Featured documents
R (Greyhound Board of Great Britain Ltd) v Welsh Ministers [2026] EWHC 670 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling reinforces the constitutional divide between the courts and the legislature. It explains that the scheme and framework of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GWA 2006) embody that separation of powers, and that any judicial attempt to recognise and enforce a common law obligation on Welsh Ministers to consult prior to introducing legislation in the Senedd would trespass upon that boundary. This is not a departure from established principle; case law has already upheld comparable rules for lawmakers in Scotland and at Westminster. However, this is the first express confirmation of the position for Welsh lawmakers, and the first time this dimension of the GWA 2006 has been analysed in such depth. The court examined earlier
The solution arrived through the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), a quasi‑judicial body handling mass claims, created under UN Security Council Resolution 687. By addressing environmental harm—most notably via its ‘F4’ claim class—the UNCC set a seminal benchmark shaping how international law and contemporary arbitral panels allocate financial responsibility for wartime ecological devastation. With present-day wars in areas such as Eastern Europe and the Middle East bringing dam breaches, strikes on chemical facilities, and the burning of farmland, the UNCC’s legacy endures as an essential reference point for states, global investors, and companies engaged in post‑conflict arbitration. The F4 claims: Quantifying the unquantifiable Prior to the 1990s, mechanisms in international law for war reparations overwhelmingly favoured property loss, foregone earnings, and bodily injury. The natural world was commonly treated as a mute, non-compensable victim of armed hostilities...
Understanding the farming business as a business Many farms still use long-standing structures that arose by habit, not strategy. Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common. While once effective, such setups can cause major issues around succession, tax planning and involving the next generation. A corporate team can take a fresh, business-led view of the farm, asking: Who owns the land and other critical assets? Who manages daily operations? Who carries the risk and who enjoys the return? What is the enduring plan for succession? From this review, the team can confirm whether the current setup is fit for purpose or if an alternative — for example an updated partnership agreement, a company, a limited liability partnership, or a blended model — would better meet the family’s aims. Tax efficiency through joined-up advice Tax sits at the centre of most
Most recent News
In this issue Road traffic accidents Public authorities and the state Case management Costs Other PI and clinical negligence news Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Road traffic accidents Court of Appeal rules that denying hire charges based solely on the lack of a valid MOT would be disproportionate Ali v HSF Logistics Polska Sp Zoo [2024] EWCA Civ 1479 concerned an appeal in the Court of Appeal about a claim for hire charges after a road traffic collision, where the claimant’s vehicle lacked a current MOT at the material time of the accident. The court found the defendant’s “causation defence”, that hire could not be recovered because using the car without an MOT would have been unlawful, to be misguided, amounting to an ex turpi causa argument advanced without the necessary...
Knight (as property and affairs deputy for BJB) v Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and another [2024] EWCOP 59 What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment examined whether the Court of Protection had authority to determine a dispute between a claimant and a defendant, where a compromise agreement named a senior judge of that court as the decision‑maker on whether the claimant, through her deputy, could be released from a reverse indemnity undertaking, and allowed the defendant to answer any such application for release and to be heard. Although HHJ Hilder concluded that the Court of Protection did have that jurisdiction ‘by approved consent’, she questioned whether it was ‘right’ for issues arising in civil litigation to be transferred to the Court of Protection, as the issues in this case had been. The court also considered the correct approach to adopt in such...
AXA Sun Life plc and other companies v Commissioners of Inland Revenue and another [2024] EWCA Civ 1430 What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment provides clear and practical guidance on: how to define the scope of a ‘ GLO issue’; the default rule that a determination on a GLO issue binds those on the group register at the relevant time; and the circumstances in which the court may properly depart from that rule. What is a GLO issue GLO issues should, so far as practicable, be stated with precision and framed so they can be answered as GLO issues; if an issue is ‘fact-specific’ to the parties in a test claim, it is unlikely to be suitable for determination as a GLO issue. ......
Hundreds of investors are now seeking to overturn a High Court decision that stops a local authority from advancing a claim about allegedly misleading promotion of Suboxone, an opioid addiction treatment, as a representative action rather than via conventional multi‑party proceedings. It will be the first occasion on which the Court of Appeal decides whether a securities class action, alleging that a listed company issued false statements to the market, may proceed as a representative action at all. Lorraine Lanceley, a partner at Stewarts Law LLP, said that a green light from the appeal judges would send significant ripples throughout the field of securities litigation by allowing share‑price‑drop claims to be run as representative actions. She added that, whatever the outcome, the ruling would be authoritative and important on whether this route is available for representative actions. Wirral Council argued it is firmly entitled to bring an opt‑in claim on...
In this issue: Personal injury discount rate Occupier&39;s liability Public authorities and the state Case management Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information Personal injury discount rate Ministry of Justice sets new personal injury discount rate at positive 0.5% The Lord Chancellor, Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood MP, has set a new personal injury discount rate of positive 0.5% for England and Wales, coming into force on 11 January 2025. This single rate will be used when assessing lump sum damages for future financial losses in personal injury claims. For this review, adopting dual or multiple rates was judged inappropriate, so a single positive 0.5% rate has been fixed. The decision follows a thorough process under the Damages Act 1996, including two evidence calls,...
Aabar Holdings S. A. R. L. v Glencore plc [2024] EWHC 3046 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? Though the ruling squarely concerns legal professional privilege within the company–shareholder sphere, many practitioners are likely to find it unexpected. At the very least, it disrupts long‑held assumptions about how privilege principles interact when a company holds privileged material that a shareholder wishes to access. Beyond that, the judgment repays close attention for its analysis of joint interest privilege. The judge underlined that there is no single, overarching joint interest privilege; its existence turns on the particular features of the relationship in question. In practice, this signals that future assertions of joint interest privilege will need more rigorous, relationship‑specific justification, and may, in turn, be met with sharper challenges focused on the precise dynamics between the...
In this issue: PI and clinical negligence developments Clinical negligence Public authorities and the state Road traffic accidents Expert evidence CPR updates Court and the legal profession Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information PI and clinical negligence developments Reforming the Personal Injury Pre- Action Protocols The Civil Justice Council ( CJC) has wrapped up its wide-ranging examination of the current pre-action protocols ( PAPs). Here we concentrate on the Personal Injury PAPs. See News Analysis: Reforming the Personal Injury Pre- Action Protocols. Reforming the Pre- Action Protocols— CJC second phase report ( November 2024) Part 2 of the CJC’s final report on PAPs has now been released. The report outlines several recommendations to revise a variety of litigation-specific PAPs, and also proposes creating two new PAPs, including one aimed at all...
The final report (part 2), published in November 2024, sets out the CJC Working Group’s recommendations for reform in respect of the following personal injury specific PAPs: Pre- Action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims Pre- Action Protocol for the Resolution of Clinical Disputes Pre- Action Protocol for Disease and Illness Claims Pre- Action Protocol for Resolution of Package Travel Claims For additional details about the CJC’s concluding report, consult News Analysis: Reforming the pre-action protocols— CJC second phase report ( November 2024)......
The impact of SLAPPs came under discussion on 21 November 2024, in a backbench business debate that day...
On 21 November 2024, Shabana Mahmood, the Secretary of State for Justice, stated that the sum would factor in expected inflation up to May 2027, when the subsequent review of the whiplash damages tariff is scheduled. In 2021, the Civil Liability Act brought in significant changes to the way motorists with minor whiplash from road traffic collisions pursue third-party insurance claims. It required claims to be submitted via a new digital portal instead of through the civil courts, and established a fresh schedule of damages for whiplash claims under the Act......
Background In November 2021, the CJC issued an interim report on Pre- Action Protocols ( PAPs), outlining how PAPs should function within a modern, increasingly digitalised civil justice system. It examined a series of reform options for the Practice Direction Pre- Action Conduct and Protocols, and suggested the development of new PAPs in specific areas. No recommendations were made at that stage; instead, the report was released to enable wide consultation and to gather views on the future course of PAPs... After a consultation period that closed in January 2022, the CJC chose to bifurcate the process for completing its review. The first phase concentrated on the role of PAPs within the civil justice landscape and, in particular, the potential advantages of digitalising pre-action procedures. It also reviewed the position and content of the Practice Direction Pre- Action Conduct and Protocols, advancing proposals for a...
PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—21 November 2024 In this issue: Pre-action Case management Other PI and Clinical negligence news Daily and weekly news alerts Lex Talk® PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis® Nexis community Lexis Nexis® Webinars Useful information Pre-action CJC completes comprehensive review of pre-action protocols with two-phase report The Civil Justice Council ( CJC) has finalised its extensive appraisal of pre-action protocols ( PAPs), issuing a two-phase report. The first instalment, in August 2023, analysed PAPs’ role within civil justice and considered the scope for digitising pre-action activity. The second phase, released in November 2024, proposes major updates to PAPs covering personal injury, clinical disputes, disease and illness claims, and package travel claims. Headline proposals include clearer structure and navigation, standardised sections across protocols, refreshed ADR guidance to reflect the Churchill decision, and bolstered...
PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—14 November 2024 In this issue: Clinical negligence Claims involving a mentally incapacitated claimant Accidents on the highway CPRC minutes Other PI and Clinical negligence news New Q& As Daily and weekly news alerts Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Lexis Nexis® Webinars Useful information Clinical negligence High Court rejects allegations of fundamental dishonesty in delayed diagnosis of laryngeal cancer case In Cullen v Henniker- Major, the claimant was accepted as a truthful witness and accusations of fundamental dishonesty failed. Following a laryngectomy, she needed continuous support for her stoma/airway and voice valve. The court favoured the claimant’s care expert, finding a live-in carer both suitable and workable, in preference to the defendant’s rehabilitation-focused proposal. Damages were granted for past gratuitous assistance, future care aligned with the live-in model, future...
The Pentagon Food Group Ltd v B Cadman Ltd [2024] EWHC 2513 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment traverses notable ground, offering a useful prompt for legal practitioners on several points. As to express terms, the court offered a synopsis of the principles in Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd [2017] AC 1173, observing that where, as here, the agreement was assembled at the close of a lengthy day’s mediation, the evidential backdrop may carry greater weight than it would for a complex commercial contract. That context can include consideration of statements made during the mediation that produced the settlement, applying Oceanbulk Shipping v TMT [2010] 3 WLR 1424 ( SC) (see paras [68]–[69]). The court then recapped the law on implied terms, following Marks & Spencer v BNP Paribas [2016] AC 742 ( SC) at paras...
Note: the CPRC has ceased distributing the supporting background papers alongside the minutes; accordingly, this News Analysis does not include documents elucidating the topics considered. A copy of the minutes can be found here: Minutes of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee. Welcome, action log and matters arising (item 1) The minutes of the 5 July meeting were formally approved and the action log was noted—see News Analysis: Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—5 July 2024. The following items were considered: Ryan Morris v Williams & Co Solicitors [2024] EWCA Civ 376—the matter had previously been covered under item 4 in the Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—held 5 July 2024......
In this issue: Criminal injuries Costs and funding Case management Other PI news New and updated content Daily and weekly news alerts Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Useful information Criminal injuries Supreme Court declines permission to appeal in claim refused under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme Permission to appeal was declined by the Supreme Court on 8 October 2024. In the earlier decision, R (on the application of Peiris) v First Tier Tribunal [2023] EWCA Civ 1527, [2024] All ER ( D) 18 ( Jan), the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant’s case. The appellant, who was neither a British national nor ordinarily resident in the UK, had his Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme application rejected for failing to satisfy the Scheme’s nationality requirements. The court found that the...
Dexia Crédit Local SA v Patrimonio Del Trentino SPA [2024] EWHC 2717 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? The court’s reading of a clause that designated the English courts as the exclusive forum, while not ruling out proceedings in the Italian courts, will interest those contesting jurisdiction. Where a jurisdiction clause is opaque or capable of more than one meaning, the court will interpret it in light of the surrounding factual matrix. For clauses drafted before Brexit, this may involve assuming—where the wording permits—that the parties intended an exclusive, rather than non-exclusive, choice, due to the recognition and protection that Brussels I (recast) conferred on exclusive jurisdiction clauses. In this dispute, that approach was bolstered by the standard ISDA jurisdiction provision, which stipulates exclusive jurisdiction where the selected court is within the EU and non-exclusive jurisdiction when it is outside the EU. The...
Tindall and another ( Appellants) v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police ( Respondent) [2024] UKSC 33 What are the practical implications of this case? The standout development is the acknowledgement of the interference principle. It confirms that liability can attach where a rescuer intentionally supplants another potential rescuer. That said, such cases will be uncommon. Emergency services will seldom have the requisite foresight; absent that, they will not be liable, even where they instruct willing third parties who would have acted to stand down. More broadly, the judgment underlines the ongoing difficulty of succeeding in negligence claims against the emergency services. Although the Supreme Court regarded the police conduct as a serious dereliction of a public duty owed to society at large, that still did not found negligence liability. Crucially, the interference principle is simply a manifestation of making matters worse. The core rule...
In this issue: Clinical Negligence Interim payments, periodical payments and provisional damages Employer’s Liability Public authorities and the state Claims involving fraud and fundamental dishonesty Other PI and Clinical negligence news Daily and weekly news alerts Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Lexis Nexis® Webinars Useful information Clinical Negligence High Court grants £2m interim award under the first limb of Eeles In DBH (a child proceeding by his mother and Litigation Friend TE) v Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust, the court authorised an interim payment of £2,193,810.39—amounting to 90% of a prudent valuation—under the first limb of Eeles v Cobham Hire Services Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 204, to meet the claimant’s pressing accommodation requirements and therapy provision pending trial. The judge declined to make any further award under the second limb of Eeles,...
Reynolds v Chief Constable of Kent Police [2024] EWHC 2487 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision serves as a clear reminder that CJCA 2015, s 57 is not engaged in every matter that, on first glance, appears to be a personal injury claim. The court held that the tort of false imprisonment is not a personal injury claim because its essence is the deprivation of liberty. The practical takeaway for claimants advancing multiple causes of action is to think carefully before adding a personal injury head to their pleadings. In this instance, Mr Reynolds included an assault claim which was properly dismissed for fundamental dishonesty, giving rise to costs consequences that influenced the false imprisonment claim. Although the court concluded that the false imprisonment claim neither could nor should be dismissed for fundamental dishonesty, the presence of 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
