Instalment order meaning

Editor’s note Welcome to the fourth issue of the Public Law case law quarterly for 2023, spanning the closing quarter of the year. This instalment opens with a Court of Justice decision on how penalties should be calculated for UK breaches of EU law under the Windsor Framework, alongside a constitutional law ruling from the Scottish Court of Session affirming the UK Government’s intervention under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 (SA 1998) to stop Royal Assent for a Scottish Bill. Also featured are Supreme Court decisions, including the finding that the UK Government’s Rwanda policy concerning asylum seekers is unlawful, together with rulings on the scope of the duty in human rights law to investigate deaths occurring before the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) took effect, on the factors judges ought to weigh when deciding whether to grant a mandatory order against a local authority, and on so‑called ‘newcomer’ injunctions targeting unidentified persons who might later join a protest or trespass in the future as well...

In this issue: Public Law case law quarterly—Q1 2026 Brexit headlines Brexit SIs Public procurement Equality and human rights Constitutional and administrative law State security and intelligence Judicial review Information law Subsidy control and State aid State accountability and liability Other Public Law news LexTalk®Public Law: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Public Law case law quarterly—Q1 2026 Each quarter, the Lexis+® UK Public Law team curates leading judgments, presenting concise coverage and insight. This instalment spotlights DA and RA v United Kingdom, which confirms the broad margin of appreciation in socio‑economic decision‑making, and R v ABJ; R v BDN, where the Supreme Court sustained terrorism provisions against an Article 10 ECHR challenge. Further notable rulings include Hirst, addressing prosecutorial immunity in the context of Article 6 ECHR, and C3 and Dana Astra,...

Editor’s note—Anurag Deb, PhD researcher at the School of Law, Queens University, Belfast Welcome to the inaugural 2025 issue of the Public Law Case Law Quarterly, bringing together summaries and analysis of pivotal judgments chosen by the Lexis+ UK Public Law team, complemented by expert comment from a range of specialist contributors. This instalment spans a broad spectrum of public law matters, from human rights to the ongoing effects of Brexit, public procurement, and even State immunity. Notable among the cases is Department for Justice v JR123, where the Supreme Court endorsed Northern Ireland’s offender rehabilitation regime, holding that the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 strikes a fair equilibrium between Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the public interest. Also significant is R (GB News Ltd) v Ofcom, in which the High Court overturned Ofcom’s finding that ‘Jacob Rees-Mogg’s State of the Nation’ breached due impartiality rules, marking the first time Ofcom has been unsuccessful in a judicial review...

This Practice Note considers the frequent need for law practices to accept staged payments towards an unpaid invoice. The SRA has produced a case study asserting that doing so amounts to entering a regulated credit agreement as a lender, requiring a formal consumer credit agreement. This Practice Note sets out why we disagree with the SRA on that point, drawing on settled case law and the principal specialist text on consumer credit. Bear in mind the consumer credit framework only covers clients who are individuals and very small partnerships, because the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974) does not capture arrangements with larger partnerships or bodies corporate. See Practice Note: Consumer credit and client fee arrangements—What is a consumer credit agreement? SRA requirements The SRA Financial Services (Scope) Rules define which regulated consumer credit activities may be carried out by a firm authorised by the SRA but not supervised by the FCA. See Practice Notes: Consumer credit and law firms and Consumer credit and client fee arrangements. The...

Law firms might be caught by the consumer credit regime: by acting as a lender under a consumer credit agreement, for example regarding their fees by undertaking ancillary consumer credit activity, such as debt adjusting In light of the Court of Appeal decision in CFL Finance Ltd v Laser Trust, a creditor that enters into a settlement agreement appended as a schedule to a Tomlin Order may fall within the consumer credit regime where the settlement itself amounts to a consumer credit agreement—see also News Analysis: Does a Tomlin order provide ‘credit’ under the Consumer Credit Act 1974? (Gertner v CFL Finance). The same risk can arise for a law firm’s own settlement document, for instance when compromising a client debt claim, as it can for other parties. This Practice Note addresses your arrangements for charging clients. You may additionally consult Precedent: Fee arrangement and consumer credit—decision tree, Practice Note: Instalment payment of an outstanding bill and Q&A: Can I accept payment of...

Timeline of key events Date Event Minutes of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) meeting of 5 December 2025 The CPRC reviewed part one of the Law Commission’s contempt of court report. It rejected the Commission’s call for a single, overarching code or unified rules. The committee confirmed that contempt provisions for the civil courts should stay in CPR 81, which already functions as a full procedural code. The CPRC favoured, where workable, harmonising contempt rules with those in other courts and tribunals, noting that civil and family jurisdictions are already aligned. That said, it saw a weaker rationale for alignment with the criminal courts and tribunals given differences in drafting style, and so on. The committee judged it premature to revise the contempt rules until the Commission issues part two of its report. It was further agreed that the CPRC would continue to oversee the civil contempt regime. For further information, see News Analysis: Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—5 December 2025....

STOP PRESS: The Financial Remedies Guide 2026, published on 13 March 2026 by Mr Justice Peel (National Lead Judge of the Financial Remedies Court) and His Honour Judge Hess (Deputy National Lead Judge of the Financial Remedies Court) with the approval of the President of the Family Division, replaces and supersedes: the Statement on the efficient conduct of financial remedy cases allocated to a High Court judge whether sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice or elsewhere (1 February 2016) (the High Court judge level efficiency statement) the Statement on the efficient conduct of financial remedy hearings proceeding in the Financial Remedies Court below High Court judge level (11 January 2022) (the below High Court judge level efficiency statement) the Financial Remedies Court Primary Principles document (11 January 2022) the Notice from the Financial Remedies Court: electronic bundles (19 April 2022) the Allocation of financial remedies cases to High Court judge level (21 May 2024) This document is being revised...