Featured documents
R (Greyhound Board of Great Britain Ltd) v Welsh Ministers [2026] EWHC 670 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling reinforces the constitutional divide between the courts and the legislature. It explains that the scheme and framework of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GWA 2006) embody that separation of powers, and that any judicial attempt to recognise and enforce a common law obligation on Welsh Ministers to consult prior to introducing legislation in the Senedd would trespass upon that boundary. This is not a departure from established principle; case law has already upheld comparable rules for lawmakers in Scotland and at Westminster. However, this is the first express confirmation of the position for Welsh lawmakers, and the first time this dimension of the GWA 2006 has been analysed in such depth. The court examined earlier
The solution arrived through the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), a quasi‑judicial body handling mass claims, created under UN Security Council Resolution 687. By addressing environmental harm—most notably via its ‘F4’ claim class—the UNCC set a seminal benchmark shaping how international law and contemporary arbitral panels allocate financial responsibility for wartime ecological devastation. With present-day wars in areas such as Eastern Europe and the Middle East bringing dam breaches, strikes on chemical facilities, and the burning of farmland, the UNCC’s legacy endures as an essential reference point for states, global investors, and companies engaged in post‑conflict arbitration. The F4 claims: Quantifying the unquantifiable Prior to the 1990s, mechanisms in international law for war reparations overwhelmingly favoured property loss, foregone earnings, and bodily injury. The natural world was commonly treated as a mute, non-compensable victim of armed hostilities...
Understanding the farming business as a business Many farms still use long-standing structures that arose by habit, not strategy. Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common. While once effective, such setups can cause major issues around succession, tax planning and involving the next generation. A corporate team can take a fresh, business-led view of the farm, asking: Who owns the land and other critical assets? Who manages daily operations? Who carries the risk and who enjoys the return? What is the enduring plan for succession? From this review, the team can confirm whether the current setup is fit for purpose or if an alternative — for example an updated partnership agreement, a company, a limited liability partnership, or a blended model — would better meet the family’s aims. Tax efficiency through joined-up advice Tax sits at the centre of most
Most recent News
Practical implications This decision explored how far a purchaser of a company can rely on an indemnity in a share sale agreement to recover from the seller for losses stemming from an employee’s negligent acts occurring both before and after the business transferred. The indemnity clause stated the seller would hold the buyer harmless for loss ‘directly or indirectly’ arising from services the company (or its agents) supplied before the transfer date, as specified in the agreement. Such wording is a common feature of share sale indemnities. On a straightforward reading, it implies that any loss linked to conduct after completion falls to the buyer, with no route to reimbursement from the seller. The core dispute was how liability should be apportioned for losses spanning pre- and post-transfer where pre-transfer negligence was left uncorrected following completion. This required analysis of two principal...
Original news Canary Wharf Group Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2015] EWHC 1588 ( Ch) What is this case about? This matter concerns an appeal brought by Canary Wharf Group ( CWG), a London-based property company, against a ruling of the UK Intellectual Property Office ( IPO) that rejected the registration of CWG’s application to register the word mark CANARY WHARF, lodged in March 2013. The specification spanned printed matter (class 16) and services connected with real estate, building construction and design, car parking, landscape design and security (classes 36, 37, 39, 42, 44 and 45). By Decision O-423-14, the Hearing Officer refused the application on ‘absolute grounds’ under the Trade Marks Act 1994 ( TMA 1994), namely: trade marks lacking distinctive character must not be registered ( TMA 1994, s 3(1)(b)) trade marks consisting solely of signs or indications which may, in trade,...
It has now been just over a year since DPAs became available, but how are they being used in practice? Just over a year on from the introduction of DPAs, how are they actually being applied? In short, there have been no concluded matters to date, though we understand negotiations are in progress in a number of high‑profile cases... What is the legal framework around DPAs? The legal basis for DPAs is contained in the Crime and Courts Act 2013, s 45 and Sch 17. These provisions outline the scheme, while operational detail is provided in joint guidance from the Serious Fraud Office ( SFO) and the Crown Prosecution Service. In essence, a DPA is an arrangement between a prosecutor—most commonly the SFO—and a corporate organisation: a criminal charge is brought but not pursued provided the organisation fulfils pre‑negotiated conditions, typically including payment of a...
Original news MT Højgaard a/s v EON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd and another [2015] EWCA Civ 407 The parties entered into a contract for the design and installation of offshore wind turbines. Defects arose in the foundations, prompting a dispute over who should bear the cost of remedial works. At first instance, the judge decided the claimant contractor had breached a warranty that the foundations would provide a 20‑year service life, but had not breached other clauses alleged by the defendant employers. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant’s appeal, finding there was no such warranty. The defendants’ cross‑appeal also succeeded, as the claimant had failed to comply with a provision concerning testing of the designs. What was this case about? The dispute centres on a specific design issue of fundamental concern to the various...
News analysis Emerald Supplies Ltd v British Airways plc [2014] EWHC 3513 ( Ch), [2014] All ER ( D) 340 ( Oct) During proceedings about the defendant airline’s alleged participation in a cartel, the European Commission adopted a decision. A dispute arose over whether a redacted version of that decision should be made available to the parties for inspection and use in the case. The Chancery Division determined that a confidentiality ring between the parties ought to be established, permitting circulation of the decision among its members, together with a safeguard preventing the claimants from using it to launch any further proceedings. What is the background to this matter and the competing interests concerning disclosure of the Commission’s decision? The claim is brought by 565 claimants, following the European Commission’s air cargo cartel decision. In a press release dated 9 November 2010, the...
Original news Digital TV streaming service found guilty of copyright violations, LNB News 26/06/2014 New York Times, 26 June 2014: The US Supreme Court held that Aereo, a television streaming platform, breached copyright by capturing broadcast signals with miniature aerials and forwarding them to subscribers for payment. The ruling was a significant victory for US broadcast networks, which argued Aereo had used a high-tech method to pilfer their content. What is the state of unauthorised online streaming in the US? The Aereo judgment adds to a global discussion about third parties distributing broadcast programmes, stepping in between broadcasters and viewers. The case turned on whether US copyright law required permission from broadcasters when Aereo picked up their programmes off-air and sent them online to its users. As a general rule, retransmitting a broadcast to the public in a Berne Convention country will infringe the...
Original news Kohler Mira Ltd v Bristan Group Ltd [2014] EWHC 1931 ( IPEC), [2014] All ER ( D) 130 ( Jun). After the Patent County Court (as it then was) found that the defendant had infringed the claimant’s UK unregistered design rights, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court held that the claimant should receive a sum equivalent to a royalty of 6.7% of the price at which the defendant sold the infringing shower units to its customers. Moreover, exercising its discretion with reference to policy considerations, the court ruled that the defendant could not invoke the defence of innocence under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s 233(1), when it was advanced for the first time during the damages inquiry. Briefly, what was the background to this judgment? This ruling concerns a damages inquiry following last year’s liability decision— Kohler Mira Ltd v Bristan Group Ltd...
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
