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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
When will a report be covered by without prejudice privilege? ( BNP Paribas v Briggs & Forrester) BNP Paribas Depositary Services Ltd and another v Briggs & Forrester Engineering Services Ltd [2024] EWHC 2575 ( TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling clarifies when without prejudice privilege ( WPP) can protect a document that is not an exchange between the parties, but is created to aid the resolution of a dispute. Where a report—such as a survey, condition assessment or defects report—is procured to underpin settlement discussions, WPP may attach if clear steps are taken to align the report with the settlement process. To maximise protection, ensure the report is obtained for the purpose of facilitating negotiations and is treated in a manner consistent with confidentiality throughout its lifecycle. In particular, any party seeking to rely on WPP for such material should ensure the...
In this issue: Road traffic accidents Employer’s liability Evidence and disclosure Civil procedure rule committee minutes Other PI and Clinical negligence news Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Lexis Nexis® Webinars Useful information Road traffic accidents Draft regulations introduced to increase whiplash compensation tariffs The Ministry of Justice has presented the draft Whiplash Injury ( Amendment) Regulations 2025 to Parliament, suggesting a 15% uplift to the fixed-tariff awards for whiplash lasting up to two years. Subject to parliamentary approval, the revised figures will take effect for injuries sustained on or after 31 May 2025. The adjustment reflects Consumer Prices Index movements since 2021 and builds in an inflation cushion through to 2027. The 2021 tariff will continue to govern accidents before 31 May 2025. See: LNB News 21/03/2025 32 and LNB News 21/03/2025 22. Court allows the Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis to be added as a second...
Clarke v Guardian News & Media Ltd [2025] EWHC 550 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling offers key guidance on how litigation privilege applies to transcripts. In preparing for trial, the defendant commissioned certified transcripts of audio recordings gathered during its inquiries into Noel Clarke. Facing the claimant’s disclosure application, The Guardian contended the transcripts were brought into being for the dominant purpose of conducting the claim and were therefore privileged. The court rejected that contention, confirming that when the underlying conversations are non‑privileged, their transcripts do not acquire privilege simply because they were created for litigation purposes. Additionally, the judgment underscores the strong protection afforded to journalistic sources. The court emphasised that, even where a source has been identified elsewhere, Article 10 rights may still protect information supplied by that source. That protection is not confined to the...
In this issue: Starting and managing online claims Injuries caused by animals Clinical negligence Settlement and settling disputes Costs and funding Other PI and Clinical negligence news New content Lex Talk® PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Lexis Nexis® Webinars Useful information Starting and managing online claims Damages Claims Pilot under CPR PD 51ZB—updated guidance HM Courts and Tribunals Service ( HMCTS) has refreshed its Damages Claims Portal ( DCP) guidance covering the journey from issue to response for claims running under CPR PD 51ZB. The revisions emphasise and explain the correct process when submitting a draft order alongside an application. On applying, representatives should set out the wording of the required order in the designated field and also upload a separate draft order document. See LNB News 18/03/2025 12. HMCTS publishes contact details for using the online claims services ( DCP and OCMC) HMCTS has released contact information for the online claims...
Note: The CPRC has ceased sharing the supporting papers alongside the minutes, therefore no explanatory documents on the topics covered accompany this News Analysis. A copy of the minutes can be accessed here: Minutes of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee. Welcome, action log and matters arising (item 1) The minutes from the 6 December 2024 meeting were approved by the Committee, and the action log duly recorded—see News Analysis: Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—6 December 2024. The Chair duly noted that: the CPRC’s Annual Report 2023–2024 was placed online ahead of the Christmas recess, with hard copies supplied to members as well the Service Sub- Committee’s programme is advancing satisfactorily, and a report on the E-signature work is expected to be provided at the next meeting the E- Working pilot CPR Practice Direction ( PD) 51O ends on 1 November 2025 and is...
The Court of Appeal has announced it will lift the stay on considering a crucial question about the validity of litigation funding agreements, a step that could redefine the terrain for funders and claimants alike. At a directions hearing on 4 February 2025, Sir Julian Flaux and Lord Justice Green lifted the stay affecting five appeals from the Competition Appeal Tribunal ( CAT). Each of these matters turns on whether the so‑called ‘multiple approach’—under which funders are paid by reference to a multiple of their outlay rather than a share of any damages—accords with English law following the Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling......
In a written ruling, the High Court declined to grant Tatiana Soroka, former wife of billionaire Farkhad Akhmedov, a split trial—(initially to decide whether the firm was negligent, followed by a separate phase on causation and loss)—after concluding the case should proceed in one consolidated trial, and that the trial should continue in a combined form. In a judgment, Judge Francesca Kaye remarked there was “a real risk of fuzziness or greyness around the edges of what was to be determined at trial one”, signalling the two parts could not be neatly disentangled meaning the two halves could not sensibly be separated. The trial is set for October 2026. “ I was left with a real nagging doubt that the clear bright line was not clear or bright,” Judge Kaye said......
Entering the prompt into Co Pilot returned compelling ideas I hadn’t envisaged when shaping this article’s structure. It’s another clear use case for idea generation within artificial intelligence. AI can rapidly distil extensive information, viewpoints and inventive approaches that people might not instinctively explore. By surfacing unlikely connections and a diversity of perspectives, it fuels innovation and pushes thinking beyond familiar patterns. e Disclosure history e Disclosure has experienced a significant shift, driven chiefly by AI’s rise and by the swelling volume and complexity of data. A linear style of review was once routine in the legal sector, trawling through immense collections rife with redundant and non-responsive material. Clients reviewed hard copy documents, concealing privilege with a black marker. The growth of electronically stored information ( ESI) has created substantial challenges for organisations in every industry, particularly within legal proceedings and the disclosure process. e...
Stuart Angel and 1379 others v Black Horse Ltd and other appeals [2025] EWHC 490 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision matters to all engaged in group litigation, and is especially relevant to those advising on lower-value, consumer group claims. Through its application of the factors identified in Morris, the court supplies further, practical guidance on when omnibus claim forms will be a convenient means of progressing group litigation. By deploying those Morris factors, the court has indicated how and when such forms may appropriately be used to organise cases. The judgment also clarifies the effect of decisions on common issues across related claims and signals clear judicial support for flexible, adaptable solutions in consumer finance disputes in this sphere. Key points to note: Morris v Williams remains the principal authority on issuing multiple claims in a single claim form;...
Damages claims—unspecified money claims Technical problem with a Damages claims case: DCPTech Support@justice.gov.uk General questions about a Damages claims case ( DCP- DC case reference): Damages Claims@justice.gov.uk Enquiry after ‘case transferred offline’ on a Damages claims case: contact the Local Court/ CNBC, depending on the owning court/position of the case Questions about your ‘ My HMCTS’ account or sign in issues: My HMCTSsupport@justice.gov.uk Specific examples Application to amend the claim form: email the revised claim form to Damages Claims@justice.gov.uk; do not copy in DCPTech Support As a courtesy, notifying the court of any extension other than a 28 day extension to file a defence: this is not required and the DCP does not support it; if you still wish to do so, email the local court and do not include DCPTech Support Case settled and a listed trial no...
Boyd v Hughes [2025] EWHC 435 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? The court followed the step-by-step methodology to the Animals Act set out in Dennis v Voute and another [2022] EWHC 2117. Each subsection requires sequential consideration and fulfilment in turn. The ruling further supplies fresh authority in Animals Act disputes and claims on how far the court will weigh case-specific factors when assessing both the risk of harm and the risk of severe harm in any incidents with domesticated animals. More specificity will usually, though not invariably, favour the claimant. It emphasises that these evaluations should be anchored to the concrete features of the incident under scrutiny. Animals Act practitioners should scrutinise whether, where no obvious trigger explains the behaviour under review, it may properly be treated as characteristic rather than general or normal conduct. In...
In this issue: Psychiatric and occupational stress Road traffic accidents Accidents abroad Clinical negligence Case management Costs and funding Other news Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Lexis Nexis® Webinars Useful information Psychiatric and occupational stress Court of Appeal grants damages to a child secondary victim from the historic Hyde Park bombing In Young v Downey [2025] EWCA Civ 177, the claim traces back to the 1982 Hyde Park bombing. The defendant, although never convicted, has been found in other courts to have been involved as a perpetrator. The claimant is the daughter of a bombing victim. She was in Hyde Park at the time, heard the blast, and witnessed appalling injuries in the aftermath. She later learnt that her father had been killed. As a...
The limitations of (non) material contribution ( Tuffin v University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust) Tuffin v University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust [2024] EWHC 3318 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision supplies practical guidance for defendants contesting reliance on the ‘material contribution’ test derived from Simmons v British Steel plc [2004] UKHL 20, Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ 883, and Williams v Bermuda Hospitals Board ( NHS Litigation Authority intervening) [2016] UKPC 4 ( Privy Council). The claimant placed weight on the recognised difficulties in identifying CRPS, and in differentiating it from DVT and its downstream symptoms. On that basis, it was said the court had to apply the ‘material contribution’ approach and conclude that DVT made a more than minimal contribution. The claimant’s difficulty, however, was that the defendant’s medical experts advanced clear, cogent...
Young v Downey [2025] EWCA Civ 177 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision provides valuable direction on how nervous shock claims apply to child secondary victims, and examines the extent of cognisance those children must have to fall within the class of claimants able to recover. It is also of some, albeit limited, broader relevance to circumstances where people may not immediately and fully appreciate the level of danger faced by their loved ones in context. The class of claimants permitted to recover for such injuries has, traditionally, been constrained by certain ‘control mechanisms’, most clearly described in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1991] UKHL 5 (not reported by Lexis Nexis®UK). The claimant must: witness a sudden, shocking event; which, in material terms, involves the death or injury of a sufficiently proximate loved one; and be such that a...
A lengthy review by the Civil Justice Council ( CJC) — the body advising government and the judiciary on civil justice and procedure across England and Wales — will consider whether the sector requires tighter oversight than now. It will also explore if funders’ profits ought to be limited, and whether changes in statute should be brought forward. The final report, anticipated in the summer of 2025, may trigger a profound shift across the litigation‑funding market indeed. Here, Law360 sets out the principal themes now clearly emerging. Regulation splits opinion Litigation funders currently self‑police under the Association of Litigation Funders’ code of conduct. Yet views on extending this to formal regulation remain sharply divided today. Moreover, the sector’s expanding scale, coupled with several recent high‑profile cases, has significantly heightened scrutiny. The Legal Services Board, which supervises lawyer regulation in England and Wales, proposes that the...
The High Court, in a preliminary judgment delivered on 7 March 2025, held that it remains premature to decide with any certainty whether the behaviour of the French police during the episode triggers the rule that English courts refrain from scrutinising the lawfulness of acts by foreign states. Judge Mark Turner indicated he was willing to accept that at least some elements of the French response, via senior officials, could constitute acts of state. However, he dismissed European football’s governing body’s contention that every deed carried out by an operative under state authority necessarily falls within that doctrine. The ruling states that, given the current, incomplete pleadings and evidence, it is not possible with confidence at this time to fully determine which, if any, of these acts are caught by the doctrine......
The Competition Appeal Tribunal has allowed Barry Rodger, a Strathclyde University law professor in Scotland, to advance his case, notwithstanding the tech giant’s objections to the arrangement he has reached with a litigation funder. Delivering an oral ruling at the close of the hearing, Judge Stephen Morris confirmed the claim may proceed, provided the funding agreement is revised in certain respects. The tribunal withheld fuller particulars of those revisions, indicating that written reasons will follow in due course. After considering the oral submissions, the written materials, and the representations of the proposed class representative and the proposed defendants, namely the various Google entities, the tribunal decided to certify the proceedings subject to specified points, Judge Morris explained. He then identified the particular clause within the funding contract that would be changed. This ruling follows Rodger’s application inviting the tribunal to make a...
Note: the CPRC has ceased distributing the underlying papers with the minutes; consequently, no background documents explaining the issues are supplied with this News Analysis. A copy of the minutes is available here: Minutes of the Civil Procedure Committee. Welcome, action log and matters arising (item 1) The minutes of the meeting on 1 November were approved—see News Analysis: Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—1 November 2024. The following items were considered: Domestic Abuse Protection Orders ( DAPO) pilot—the pilot CPR PD 51ZF took effect on 27 November 2024. The Chair stressed the value of cross-jurisdiction collaboration and confirmed out-of-committee approval of the judicial working group’s template orders. CPR PD 83 Possession Enforcement reforms—the significant effort on the reforms, and the retitling of a prescribed form by removing ‘ A’ from PF92A, were acknowledged. The recommended changes were duly approved. CPR 52...
In this issue: Key PI and Clinical negligence developments Civil procedure rule committee minutes Psychiatric and occupational stress Injuries caused by animals Claims involving a child Claims involving a fatality Costs and funding Other PI and Clinical negligence news Lex Talk® PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Lexis Nexis® Webinars Useful information Key PI and Clinical negligence developments Mo J announces reduction in CFO’s interest rates The Ministry of Justice ( Mo J) has confirmed reduced interest rates for the Courts Funds Office ( CFO) special and basic accounts. The special account rate moves from 4.75% to 4.50%, while the basic account rate shifts from 3.56% to 3.38%. Effective from 3 March 2025, the revision follows the Bank of England’s base rate cut on 6 February 2025 and is intended to ensure the CFO Service can continue to cover operational costs. See: LNB News 04/03/2025 38......
BB and others v Al Khayyat and other [2025] EWHC 379 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? This notable ruling explores the tension between the default costs position on discontinuance and the court’s imperative to uphold the integrity of its own process. Here, the claimants who discontinued levelled serious accusations at a particular defendant and a connected state actor. If established, they would signify a grave attempt by a defendant, or those acting for them, to interfere with the administration of justice. Nonetheless, merely advancing such charges—even if cogent and prima facie arguable—does not, without more, dislodge the relevant presumption. Integrity-based concerns alone do not supplant that starting point; the court must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the allegations are well-founded. Only then will it depart from the norm in CPR 38.6, under which a claimant who...
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
