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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—24 October 2024 In this issue: CPR updates Clinical negligence Public authorities and the state PI and Clinical negligence specific funding and costs Other PI and Clinical negligence news New content Daily and weekly news alerts Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Lexis Nexis® Webinars CPR updates 174th Practice Direction update—in force 5 November 2024 The Master of the Rolls and the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State for Justice have authorised the 174th Practice Direction ( PD) update to the Civil Procedure Rules ( CPR), which comes into effect at 11am on 5 November 2024. This PD update amends CPR PD 51ZE ( Small Claims Track Automatic Referral to Mediation Pilot Scheme) and CPR PD 51R ( Online Civil Money Claims ( OCMC) Pilot Scheme), widening the...
Tindall and another v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2024] UKSC 33 Background For the purposes of the appeal, the facts are taken as follows. On 4 March 2014, Mr Kendall’s car hit a stretch of black ice on the A413, causing a skid, loss of control and a rollover into a ditch. After placing an emergency call, and worried about the road’s condition, he stood at the roadside, signalling approaching drivers to slow. Roughly twenty minutes later, police officers arrived. They began removing accident debris and erected a ‘ Police Slow’ sign. Having warned the officers about the hazardous state of the carriageway, Mr Kendall then went to hospital to be treated for injuries that were not life‑threatening. It is said that, had the police not appeared, he would have continued trying to warn other road users of the risk. Once the debris had been...
Background This appeal addresses when a solicitor’s client can seek a court assessment of the solicitor’s costs bill. The court is empowered to scrutinise fees charged to clients by solicitors, confirming they were properly incurred and proportionate in amount. The function of assessment is to ensure the costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount. That jurisdiction is now contained in section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974 ( SA 1974). Within this statutory framework, tighter time limits operate once the bill has been ‘paid’; specifically, SA 1974, s 70(4) removes any entitlement to seek assessment more than 12 months after payment. Accordingly, rights narrow after payment. The central question on this appeal is the meaning of ‘payment’ for these purposes (paras [1]-[3]). The appellant, Mr Menzies (the Client), was injured severely in a road traffic collision. He retained the...
Asmat Bi v Tesco Underwriting Ltd Case No K04MA298 What are the practical implications of this case? The most immediate consequences of this judgment concern practitioners handling Part 8, costs-only proceedings where the dispute concluded before the new rules, but the Part 8 claim form was issued on or after 1 October 2023. For that cohort, the outcome will trouble claimants and please defendants. Although not binding, HHJ Sephton KC conducted a comprehensive review of the key authorities and CPRC commentary, making it hard to see why a different judge would be persuaded to depart from this approach. More broadly, the decision illustrates the interpretation principle that legal changes take retrospective effect only for procedural matters. In this instance, the civil costs regime was treated as procedural, so the fixed costs reforms had retrospective effect, subject to the transitional provisions. The same reasoning will apply in...
In this issue: Costs budgeting and costs management Clinical negligence Damages Employer's liability Contributory negligence CPRC minutes CRU and NHS charges 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 Costs budgeting and costs management The Senior Master of the King’s Bench Division ( KBD), Senior Master Cook, has issued the ‘ King Bench Masters Cost Management Hearings Guidance Note’. Aimed at improving readiness for cost management hearings in the KBD, especially in high-value personal injury and clinical negligence cases, the Note sets out a neutral framework to address recurrent issues, promoting their resolution during the budgeting phase. See: LNB News 11/10/2024 45. Clinical negligence HSE publishes guidance on using nitrous oxide in maternity units. The Health and Safety...
Note: the CPRC no longer shares the underpinning papers alongside the minutes, so no background documents explaining the discussion points accompany this News Analysis. 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 7 June 2024 meeting were approved and the action log noted—see News Analysis: Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—7 June 2024. The committee then considered: CPR statutory instrument ( SI) and Practice Direction ( PD) update—it was confirmed that the 1 October 2024 commencement date would be maintained. Note that this CPR update is now in force Committee Papers ( AL(24)52)—the final draft proforma was presented and will be introduced for the October 2024 meeting. The Secretariat will circulate a worked...
Illiquidx Ltd v Altana Wealth Ltd and others [2024] EWHC 2191 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling underscores for all practitioners the need to pin down, with accuracy, the precise scope of the 'confidential information' their client wishes to shield. It contains takeaways for both transactional and disputes lawyers: from settling the language of a non-disclosure agreement ( NDA) to setting out, with particularity, the confidential material in issue and the ways said material is alleged to have been misused. Pitching an over expansive tranche of information as 'confidential' risks a strike-out for abuse of process. By contrast, failing to identify the relevant categories of 'confidential' information at the start, then attempting to widen those categories mid-proceedings, will almost certainly attract robust opposition from a defendant. Here, the claimant was criticised for a succession of amendments since...
London's High Court directed the firm to reveal which consultancy supplied a report tied to a transaction between Deripaska and his erstwhile partner, Vladimir Chernukhin, concluding that a 'legally recognised wrong' had been done to the oligarch by its deployment. Mr Justice Neil Calver explained that the document, later exposed as a fake, was deployed to deliberately mislead the court in their dispute over the deal. He found that the involvement of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, which transmitted the report for litigation purposes, lent the paper a veneer of credibility and an appearance of reliability. Calver J stated he was satisfied there was a properly arguable case that a legally recognised wrong had been committed against the Deripaska parties, namely the use of the report in an attempt to pervert the course of justice, with Quinn Emanuel becoming...
In this issue: Road traffic accidents 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 Road traffic accidents The King’s Bench Division, in Szwarc (by his litigation friend, Alina Szwarc) v Jackson, rejected a negligence damages claim against the defendant. The claimant, heavily intoxicated and lying on the ground at the entrance to a car park, was run over by the defendant’s vehicle and sustained severe injuries. An overgrown hedge on the northern side partially blocked the entrance, narrowing the access and restricting the view for motorists entering from the north. The defendant did not observe the claimant and only appreciated what had occurred after feeling an impact and hearing a scraping noise......
PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—3 October 2024 In this issue: CPR updates Road traffic accidents Damages Costs and funding Other PI and clinical negligence news New content Lex Talk® PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Lexis Nexis® Webinars Daily and weekly news alerts CPR updates Civil Procedure ( Amendment No 3) Rules 2024 commenced on 1 October 2024. SI 2024/839, laid before Parliament on 30 July 2024, modifies the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 ( SI 1998/3132). Amendments span Alternative Dispute Resolution, references to judges, the extension of fixed recoverable costs, the time limit for requesting permission to appeal from the Court of Appeal to the UK Supreme Court, procedures for references on assimilated law (formerly retained EU law), delegation of functions to legal advisers, serious crime prevention orders, contempt warnings, and writs and warrants of...
Mueen- Uddin v Secretary of State [2024] UKSC 21 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision establishes that a claim intended to impugn a conviction imposed by courts in different jurisdictions is not automatically an abuse. To decide whether such a claim constitutes a Hunter abuse of process, practitioners should examine closely the procedures of the convicting court to see whether the claimant’s right to a fair trial was respected; the focus is on procedural fairness rather than the mere fact of conviction. As the Court put it, the question is whether the claimant truly had the opportunity to contest the conviction in full and effectively. A further implication is that, when considering a Jameel abuse of process, practitioners should move away from a simple costs-versus-damages comparison, not merely a balance of expense and award, and instead consider whether the...
KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GMBH [2024] EWHC 2098 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The upshot of the ruling is that where a sale of goods contract stipulates that price is to be agreed, and it never is, the bargain cannot be enforced, since price is plainly a fundamental term of such an agreement. This is because the price of the goods is, quite clearly, an essential component of the contract itself. The judgment will interest both those who prepare sale of goods documentation and those involved in disputes where wording of this kind appears. One might assume that stating the price is to be agreed would, failing consensus, simply engage section 8 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 ( SGA 1979), so that the buyer must pay a reasonable sum. Yet, this decision in effect...
What are the practical implications of this case? The decision, though from the County Court at first instance, carries real procedural weight because of issues arising at the junction and interplay of the Insolvency Act 1986 and Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 proceedings. Alongside the issue of whether claims under IA 1986, ss 339 and 423 can proceed in the face of POCA 2002, s 419—a matter of clear interest to practitioners—the court also tackled difficult questions about access to documents within POCA 2002 proceedings. Declining to accept the trustee’s position, His Honour Judge Matthews observed that it was ‘scarcely fair’ that such documents were not freely and openly available in those proceedings. The judgment also charts the origins of the law on sham, what the concept entails, and, crucially, whether a finding of sham necessarily carries a finding of...
Cancrie Investments Ltd v Haider [2024] EWHC 2302 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment offers a clear exposition of the principles governing costs after inter partes continuation applications, and adds to the growing line of authority endorsing the proposition that the usual course is to make a costs order rather than reserve costs, unlike the approach commonly taken on interim applications. In its wake, those seeking to persuade the court to reserve costs on such applications face an even steeper climb, as the Commercial Court expressly echoes the reservations voiced in Harrington & Charles Trading Ltd v Mehta [2023] EWHC 609 ( Ch) about the correctness of Al Assam v Tsouvelekakis [2022] EWHC 2137 ( Ch). The decision also usefully delineates the differences between inter partes applications and applications for freezing injunctions, and explains how those...
In this issue: Damages Other PI and clinical negligence news New and updated content Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Lexis Nexis® Webinars Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Damages High Court awards damages for personal injuries caused in prison attack The King’s Bench Division in Wilson v Ministry of Justice confirmed the Ministry of Justice’s admitted responsibility for the claimant’s injuries following a prison kitchen assault. The court ruled the claimant should receive complete recompense for his losses, both pecuniary and non-pecuniary, calibrated to be fair, to avoid any injustice to the defendant, and to remain aligned with what society considers reasonable. General damages of £153,000 were granted for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, encompassing a spinal cord injury, psychiatric harm ( PTSD), and associated impairments, contributing to an overall award of...
Privinvest has asked the High Court for permission to appeal against findings that it was behind a scheme to pay kickbacks to Mozambique public officials to tie the African country into a financing package for a tuna-fishing fleet Duncan Matthews KC of Twenty Essex, acting for Privinvest, argued a fair hearing was not possible because Judge Robin Knowles, who presided over the proceedings, declined to strike out Mozambique’s claim despite the state’s failure to give crucial disclosure. He said the republic had chosen a course that disadvantaged Privinvest, in deliberate breach of court orders, and had not been penalised for it, calling that an abuse of process. He maintained the state’s disclosure failures deprived his client of a fair opportunity to contest the case. Mozambique brought a US$3.1bn action against Privinvest and its owner, Iskandar Safa — a French- Lebanese...
In this issue: Clinical negligence Costs Other PI and clinical negligence news Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Lexis Nexis® Webinars Daily and weekly news alerts Clinical negligence High Court rejects allegation of breach of duty of care The King's Bench Division, in Deakin- Stephenson v Behar, dismissed the claimant's personal injury action against the first defendant ( B), a consultant in laparoscopic and emergency surgery, and the second defendant NHS Trust. The claimant had collapsed with acute abdominal pain and was taken to a hospital operated by the second defendant. She had developed a condition affecting the large intestine and colon. B undertook a laparoscopic lavage. She subsequently collapsed again with severe abdominal pain. B then performed a Hartmann's procedure, but the claimant continued to experience chronic abdominal pain along with several other conditions. She alleged breach of duty by B, asserting that, after admission, she and her family had...
On 11 September 2024, the Association of Consumer Support Organisations stated that the appointment of Labour MP Andy Slaughter, formerly a barrister at Lamb Chambers, to serve as chair of the House of Commons Justice Committee represents, for Parliament, a fresh opportunity to revisit the issue of injuries, which most often arise from car crashes. In the preceding Parliament, the committee, led by Conservative MP Bob Neil, conducted an open inquiry into delays affecting the operation of the Official Injury Claim portal. The online platform was launched in 2021 as a consequence of the Civil Liability Act 2018......
What are the practical implications of this case? The Commercial Court in Al‑ Aggad v Al‑ Aggad & others [2024] EWHC 673 ( Comm) declined a forum non conveniens stay at Spiliada Stage 2. Cockerill J’s judgment closely scrutinises a wide array of issues that commonly arise when a claimant relies on Stage 2—namely, the proposition that, for reasons of justice, a stay ought not be imposed despite otherwise valid forum non conveniens grounds. Those advising prospective claimants will be encouraged by the judge’s dictum that the Stage 2 assessment of a “real risk” of not obtaining justice encompasses circumstances where the claimant asserts they cannot access the foreign court at all—there is no requirement to demonstrate that on the balance of probabilities. The corresponding point, as the judge noted, is that where the claimant depends on matters of fact, such matters must be...
In this issue: Key PI and clinical negligence developments Vicarious liability Road traffic accidents Damages Costs Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Key PI and clinical negligence developments NHS Resolution announces new clinical negligence claims management agreement On 27 August 2024, NHS Resolution, together with representatives of claimant medical negligence solicitors and injured patients, signed a new Clinical Negligence Claims Agreement. This replaces the COVID-19 Clinical Negligence Protocol 2020, which ensured claims could continue to progress efficiently during the coronavirus ( COVID-19) pandemic. The updated arrangement builds on that Protocol by setting out how parties should work co-operatively. It also recognises, for injured patients and bereaved families, the importance of learning from patient safety incidents so that similar occurrences are not repeated. Suzanne Farg, Director at Fieldfisher, reviews the key points to take from the revised...
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
