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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Original news UBS AG ( London Branch) and another v Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig; UBS Ltd v Depfa Bank plc; UBS AG ( London Branch) v Landesbank Baden- Württemberg [2017] EWCA Civ 1567, [2017] All ER ( D) 119 ( Oct). The Court of Appeal ( Civil Division) concluded that the judge had been wrong to decide that the financial advisers were acting as the claimants’ agents when arranging for their client, the principal defendant, to enter into a single tranche collateralised debt obligation ( STCDO), and to treat any bribe as within that agency, thereby fixing the claimants with legal responsibility despite their lack of knowledge. The court further held that, because the claimants dishonestly assisted the advisers’ abuse of their fiduciary duty to the principal defendant, the bribe tainted the claimants’ conscience, making it inequitable for them to enforce the STCDO secured through that...
Original news Ivey v Genting Casinos ( UK) Ltd (trading as Crockfords) [2017] UKSC 67, [2017] All ER ( D) 134 ( Oct) The Supreme Court rejected a professional gambler’s appeal from the Court of Appeal’s ruling that he was not entitled to his winnings from the respondent casino, as he had cheated. The court held that dishonesty is not an additional legal component of cheating in gambling. It found that the first-instance judge’s conclusion, affirmed by the Court of Appeal, that the appellant’s conduct amounted to cheating, was unassailable, and that seeking to define cheating would be very unwise. Further, it ruled that the second limb of the test in R v Ghosh [1982] 2 All ER 689 did not correctly state the law and directions based upon it should no longer be given. What was the background to the case? The...
Original news Ivey v Genting Casinos ( UK) Ltd (t/a Crockfords) [2017] UKSC 67, [2017] All ER ( D) 134 ( Oct). Dishonesty is not a separate legal ingredient of cheating in gambling. The Supreme Court so decided, dismissing the professional gambler appellant’s appeal against the first‑instance ruling (upheld by the Court of Appeal) that he was not entitled to his ‘winnings’ from the respondent casino because he had cheated. The court considered the judge’s finding—that the appellant’s acts amounted to cheating—unassailable, and cautioned that seeking a definition of cheating would be unwise. It also ruled that the second limb of the R v Ghosh [1982] 2 All ER 689 test does not accurately state the law and directions founded on it should no longer be given. See: Supreme Court overrules Ghosh test in ‘most significant criminal law decision in a...
Original news R (on the application of Hicks and others) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2017] UKSC 9, [2017] All ER ( D) 129 ( Feb) The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals brought by four individuals arrested and detained during a royal wedding and subsequently released without charge, ruling that preventative detention followed by swift release fell within the exception to the prohibition on deprivation of liberty set out in Article 5(1)(c) of the European Convention on Human Rights in this context. What are the practical implications of the decision for lawyers and their clients? This ruling may indeed also prompt greater reliance on mass arrests rather than containment in the setting of public protest activity overall in practice. Similarly, that shift carries further consequences for data collection, as a formal arrest ordinarily results in the recording of the arrestees’ names and usually the taking of...
Original news Senior HBOS banker and associates found guilty of corruption, LNB News 31/01/2017 141 A former HBOS manager, a financial adviser and their network were found guilty of corruption, fraudulent trading and laundering funds after operating a racket that eventually left the bank facing losses of about £250m in total. Ex-banker David Mills and cohorts plotted to line their own pockets, forcing companies into collapse along the way. Their conduct deliberately prioritised personal gain, with severe consequences for the companies involved and for the businesses affected. What is the background to the investigation in this case? On 30 January 2017, Judge Beddoe at Southwark Crown Court passed sentence on five banking staff and private business advisers for offences tied to a £245m fraud on HBOS customers between 2003 and 2007. This stemmed from a complex, six-year Thames Valley Police inquiry, codenamed Operation Hornet. It became the...
Original news R v Docherty [2016] UKSC 62, [2016] All ER ( D) 72 ( Dec). The Supreme Court rejected the appellant’s challenge to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection ( IPP). The IPP had been imposed pursuant to transitional provisions capturing offenders convicted before the sentence was abolished, even though they were sentenced afterwards. The court concluded that this arrangement did not breach ECHR, art 7. What is the significance of this case for practitioners? Before this ruling, appellate engagement with ECHR, art 7 in this country was sparse. This is the only domestic authority to examine the lex mitior principle (the rule that, if after an offender has committed an offence, the law introduces a lighter penalty, the offender should receive that more lenient punishment). Its importance was marked by the secretary of state being allowed to intervene. The judgment offers...
Original news Vukota- Bojic v Switzerland ( Application no 61838/10) What were the key issues considered by the European Court of Human Rights ( ECt HR)? In Vukota- Bojic v Switzerland, the ECt HR addressed two principal matters: whether covertly obtaining surveillance material amounted to a violation of ECHR, art 8 (‘right to respect for private life and family life’), and if such material was relied upon in legal proceedings, whether that would result in a breach of ECHR, art 6 (‘right to a fair hearing’) In considering whether security camera footage obtained through covert surveillance constituted an interference with the claimant’s art 8 rights, what were the main factors taken into account (the permanence of the records, refusal of the courts to destruct tapes, etc)? In essence, the court held that acquiring secret surveillance infringed ECHR, art 8. It confirmed that the scope of...
Original news R (on application of Ingenious Media Holdings plc and another) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2016] UKSC 54, [2016] All ER ( D) 118 ( Oct) The Supreme Court ruled that statements made about the appellants by HMRC’s then Permanent Secretary for Tax to journalists at an off-the-record briefing were not justified under section 18(2)(a)(i) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 ( CRCA 2005). The court concluded that CRCA 2005, s 18(1) was designed to mirror the general principle of taxpayer confidentiality and that, properly construed, CRCA 2005, s 18(2)(a)(i) — read strictly — operates only as a limited carve-out, allowing disclosure solely where it is reasonably required for HMRC to carry out its core function. What was the background to the case? The Permanent Secretary for Tax had provided an off-the-record interview to two reporters from The Times about the...
Practical implications Mr Justice Knowles CBE reviewed how releases in a settlement agreement should be read, with a particular focus on provisions addressing fraud-based claims. He applied the approach articulated in BCCI and in Satyam. Allegations of ‘sharp practice’ levelled at those relying on the settlement to shut out future claims were rejected. Here, the releases were expressly identified and did not amount to a general release, the type of clause where any ‘sharp practice’ might call for relief. How did this construction issue arise? Kaupthing Bank had advanced a loan in exchange for security that was already, directly or indirectly, encumbered in favour of senior lenders. Mr Johannsson was appointed first to Kaupthing’s Resolution Committee and subsequently to its Winding Up Committee. Following Kaupthing’s collapse, the Serious Fraud Office opened investigations concerning Mr Tchenguiz and others, which included Mr...
Original news Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police v Wright [2015] EWHC 3824 ( Ch), [2015] All ER ( D) 270 ( Nov) The Manchester County Court refused the claimant chief constable’s application, said to be made under POCA 2002, s 311, for permission to continue forfeiture proceedings against a bankrupt, concluding that, on a proper interpretation, no permission was needed under that section. Accordingly, any purported condition of leave—requiring the seized cash to be paid to the defendant trustee in bankruptcy—could not be attached and, in any event, would contravene POCA 2002, s 298(4). What was the background to the application? Three separate sums were taken by the police from Mohammed Tahir pursuant to POCA 2002, s 294 in August 2010 and May 2013. On 7 July 2014 Mr Tahir was declared bankrupt, and a trustee in bankruptcy ( Miss Wright, the...
Does a criminal prosecution prevent civil contempt proceedings? ( First Capital East Limited v Ilmi Plana & Anor) Practical implications There is a steadily growing momentum across the wider insurance sector, especially in the personal injury sphere, to seek the toughest sanctions realistically available against those who attempt to advance fabricated or inflated claims. Although, to some, such measures may, at first blush, seem heavy-handed — and the PR dimension is ever-present — where the dishonesty is both clear and brazen, often shown by the deployment of covert surveillance, the urge to make examples of fraudsters is entirely understandable. The critical point in this matter appears to have been that the individual had been acquitted and there was no fresh evidence. In general, contempt applications ought to be brought as soon as possible after the civil proceedings and before any criminal...
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...
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
