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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Dormer (a protected party, by his mother and litigation friend Iteen Dormer) v Wilson and others [2025] EWHC 523 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? HHJ Tindal’s judgment delivers a meticulous review of the issues that arise when illegality is advanced as a defence in road traffic personal injury cases. It revisits the ‘blind-eye’ knowledge test concerning whether a vehicle was stolen or unlawfully driven from White v White [2001] 1 WLR 481 ( HL), and traces how that principle has been applied in later decisions. The ruling also considers the scope of the insurer’s defence under RTA 1988, s 151, alongside the Motor Insurers’ Bureau exclusion in paragraph 8 of the Uninsured Drivers Agreement. Clear guidance on assessing credibility where suspected unlawful conduct is relevant. Illustration of how the judge’s evaluation of witness evidence informs factual...
Fortification post-discharge of injunction; CPR3.1(5) discussed ( Alta Trading UK Ltd & Others v Bosworth & others) Alta Trading UK Ltd & others v Bosworth & others [2025] EWHC 1097 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling supplies straightforward, workable direction for those handling interim injunctions in commercial disputes. Parties applying for interim measures are ordinarily obliged to give a cross‑undertaking in damages, which, where justified, can be strengthened by security. That is the price the applicant chooses to pay for obtaining the injunction. Should the order inflict loss and the court regard compensation as appropriate, the applicant must honour any consequent award. Fortification is usually determined at an early juncture, commonly on limited, provisional material as to likely loss. At that stage, the respondent may struggle to secure any meaningful fortification, not least because a freezing injunction has just been made...
URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21 What are the practical implications of this case? The Supreme Court has delivered a definitive ruling on several legal questions of fundamental significance to the construction sector, particularly in the post- Grenfell landscape where claims for historic defects are widespread. Current and prospective claimants bringing claims in tort, under the DPA 1972, and for contribution arising from defective works will be encouraged by the Court’s clarifications. Notably, the judgment opens the way for negligence claims to recover repair costs incurred when the claimant no longer had any proprietary interest in the property and was under no enforceable liability towards third parties, which is especially pertinent where BSA 2022, s 135(3) has retrospectively revived DPA 1972 claims that were previously time-barred. The Court further confirmed that DPA 1972, s 1 applies to original...
In this issue: Damages Road traffic accidents Vicarious liability Psychiatric and occupational stress Costs Claims involving fraud and fundamental dishonesty Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Damages High Court considers accommodation costs in a case involving a short life expectancy In Hill v East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust [2025] EWHC 1241 ( KB), the King’s Bench Division determined the claimant’s bid, within a personal injury action, for an additional interim sum of £500,000, chiefly to support a move to a recently bought property. Applying the approach in Eeles v Cobham Hire Services [2009] EWCA Civ 204, the court approved a proportionate interim award of £353,168 which, when added to earlier interim payments, brought the aggregate to £1,919,168......
On 19 May 2025 at the High Court, Senior Costs Judge Jason Rowley determined that the retainers used by Slater and Gordon UK Ltd — under which the firm could deduct up to 25% of any damages secured to contribute towards its costs — were not unenforceable damages-based agreements within the meaning of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. He further confirmed that Slater and Gordon’s conditional fee agreements accorded with the rules in the Act that regulate such retainers......
In this issue: Clinical negligence Employer’s liability Accidents on the highway Damages Claims involving a mentally incapacitated claimant PI & Clinical Negligence specific funding and costs Coroner’s inquests Starting a claim or counterclaim Part 36 offers Civil procedure rule committee minutes Scottish claims Other PI and Clinical negligence news New content Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Clinical negligence Court finds that defendants’ experts’ opinions were not logically defensible The King’s Bench Division in Hodgson v Hammond [2025] EWHC 1261 ( KB) upheld the claimant’s clinical negligence action against two general practitioners for missing and failing to treat pelvic inflammatory disease ( PID). Both doctors were held to have breached their duty of care by not performing, or arranging, a pelvic examination, which was required to confirm or rule out PID in...
The tally of Russian parties before the commercial courts had fallen to 27 in 2024. However, Portland, the communications consultancy, now reports a rebound to 60—the most from Russia since its reporting began in 2018—and marks the highest tally recorded since 2018. The firm posits that this could indicate a wider return of Russian litigants, or might simply be a short-lived bulge prompted by several sizeable claims. Illustrations include disputes linked to aircraft marooned in Russia, such as global insurer Chubb’s US$219m claim against a US aircraft lessor. Another possibility is that the uplift reflects matters lodged prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, which were held up by sanctions but are only now progressing through the courts, the report notes too......
Note: the CPRC no longer distributes the underlying papers alongside the minutes; as a result, no documents explaining the issues considered are supplied with this News Analysis. A copy of the minutes is available here: Minutes of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee. Welcome, apologies and introductory remarks (item 1) The minutes of the 7 March 2025 meeting were formally agreed, albeit subject to a clarificatory amendment to paragraph 3 concerning updates to certain court guides (see News Analysis: Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—7 March 2025). Two items were noted under the action log, namely: The Ministry of Justice’s ( Mo J) reply to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments ( JCSI) about the expression ‘nominal claimant’ in the Civil Procedure ( Amendment) Rules 2025, SI 2025/106 was submitted to, and accepted by, the JCSI. The JCSI determined the phrase has a technical legal...
Re F ( A Minor) ( Permission To Appeal) [2025] EWHC 638 ( Fam) What are the practical implications of this case? As many High Court appeals arise from reserved or written judgments handed down after the hearing, it is vital for any aggrieved litigant to identify when the 21‑day period starts for seeking permission to appeal. The judgment on appeal stresses the continuing need for a robust and workable appeals regime in practice—one that is, as Mr Justice Warby (as he then was) put it in Monroe v Hopkins (no 2) [2017] EWHC 645 ( QB), ‘clear and understandable’—and which, in the end, puts the onus on the party intending or contemplating an appeal either to make the application promptly or to ask for time to do so from the court if necessary. What was the...
Destin Trading Inc v Saipem SA [2025] EWHC 668 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision provides authoritative direction on how overlapping dispute resolution clauses interact, notably where a settlement follows earlier contracts containing arbitration terms. Taking a commercially pragmatic stance, the court confirmed that a later settlement incorporating a new jurisdiction clause will generally regulate all connected disputes thereafter, unless matters are expressly carved out. For legal practitioners, the consequences are twofold: When negotiating settlements, evaluate whether the parties intend to displace existing arbitration provisions; if they do not, the settlement must state that intention clearly and unequivocally. Exact drafting is vital. Broad jurisdiction wording in settlement or termination agreements can inadvertently override prior arbitral arrangements, particularly where claims, while referring to antecedent contracts, in truth arise from misrepresentation or other issues linked to the settlement...
You can access the minutes here: Online Procedure Rule Committee minutes for the meeting on 14 April 2025. Welcome, apologies and introductory remarks (item 1) The minutes of the 17 March 2025 meeting were approved subject to amendments, as detailed in News Analysis: Minutes of the Online Procedure Rule Committee meeting—17 March 2025. Ministry of Justice policy update (item 2) The OPRC received a briefing from the Ministry of Justice ( Mo J) on the spending review, confirming funding for the Digital Justice System Private Family Law ( PFL) programme for this year. It was recorded that Antonia Romeo, the departing Permanent Secretary, will be replaced on an interim basis by Amy Rees. Ministerial portfolios were also reallocated, with oversight of family justice shifting from Lord Ponsonby to Minister Sackman. The Master of the Rolls ( MR) reported on his recent visit to Bromley County Court with...
Variation of budget after trial, oppressive behaviour, Part 36, and a payment on account of costs ( Barry & Barry v Barry) Barry and another v Barry [2025] EWHC 819 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? There are several practical takeaways from this decision. It emphasises the need to move quickly to seek a variation of your costs budget when a significant development arises; hesitation may prove fatal to the application. The ruling also illustrates that a budget can be amended even where the relevant costs have already been incurred. The court further signalled a robust commitment to the purpose of Part 36 when a reasonable proposal is made but refused without any good reason. Part 36 is crafted to both encourage and punish; if the penalties are not enforced, the incentive disappears. Mr Justice Dexter Dias offered clear guidance on the...
Under what circumstances can insurance payments be deducted from personal injury compensation? The starting point, as explained in Hodgson v Trapp [1989] AC 807, is that a claimant should account for advantages obtained because of the accident, since damages are there to compensate rather than to allow recovery twice over. There are, however, exceptions. The most frequently encountered concerns social security benefits, which are subject to a distinct statutory framework, ie CRU deductions, with which personal injury practitioners will be acquainted. Another exception, first formally recognised in the late nineteenth century in Bradburn v Great Western Rail Co [1874] LR 10 Exch 1, is the insurance exception. Under this rule, sums paid to a claimant under an insurance policy, consequent upon the claimant suffering an accident, are not to be taken off the damages award. The rationale for this principle, confirmed in Parry v...
R ( Glaister and Carr) v Assistant Coroner for North Wales [2025] EWHC 1018 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? This is another reported instance arising from non-malicious breaches of the court embargo relating to the circulation of draft reserved judgments. The decision is useful and instructive, expressly noting that both a court embargo and a journalism embargo operate, and drawing out the significant differences between them for clarity. It also explains why the court embargo matters and makes plain that any infringement of it constitutes a serious issue. The court painstakingly dissects the steps taken by those involved when the confidential, embargoed draft judgment ( CEDJ) was passed on, pinpointing the particular contraventions in order to offer guidance for the future. Finally, the judgment squarely emphasises the importance of what followed the initial...
Forsyth v Howson and another company [2025] EWHC 653 ( KB) What are the practical implications of the case? The decision spotlights whether a claimant with capacity can be forced to disclose privileged settlement advice. Currently, no procedure exists to mandate such disclosure, and the judge did not take it further. Consequently, the defendant could not thrust court approval on a capacitous claimant. The judge noted that, although parties crave finality and fear any settlement might unravel, if the claimant does have litigation capacity the compromise will not be set aside and judicial approval would have been redundant. The case therefore emphasises respecting a claimant’s autonomy where capacity is present, and urges defendants to proceed warily before seeking approval contrary to the claimant’s wishes, especially at a point in the proceedings when additional evidence about financial capacity is still...
In this issue: Costs Road traffic accidents Public authorities and the state Accidents on the highway Trips and slips Psychiatric and occupational stress Clinical negligence Case management Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Lexis Nexis® Webinars Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Costs When do the exceptions in the EL/ PL Protocol apply? This update reviews Johnson v Choice Support [2025] EWHC 1020 ( SCCO), which examined whether the Pre- Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury ( Employers’ Liability and Public Liability) Claims captured a worker’s claim against her employer after she was pushed by an elderly patient. The dispute concluded by settlement at £16,500. The claimant contended the matter was not suited to the Protocol because: (1) its proper valuation exceeded £25,000; and (2) it fell within the...
The Court of Appeal said on 8 May 2025 that Georgios Vatistas can be added as a defendant to Betta Oceanway Co's debt claim against SC Tomini Trading SRL if he pays a security of £400,000 ( US$532,000) Lebanese businessman Nemr Diab controls both companies. Justice Stephen Males commented that Diab’s ultimate control and beneficial ownership of Betta, a Liberian company, and Tomini, a Romanian scrap‑metal firm founded by Vatistas, makes the case “very odd”. In his words, “ This is in effect a case where Mr. Diab's right hand is suing his left hand to establish liability for a debt which everyone knows that the left hand cannot pay.” Neither business has explained why the claim is being run, despite both accepting the debt is owed. The judgment observes that when debtor and creditor agree the money is due and there is no...
George Morriss v London Borough of Hillingdon [2025] EWHC 983 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment examines what constitutes a ‘defect’ on the highway under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 ( Hi A 1980), setting out the elements that make a defect actionable, with emphasis in this instance on the co-efficiency of friction of a manhole cover or other highway surface. It underlines the obligation on a highway authority to carry out a risk assessment of the carriageway (eg the layout of the road, the......
All references in this article to CPR 45.29B and CPR 36.20 are to the versions in force before October 2023; the rules were amended with effect from October 2023 and are no longer situated in the same place. Attersley v UK Insurance Ltd [2025] EWHC 884 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? The principal effect of this judgment is to resolve the tension between CPR 45.29B and CPR 36.20. The decision carries significant practical consequences for personal injury practitioners, and is therefore of real significance for those handling such claims. Awareness is essential for both claimant and defendant representatives in matters that begin in the RTA Protocol but then leave that process and increase in value and complexity. The Qader v Esure [2017] 1 WLR 1924 principle is unchanged: where cases are concluded before allocation to the...
Julie Johnson v Choice Support [2025] EWHC 1020 ( SCCO) What are the practical implications of this case? If claimants opt to proceed outside the Pre- Action Protocols, they must articulate, in the letter of claim, a detailed and complete justification for treating the matter as inappropriate for the relevant Protocol. There can be several bases on which a claim may not fit a particular Protocol, and these should be spelt out clearly at the outset. In Johnson, the claimant relied on two matters: overall value and a specific exception. However, the Costs Judge noted at paragraph 8 that the letter of claim did not mention the exception at paragraph 4.3(8) of the EL/ PL Protocol, and the point was determined against the claimant. Accordingly, claimants should make explicit any reliance on exceptions within the applicable Protocol and explain why those provisions apply to their facts. For...
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
