ISOLAS LLP is delighted to announce that Partner, Adrian Pilcher, has been selected as a finalist in the STEP Private Client Awards in the Trusted Adviser Category.

STEP is the internationally recognised professional body for trust and estate practitioners, setting global standards in the field. This recognition reflects both Adrian’s expertise and the strength of ISOLAS’ Private Client practice. We congratulate Adrian on this well-deserved achievement.

Adrian shared his thoughts below:

“I am deeply honoured to have been named a finalist in the STEP Awards in the Trusted Adviser Category. As the world’s leading and most internationally respected professional body for trust and estate practitioners, STEP represents the very highest standards of excellence in our profession.

What makes this recognition especially meaningful is that it follows our first-ever submission. To be acknowledged alongside such accomplished individuals and firms from across the globe is both humbling and rewarding.

While this nomination bears my name, it is very much a reflection of the outstanding team I am privileged to work with at ISOLAS. Their expertise, dedication, professionalism and unwavering support have been instrumental in making this achievement possible. I am sincerely grateful to my colleagues, whose commitment to delivering exceptional service to our clients inspires me every day.

Reaching the finalist stage is a tremendous honour in itself, and I am proud to share this recognition with the entire team.”

In a move that has been widely welcomed, Spain has now formally removed Gibraltar from its list of non-cooperative jurisdictions, bringing to an end a designation that had been in place since 1991.

The delisting follows the International Agreement on Taxation and the Protection of Financial Interests between the United Kingdom and Spain regarding Gibraltar (commonly referred to as the Gibraltar-Spain Tax Agreement), which entered into force in 2021. The Agreement established a framework for tax cooperation and transparency between Gibraltar and Spain and removed the basis upon which Spain had continued to maintain Gibraltar on the list.

Whilst the announcement is significant in its own right, its practical implications may be even more important. Gibraltar’s inclusion on the list was referenced throughout various areas of Spanish tax legislation and could result in enhanced scrutiny and the application of certain restrictions and anti-avoidance provisions in cross-border scenarios.
Its removal therefore has the potential to reduce a number of the historical frictions affecting individuals and businesses with connections to both Gibraltar and Spain.

Although the precise implications will depend on the relevant facts and circumstances, the removal of Gibraltar from the list is likely to be relevant wherever Spanish tax rules have historically applied by reference to Gibraltar’s classification as a non-cooperative jurisdiction. Businesses and individuals with existing cross-border arrangements may therefore wish to revisit long-standing assumptions in light of this development, including the potential application of anti-avoidance provisions, exemptions and reliefs under Spanish domestic law.

Viewed alongside the recent agreement on Gibraltar’s future relationship with the European Union, which is expected to facilitate the removal of the physical frontier between Gibraltar and Spain, the delisting represents a further step towards reducing historical barriers to cross-border movement and economic activity. As a firm that regularly works alongside Spanish advisers on Gibraltar-Spain cross-border matters, we expect many clients to be considering the practical implications of these changes in the months ahead.

ISOLAS LLP was pleased to host a briefing on AI, GDPR and the EU AI Act, delivered by Partner James Montado and Senior Associate James Castle. 

As artificial intelligence continues to be increasingly adopted across professional services, understanding the evolving regulatory and governance framework is becoming essential for businesses, advisers, and boards alike. 

The session generated strong engagement and discussion, reflecting the high level of interest in this topic across the business and professional community. 

The briefing provided valuable insight into the developing compliance landscape, along with practical considerations for organisations as AI regulation continues to take shape across Europe. 

Due to oversubscription, a second session will be held on Thursday 2nd July at 9:30am. To register your interest, please email events@isolas.gi.

The Government of Gibraltar has published the new residency criteria designed to ensure that applicants demonstrate a genuine economic connection to the jurisdiction, while safeguarding public resources and promoting sustainable growth.

1. Core Eligibility Requirements
Individuals applying for a residence permit must satisfy the following criteria:

• Employment: Applicants must hold a valid employment contract with a Gibraltar-based business, which has been trading for at least a year and is properly established, registered, licensed, and compliant with its regulatory and tax obligations.
• Minimum Earnings: The contract must generally reflect earnings aligned with the average gross annual salary in Gibraltar (currently indicated at approximately £37,500, subject to annual updates).
• Minimum Salary Waiver: If the applicant is below 30 years of age, the requirement to have a minimum annual salary aligned with the average gross annual salary of Gibraltar (£37,500 subject to annual updates) may be waived if the employer pays the tax and social insurance contributions as if the employee’s salary were the gross annual earnings in Gibraltar as per the Employment Survey of that year.
• Accommodation: Applicants must evidence suitable accommodation in Gibraltar, either through ownership or a long-term rental (minimum 12 months), which must serve as their primary residence. If the primary residence/property is purchased, it cannot be let during the duration of the residence permit and must be legitimately available for the applicant’s exclusive use during that period.
• Age Requirement: Applicants are generally required to be aged 55 or under, subject to limited discretion.
• Vetting: A formal vetting process from the applicant’s country of origin is required.

2. Additional Requirements for Businesses operating for less than a year or self-employed Individuals

Where an applicant is connected to a newer business or is self-employed, the following requirements will apply:

• An advanced payment will be required equivalent to the following:
a. Total employee and employer social insurance contributions for the first year of employment; and
b. The total tax payable on the equivalent of the average gross annual earnings in Gibraltar, taxable at 25%.

3. Business Registration Requirements

• For a business to obtain registration under the Business, Trades and Professions (Registration) Act and licensed under the Fair-Trading Act, the CEO of the Department of Business may have regard to factors which may include:

o The creation of full time or part time employment in Gibraltar;
o The provision of in-demand skills required in the jurisdiction;
o The rental of suitable office or commercial space in Gibraltar;
o A positive tax filing history; and
o The future generation of economic activity in Gibraltar.

4. Anti-Avoidance and Monitoring Measures

The proposed regime includes the following safeguarding measures:

• Employment terms will be monitored to ensure that salary levels are not reduced after a permit is granted without reasonable justification.
• Authorities will verify that employers remain compliant with all financial and regulatory obligations.

5. Renewal and Ongoing Conditions

Residence permits are not indefinite and are subject to continued compliance:

• Permits will be renewable annually, requiring confirmation that all eligibility criteria continue to be met.
• A permit may lapse automatically 8 weeks after the filing of a Notice of Termination of Terms of Engagement, unless a new employment contract has been filed.
• If payments of tax or social insurance are stopped, unless the employee can produce evidence that payments have been deducted from their salary but not paid by the employer, their residence permit will automatically lapse.

6. Benefits of Residence

Gibraltar residence provides limited but important entitlements:

• Healthcare

• Schooling in Gibraltar for any children under the age of 18, unless in full time education

• A scholarship for any dependent child after 10 years of continuous lawful residence and uninterrupted payment of tax and social insurance

7. Restrictions on Social Benefits

Residents will not generally be entitled to:

• Public housing or affordable housing
• Elderly residential care or domiciliary care
• Berths in the Small Boats Marina (or any other Government Berthing Scheme)
• Other wider social benefits

Only residents who are British Citizens and have a period of 20 years of residence will then be able to apply for Gibraltarian Status and access all services.

8. Partners of Individuals

Unmarried partners of an individual with Gibraltarian Status shall be permitted to reside in Gibraltar where evidence is provided of a relationship of a minimum period of 2 years.

Additionally, any individual who is applying for residence in Gibraltar wishes for their spouse to reside with them shall pay an amount equivalent to the maximum employee’s social insurance contributions to the Government of Gibraltar on behalf of their spouse.

Individuals applying for residence may only be accompanied by their spouse and/or children.

9. Transitional Provisions

• Individuals already resident in Gibraltar prior to 6 October 2025 will remain subject to the current regime.
• The new criteria will primarily affect new applicants.

10. Fines

Individuals residing in Gibraltar without a Permit of Residence may be imposed a fine of up to £2,500.

11. Category 2 Status and High Executive Possessing Specialist Skills (HEPSS)

It should be noted that the above residency criteria do not apply to individuals holding, or applying under, Category 2 Status or HEPSS. These regimes remain unchanged and, as we understand it, the existing residence requirements applicable to Category 2 and HEPSS individuals continue to apply independently of the new rules.

Partner Emma Lejeune attended the 3rd Annual Private Client Advisory & Litigation Forum in Versailles, a leading international forum for advisers, litigators, trustees and family office professionals in the private wealth sector.

The forum addressed key themes in international private wealth, including succession planning, governance, cross-border structuring and developments affecting complex private client matters.

Emma’s engagement reflects her continued focus on cross-border private client matters, including issues relating to families, governance, trusts, estates and fiduciary structures.

Commenting on the event, Emma said:
“The value of this forum lies not only in the topics discussed at each panel session but more generally, in the quality of discussion with practitioners from different jurisdictions. Many of the issues affecting private clients are inherently cross-border, and these conversations provide important insight into emerging risks and approaches.”

ISOLAS continues to engage actively in leading international discussions on private client and wealth structuring matters.

ISOLAS LLP is pleased to have advised Cheyne SVC Hybrid Credit Fund Investments SCA, Cheyne European Special Situations Fund Investments SCA and the Barings Group, as Arrangers/Lenders, together with Global Loan Agency Services Limited and GLAS Trust Corporation Limited, as Agent/Security Agent, on the Gibraltar-specific financing aspects of Balaena Group’s acquisition of APCL Group.

APCL Group is a leading British marine engineering company with operations across Birkenhead, Falmouth and Tyneside. The acquisition marks an important milestone for Balaena Group, owner of Gibdock, and further strengthens its position in the maritime engineering and shipbuilding sector. The transaction also reinforces Gibraltar’s strategic role as a gateway to the Mediterranean, with the enlarged group bringing together facilities across Gibraltar, Padstow, Tyneside, Birkenhead and Falmouth, creating a network of 12 dry docks serving both defence and commercial ship repair and refit work.

The ISOLAS LLP team was led by Partner Christian Hernandez, with key assistance from Associates Shakira Marsh-Finch and Anna Hernandez, and Legal Assistant Michelle Morgan.

Christian Hernandez commented:
“We are delighted to have supported Cheyne, Barings and the GLAS entities on this strategic financing. This transaction highlights the team’s depth of experience and expertise in complex, multi-jurisdictional financings, and our ability to deliver commercially focused Gibraltar legal advice at the very highest level.”

This transaction further reinforces ISOLAS LLP’s standing as a leading Gibraltar law firm for finance, corporate and transactional work.

 

We are delighted to once again support the KPMG Gibraltar eSummit. Now in its 15th year, the eSummit remains a key event in Gibraltar’s business calendar.

As a longstanding supporter of the event, ISOLAS contributed to a day of insightful discussions exploring the opportunities and challenges shaping the future of the gaming sector and Gibraltar’s wider digital economy.

Senior Partner Albert Isola CBE hosted Andrew Lyman, Gibraltar’s Gambling Commissioner, in a fireside chat covering current topics of interest, including the Gambling Act, the regulatory approach, the Treaty, UK tax, and recent developments.

Partner Steven Caetano joined the M&A panel, discussing investment trends and strategic opportunities within the industry whilst Partner James Montado joined the AI Futures panel, exploring the transformative impact of artificial intelligence and the practical considerations businesses need to address.

Thank you to KPMG Gibraltar for another outstanding event, and congratulations on hosting the 15th eSummit. We look forward to continuing these conversations for many years to come.

UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] UKUT 00081 (IAC),

The decision in UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department represents an important judicial intervention into the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in legal practice, highlighting the risks such tools pose to core professional duties, particularly client confidentiality and legal professional privilege. Although arising in an immigration context, the Tribunal’s observations are of general application across all areas of legal practice.

The Tribunal clearly recognised the limitations of generative AI, particularly freely available, non-specialist tools, which may produce superficially persuasive but entirely inaccurate outputs, including fabricated authorities and incorrect citations. Such “hallucinations” are not treated as novel or excusable errors but as foreseeable risks which legal professionals are under a positive duty to guard against. Lawyers remain under an absolute obligation to ensure that all authorities cited are accurate, verifiable, and properly support the propositions advanced, irrespective of whether AI has been used.

Importantly, the decision makes clear that the use of AI does not dilute or displace traditional principles of professional responsibility. Even where work is delegated to junior fee-earners or produced with the assistance of technological tools, the supervising solicitor retains full responsibility for its accuracy. The Tribunal went so far as to state that a failure to supervise and verify work which contains AI-generated errors may render the supervising lawyer more culpable than the individual who initially introduced those errors. In that sense, the case underscores the continuing relevance of established principles of supervision and accountability, whilst adapting them to the realities of modern legal practice.

Most notably, the judgment provides unequivocal guidance on confidentiality and privilege. The Tribunal stated that uploading client documents or correspondence into open-source AI tools (such as free versions of Chat GPT) may place such material in the public domain, thereby breaching confidentiality and thus waiving legal professional privilege. Given that privilege is contingent upon confidentiality, any such loss is potentially irreversible, regardless of the practitioner’s intention.

The Tribunal further situated this risk within the broader regulatory and data protection framework, noting that such conduct may give rise to reporting obligations to professional regulators and the Information Commissioner’s Office. However, it drew an important distinction between open-source AI tools and secure, closed enterprise systems, indicating that the latter may be used more safely where appropriate safeguards are in place.

In conclusion, UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department stands as a landmark decision in the emerging jurisprudence on AI in legal practice. Its importance lies in its clear articulation of a principle which will undoubtedly shape future conduct, whilst ensuring the preservation of legal privilege remains paramount, and any use of technology which jeopardises that protection will undoubtedly offer consequences. The case therefore serves as both a warning and a guide, reminding practitioners that whilst the tools of legal practice may evolve, the core duties which underpin it remain unchanged.

HM Government of Gibraltar has today published confirmation that Spain’s Ministry of Finance has issued a draft Ministerial Order to remove Gibraltar from its list of non-cooperative jurisdictions, marking a significant and long-awaited milestone.

If implemented following the short 7 day public consultation period, this will bring to an end a designation that has remained in place since 1991, despite Gibraltar’s long established record as a transparent and internationally cooperative Jurisdiction.

The proposal recognises that Gibraltar now satisfies Spain’s domestic criteria for fiscal transparency and tax fairness, aligning Spain’s position with Gibraltar’s standing internationally, including its OECD “white list” status for many years.

Beyond the symbolism, the practical implications are important. Gibraltar’s inclusion on the Spanish blacklist has historically triggered a range of adverse domestic tax consequences, particularly affecting individuals and businesses with cross-border connections. Its removal should therefore reduce friction, provide greater certainty in residency and structuring considerations, and remove a number of technical barriers that have persisted notwithstanding the Gibraltar-Spain Tax Agreement.

It is also noteworthy that this step fulfils a commitment given by Spain when the Gibraltar-Spain Tax Agreement entered into force in March 2021, albeit later than originally envisaged. The publication of the draft Order suggests that Spain is now moving to honour that undertaking.

From a broader perspective, this development reflects Gibraltar’s continued alignment with evolving international tax standards and its positioning as a credible, well-regulated financial services jurisdiction.

Importantly, this announcement comes at a time when agreement has been reached on the future UK–EU treaty in respect of Gibraltar, with implementation expected shortly. That treaty is expected to remove the physical border between Gibraltar and Spain, fundamentally reshaping the movement of people, goods and services across the frontier.

Taken together, these developments point to a clear and very positive shift in the cross-border dynamic, moving away from historic friction and toward greater cooperation, legal certainty and economic alignment.

Overall, this represents a genuinely significant moment for Gibraltar, with meaningful implications for its international positioning and for businesses and individuals operating across the region, aligning itself to the stated ambition of the European Union, Spain, the United Kingdom and Gibraltar of a shared prosperity for the region.

 

 

 

 

ISOLAS’ Property Litigation team, led by Partner Mark Isola KC and assisted by Partner Nicholas Isola and Trainee Solomon Kench, represented its landlord client in relation to an application by the tenant to the Supreme Court of Gibraltar for a renewal of its tenancy for the minimum prescribed term of five years under Part IV of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1983 (LTA 1983), and which was not opposed by the landlord. The landlord was seeking to insert a new term in the new tenancy, to allow it to break the new lease within that minimum prescribed period of five years and which the tenant opposed.  The Supreme Court of Gibraltar determined that a break clause within the minimum prescribed term of five years should be included in the new lease.

This decision confirmed an earlier decision of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar in Amro Bank NV v Sanguinetti [1999-2000] Gib LR 326, where the tenant itself was seeking the insertion of a break clause within the minimum term of five years prescribed under the LTA 1983, and provides helpful guidance on the exercise of the Court’s discretion under the LTA 1983 as to whether to insert a landlord’s break clause as a new term.

Background

The tenant operated its business from the premises under a lease that was granted for a term of five years in 2016 and which it held over on when it expired, and subsequently continued under the LTA 1983 when notice was served by the landlord terminating the existing tenancy.

Whilst the parties agreed on the duration of the new tenancy to be granted under the LTA 1983 to be for five years and at an agreed annual rent, the central issue in dispute was whether the Supreme Court had the power to insert a landlord’s break clause to permit the landlord to determine the tenancy on 30 June 2029 on giving six months’ prior written notice, and if so, whether the Supreme Court should exercise its discretion to do so on the facts and circumstances of this case.

Legal touchpoints

The issues for the Supreme Court were:

1. whether the insertion of such a break clause contravened the requirements of s. 52 of the LTA 1983, which requires that the minimum term for a new Part IV tenancy granted by the Supreme Court under LTA 1983 should be for a minimum of five years (First Issue); and

2. if a break clause could be inserted within the minimum prescribed period of five years, whether the Supreme Court should include a new term comprising of the break clause in the new tenancy to be granted by it (Second Issue).

Judgment

On the First Issue, the Supreme Court held that the insertion of a break clause within the minimum term of five years prescribed by s. 52 of the LTA 1983 did not conflict with the requirements of s. 52 of the LTA 1983, and could be included by the Supreme Court in exercise of its powers under s. 54 of the LTA 1983. The Supreme Court decided in line with the decision in ABN Amro Bank NV that a break clause was not a term going to the duration of a tenancy. Moreover, such a break clause granted an option to terminate a tenancy, but it did not impose an obligation to do so, and if it was not exercised, then absent other relevant circumstances such as forfeiture, the tenancy could only be terminated at the end of its term.

On the Second Issue, the Supreme Court considered a two-stage test. Firstly, whether there was a real prospect of the landlord developing the premises on obtaining possession from the tenant on exercise of the break clause. Secondly, if so, whether the landlord should be permitted an opportunity to seek to redevelop the building earlier than the minimum term of five years prescribed by s. 52 of the LTA 1983, which required an assessment of what was a fair and reasonable balance of the landlord’s and tenant’s competing interests in the light of all relevant circumstances.

The Supreme Court “had no doubt that there [was] a real possibility that the premises [would] be required for reconstruction” noting in particular that (a) the landlord had purchased the premises specifically for redevelopment and to occupy it for its own business purposes; (b) planning permission for redevelopment had been granted and but for the tenant’s premises the building was vacant; and (c) the landlord had revised its plans to carry out the works in two phases, with the first phase not requiring vacant possession of the tenant’s premises, and the second phase to be undertaken once the tenant had vacated the premises.

The Supreme Court held that there were no “countervailing major facts or factors” that prevented it from ordering the insertion of a break clause. The tenant’s position was not akin to a case of “significant financial and logistical prejudice” with the tenant’s evidence indicating that its business relied on regular customers and recommendations (not walk-ins), that its precise location was not crucial to its success, and that it had considered moving to alternative premises on termination of the tenancy. Any disruption involved with such a move would not create unsurmountable difficulties.

The Supreme Court held that the facts and circumstances supported the insertion of a break clause having evaluated the parties’ competing interests so as to strike as fair and reasonable a balance between them as the circumstances permitted.

The judgment is available here: Miss Shapes Limited v Breccia Limited, 2026/GSC/022