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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
In this issue: Local government reorganisation Local government finance Social housing Planning Governance Education Children's social care Adult social care Licensing Pensions Environmental law and climate change Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Local government reorganisation MHCLG withdraws postponement of 30 council elections and announces £63m support package The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government ( MHCLG) has confirmed that the previous move by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Rt Hon Steve Reed OBE MP, to delay local polls for 30 councils due in May 2026 has been reversed. In a letter to council leaders, the Secretary of State explains that, following fresh legal advice, the deferral has been cancelled. He adds that the housing minister, who did not take part in the...
R (on the application of Luton Landlords & Letting Agents Ltd) v Luton Borough Council [2026] EWCA Civ 35 For commentary on the earlier judgment, see News Analysis: No standing and no merit: Luton landlord loses latest licensing challenge ( Luton Landlords & Letting Agents Ltd v Luton BC). What are the practical implications of this case? For public law practitioners, this ruling offers clear guidance on what amounts to a ‘sufficient interest’ to pursue judicial review under section 31(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The enquiry turns on the character of the claimant’s stake in the subject matter of the proceedings. Individuals and legal persons such as companies will ordinarily be treated as having sufficient interest in decisions directed at them, or in measures that affect them in some way. Associations or other legal entities may, in a...
The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs issued the government’s Water White Paper, ‘ A new vision for water’, in January 2026 and laid it before Parliament on 20 January 2026 as CP 1490. An erratum dated 5 February 2026 alters the wording on page 28 regarding the timetable for scrapping falling block tariffs. Framed as a response to sustained scrutiny of industry performance, it serves as a springboard for ‘once-in-a-generation’ reform. It builds on measures already taken by government, including the Water Special Measures Act and a declared £104 billion investment programme for 2025 to 2030. It also follows the Independent Water Commission led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, tasked with diagnosing systemic failings and proposing structural reform. For planning lawyers, the central takeaway is that the White Paper treats planning, infrastructure delivery and development as mutually dependent. Overhaul of the...
In this issue: Local government finance Governance Social housing Education Children's social care Adult social care Public procurement Planning Healthcare Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Local government finance MHCLG confirms £78bn final local government finance settlement with fairer funding reforms The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has announced a £78bn Final Local Government Finance Settlement, alongside a £440m Recovery Grant boost to support the councils facing the greatest pressures, addressing deprivation and enhancing local services. The package offers multi-year certainty and features measures including writing off 90% of historic SEND deficits, a £272m increase for homelessness services, and £39.6m in mayoral capacity funding to protect people at risk of homelessness and improve local outcomes. Using an evidence-led approach, drawing on the latest indices of multiple...
Article A New Vision for Water ( January 2026): regulatory consolidation, planning reform, and the re-settlement of environmental accountability in England Introduction: a White Paper drafted in the language of constitutional correction The Government’s White Paper, A New Vision for Water ( January 2026, CP 1490), is most aptly read as an attempt to refound the legal and institutional order for England’s water sector. Its central refrain is not that the present system needs minor adjustment, but that it is structurally unsound. The charges are well known, but are cast here in expressly juridical terms: splintered mandates and misaligned incentives; duplicative and burdensome planning obligations; insufficient transparency; weak consumer protection; a delivery model that fails to convert public policy into performance at the scale now required by environmental deterioration, climate volatility, and population...
R ( EPS) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 3462 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling marks the first interim relief application about the withdrawal of MSVCC support to be determined after R ( ABW) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 3280 ( Admin) (‘ ABW’). ABW has plainly shifted the balance towards granting claimants relief in comparable future matters. It further illustrates that once guidance — even statutory guidance — is declared unlawful, its mere existence can no longer be deployed by public authorities as a persuasive reason to refuse interim relief. What was the background? The proceedings concerned an application for interim relief within a claim for judicial review. The claimant, a 53‑year‑old Chinese national, entered the UK in February 2002 and asserted he is a victim of modern slavery. On 20 May...
What are the practical implications of this case? The decision carries clear real-world importance for advisers on residential service charges, building safety works and the construction of leases. The Court of Appeal made plain that service charge liability is narrowly bounded by the lease wording, even if works are undertaken for safety reasons and even where the expenditure is significant. Widely framed repair, maintenance or safety clauses will not, without more, transfer responsibility for rectifying inherent, pre-existing structural defects to leaseholders unless the lease clearly allocates that risk. For those acting for landlords and local authorities, the ruling exposes the limits of leaning on general or ‘sweeper’ provisions to recover the costs of major structural remediation, particularly in older buildings erected using methods now discredited. It underscores the need for early, meticulous lease review before commencing large-scale works and may oblige advisers to...
In this issue: Social housing Adult social care Judicial review Governance Local government finance Children's social care Education Public procurement Licensing Pensions Planning Lex Talk®Local Government: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Social housing Microwave alone insufficient to amount to ‘cooking facilities’ in HMO test ( Oxford Hotel Investments Ltd v Great Yarmouth BC) In Oxford Hotel Investments Ltd v Great Yarmouth Borough Council, the Upper Tribunal ( UT) assessed the meaning of cooking facilities within the section 254 Housing Act 2004 ( HA 2004) HMO test, specifically whether a single microwave fulfilled that requirement. The property had no other means for preparing food. The UT determined that a microwave on its own does not constitute cooking facilities capable of excluding the premises from the...
Local Government Finance Settlement Westminster council is set to face some of the steepest reductions in grant funding among upper-tier authorities. The government is delivering on its promise to shift resources towards areas with the greatest need, writes Stuart Hoddinott. That inevitably means some councils will receive less than they might have expected, and, with a limited pot, ministers have had to make hard choices over where the losses fall. The announcement this week on council allocations—the Local Government Finance Settlement—runs to considerable detail, yet one headline stands out. Crucially, the most deprived authorities will gain most from rising local government budgets across this parliament. From 2024/25 to 2028/29, core spending power (the funding councils have available to provide services) will rise by 24.6% in real terms for the most deprived decile of local authorities. By comparison, the 10% least deprived councils will see only a 3.4%...
Rehman v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and others [2026] EWHC 6 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment reinforces judicial hesitation to let COVID-19 infection claims advance. In contrast to Edwards v 2 Sisters Food Group Ltd [2025] EWHC 1312 ( KB), the claimants framed causation purely by alleging a material contribution to injury and a material increase in risk. However, the real-world evidential difficulties in identifying the route of infection were sufficient to bar reliance on material contribution. The Master also held that the same evidential gaps prevented the claims from fitting within the Fairchild exception of a material increase in risk of injury, drawing a clear line between COVID-19 and mesothelioma. Policy considerations plainly influenced the outcome. The Master observed that permitting a Fairchild-based claim here would open the...
In this issue: Social housing Children's social care Education Planning Highways Public procurement Governance Local government finance Adult social care Healthcare Licensing Environmental law and climate change Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Social housing Social housing To be or not to be… the recurring question of when a homelessness application is an application at all ( R ( Lyrae) v Somerset Council) In R ( Lyrae) v Somerset Council, the High Court endorsed the Court of Appeal’s dicta in Rikha Begum—picked up and used in Minott and Ivory—on how to treat a subsequent ‘fresh’ homelessness approach. The analysis comprises two steps. First (stage one), decide whether the later approach counts as an application at all; the only time the answer is ‘no’ is where it rests on...
R (on the application of Lyrae) v Somerset Council [2025] EWHC 3261 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment further demonstrates the modest bar for submitting successive homelessness applications, and should be essential reading for all homelessness decision-makers and their managers. It shows that whether something counts as a new fact is intensely case-specific, yet commonly there will be a single rational conclusion. Where a local housing authority feels compelled to look behind the paperwork to test credibility or assess the weight of material, it has moved into stage-two enquiries that are not allowed at stage one. Bearing in mind timescales and legal costs, it may prove quicker and more economical to lean towards caution and treat it as a fresh application where the answer to ‘is it an application at all?’ is not plain. What was the...
In this issue: Adult social care Social housing Planning Education Children's social care Local government finance Governance Licensing Highways Healthcare Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Adult social care Supreme Court bars negligence claim arising from unlawful killings under the doctrine of illegality ( Lewis- Ranwell v G4S Health Services ( UK) Ltd and others) In Lewis- Ranwell v G4S Health Services ( UK) Ltd and others, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal unanimously brought by G4S Health Services ( UK) Limited, Devon Partnership NHS Trust and Devon County Council, concluding that, under the doctrine of illegality, the claimant was prevented from pursuing civil proceedings in negligence to obtain compensation for the consequences of the killings. Christopher Johnson, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, provides commentary on the judgment. See News...
Lewis- Ranwell ( Respondent) v G4S Health Services ( UK) Ltd and others ( Appellants) [2026] UKSC 2 Background The claimant, Alexander Lewis- Ranwell, faced charges for the murders of three men but was acquitted on the ground of insanity. He thereafter commenced civil proceedings against the defendants seeking compensation for the aftermath of the killings. The question on this appeal was whether the doctrine of illegality prevented him from advancing a negligence claim. He had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. On 10 February 2019, during a grave psychotic episode, the claimant attacked and killed three elderly men, Mr Anthony Payne, Mr Richard Carter and Mr Roger Carter, within their own homes. He acted under a delusional belief that they were paedophiles. He was arrested the next day following a further assault. At his criminal trial, he was found not guilty of murder by reason of...
City of London Corp v John Bussandra [2025] EWCA Civ 1580 What are the practical implications of this case? Under section 191(1) of the Housing Act 1996, a person is regarded as intentionally homeless where, through a deliberate act or a failure to act, they cause themselves to stop occupying accommodation that was available to them and which it would have been reasonable for them to remain in. Devenport v Salford City Council (1983) 8 HLR 54 clarified in the Court of Appeal that it is the act or omission that must be intentional; there is no requirement to show the applicant deliberately set out to become homeless. When a local authority considers whether an applicant acted, or failed to act, deliberately, it is common for the applicant to have been experiencing mental health difficulties at the relevant time. This case indicates how an...
What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling confirms that councils enjoy extensive latitude when crafting and operating housing allocation schemes under HA 1996, Pt 6. The court emphasised it would not step into policy territory unless a decision was unlawful or irrational in practice. For advisers, the takeaway is that any attack on an allocation outcome must rest on a demonstrable breach of HA 1996, not on a sense of unfairness alone. The judgment also underscores the need for openness and effective communication when policies are updated or revised. While the council was criticised for not setting out the effects of rebanding with sufficient clarity, that omission did not make the scheme unlawful in itself. The decision may well encourage authorities to reassess how they explain policy changes, particularly where vulnerable applicants are involved. It further reiterates that judicial review targets...
In this issue: Children's social care Judicial review Planning Local government finance Public procurement Education Social housing Social care Licensing Highways Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Children's social care Court of Appeal allows appeal regarding interim relief in age assessment case ( DCC v R (on the application of UYR) In Derby City Council v R (on the application of UYR), the Court of Appeal upheld Derby City Council’s ( DCC’s) challenge to an interim relief order made within judicial review proceedings. Although the first ground was dismissed, the second ground succeeded. The court determined the judge had erred ‘in considering that the provision of accommodation by Manchester City Council was precarious, and [the judge] ought to have held there was no real risk that the claimant would cease to be...
R (on the application of Arcelormittal Kent Wire Ltd) v Medway Council [2026] EWHC 40 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling serves as a clear prompt that disputes over ‘scope creep’ in a permission typically turn on the language of the operative section of the decision notice and on whether the application is expressly incorporated. In this case, the court held that phrases such as ‘in accordance with your application’ within the operative grant import the application, so the permission is not to be construed as authorising uses that were never sought, even where the description of development is expansive. It further confirms that conditions cannot lawfully enlarge the nature or reach of the authorised development; generic references in conditions to a wider class will not be read as extending the grant. For developers and local planning...
Part 3 of the Landmark Planning and Infrastructure Act becomes law On 18 December 2025, PIA 2025 entered into law. This note sets out the immediate implications for practitioners. It introduces new nature levies that developers may choose to pay, or in some instances be compelled to pay, instead of satisfying certain specified environmental obligations linked to the development consent process. The potential reach is wide: any ‘environmental feature’ in England—including features in or beneath waters adjacent to England, and the English offshore regions—can be addressed through voluntary or mandatory levies in place of the existing mitigation and compensation measures required by environmental laws. Business as usual for now For the moment, there is no change for development, planning or nature recovery. Adjustments to current environmental protections will not apply until new ‘nature restoration levy regulations’ are made, and the first ‘...
What are the practical implications of this case? Under the non-fettering principle, Home Office caseworkers must remain open to exercising discretion when deciding immigration applications, even where an applicant does not satisfy the Immigration Rules or sit within a policy concession. Where exceptional circumstances arise, applicants should include detailed representations and supporting evidence, make a clear request for the use of discretion, and remind the Home Office of its duty not to fetter that discretion. Any decision should explicitly show that the possibility of exercising discretion was properly and sufficiently considered; failure to do so may provide a platform for challenging a refusal. However, the obligation is to consider discretion, not to deploy it. After genuine consideration, the decision-maker may still lawfully refuse the application. If a refusal does not confirm that discretion was taken into account, or if it...
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
