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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust and another v PG (by the Official Solicitor as her litigation friend) [2024] EWCOP 49 What are the practical implications of this case? The decision offers a clear, workable illustration of a best interests appraisal in circumstances where any investigation and/or treatment would have a profoundly negative effect on a person who lacks capacity. Reaffirming Baroness Hale’s approach in Aintree v James [2013] UKSC 67, [2014] AC 591, Cobb J emphasised the need to consider welfare in its ‘…widest sense, not just medical but social and psychological..’ and for decision-makers to ‘…try and put themselves in the place of the individual patient and ask what his attitude to the treatment is or would be likely to be…’. The judgment stands as a strong reminder to NHS Trusts, and those advising and representing them, of the duty to move swiftly in...
In this issue Practice and procedure Domestic abuse Lex Talk®Family: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Updated content New client guide New flowcharts New Q& As Useful information Practice and procedure Revised family proceedings reporting pilot guidance has been issued by the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew Mc Farlane, with the Transparency Implementation Group, replacing the January 2023 guidance. See: LNB News 20/09/2024 34. The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary confirms the Family Mediation Council and the Family Justice Council have produced an updated version of the Family Mediation in England and Wales guidance for judges, magistrates, legal advisers and court staff, following April 2024 changes to the Family Procedure Rules 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 3. The updated guidance is available here. The Supreme Court Rules 2024, SI...
In this issue: Practice and procedure Relationship breakdown Financial provision Public children Court of Protection Lex Talk®Family: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New content Updated content New Q& As Useful information Practice and procedure Changes to HMCTS Cloud Video Platform and the Video Hearings Service In July 2024, HM Court and Tribunals Service ( HMCTS) announced plans to upgrade the systems behind the Cloud Video Platform ( CVP) and the Video Hearings Service ( VHS) (see: LNB News 12/07/2024 10). The update requires organisations to check, and possibly change, their firewall settings. Accordingly, organisations should review—and, where needed—adjust their firewall configurations. The revisions affect any area of practice that may involve attending a court hearing, and HMCTS has stated that these network changes must be in place by 28 September 2024. There is no requirement to delete existing IP addresses from current configurations (also known as the whitelist). Before joining a VHS hearing, it is...
MAS v ZK and others [2024] EWHC 1939 ( Fam) What are the practical implications of this case? These remarks make clear that, in some situations, public authorities have delayed action when repatriation is needed for someone facing the risk of a forced marriage, in part due to uncertainty about the respective functions and duties of the various public bodies involved in such scenarios. Cusworth J stressed that agencies must understand their powers and obligations, and, once the position is identified, move without delay. In most matters, the local authority is pivotal, coordinating and directing the steps by which children and young people are kept, or made, safe, and it should become involved from the earliest stages without hesitation. He also underlined the importance of adaptability, as each case presents different features and may require a tailored approach. His intention was not to revise or alter the...
Re AA (withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment: no best interests decision) [2024] EWCOP 39 ( T3) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment usefully and clearly reaffirms a number of fundamental principles that can at times be overlooked in serious medical treatment applications in the Court of Protection, namely: The court’s role is strictly confined to selecting between treatment choices actually available to the patient. Where a clinician offers no alternative option, there is no best interests decision for the court to determine on the patient’s behalf; A patient cannot demand that a doctor administer any particular treatment, and nor can the court compel it: see Re Y [2018] UKSC 46; It is an abuse of process to seek a best interests declaration under the MCA 2005 to try to persuade a clinician to provide treatment when none is being offered: see AVS v A NHS...
In this issue: Practice and procedure Financial provision Court of Protection Lex Talk®Family: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Updated content Useful information Practice and procedure Consultation on Family Procedure Rules 2010, PD 27A The Family Procedure Rule Committee ( FPRC) has opened a public consultation on revisions to the Family Procedure Rules 2010 ( FPR 2010), Practice Direction 27A, which governs the preparation of bundles in family proceedings. The intention is for a refreshed FPR 2010, PD 27A to acknowledge the routine use of electronic bundles across most family cases and to incorporate, within the PD itself, provisions that presently sit in judicial guidance. The draft replacement FPR 2010, PD 27A is available here, together with a note explaining the consultation and the method for submitting responses. The consultation closes on 24 October...
Re PQ (court authorised DOL: representation during review period) [2024] EWCOP 41 What are the practical implications of this case? Lawyers and practitioners dealing with community deprivation of liberty matters must recognise how vital it is that the individual has an independent representative in place for the whole duration, namely the ‘review period’ (that is, the period between the final order and a planned review). Frequently, this is secured by appointing a rule 1.2 representative pursuant to the Court of Protection Rules 2007. Where no relative or friend can act under rule 1.2 as the appointed representative, the local authority must consider funding a professional representative, for example a Relevant Person’s Representative ( RPR), an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate, or a Care Act advocate. If the authority declines to meet that cost in the circumstances, the court must decide what...
In this issue: Practice and procedure Private children Public children Lex Talk®Family: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New subtopic and overview Updated content Useful information Practice and procedure HM Land Registry updates Practice Guide 11 and Form CNG HM Land Registry ( HMLR) has revised Practice Guide 11— Inspection and application for official copies—so that the digital routes for requesting official copies are set out ahead of references to paper applications, and has inserted a new section explaining how to apply for an official copy where more than one deed shares the same date and type. In Form CNG— Change of name ( Transgender and Non- Binary), the wording in panel 2 has been updated to align with the terminology of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. See: LNB News...
In this issue: Private children International children Public children Lex Talk®Family: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Latest Q& A Useful information Private children Fact finding ( AA v ZZ) In AA v ZZ [2024] EWHC 2008 ( Fam), the court addressed the applicant father’s claims concerning the existence of his alleged twin sons (‘the children’) at a fact-finding hearing triggered by his bid for a child arrangements order to enable contact. He relied on recordings of discussions in which the respondent mother, together with several witnesses, spoke to him about ‘the children’. The respondent contended she had not been pregnant and that no twins had ever been born. She further asserted the applicant both knew, and had long known, that no twins existed, and that his pursuit of her amounted to an ongoing pattern of...
In this issue: Private children Financial provision International children Lex Talk®Family: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Updated content New Q& As Useful information Private children Appeal against transfer of residence order ( LT v RT) In LT v RT [2024] EWHC 2085 ( Fam), the Family Division upheld the mother’s appeal against an interim care order made in private law proceedings under the Children Act 1989, which had directed the immediate transfer of the two children’s residence from her to the father. Difficulties arose because the local authority had produced a parenting assessment but did not serve it on the parents. The children’s guardian queried how any move would be implemented under a child arrangements order, as proposed by the local authority. The guardian submitted a Form C2 seeking an urgent listing; however, this was not...
In this issue: Practice and procedure Public children Lex Talk®Family: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Updated content Useful information Practice and procedure Practice and procedure Family Mediation Council updates MIAMS guidance The Family Mediation Council has refreshed its guidance, assurances and standards for mediation information and assessment meetings ( MIAMs)... Family Justice Council publishes questions and responses from 2024 open meeting The Family Justice Council has released the questions and responses from the open meeting held on 22 July 2024... UKSC publishes response to consultation on revision of Supreme Court Rules The UK Supreme Court ( UKSC) has issued a summary of the responses received, together with its own response, to the consultation on the Supreme Court Rules that closed on 17 May 2024. The consultation posed nine questions and attracted 28 responses. The draft rules have been revised and are...
In this issue Practice and procedure Relationship breakdown Financial provision International Daily and weekly news alerts Lex Talk®Family: a Lexis®Nexis community New and updated content Useful information Practice and procedure Digital assets as personal property: supplemental report and draft legislation The Law Commission of England and Wales has issued a supplementary report together with a draft Bill which, if enacted, would endorse a third class of personal property into which certain digital and other assets might fall. Its June 2023 digital assets report found that particular digital assets, including crypto-tokens and non-fungible tokens ( NFTs), can attract personal property rights. Yet, because they are inherently distinct from tangible items and from rights-based assets such as debts and financial securities, they do not align with traditional personal property categories. The recommendation was that legislation should recognise the existence of a third category of personal property. The draft Bill states that an item is not...
Re HR ( Parallel Child Abduction and Asylum Proceedings) [2024] EWHC 1626 ( Fam) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment examined the ambit of the ‘situation’ the court must consider under Art 13(b) of the 1980 Hage Convention. On the question of whether the children would encounter an intolerable situation, the father submitted that the court should look at circumstances in both the UK and the US, whereas counsel for the mother contended that the enquiry must be confined to the home state. The court decided it was unnecessary to determine that issue at this stage and therefore expressly refrained from doing so. Nonetheless, Sir Andrew Mc Farlane P observed that it is striking there is no extant authority addressing the point. The court further noted that the express focus of Art 13(b) is the potential risk to which a child would be...
Lycamobile UK Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 638 ( TC) The dispute concerned Lycamobile UK Ltd (the Appellant) and its UK plan bundles comprising calls, texts and data for customers. The FTT determined that the dominant element was a supply of telecommunication services; any further features customers could access were merely incidental within a single composite telecommunication supply. In reaching that conclusion, the Tribunal relied on Card Protection Plan Ltd v HMRC ( C-349/96) and Purple Parking Ltd and Airport Services Ltd v HMRC ( C-117/11) to support its analysis. The Tribunal dismissed the Appellant’s contention that, on receipt of consideration, uncertainty as to how much the customer would consume, what type of services might be used, and the VAT treatment, meant VAT should only be accounted for when the customer used the services, and only to the extent used. As already...
A Mother v A Local Authority and others [2024] EWHC 1658 ( Fam) What are the practical implications of this case? The decision underlines that, even where the gateway in section 100(4) and (5) of the Children Act 1989 is satisfied, that does not of itself justify invoking the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The court stressed that questions of jurisdiction must be identified at the very start of proceedings, managed through proper procedure, and actively raised by judges even where the parties have not done so. In A Mother v A Local Authority and others, the court concluded the father posed a risk to the child, and the mother could not protect the child from him; accordingly, at the time of the application, the court had reasonable grounds to believe that, absent the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction, the child was likely to suffer...
In this issue: Financial provision Lex Talk®Family: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New Practice Notes Updated content Useful information Financial provision Pre-marital agreement, needs and the impact of excluding a sharing claim ( AH v BH) In AH v BH [2024] EWFC 125, Mr Justice Peel reviewed a pre-marital agreement that, if enforced, would significantly restrict the wife’s financial remedy claims. The resources were considerable, about £50m, with almost everything in the husband’s sole name. The relationship was relatively brief, spanning roughly five-and-a-half years, including a period of cohabitation before the wedding. There were two dependent children of the marriage, aged two and four, and the wife continued as their primary carer. Katie Skinner, senior associate and chartered legal executive at Rayden Solicitors, explores the key issues and evaluates the judge’s handling of the allocation of assets as well as......
AH v BH [2024] EWFC 125 What are the practical implications of this case? Peel J adjusted the PMA only to the extent needed to meet the wife’s and children’s needs. He also indicated, in broad terms, the markedly higher award the wife might have obtained had there been no PMA and a sharing claim had prevailed. The court examined differing methods of providing housing when balancing PMA terms against the requirements of the financially weaker party. In this case, the wife was not limited to provision akin to an order under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 ( Ch A 1989). Peel J observed he was unaware of any relevant reported authority where a primary carer of children, lacking significant assets, had not been granted a lump sum for housing outright. What was the background? The wife, aged 40 and brought up in country A,...
In this issue: Practice and procedure Financial provision Private children Public children Lex Talk®Family: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Updated content Useful information Practice and procedure Transparency reporting pilot in the Family Court extended to include private children cases On 15 July 2024, the President of the Family Division’s Transparency Implementation Group ( TIG) broadened the Family Court reporting pilot to cover private children proceedings across the 16 courts that were added to the pilot in January 2024. This extension is intended to assess more fully the effects of reporting on the court system, on judges, on participants in family proceedings, and on the media. See: LNB News 15/07/2024 75. Guidance for designated family judges engaging with the media in transparency reporting pilot courts The President has released guidance for designated family judges on working with the media in...
Re D and another ( Fact- Finding: Research Literature) [2024] EWCA Civ 663, [2024] All ER ( D) 90 ( Jun) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision emphasises that, when making findings of fact, the court must evaluate the evidence as a whole. Judges should avoid placing disproportionate weight on medical research publications. The ruling further cautions against judges adopting an ‘expert’ mantle by conducting their own interpretation of scientific papers. It also highlights the particular challenges inherent in appraising medical material on the causation of intracranial haemorrhage. With the Suspected Inflicted Head Injury Service ( SIHIS) pilot being introduced within selected NHS Trusts, the case may prove significant in illustrating the continuing need for rigorous judicial scrutiny and the testing, through cross-examination, of multiple experts. Determinations should arise from synthesising all strands of material together...
In this issue: Practice and procedure Private children Public children Enforcement Lex Talk®Family: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Updated content New Q& As Lex Talk®Family: a Lexis®Nexis community Useful information Practice and procedure President publishes transparency in the family courts—judgment publication guidance On 19 June 2024, the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew Mc Farlane, issued Transparency in the family courts—publication of judgments practice guidance (the guidance). As part of the ongoing push for greater openness in the Family Court, it sets out practical direction for judges, legal advisers and magistrates to support more frequent publication of judgments. The guidance applies across all judicial tiers in the Family Court and Family Division, and to the full breadth of their jurisdiction, covering both children matters and financial remedy work. It replaces the...
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
