the UK and Gibraltar and Europe

In our increasingly interconnected world, cross-border law becomes more important every day. Gibraltarian companies are doing business on the international stage, with customers and partners from across Europe and beyond. As the law of each country and territory differs, it is vital to understand how these systems of law from different countries and territories interact. If a company based in France has a dispute arising from a contract it has with a Gibraltarian company, that company needs to know which country it can bring its claim in. This is then decided by the law on jurisdiction. If the French company then obtains a judgment from a French court against the Gibraltarian company, the key question then becomes how to make sure the Gibraltarian company complies with the French judgment. If all the assets of the Gibraltarian company are in Gibraltar, a French court may not have any control over them. That is where the law on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments comes in.

The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) Act 2025 came into effect on 7 November 2025. There are two key changes made by this new Act. Firstly, the processes have changed for the recognition and enforcement of foreign European and UK judgments in Gibraltar. Secondly, there have been changes to the rules for determining whether, in cross-border cases spanning Gibraltar and another European country or Gibraltar and the UK, a Gibraltarian court has jurisdiction to deal with the case. These changes mean that it may be harder, or in some cases no longer possible for foreign European judgments to be enforced in Gibraltar, and that Gibraltarian courts may have more jurisdiction to rule on cases which might otherwise have fallen within the jurisdiction of another European country.

This article is the first of a two-part series. This article will highlight what has changed in the rules on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement under Gibraltarian law, and the second part will drill down into the impact of these changes on cases which are already in progress, together with looking ahead to future changes in the law in this area.

Gibraltarian law in this area was largely dominated by EU law. As Gibraltar was a member of the EU by virtue of the UK’s membership, Gibraltar left the EU at the same time as the UK, on 31 January 2020. Following a transitional period, most of EU law which applied in Gibraltar on 31 December 2020 was incorporated into Gibraltarian law. Following Brexit, therefore, Gibraltar is now free to amend or repeal EU-derived law, such as the law on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Gibraltar.

Recognition or enforcement?

Recognition and enforcement of a judgment are slightly different, though related concepts.

Recognition involves a Gibraltarian court treating the issues decided by a foreign court as having been conclusively determined between the parties to a legal case for the purposes of Gibraltarian law. A person may use recognition of a foreign judgment to resist a claim brought in Gibraltar, for example on the grounds that the claim being brought against them has already been decided by a foreign court.

Enforcement, on the other hand, is the process by which a person ensures that a judgment that they have obtained by a foreign court is carried out in Gibraltar. Importantly, a judgment can only be enforced in Gibraltar if it has first been recognised under Gibraltarian law.

The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) Act 2025

The law on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Gibraltar is multi-faceted, with many different regimes having arisen over the years. The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1993 only relates to some of the methods for determining jurisdiction and recognising and enforcing foreign judgments in Gibraltar, though it is nevertheless a key piece of legislation in this area. This key piece of legislation has now seen sweeping changes with the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) Act 2025.

In brief, the Lugano Convention, the Brussels Conventions and Regulation 1215/2012 (known as the Brussels Recast Regulation) no longer have effect in Gibraltarian law. In parallel, however, procedures very similar to those of the 1968 Brussels Convention have been enacted to regulate the jurisdiction of civil claims between Gibraltar and the UK and allow for the continued recognition and enforcement of UK judgments in Gibraltar.

The Lugano Convention was relevant in Gibraltar for determining jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters between Gibraltar and Norway, Iceland and Switzerland. The Lugano Convention also provided for the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters from Norway, Iceland and Switzerland in Gibraltar. It is noted that Norway, Iceland and Switzerland, together with Liechtenstein, form the European Free Trade Association, or EFTA.

The Brussels Conventions (the first of which dates from 1968), as subsequently amended, laid down rules about determining jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters between Gibraltar and EU member states (including the UK). The Brussels Conventions also allowed for judgments from any EU member state to be recognised and enforced in Gibraltar. While Gibraltar was within the EU, the Brussels Conventions were almost entirely replaced by the Brussels Recast Regulation.

These rules for determining jurisdiction and regimes for recognition and enforcement of judgments from EU and certain EFTA countries have now, however, been swept away by the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) Act 2025.

Not all change

The 2005 Hague Convention continues to have effect in Gibraltarian law under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1993. This Convention provides for determining jurisdiction between certain countries (including all EU member states) and Gibraltar, and the recognition and enforcement of judgments from certain countries (including all EU member states) in civil and commercial matters where there is an agreement between the parties involved for any disputes to be decided only by the courts of a jurisdiction which is a party to the 2005 Hague Convention. The 2005 Hague Convention is therefore only relevant in cases about a contract between parties in which the parties have agreed which country claims in respect of the contract have to be brought in. The provisions relating to the 2005 Hague Convention in the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1993 remain unaltered by the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) Act 2025.

Similarly, the 2007 Hague Convention, which relates to certain family law matters with a cross-border element, continues to have effect in Gibraltarian law. The provisions in the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1993 in respect to this Convention also remain unchanged by the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) Act 2025.

New procedures for determining jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement

Recognition and enforcement of judgments from an EU member state, Norway, Iceland or Switzerland in Gibraltar may still be possible, but must now instead proceed under a different procedure under Gibraltarian law, such as the 2005 Hague Convention mentioned above (if applicable), or the common law procedure, which is the default mechanism for enforcement and recognition of foreign judgments in Gibraltar where no other treaty applies.

However, use of these different procedures to recognise and enforce judgments in Gibraltar, rather than the Brussels Conventions, the Lugano Convention or the Brussels Recast Regulation may mean that less types of judgments from EU member states, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland may be enforced in Gibraltar, and that a greater range of defences against the enforcement of such judgments may be available.

For determining whether the courts of Gibraltar or those of Norway, Iceland, Switzerland or an EU member state should have jurisdiction to decide a legal case, similarly, now that the Brussels Conventions, the Lugano Convention and the Brussels Recast Regulation no longer apply in Gibraltarian law, a different procedure must be used. This may be the 2005 Hague Convention or common law rules. However, in evaluating whether the courts of Gibraltar or another European country should have jurisdiction to decide a dispute with international elements, using these different procedures may actually make it easier than it was under the Lugano Convention, the Brussels Conventions or the Brussels Recast Regulation for a person to establish under Gibraltarian law that the courts of Gibraltar have jurisdiction to decide the claim.

The procedure that will now be applicable for enforcement of UK judgments in Gibraltar is contained in the new Part V of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1993 and is based upon the procedures in the 1968 Brussels Convention, as amended. One notable difference under this procedure compared to the previous rules is that UK judgments must first be registered with the Supreme Court of Gibraltar before being enforceable in Gibraltar. This registration process was not required when the Brussels Recast Regulation applied in Gibraltarian law.

Likewise, the procedure now applicable in Gibraltarian law for determining whether the courts of the UK or Gibraltar should have jurisdiction in a legal case is now governed by procedures based on the Brussels Conventions and not by the Brussels Recast Regulation. While these procedures are largely similar, there are differences and nuances between them. For example, there are special rules in both the Brussels Conventions and the Brussels Recast Regulation requiring certain claims involving consumers to be brought in the country where the consumer is domiciled. However, the rules about jurisdiction in claims involving consumers in the Brussels Recast Regulation covers more types of consumers than the rules in the Brussels Conventions. Therefore, by moving away from the Brussels Recast Regulation to the Brussels Conventions procedure for determining jurisdiction between Gibraltar and the UK, it may be easier under Gibraltarian law for a consumer to sue or be sued in a country other than his or her home country.

What happens next?

In part two, we will examine in detail the transition from the old rules on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments to the new rules and the impact on cases currently in progress. We will also look forward to what is coming next, including the impact of the upcoming application of the 2019 Hague Convention in Gibraltar law under the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (2019 Hague Convention etc.) Regulations 2025, published on 13 November 2025.

As Gibraltar’s relationship with the EU continues to evolve, reliable advice on the law is more important than ever. ISOLAS LLP, your trusted advisor since 1892, can help you cut through the noise and confusion of the post-Brexit landscape to give you confidence and clarity in your cross-border transactions or disputes. Get in touch here.

ISOLAS LLP is proud to again support #GIBLDN25, which is now celebrating its 25th anniversary. The events provided an opportunity for Gibraltar to celebrate its relationship with the City of London and keep our colleagues there updated on recent developments.

Gaming Partner Steven Caetano welcomed guests to the Gaming Breakfast on Monday 20 October together with Senior Partner The Hon Albert Isola CBE A welcome was given by Grainne Hurst CEO, BGC, followed by remarks by the Minister for Justice, Trade and Industry, Nigel Feetham KC MP and Gibraltar’s Gambling Commissioner Andrew Lyman The event was closed by Nicholas Macias, Secretary General, Gibraltar Betting and Gaming Association.

The Financial Services Lunch at Mansion House followed with Senior Partner, The Hon Albert Isola CBE, formally introducing Gibraltar’s Chief Minister Fabian Picardo. The lunch brought together experts across various sectors within the City providing the opportunity for Gibraltar to update those present on the latest developments and reinforce its position as an international finance centre.

On Tuesday 20 October Insurance Partner Christian Caetano played host to ISOLAS guests at the Insurance Breakfast held at The Auditorium at DAC Beachcroft. A panel discussion considered Gibraltar’s ever developing insurance sector, a significant pillar of Gibraltar’s economy.

Wednesday 22 October begun with the Funds Breakfast, opened by Minister Nigel Feetham, held at the Royal Automobile. ISOLAS Funds Partner and Chair of GFIA, Jonathan Garcia moderated a panel discussion with panellists Jay Gomez, Heather Adamson, Sam Vatvani, Marta Wyrobek and James Lasry CIFD TEP.

Private Client Partner’s Emma Azopardi Lejeune and Adrian Pilcher TEP welcomed ISOLAS guests to this years Private Client Lunch with Emma once again moderating the panel discussion. The panellists discussed challenges today’s private client faces from tax to banking, structuring to investments and property. The panellists included Steph Gemson, Marvin Cartwright, Chris Moorcroft, Rob Cohen and Oliver Andlaw.

A highlight of the week was the launch of the #GIBLDN25 Business Conference, hosted by Minister for Business, Gemma Arias-Vasquez held at the iconic OXO Tower. With impressive views of St Paul’s Cathedral as a backdrop, the conference provided a platform for forward-looking dialogue on Gibraltar’s future, including a fireside chat with the Chief Minister Fabian Picardo and Attorney General Michael Llamas CMG KC on the EU/UK treaty negotiations concerning the Gibraltar-Spain border and Gibraltar’s entry into the Schengen area.

ISOLAS are committed to supporting Gibraltar’s legal and financial services locally and internationally.

The now annual Peter J Isola Foundation Five-a-Side Football Tournament celebrated its fifth year last Friday once again proving to be an enormous success and matching last year’s record fundraising total of £4,500 in aid of the GBC Open Day.

Fifteen teams took part in a fun but competitive tournament, demonstrating community spirit that have made this event such a highlight in the local calendar.

Adding to the fun atmosphere the day featured a lively and highly entertaining Bubble Football Play-Off, which saw GBC take on Gib Bank in a match enjoyed by spectators as much as by those participating. Players tumbled, bounced, and collided in good fun, capturing the light-hearted and inclusive spirit that defines this event every year.

After a series of closely contested matches the Senate team claimed victory in the final against RBS rounding off the tournament in great form.

The Hon. Albert Isola CBE, Trustee of the Peter J Isola Foundation, expressed his gratitude and pride in the continued growth of the event, saying:

“We are thrilled to have reached the fifth year of this tournament, which brings together colleagues, friends, and local businesses in the spirit of fun and giving. To once again raise £4,500 for the GBC Open Day is a fantastic achievement, and we are deeply grateful to all those who took part, supported, and donated. A big thank you to Genevieve and Tammy and all the others who have worked so hard to make this a success”

Tammy Isola, Trustee of the Peter J Isola Foundation, added:

“This event has become one of our favourite days of the year; it brings people together, creates so much laughter and positivity, and most importantly, raises funds for a cause that touches the whole community. We are incredibly proud of everyone who took part and grateful for the continued support that makes this possible.”

The Foundation extends its sincere thanks to all the teams and supporters who made this year’s event possible, to the GSLA team for their invaluable support and assistance with the facilities, to Saccone & Speed for generously providing the marquee, and to our own PJI Foundation fundraising team for organising another fantastic event.

The Peter J Isola Foundation was honoured to host Christian Hook for his first-ever solo exhibition in Gibraltar, “This Is It”, which was held at the Victory Suite, Rock Hotel.
The night was a remarkable celebration of art and community spirit centred around Gibraltar’s most talented and internationally acclaimed artist. Christian’s presence and engagement captivated a full audience offering a uniquely honest and emotional insight into his creative journey and what this exhibition meant to him.

The highlight of the night came as our in-house auctioneer Joey Imossi led the auction of Christian’s breathtaking equestrian piece, “Hybrid Amine Horse” which he had most generously donated to be auctioned for the benefit of the Foundation and its excellent work. After a wave of excitement and competitive bidding, the hammer came down at £105,000, thanks to the generosity of Sam Buxton.

PJI Trustee Albert Isola CBE said:

“Christian’s generosity and humility made this evening truly special. His decision to donate “Hybrid Amine Horse” and to bring his work home to Gibraltar for what he described as the “first and last opportunity” for locals to acquire his art reflects a deep and genuine connection to his roots. We are enormously grateful to Christian for his donation of this exceptional piece. He is a truly exceptional talent and Gibraltar is fortunate to have him here.”

Alongside his private collection, Christian also unveiled a stunning new series, “No Mud, No Lotus”, inspired by his family, his time in the Dubai desert and the Bedouins’ navigation by the stars blending imagination, technology, and tradition in his own unique way.

We extend our heartfelt thanks to Christian Hook for his generosity, to Joey Imossi for his entertaining and skilful auction of the work, and to Genevieve Soussi and the Peter J Isola Foundation team for their hard work, as well as everyone who attended and supported the evening.

All proceeds from the auction will go directly towards the Foundation’s ongoing work to support our community.

ISOLAS is delighted to announce that we will be attending #GIBLDN25 week from 20th to 22nd October.

Our team will include Partners, Steven Caetano, Adrian Pilcher TEP, Emma Azopardi Lejeune, Christian Caetano Jonathan Garcia and Senior Partner The Hon Albert Isola CBE, who will be participating in a range of events as follows:

• Monday 20th October: Gibraltar Betting and Gambling Association Breakfast
  Financial Services Lunch
• Tuesday 21st October: Insurance Breakfast
  Gibraltar Business Conference
• Wednesday 22nd October: Private Client Lunch

We look forward to engaging with clients, colleagues, and professionals during what promises to be an exciting and insightful week.

If you are attending or would like to arrange a meeting with one of our team, please feel free to reach out directly.

The Opening of the Legal Year, inaugurated with a solemn ceremony at the entrance to the Supreme Court on Friday 26th September, signalled the beginning of a new legal year.

Chair of the Law Council and ISOLAS Partner, Emma Azopardi Lejeune, delivered a keynote address highlighting the Council’s achievements over the past year and had the honour of formally seconding the motion to open the new legal year. This was particularly significant as it marked her first year serving as Chair, and the first time a woman has held this prestigious position.

Reflecting on the occasion, Emma said: “It is a privilege to serve as Chair of the Law Council and an honour to be the first woman to hold this role. I hope this sets the path for more women in the legal profession to take on the role in the future. The work that the Law Council does is very important to our profession and I am proud of all that the Council has done this year in support of our legal community. We will continue to build upon this as this new legal year progresses.”

The Opening of the Legal Year is a cornerstone of Gibraltar’s legal calendar, reminding us of the central role the legal profession plays in our society. ISOLAS remains proud to demonstrate its commitment to the highest standards of legal practice and continue to actively contribute to the development of Gibraltar’s legal profession.

Partner Sarah Bray and Associates Katrina Isola & Letizia Greco attended Gibraltar’s Second Dementia Conference Living with Dementia and Understanding the Dementia Pathway in Gibraltar this morning.

Sarah spoke about the importance of Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs) what they are, how they work, and why they matter. It was encouraging to see people from all sectors in Gibraltar join in and discuss all and any questions they had regarding LPAs.

It was an interactive session that allowed the audience to discuss topics such as reframing the conversation on LPAs only being for a certain age group, the importance of timing when putting in place an LPA (when one has mental capacity), incorrect societal assumptions, common issues faced by families, and about the positive and cost-effective aspects of planning ahead, as LPAs work as planning tools rather than reactive tools.

We would also like to recognise Jeanette Ochello, Chairperson of the Gibraltar Alzheimer’s & Dementia Society (GADS), for her dedication and leadership in supporting people living with dementia and their loved ones.

If you would like further information with regards to LPAS please contact Sarah.

Gambling Act 2025 part 2 sets the statutory framework for licensing and regulation. It defines the roles of the Licensing Authority and the Gambling Commissioner, establishes key regulatory objectives, and grants the Minister powers to intervene where necessary. This modernised regime delivers a clear, accountable structure aligned with international best practice.

Read the full summary by Partner Steven Caetano here