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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
( Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police v Woodcock, HD and others (by their respective litigation friends) v Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police) [2025] EWCA Civ 13 What are the practical implications of this case? It reminds practitioners that: The Tindall principles are now settled law: no duty of care is owed where the police merely withhold a benefit from an individual, or confer none at all. The decisive question is whether police conduct left the position worse in practical terms. Practitioners should, therefore, test the counterfactual, on the facts: what would have unfolded had the police not been involved? The ‘assumption of responsibility’ and ‘interference’ routes are illustrations of this core divide. Where officers take responsibility for a person, or stop a third party from giving aid, they are, by definition, plainly worsening matters. It is exceptionally hard to identify ‘exceptional...
This article is the second instalment in a two-part look at the landmark Supreme Court decision of Paul and another ( Appellants) v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust ( Respondent) [2024] UKSC 1 (called ‘ Paul’ here). As outlined in part one, the requirement for a Paul ‘accident’ creates distinct problems for secondary victim claims arising out of clinical negligence. Yet do the court’s observations on duty of care in Paul make these claims even more difficult? Secondary victims are individuals who suffer psychiatric harm from witnessing injury, or the threat of injury, to a loved one, the so‑called primary victim. The criteria for a successful secondary victim action are demanding. Concerns of public policy about opening the floodgates to litigation have curtailed earlier efforts to broaden the law, arguably to the detriment of people with devastating psychological trauma. In Alcock v Chief...
Innsworth Capital has launched arbitration proceedings against Walter Merricks According to an application to approve the settlement of the collective group action against Mastercard in the UK competition court, formally published on 23 January 2025, Innsworth alleges the class representative has 'not acted with best endeavours to secure its return'. Innsworth’s choice to commence arbitration proceedings against Walter Merricks was confirmed after the investor criticised his decision to settle the case. The application, released shortly before a scheduled February 2025 hearing at that time, notes that Mastercard could contribute £10m towards the costs arising from Merricks’ ongoing dispute with Innsworth in arbitration. In a witness statement issued alongside the settlement application, Merricks said he believed it was 'in the best interest of the class' to accept the offer made and that the agreement was 'just and reasonable'. Merricks also added that...
PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—23 January 2025 In this issue: Public authorities and the state Costs and funding Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Lexis Nexis® Webinars Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Public authorities and the state The police owe no general duty to shield individuals from criminal harm, and foreseeability on its own does not create such a duty. Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police v Woodcock; HD (by their respective litigation friends) v Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police [2025] EWCA Civ 13 comprised two appeals in the Court of Appeal ( Civil Division). Each claim examined whether the police could be liable in damages for not preventing injury inflicted by a third party offender. The appeals were heard together. The Court of Appeal rejected the claims of CJ and others alleging a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and...
Underhill v Thackray Williams Solicitors [2024] Lexis Citation 3830 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling underscores for practitioners the need to deliver timely, accurate guidance on costs and to supply cost information at the outset of an engagement, followed by further notices as fees escalate. It is noteworthy that the judge refused the firm’s assessment costs even though the recovery achieved was sufficient to engage section 70(9) of the Solicitors Act 1974, which ordinarily places the costs of assessment on the client, as the party challenging the bill, where the firm secures a figure exceeding the total reduced by 20 per cent. The court highlighted that there remains a discretion to deviate from that default position where the circumstances justify doing so, pursuant to SA 1974, s70(10), and exercised it here to deprive the firm of its assessment costs...
DKH Retail Ltd and others v City Football Group Ltd [2024] EWHC 3231 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This seems to be the earliest published ruling where the court has invoked CPR 1.4(2)(e) and CPR 3.1(2)(o) (in their form from 1 October 2024) to compel reluctant litigants to take part in mediation. Those rule changes, effective from 1 October 2024, flowed from Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416, where the Court of Appeal held that judges may require participation in non-court dispute resolution, so long as any direction neither undermines the core right to a judicial hearing nor exceeds what is proportionate to the legitimate goal of resolving the case justly, expeditiously and without undue expense. The court’s direction sought fair, prompt and cost-effective resolution while preserving the essence of the right to a...
In this issue: Key PI and clinical negligence developments Claims involving fraud and fundamental dishonesty Clinical negligence Abuse and criminal injuries Other PI and clinical negligence news New content Daily and weekly news alerts Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Useful information Key PI and clinical negligence developments Government Actuary's Department updates Ogden Tables The Government Actuary’s Department has issued a revision to the Ogden Tables, notably amending the Additional Tables to incorporate +0.5% multipliers. This brings them into line with the prevailing rate in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The refreshed eighth edition and the updated Additional Tables equip actuaries, lawyers and other professionals with up-to-date figures for assessing lump sum compensation in personal injury and fatal accident claims. The Additional Tables now include multipliers to capitalise...
Senay and another v Mulsanne Insurance Company Ltd [2024] Lexis Citation 1051 What are the practical implications of this case? Where personal injury claims appear to be touched by dishonesty, defendants should forensically review which individual heads of loss might outlive a determination of fundamental dishonesty and thus still attract an award of damages and, crucially, costs. Losses that flow straight from the injury itself—such as loss of earnings, fees for paid assistance, and comparable items—will almost invariably fail once fundamental dishonesty is found. By contrast, claims connected to property damage, repair costs, credit hire, and analogous losses may remain recoverable. Sensible defendants should therefore think about making pinpoint Part 36 offers against discrete heads, narrowing the issues for trial to those elements that would be extinguished by a fundamental dishonesty finding. Even though Senay is a County. Targeted offers help confine disputes to...
In this issue: Court and the legal profession Road traffic accidents Accidents abroad Clinical negligence Abuse and criminal injuries Costs CPR committee minutes Other PI and Clinical negligence news Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Court and the legal profession Master of the Rolls announces update to Guideline Hourly Rates The Master of the Rolls has confirmed revised Guideline Hourly Rates. These benchmarks inform the summary assessment of legal costs in England and Wales. The revision sets updated figures for every grade ( A– D) and across all regional bands, including London 1–3 and National 1–2. Levels differ according to a fee-earner’s seniority and location, with the top figure applying to Grade A solicitors in London 1 at £566 an hour. The changes are intended to align the...
What are the practical implications of this case? Determining forum in a case of this nature requires the judge to weigh a spectrum of factors, any of which may indicate a more suitable jurisdiction. Reasonable evaluators can legitimately differ—both in how they assess specific evidence and in the importance they attach to competing considerations. On appeal, intervention is tightly confined: the appellate court will step in only if the first instance court has strayed in principle or reached a result outside the wide range within which fair disagreement is possible, and is therefore plainly wrong. Considering matters that were irrelevant Overlooking relevant matters Arriving at a conclusion beyond the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement In this case, multiple errors were identified. Consequently, the Court of Appeal considered it right to conduct its own assessment of the Spiliada criteria and to reach its own...
Prismall v Google UK Ltd and another company [2024] EWCA Civ 1516 What are the practical implications of this case? This Court of Appeal ruling does not meaningfully develop the jurisprudence, yet it underlines the formidable obstacles to pursuing a representative claim for misuse of private information. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50, which effectively closed the door on representative actions for data protection breaches, claimants turned instead to misuse of private information as the preferred route. The court recognised, however, that such claims are generally inherently ill‑suited to representative procedures because, in practice, individual circumstances determine whether a given claimant enjoys a reasonable expectation of privacy; that assessment, in turn, dictates whether the entire cohort can be said to share the ‘same interest’, as strictly required by CPR 19.8. Where a class may comprise hundreds or even...
Ali v HSF Logistics Polska Sp ZOO [2024] EWCA Civ 1479 What are the practical implications of this case? The insurance sector was defeated in the latest court battle by the credit hire industry. Insurer defendants no longer enjoy a straightforward means to knock out credit hire claims merely because a claimant failed to obtain an MOT, pay vehicle tax, secure insurance, or committed another minor motoring breach connected with the damaged vehicle in question......
In this issue: PI and Clinical negligence Highlights 2024/2025 Key PI & clinical negligence developments Clinical negligence Public authorities and the state Case management Other PI and Clinical negligence news Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information PI and Clinical negligence Highlights 2024/2025 This edition closes out our 2024 Weekly Highlights. Our first Weekly Highlights of 2025 will be released on 9 January 2024 and sent to customers on 10 January 2025. To keep abreast of the latest updates on a daily and weekly basis, see: Daily and weekly news alerts. From everyone in the PI and Clinical negligence team, we hope you enjoy the festive season and wish you a happy new year... Key PI & clinical negligence developments Court Funds Office confirms reduction in interest rates for special and basic accounts The Court Funds Office has...
Note: the CPRC has stopped sharing the supporting papers with the minutes, so no explanatory documents accompany this News Analysis. A copy of the minutes is available here: Minutes of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee. Welcome, action log and matters arising (item 1) The minutes of the 4 October 2024 meeting were approved-see News Analysis: Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting-4 October 2024. Law Commission consultation on the law of contempt (item 2) A presentation outlined the Law Commission’s consultation on contempt of court. Its wide scope was acknowledged, setting out potential reforms across multiple areas: liability protection and powers of courts and tribunals procedure representation and legal aid sanctions appeals The Commission’s view that a single procedural code should apply across different jurisdictions was emphasised, with a preference that any updated civil procedure provisions be contained within a further revised CPR 81. It was...
This News Analysis reviews OPRC minutes spanning November 2023 through to November 2024. All minutes can be found here. Civil workstreams At its November 2023 meeting, the OPRC set out four key workstreams: fixed recoverable costs; the Renters ( Reform) Bill; enforcement; and integrated small claims mediation for claims up to £10,000. Each area has seen movement over the past year. Mo J proposals on the fixed recoverable costs regime, arising from the fixed costs consultation, were adopted via core CPR updates in April 2024 and October 2024. For more detail, see: Tracker— Fixed costs reforms. The Renters ( Reform) Bill lapsed on 30 May 2024 when Parliament was dissolved ahead of the 2024 General Election and therefore did not obtain Royal Assent. A Renters’ Rights Bill, with comparable objectives, is now before Parliament—see: LNB News 11/09/2024 19— MHCLG announces Renters’ Rights Bill. The Courts and...
Hirachand v Hirachand and another [2024] UKSC 43 Background This appeal addressed whether an order for financial provision under the I( PFD) A 1975 can encompass a sum reflecting the success fee under a Conditional Fee Agreement ( CFA) owed by a successful claimant to their solicitors. A CFA is an arrangement between a client and their solicitor under which fees become payable only in specified situations, most commonly if the client wins. Such agreements often include an uplift on the solicitor’s base costs where the client is successful; this uplift is termed a success fee. Although a prevailing party in civil proceedings will usually recover reasonable legal costs from the losing party, section 58A(6) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 bars a ‘costs order made in proceedings’ from requiring payment of a success fee. The factual setting was that...
Bangs v FM Conway Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1461 What are the practical implications of this case? Although this decision may not, at first glance, appear to carry substantial practical consequences for parties, it serves as a timely reminder to practitioners about the place of a claim’s merits within case management. While it can be tempting, in arguing case management issues, to highlight the strength of one’s position (and the frailty of the opponent’s), the judgment confirms that the starting point is that merits are not relevant and should not be taken into account by the judge, unless a party has a case so strong it would warrant summary judgment and the court can reach that conclusion without much investigation. In that situation, the judgment states, the party wishing to rely on the merits has a duty to give clear notice of that...
On 11 December 2024, High Court Judge Matthew Nicklin held that Anton Chirkunov, the Swiss- Russian founder of chauffeur app start-up Wheely Ltd, may not serve those behind the Talk Finance and Rucriminal websites by email, directing the founder to make additional efforts to identify their publishers. The two sites both carried comparable articles, published there in June 2023 and January 2021 respectively, which claim that Chirkunov has connections to financial crime......
The Court of Appeal dismissed the group's appeal in its misuse of private information claim against Google UK Ltd and its artificial intelligence subsidiary, Deep Mind Technologies Ltd, finding that not all the claimants would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Justices Victoria Sharp, Nicola Davies and James Dingemans rejected the contention advanced by a group of more than 1.6 million individuals that every item of patient‑related information arising within the patient–healthcare provider relationship automatically carries a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that claims should prevail even where a patient has placed that material in the public domain. Instead, the court determined that data privacy claims will not invariably succeed in situations where patients choose to make private information public. The judgment recognises that, as a general rule, there is ordinarily a reasonable expectation of privacy for...
PMC (a child by his mother and litigation friend FLR) v Local Health Board [2024] EWHC 2969 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment provides an instructive account of the legal framework underpinning the courts’ power to grant anonymity orders. Practitioners should be alert to the fact that anonymity comprises two distinct limbs: withholding orders and reporting restriction orders, which rest on different legal bases. There is, importantly, no freestanding authority derived from CPR 39.2(4). When advancing applications, careful attention should be given to the drafting of pleadings so that the court can be reassured it has sufficient jurisdiction to make the orders sought. Equally significant is the court’s approach to the necessary balance between competing ECHR articles. Although this is a High Court ruling and therefore cannot displace the Court of Appeal’s decision in JX MX, if the...
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
