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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
PMC (a child by his mother and litigation friend FLR) v A Local Health Board [2025] EWCA Civ 176 What are the practical implications of this case? Until the substantive ruling in PMC v A Local Health Board, the landscape was unhelpfully unclear. Anyone weighing up whether to pursue an anonymity order, and on what basis, had to navigate a binding Court of Appeal authority— JXMX v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 96—alongside a model order (court form PF10) that had drawn strong criticism from Mr Justice Nicklin. That criticism triggered a White Book note stating, in essence, that the identified errors in PF10 warranted urgent review and revision by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee. It further cautioned practitioners to heed Nicklin J’s guidance and handle the draft with care. The practical upshot was that both applicants and judges dealing with...
PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—27 February 2025 In this issue: Costs Interim payments CPR updates Other PI news Lex Talk® PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Costs Principles applying to the recovery of CFA uplifts In AKS (a protected party) v National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society Ltd, where a solicitor acts for a protected party, the court—subject to limited exceptions in CPR 46.4(3) and CPR PD 46, para 2.1 (which were not engaged on these facts)—must determine the costs payable by that party to their own solicitor out of damages, pursuant to CPR 46.4(2)(a). That determination follows the indemnity principle as for a typical solicitor–client assessment under CPR 46.9. A litigation friend, or a court of protection deputy, lacks authority to compromise costs, including...
AKS (a protected party) v National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society Ltd) [2025] Lexis Citation 46 What are the practical implications of this case? At its simplest, the judgment underscores the stringent, precisely drafted CPR provisions that regulate settlements involving protected parties, together with the mandatory formalities required before any compromise will validly bind a protected party. This is a point to be borne in mind by solicitors acting for protected parties, litigation friends and Court of Protection deputies alike. The ruling is also pertinent to those representing protected parties under conditional fee agreements and, more broadly, to the courts’ developing approach to success fees. It directs practitioners to give close attention to the appraisal of risk, to articulate a clear justification supported by evidence for any assessed risk, and to consider, where appropriate, early notification and frank discussion of success fees with clients,...
In this issue: Key PI and clinical negligence developments Costs Employer's liability Road traffic accidents Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Key PI and clinical negligence developments The personal injury discount rate—a review Late in 2024, the Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood MP, revealed the outcome of her five‑month review of the discount rate, first launched in July 2024. A month after the new +0.5% discount rate took effect, Thea Wilson (barrister at 12 King’s Bench Walk) assesses its influence on claims, responses from claimant and defendant representatives, and what the shift means for practitioners. See News Analysis: The personal injury discount rate—a review. Costs Qualified one-way costs shifting applied to a claim for personal injury caused by the wrongful disclosure of private information In Birley v Heritage Independent Living Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 44, the...
Mobile Telecommunications Co KSCP, which trades as Zain Group Mobile Telecommunications Co KSCP, trading as Zain Group, has challenged a decision that the English courts lacked authority to serve a bankruptcy petition on Prince Hussam bin Saud bin Abdulaziz Al Saud. Bankruptcy legislation requires an individual to have a ‘place of residence’ in England before jurisdiction is engaged. The prince convinced the High Court that he had no residence in the UK, but the telecoms company asked the Court of Appeal to set that conclusion aside. Stephen Moverley Smith KC of XXIV Old Buildings, for Mobile Telecommunications, told the Court of Appeal that Parliament intended the gateway to bankruptcy jurisdiction to be broad—and that the court should give effect to that intention. ‘ Parliament’s intention was to provide a wide basis for the court to assume jurisdiction’, he said. Moverley Smith further argued that to...
What has been the impact of the new discount rate? The most immediate and evident effect of the revised discount rate is a decrease in the value of future loss awards. This mirrors the Lord Chancellor’s stated view that claimants can now achieve stronger investment returns than before. The expert panel advising the Lord Chancellor considered it reasonable to assume claimants obtain CPI plus 1%. In the accompanying impact statement, this was projected to produce an annual fall in settlement values of about £350m, comprising expected savings of roughly £200m per year for the NHS and around £150m per year for insurers. The reduction in future loss is best demonstrated by an example. Consider a 40-year-old male with average life expectancy settling a personal injury claim, on the following assumptions: Loss of earnings of £35,000 per annum to retirement at 65; Care of...
Christie v Mary Ward Legal Centre [2025] EWHC 330 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? Practitioners engaged in advancing or resisting professional negligence claims, particularly those directed at legal advisers, will find this judgment both useful and noteworthy. It grapples with fine-grained factual questions and intricate legal terrain, features that frequently characterise such litigation. It also underscores that, where pivotal pieces of evidence are not supplied by a client to their legal representative, responsibility will ordinarily not rest with the latter. That broad proposition does not, of course, absolve omissions to request documents or to pursue the proper enquiries. Having cleared the law centre and counsel of negligence, the judge went further, setting out why he considered both had assisted the client as effectively as the circumstances permitted. He even appeared to go out of his way to commend them. The tone of the...
Getty Images ( Us), Inc and other companies v Stability Al Ltd [2025] EWHC 38 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The decision highlights three practical points when pursuing claims in a representative capacity. Parties must understand the criteria for representative actions (succinctly set out at paragraph [57] of the judgment). In particular: define the class under CPR 19.8 precisely so every member can be identified ensure the class definition is not contingent on the litigation outcome; avoid definitions tied to disputed issues all class members must share the same interest; beware framing issues at too general a level, which unravels on closer analysis Sensible case management is equally vital, especially in complex disputes. The court repeatedly indicated—adversely to the representative route—that permitting such a claim without clear, worked‑through proposals for how the claim(s) would be dealt with would not sit...
Reeves v Frain (aka Simon Kevin Reeves aka Bill Reeves) and another [2025] Lexis Citation 174 What was the background? The claimant instituted contested probate proceedings, disputing the validity of a will his father executed on 7 January 2014. The defendants’ representation was partly financed via Damages- Based Agreements ( DBAs) with LLP Solicitors. Green J gave judgment for the defendants on 31 January 2022. A further hearing on 4 March 2022 addressed consequential matters, among them costs. The defendants sought recovery of costs under the DBAs, which the claimant challenged as irrecoverable. The court considered preliminary issues concerning the enforceability of the DBAs and whether any fresh retainers were allegedly formed after judgment. What did the court decide? The court addressed preliminary issues regarding whether the DBAs were enforceable and whether any new retainers were allegedly established post-judgment......
Birley and another (personal representatives of the Estate of Ms Rosa Taylor) v Heritage Independent Living Ltd and others [2025] EWCA Civ 44 What are the practical implications of this case? There are two key takeaways for practitioners. The first concerns specialists in privacy and data protection, while the second touches every civil litigant. Regarding the former, doubt had persisted over whether qualified one-way costs shifting ( QOCS) extends to a personal injury action framed as breach of privacy or misuse of private information, rather than negligence. Because ATE premiums remain fully recoverable in such proceedings [ Article 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 ( Commencement No 5 and Saving Provision) Order 2013 ( SI 2013/77)], there would, in practice, be no necessity for QOCS, as the claimant would already enjoy comprehensive costs cover via their ATE policy. The Court of...
Edwards & Others v 2 Sisters Food Group Ltd [2024] Lexis Citation 4356 What are the practical implications of this case? Despite being a County Court decision, this concise judgment will reassure employers confronting comparable employee coronavirus claims. It was striking that the claimants had still not obtained medical or other material supporting causation, nor any proof substantiating the pleaded breaches of duty. While the judge stressed the solicitor’s obligation to investigate properly before issuing proceedings, a more robust investigation would not necessarily have improved the prospects of resisting a summary judgment application if supportive expert opinion was never going to emerge. For a novel coronavirus claim to withstand a summary judgment application, there must be convincing evidence indicating the claimant could not have contracted the virus elsewhere......
PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—13 February 2025 In this issue: CPR updates Public authorities and the state Clinical negligence Employer’s liability Other PI and Clinical negligence news New content Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information CPR updates 179th Practice Direction update and pre-action protocol update—in force 22 January 2025 and 6 April 2025 The 179th Practice Direction ( PD) update takes effect on 6 April 2025. The Master of the Rolls and the Courts Minister have signed the Practice Direction Update, which sets out a series of amendments in support of the Civil Procedure ( Amendment) Rules 2025, SI 2025/106......
What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment has resulted in every claim brought by the claimants against the defendants in the English courts being stayed or dismissed. Those claims are likely to be out of time in the jurisdiction identified as the natural forum, which may prevent the claimants from advancing them at all. The ramifications are therefore considerable and far-reaching. Claimants are strongly urged not to postpone service of proceedings without solid justification. The mere possibility of a settlement is unlikely, on its own, to justify postponement. Equally, great care is needed when choosing the forum where multiple jurisdictional paths are available. That choice is often a complex legal and strategic exercise, particularly where, as here, the parties’ locations, the economic impact of the alleged claims, the governing law, and the whereabouts of witnesses and documents all point in...
WH Holding Ltd v E20 Stadium LLP [2025] EWHC 140 ( Comm) What was the background? WH Holding Ltd ( WHH) and E20 Stadium LLP ( E20) were counterparties to a concession agreement (the Agreement) concerning the operation of the London Stadium situated in the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park The Agreement included an anti‑embarrassment clause requiring WHH to pay E20 a Stadium Premium Amount if specified transactions by WHH’s shareholders occurred On 10 November 2021, WHH’s shareholders entered into arrangements to sell shares and to grant options connected with WHH’s ownership of West Ham United Football Club A dispute then arose between WHH and E20 as to whether, in light of those transactions, a Stadium Premium Amount became payable pursuant to the anti‑embarrassment clause The parties referred that dispute to an expert for determination in accordance with the Agreement’s expert determination clause, which provided that the expert’s decision would be final and...
In this issue: CPR updates Fundamental dishonesty Road traffic accidents Dental claims Public authorities and the state Case management Costs Other PI and Clinical negligence news Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information CPR updates Civil Procedure ( Amendment) Rules 2025 SI 2025/106: These amendments update the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, SI 1998/3132 ( CPR), which prescribe practice and procedure for the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal, the High Court and the County Court. They take effect in part on 6 April 2025, and fully when section 194 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 commences. See: LNB News 04/02/2025 21. Fundamental dishonesty High Court dismisses contempt of court proceedings following a trial finding of fundamental dishonesty. In Aviva Insurance Ltd v Nadeem [2024] EWHC 3445 (...
Family court judges’ anonymisation overturned by the Court of Appeal ( Tickle & Summers v BBC and others) — Tickle & Summers v BBC and others [2025] EWCA Civ 42 What are the practical implications of this case? Save in only the narrowest of situations, judges sitting in the family court — including magistrates, district and circuit judges (para [54]) — should be identified by name, even where hearings are held in private. This development will be of particular note to practitioners who also sit as fee‑paid members of the judiciary. There is no distinct ‘shielded justice environment’ for family proceedings; the open justice principle applies across civil, criminal and family jurisdictions (para [45]). Although Ch A 1989, s 97 and section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 impose limits on what may and may not be reported, those statutory...
JXX (a protected party by his litigation friend ABB) v Archibald [2025] Lexis Citation 43 In JXX (a protected party by his litigation friend ABB) v Archibald [2025] Lexis Citation 43, Costs Judge Rowley addressed a challenge where the defendant said the claimant’s Bill of Costs was defective because no expert fee notes were supplied and there were no separate itemisations for the medical agency’s charges and the experts’ own fees. The defendant invited the court either to strike out the Bill or to assess the expert fees at nil. Having examined the key points, the judge concluded that comparisons could be drawn with the often sparse detail on counsel’s fee notes, which still require judicial scrutiny. Mr Mallalieu submitted—and the court accepted—that further particulars can be demanded where necessary. However, on a standard basis assessment the evidential burden rests with the...
Tactus Holdings Ltd (in administration) v Jordan and others [2025] EWHC 133 ( Comm) What was the background? Tactus Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) ( Tactus) issued proceedings against seven individuals, the defendants, alleging a breach of warranty under a Share Purchase Agreement ( SPA) that Tactus had entered into for the purchase of shares in a company in February 2022 In May 2024, Tactus purported to transfer its rights and claims under the SPA to Chillblast Ltd ( Chillblast) via the ‘ Tactus Assignment’ Earlier, in March 2024, Chillblast acquired from Santander UK plc debts owed by Tactus under the ‘ Santander Assignment’, which provided for a share of proceeds arising from Tactus’s claims against the defendants The defendants resisted Chillblast’s application to be substituted as the claimant, asserting that the Tactus Assignment was ineffective on the basis that it was both prohibited by the SPA and...
PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—30 January 2025 In this issue: Key PI and clinical negligence developments Public authorities and the state Psychiatric and occupational stress Costs and funding Other PI and Clinical negligence news Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Lexis Nexis® Webinars Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Key PI and clinical negligence developments Neurotechnology and the law— Personal injury and clinical negligence: Harry Lambert, a barrister at Crown Office Chambers and the founder and head of the Centre for Neurotechnology and Law, explores imminent advances in neurotechnology, assessing how they may reshape rehabilitation and deliver game-changing effects across personal injury and clinical negligence. See News Analysis: Neurotechnology and the law— Personal injury and clinical negligence. HMCTS issues updated guidance for the Damages Claims pilot scheme under CPR PD 51ZB: HM Courts and...
In brief Major advances in neurotechnology are opening paths to tackle conditions spanning cerebral palsy, limb loss, blindness and persistent depression. A genuine paradigm shift is under way. Neurology, neurosurgery and neuro-rehabilitation are undergoing extraordinary change, propelled by striking progress in implantable neurotechnologies. Tools once confined to science fiction are moving swiftly from the laboratory into mainstream clinical practice, recasting how we understand neurological injury and its profound repercussions. This transformation goes to the core of our responsibilities as lawyers. Restitutio in integrum invariably requires examining the assistive technologies on offer. Now, achieving restitutio in integrum is attainable in ways that once defied imagination. In years past, a claimant who had lost an eye might have received a little gratuitous care and a sympathetic pat on the back; today, after the success of Science Corp’s PRIMA implant trials in October 2024, we confront the very real, and...
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
