Thornton meaning

Checklist This Checklist sets out the key considerations when judging if a professional negligence claim can properly be advanced in relation to the scope of the duty, causation and remoteness. It is aimed at deciding whether the losses alleged fall within the professional’s duty by applying the analysis model set out by the Supreme Court in its 2021 rulings in Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton and Khan v Meadows. For comprehensive guidance on causation and remoteness in this field, see Practice Note: Causation and remoteness in professional negligence claims. Note: in Armstead v Royal & Sun Alliance, the Supreme Court rejected the Court of Appeal’s use of a six-point checklist when assessing whether a claimant car-hirer could recover sums payable to the hire company for loss of use after third-party negligence damaged the vehicle—the issue in that case did not concern the scope of duty, so a six-point checklist for deciding if recoverable losses fell within the scope of duty had no application (at para [73])...

R (on the application of Amalgamated Smart Metering Ltd) v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council [2025] EWHC 97 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The court underscored that allowing extra time to bring a late judicial review is exceptional, not routine. Such extensions are seldom permitted. The court emphasised that any delay must be rigorously justified. Clear, prompt steps and proof of urgency are essential. Equilibrium between private rights and orderly public administration is central. This framework directs the court’s discretion in planning claims. The ruling also distilled two key points for planning judicial reviews issued after the six weeks challenge period. First, it reaffirmed the court’s approach to extensions set out in Thornton Hill Hotel: the claimant must demonstrate they acted with the greatest possible celerity in issuing a claim; and the court must strike a fair balance between the interests of the developer, the claimant, and the wider public interest. The latter public interest enquiry asks whether harm to good administration in planning law weighs...

The Association of British Insurers (ABI) announced in a report dated 29 January 2025 that small and medium-sized enterprises face exposure to cyber attacks, yet are failing to make use of insurance cover to help reduce the risk. According to the research, many companies felt their likelihood of suffering a cyber incident was low, or believed policies were too pricey to meet their needs. Compiled with accountants Grant Thornton UK LLP, the report urges SMEs to raise their uptake of insurance solutions to defend against cyber attacks. It also says SMEs should confront the widespread lack of understanding about the nature and scale of cyber threats across the sector...

In this issue: Investigating criminal conduct Cross-border criminal investigations Prosecution decisions and alternatives to prosecution Criminal procedure and evidential matters Proceeds of crime Appeals and judicial review Bribery, corruption, sanctions and export controls Consumer protection and cartels Environmental offences Financial services and pensions offences Food safety and hygiene offences Health and safety and corporate manslaughter offences Insolvency offences and Companies Act offences Money laundering Corporate crime in Scotland International Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Investigating criminal conduct Ban on misconduct NDAs casts doubt on settlements The government’s plan to render non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) void where they cover alleged workplace harassment and discrimination is expected to deter employers from resolving claims, adding strain to tribunals and early conciliation services. See News Analysis: Ban on misconduct NDAs throws settlements into question. DBT...

January 2017 Date Event 15 January 2017 The consultation on the administration regime for financial market infrastructures concludes. For more detail, see News: Government consults on administration regime for financial market infrastructures (LNB News 11/11/2016 145). February 2017 Date Event 1 or 2 February 2017 Appeal hearing (Court of Appeal): Tchenguiz and others v Grant Thornton UK LLP and others (LNB News 12/08/2015 125). Challenged decision: [2015] EWHC 1864 (Comm), [2015] All ER (D) 36 (Jul) (Carr J, 1 July 2015). For analysis of that ruling, see News Analysis: Icelandic banks, jurisdiction and the Lugano Convention. UPDATE: Court of Appeal ruling: [2017] EWCA Civ 83, [2017] All ER (D) 40 (Mar). For commentary on that result, see News Analysis: Allocation of jurisdiction for claim in winding-up process (Tchenguiz v Kaupthing Bank HF). 8 February 2017 The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill received its First Reading in the House of Lords, and MPs considered the Bill in a Committee of...

The UN Global Compact (UNGC) is a voluntary initiative launched in 2000 under the auspices of the United Nations, engaging organisations to advance responsible and sustainable business. operate responsibly in line with ten sustainability principles spanning human rights, labour, the environment, and anti-corruption take actions that support the society around them demonstrate top-level commitment, including a public pledge from the CEO or equivalent (with board support), to: embed the UNGC’s ten principles within strategy, culture and day-to-day operations engage in projects that progress the broader UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) report annually on the organisation’s efforts and progress engage locally in places where they have a presence Over 20,000 organisations in more than 160 countries have signed up to the UNGC, including The Coca Cola Company, Grant Thornton and RELX Group plc. The ten principles of the UN Global Compact Signatories to the UNGC agree to operate...

In analysing the causation and remoteness aspects of a professional negligence claim When evaluating causation and remoteness in professional negligence, a sensible point of departure is the pair of 2021 Supreme Court authorities, Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton (accountants’ negligence) and Khan v Meadows (clinical negligence). In both, heard by the same constitution, the court indicated that adopting the analysis set out below provides a structured way to examine the scope‑of‑duty principle, “but for” causation, and the foreseeability of harm within clinical negligence claims. The result of that exercise informs the proper extent of the claimant’s damages, consistent with the compensatory principle that the law, so far as money can, seeks to place the claimant in the position he or she would have occupied had the defendant not been negligent (Khan at para [58]). The analysis (at para [6] of Manchester, reproduced at para [28] of Khan) involves posing and answering the following questions: Is the harm (loss, injury and damage) which is the subject...