The Labour Party has criticised Conservative Shadow Attorney General Lord Wolfson for acting as a lawyer for sanctioned Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich.

Justice Minister Jack Richards said it was “inexcusable” for him to retain his position on the Tory frontbench while representing Mr Abramovich, arguing it risked a conflict of interest.

The Conservatives said the comments were “pure politics” and a “baseless smear”, adding that “barristers work for clients, not for causes”.

Lord Wolfson is part of the legal team representing the former owner of Chelsea Football Club in his court battle with the Jersey government.

The UK government banned Mr Abramovich in March 2022, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The accusation against the oligarch, who made his fortune in oil and gas, is that he has strong ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, a claim he denies.

More than £5.3 billion worth of assets linked to Mr Abramovich have been banned by the Jersey courts since their approval.

The Government of Jersey initiated an investigation in April 2022 to ascertain the origin of the funds, leading to a protracted legal dispute.

The Justice Minister claimed the case was blocking the transfer of funds from the sale of Mr Abramovich’s Chelsea FC, which the government wants to give to victims of the war in Ukraine.

In 2022, Mr. Abramovich said the £2.5 billion raised from the sale should be used for “all victims of the war”—meaning the Russians could also benefit.

In a letter to Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, Richards said, “Mr Abramovich’s position is that the transfer of funds cannot be completed until the end of the court case in Jersey in which Lord Wolfson is representing him.

“As Shadow Attorney General,

Lord Wolfson has a key role in setting Conservative Party policy.

“As a salaried representative of Mr Abramovich, he has a financial interest in the question of whether and when Mr Abramovich’s assets are transferred to benefit the people of Ukraine.”

In his letter, the minister raised a number of questions, including whether Lord Wolfson played a role in formulating the party’s position on transferring funds from the sale of Chelsea FC and whether he had declared an interest in it or recused himself from the process.

Richards said that the “cab rank rule”—the principle that a barrister must take any case within his area of expertise, regardless of the client—”should always be respected, but it cannot remove conflicts of interest or eliminate the responsibility of politicians to avoid such conflicts.”

He added, “Lord Wolfson’s ability to advise you in relation to this matter is clearly compromised by the fact that he is being paid to act on Mr Abramovich’s behalf.

“If he wishes to continue to represent clients whose interests are directly linked to the policies of the Government and HM the Opposition, then that is a matter for him – but he cannot do that while serving in your shadow cabinet.”

A Conservative Party spokesman responded by saying, “We have instructed Lord Wolfson in the ongoing legal proceedings in Jersey.” He has not been instructed on the Chelsea FC matter.

“Jake Richards’ comments are pure politics, and they show Labour still doesn’t understand how the bar works. Barristers work for clients, not causes.”

The spokesman accused Labor of “rank hypocrisy,” pointing out that Attorney General Lord Harmer, the government’s chief legal adviser, represented former Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams before becoming a minister.

He added, “The Conservative Party has led the way in supporting Ukraine and we remain committed to its cause. Suggesting otherwise would represent a new low for the Labour Party.

There has been a delay in releasing the funds received from the sale of Chelsea FC, which are currently deposited in a British bank account, due to a standoff over how they should be used.

Under UK sanctions, Mr Abramovich cannot access the money, but the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea remain legally his.

Earlier this month, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer urged the oligarch to “pay up now” or face court action.

Chart-topping K-pop band NewJeans’ record label, Ador, is suing one of the band’s members in what is yet another twist in their bitter year-long feud.

Hybe, the record label’s parent company, confirmed to the BBC that it is suing Danielle Marsh, one of her family members, and ex-boss Min Hee-jin for $30m (£22m) in damages and as part of a contract break penalty.

Minji’s uncertain return has plunged the band into further turmoil, leaving them with just three members.

Coming less than two months after reports that NewJeans would return to the label as a band of five, this news dashes fans’ hopes of a comeback.

Many took to social media with the slogan “NewJeans is five or nothing”, while others questioned why Danielle was singled out.

“Does this make any sense??? NewJeans without Danielle isn’t NewJeans. Is it possible to remove a member so easily? Give us back Danielle,” one wrote in an X post.

“It’s not fair at all. Free NewJeans [all five members],” another wrote on Instagram. “All they wanted to do was to be [artists] and make their fans happy.”

NewJeans, which became the eighth biggest-selling act in the world a year after their debut in 2022, was considered a game-changer by critics for their blend of 1990s R&B and sugar-coated pop melodies.

Then came a dramatic fallout with the record label Ador in 2024, sparked by the controversial dismissal of the agency’s former CEO Min Hee-jin, whom NewJeans regarded as a mentor.

The move shook the K-pop world.

The move shook the K-pop world, setting off a battle between hugely successful and very young stars – they are between 17 and 21 years of age – and the South Korean entertainment giant, Hybe.

NewJeans accused Ador of “mistreatment” and “deliberate miscommunication and manipulation”, then announced they would leave the agency. Ador, in turn, launched a lawsuit blocking their departure, which it won in October of this year. A district court ruled that New Jeans must honour their contract with the label, which runs until 2029.

A month later, local media reports indicated that all five members would return to the agency.

Then in a surprising turn, Ador issued a statement on Monday, saying it had terminated its contract with Danielle and would take legal action against a family member of hers and Min, who founded the label and created NewJeans before her dramatic departure.

Both of them, Ador claims, “bear significant responsibility” for the fallout between the agency and the K-pop group.

Monday’s statement did not mention a lawsuit against Danielle, saying only that Ador had decided it was difficult to continue working with her and told her they would be ending the contract.

Ador asserted that “persistently distorted and biassed information” had exposed NewJeans’ members, resulting in “significant misunderstandings” about the label.

That statement named two other NewJeans members: Hanni, who it said decided to remain with the label after “extended conversations” which included her family, and Minji, who is still in “ongoing conversations” with the agency.

It’s been a whirlwind for fans, especially since Ador initially announced in November that only two members, Hyein and Haerin, would return to the agency, sparking fears the group would split up.

These fears were allayed when Hanni, Danielle and Minji said in a separate statement hours later that they too would return – but only for a short time, as it turns out.

“NewJeans is a significant group that changed the world of female K-pop acts. For the music listeners and fans, it has been the hope to see their return as a full five-member team. That’s no longer possible,” music critic Lim Hee-yun told the BBC, adding that this outcome would not “make anyone happy”.

Mr Lim believes Ador would be pressured to recruit new members into the group, especially if Minji also leaves the label.

It is hard for three-member groups to find success in the K-pop industry, where fans pay close attention to the relationships and chemistry between members.

Danielle’s future as a musician is also uncertain.

“Not only will there be a large part of the public that sees her negatively [because of this controversy], but the record labels will too… She might need to pursue being a solo act as an actor, model, or influencer,” Mr Lim said.

Typical household energy costs will increase slightly on Thursday when the new energy price cap takes effect.

Separately, the regulator Ofgem has said customer bills will rise by around £30 a year over the next six years to help fund a major investment in the UK’s energy network.

However, that announcement followed an earlier government pledge in the budget to remove some other costs from annual energy bills, worth about £150 to a typical household.

The energy cap covers around 19 million households in England, Wales, and Scotland, and it is set by Ofgem every three months.

It fixes the maximum amount customers can be charged for each unit of gas and electricity on a standard – or default – variable tariff for a typical dual-fuel household that pays by direct debit.

Actual bills depend on the amount of energy used.

The price cap sets the unit prices for gas and electricity, but your household’s actual bill depends on the overall amount you use and how you pay for it.

The type of property you live in, how energy efficient it is, how many people live there and the weather all make a difference.

The Ofgem cap is based on a “typical household” using 11,500 kWh of gas and 2,700 kWh of electricity a year with a single bill for gas and electricity, settled by direct debit.

The vast majority of people pay their bill this way to help spread payments across the year. Those who pay every three months in cash or a check are charged more.

In December, Ofgem said it had approved a £28bn investment to improve the electricity and gas grids in Great Britain.

It says this will strengthen the energy supply and better shield customers from volatile energy prices. It will also reduce Britain’s dependence on gas.

Customers will foot part of the cost, through an additional £108 added to energy bills by 2031. Bills will start to rise from April 2026.

However, Ofgem says the investment will make wholesale energy cheaper overall, saving households about £80 a year, leading to a net energy bill rise of about £30 a year.

In the November Budget, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced measures to cut energy costs from April 2026.

At the moment, energy bills in England, Scotland and Wales already include additional charges to help fund insulation for low-income households and subsidies for green energy projects such as wind farms and solar panels.

Reeves said the insulation scheme – called the Energy Company Obligation – would be scrapped, and for three years, renewable energy projects will be 75% funded by general taxation instead of a levy on energy bills.

She said this would take £150 off average annual dual-fuel bills.

After taking into account the increase as a result of the Ofgem announcement, it means average energy bills should fall by about £120 a year.

Submitting a meter reading when the cap changes means you are not charged for estimated usage at the wrong rate.

This is especially important when prices go up.

Customers with working smart meters do not need to submit a reading, as their bill is calculated automatically.

About six million households have prepayment meters, according to the latest Ofgem figures.

Prepayment customers were previously charged more than those who settle their bill by direct debit but now pay slightly less.

Between 1 January and 31 March 2026, the typical annual bill for prepayment customers is £1,711.

Many prepayment meters have been in place for years, but some were installed more recently after customers struggled to pay higher bills.

Rules introduced in November 2023 mean suppliers must give customers more opportunity to clear their debts before switching them to a meter. They cannot be installed at all in certain households.

Fixed-price deals are not affected by the energy price cap, which changes every three months and can rise and fall.

They offer certainty for a set period – often a year or longer – but if energy prices drop while you are on the deal, you could be stuck at a higher price. You may also have to pay a penalty to leave a fixed deal early if you change your mind.

Ofgem, the energy regulator, says customers who want the security of knowing what their bill will be should consider moving to a fixed deal. However, it says they should make sure they understand all the costs.

Martin Lewis, founder of Money Saving Expert, recommends checking whole-of-market energy price comparison sites to help find the best deal.

Ofgem also controls standing charges, which are a fixed daily fee to cover the costs of connecting households to gas and electricity supplies. These vary slightly by region.

Between 1 January and 31 March 2026, standing charges will typically be 55.75p a day for electricity and 35.09p a day for gas.

Campaigners have long argued that standing charges are unfair because they make up a bigger proportion of the bill of low energy users.

In response, Ofgem said that by the end of January 2026, it wants all energy firms to offer at least one tariff that has a low standing charge but a higher cost per unit of energy.

The regulator said this would give some customers more choice and control but acknowledged it would not be suitable for everyone.

Charities, campaigners and the suppliers’ trade body criticised the proposal for just shifting the cost from one part of the bill to another rather than cutting it.

Suppliers must offer customers affordable payment plans or repayment holidays if necessary. Most also offer hardship grants.

Under plans Ofgem hopes to introduce in early 2026, nearly 200,000 people on benefits could have their debts to their energy supplier canceled—as long as they have made some effort to pay what is owed.

The scheme could see up to £500m knocked off the £4.4bn currently owed to suppliers. But covering the cost will require an extra £5 being added to everyone’s gas and electricity bill.

A number of existing government schemes also help people on low incomes with their energy bills.

The Household Support Fund, which was introduced in September 2021 to help vulnerable customers, has been extended until March 2026.

The Warm Home Discount scheme is also being overhauled.

From winter 2025, anyone on means-tested benefits in Great Britain will get £150 taken off their bills, no matter what size of property they live in.

The discount will be applied automatically for people in England or Wales and some in Scotland. However, those on a low income in Scotland will need to apply via their energy supplier. Letters are being sent to people with information on the discount.

The Fuel Direct Scheme lets people repay an energy debt directly from their benefit payments.

About nine million pensioners will also get the Winter Fuel Payment in 2025/2026, worth £200 or £300, after a government U-turn over eligibility.