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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Siniakovich v Hassan- Soudey and others [2026] EWCA Civ 215 What are the practical implications of this case? Disputes about limitation and the point at which proceedings are ‘brought’ despite payment of an incorrect court fee can now be conclusively resolved by adhering to the Court of Appeal’s guidance: The issue of when an action is ‘brought’ under the Limitation Act 1980 is one of substance rather than form; it does not depend on interpreting the civil procedure rules or practice directions. For limitation, proceedings are brought when a claim form, stated with sufficient clarity, is first delivered to the court office and a fee is tendered or paid, or a help with fees form is filed. That is sufficient. Proceedings are still treated as brought (for limitation) even if the court issue fee paid is the wrong amount......
Federal Republic of Nigeria v VR Global Partners LP and others [2026] EWCA Civ 25 What are the practical implications of this case? For costs practitioners, this judgment offers vital direction on the interplay between detailed assessment and third-party costs applications. First, it confirms there is no legal hierarchy between these processes—contrary to arguments that a judgment creditor enjoys a presumptive right to chase third parties straightaway. The ruling empowers costs judges and Commercial Court judges to stay third-party applications where the sum ultimately payable is genuinely uncertain, particularly where a substantial payment on account has been made and the costs are to be assessed on the standard basis with its proportionality filter. Second, and more significantly, the Court of Appeal issued a stark warning against disproportionate conduct of detailed assessments. The court was dismayed by the prospect of a 50-day assessment hearing...
Ward and another v BCA Automotive Ltd [2026] EWHC 204 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment underscores that the existence of a breach of duty is intensely fact‑dependent. Demonstrating a single omission to undertake a risk assessment may not suffice, even where a reasonably careful employer would have done so. If there is an overarching assessment addressing the use of a category of work equipment, and the workforce already understands how to operate that category and has received appropriate training, an employer’s omission to complete a tailored assessment when a fresh piece of equipment of that category is introduced will not automatically amount to a breach. Although the employer was not found liable on these facts, the scenario stands as a clear warning for employers who neglect to perform a specific assessment when bringing in new...
Key Court of Appeal decision on re-opening awards In R (on the application of LXR) v First Tier Tribunal ( Social Entitlement Chamber) and others [2025] EWCA Civ 1608, the Court of Appeal examined the terms of paragraphs 114 to 116 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012, considering the circumstances in which a previously determined award may properly be re-opened on medical grounds and the scope of that power. The judgment culminated in the court setting aside the UT's ruling, which had itself set aside the decision of the First Tier Tribunal ( FTT) on judicial review that an application to re-open an award relating to damage to mental health arising out of an earlier incident of sexual abuse ought to be permitted. The judgment offers a thorough and useful analysis of the factors and considerations to be taken into account in medical...
In this issue: Key PI & Clinical Negligence developments Clinical negligence Psychiatric and occupational stress Settlement CPR updates Other PI & Clinical Negligence news New content Lexis Nexis® Quantum Portal Lex Talk® PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Lexis Nexis® Webinars Useful information Key PI & Clinical Negligence developments The Senior Courts Costs Office, before Senior Costs Judge Rowley, has addressed the recoverability of Medical Reporting Organisation fees in two personal injury matters, JXX and HLA. During detailed assessment, the court considered charges raised by Medical and Professional Services Limited and Premex Services Limited in their roles as Medical Reporting Organisations. The central issue was whether such fees should be categorised as outsourced solicitors’ work—necessitating a breakdown akin to time-costed solicitors’ charges—or treated as...
Cooper and others v Ludgate House Ltd [2026] EWHC 484 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of the case? The decision serves as a clear warning to parties proposing Part 36 settlements with several strands. The court will price each strand independently to determine whether the offer was bettered at trial. Accordingly, whether single‑issue or composite, any Part 36 proposal should be drafted so it can be readily quantified by the court; the tribunal must be able to identify, with confidence, who actually succeeded. Where an offer bundles disparate elements, each must be susceptible to valuation on the evidence before the court. It is not sufficient, as occurred here, simply to contend that the proposal outweighed the differential between the claimant’s damages and the defendant’s figure where no substantive evidence addresses that issue. Parties should, therefore, be slow to fold into a Part 36 offer terms that do...
R (on the application of PM, by his father and litigation friend SM) v The Director of Public Prosecutions [2026] EWHC 419 ( SCCO) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling delivers substantial, practical guidance on how Part 36 operates in detailed assessment proceedings. It addresses a clear lacuna in the Part 36 authorities concerning the effect of settlements reached by consent and supports practitioners in shaping an effective Part 36 strategy. The court confirms that when parties settle within the detailed assessment process—especially once the detailed assessment hearing has begun—that agreement is to be treated as the equivalent of a judgment for Part 36 purposes, with the court invited to complete the assessment on that basis. The absence of a judicial determination does not prevent CPR 36 consequences from taking effect where the assessment is otherwise complete within the meaning of CPR...
Note: The CPRC has stopped distributing the supporting papers alongside the minutes, therefore no explanatory documents on the matters discussed accompany this News Analysis. A copy of the minutes can be found here: Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting Welcome, apologies and introductory remarks (item 1) It was reported to the committee that the Master of the Rolls plans to retire on 31 October 2026. The minutes for 5 December 2025 (see News Analysis: Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—5 December 2025) were approved, subject to a small amendment. The action log was acknowledged, noting: ongoing service work, covering email service and associated postal matters the Welsh language consultation has concluded and replies are under review......
In this issue: Key PI and clinical negligence developments Proving negligence or breach of statutory duty Catastrophic claims Limitation Abuse and criminal injuries Employer's liability Costs and funding AI developments New content Lexis Nexis® Quantum Portal Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Lexis Nexis® Webinars Useful information Key PI and clinical negligence developments CPRC to hold annual open meeting for May 2026 The Civil Procedure Rule Committee ( CPRC) confirms it is set to host its annual open meeting on 8 May 2026 in a hybrid format, offering an in‑person option at a central Birmingham venue and remote access via Microsoft Teams. Attendees will be observers only, with places subject to availability. Questions submitted in advance will be taken at the close of the...
Leigh Day, acting for 24 migrant workers, said in a joint statement that the dispute has been resolved without Dyson accepting liability. The details of the agreement remain confidential. ‘ This outcome reflects the costs of litigation and the advantages of bringing matters to a close,’ the notice on the firm’s website stated. The 24 claimants, hailing from Nepal and Bangladesh, alleged they were trafficked from their homelands. They reported suffering exploitative, abusive labour and living arrangements whilst working for a third‑party supplier producing goods and parts for the Dyson Group, widely recognised for its vacuum cleaners. According to the workers, they were housed in cramped, unhygienic factory quarters and compelled to work in excess of 12 hours per day, for pay below the minimum wage......
Duffy v Birmingham City Council [2026] EWCA Civ 146 What are the practical implications of this case? Failure to meet compulsory rules regulating the format or contents of a costs bill does not, of itself, render it void. Even where the mandatory certification confirming compliance with the indemnity principle is absent, a signed bill may nonetheless be validly served and remains sufficient to commence detailed assessment proceedings. Accordingly, paying parties ought to engage with the detailed assessment procedure rather than presuming an alleged irregularity is fatal. Any contention about the bill’s structure or contents should be articulated in Points of Dispute and served within the prescribed time limits. Where a default costs certificate has been obtained, the simple absence of an express indemnity certification will not, without more, make the bill invalid so as to justify setting the certificate aside as of...
Where the Addendum applies Although the process brought in by the Addendum is optional, its purpose is for it to be adopted widely so rehabilitation is delivered in most OIC claims, whether the claimant has representation or not. The Addendum further indicates it is intended to serve as a [sic] basis for bilateral or trilateral arrangements between defendant organisations and rehabilitation providers or claimant organisations. However, it does not cover reports, which continue to be for the parties to resolve. The agreed procedure is engaged only where the compensator has provided a full admission of liability, or where liability is treated as admitted under the OIC process......
In this issue: Key PI and clinical negligence developments Occupational disease Abuse and criminal injuries Claims involving a mentally incapacitated claimant Case management Other PI news New content Lexis Nexis® Quantum Portal Lex Talk® PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Lexis Nexis® Webinars Useful information Key PI and clinical negligence developments Court of Appeal confirms that late acceptance of a Part 36 offer does not of itself remove fixed costs, even after later allocation to the multi-track. In Attersley v UK Insurance Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 217, the Court of Appeal examined whether a claimant accepting a defendant’s Part 36 offer after the 21‑day window should recover fixed recoverable costs or costs on the standard basis. The matter commenced in the RTA Protocol, then issued under Part 7 and was...
WH Holding Ltd v London Stadium LLP (formerly E20 Stadium Llp) [2026] EWCA Civ 153 What are the practical implications of the case? This decision sets out clear parameters for what amounts to a ‘manifest error’ in an expert determination. It also confirms that complaints about the application of a formula do not attract a distinct standard: ie the manifest error threshold applies whatever the character of the alleged mistake. The hurdle to overturn a determination for manifest error is high. A merely arguable misstep is not enough. The error must be ‘so obvious as to admit of no difference of opinion’. The Court of Appeal further emphasised scrutiny of the expert’s analytical starting point: ie was that plainly incorrect. Where the expert is granted a wide discretion under the determination mechanism, it is harder to impugn their conclusion than where the...
Dilks v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2026] EWHC 146 ( KB) What are the practical implications of the case? This decision underlines that establishing asbestos exposure remains decisive in mesothelioma litigation, despite the absence of any threshold dose. It also serves as a working example of when inference crosses into conjecture. The court accepted that asbestos was deposited in particular locations and acknowledged broad working practices, yet declined to plug evidential gaps—precise sites and times of the deceased’s employment, the identity of the machinery doing the crushing, and whether his duties placed him in the exposure stream—without sufficiently dependable proof. The ruling therefore underscores the enduring need for concrete, exposure-specific evidence and meticulous preparation and drafting of witness statements. Importantly, the court indicated that, had exposure been established, it would have found a breach of duty. The Coal Board’s failure to adopt proper...
Arbitration—restraining arbitration proceedings pending a removal application or procedural challenge ( A v B & another) Party A v Party B and Another [2026] EWHC 327 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling has concrete, practitioner-focused consequences for arbitration specialists and commercial disputes lawyers. Two key themes emerge from the judgment. Each limits prospects for court intervention. To begin with, it makes plain that the court will not halt an arbitration merely because a s 24 removal bid or a s 68 serious irregularity complaint has been filed. Section 24(3) expressly envisages the arbitration carrying on whilst a removal request is outstanding. Advisers should warn clients that launching a court challenge will not usually ‘pause’ the procedural timetable; delay-driven tactics are unlikely to prosper and may undermine credibility. Further, the decision powerfully reaffirms the...
Hughes and others v (1) World Rugby Ltd; (2) The Welsh Rugby Union Ltd; (3) Rugby Football Union [2025] EWHC 3382 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling underscores the wide scope of the court’s powers to manage proceedings, particularly where litigation is protracted. It clarifies that the court may issue an unless order without first finding that a party has breached an order or a procedural rule. It further operates as a useful prompt for parties to lodge protective notices of appeal, so they do not fall foul of the strict time limits for appealing an order. What was the background? This judgment concerns appeals brought against case management orders ( CMOs) made by Senior Master Cook (‘the Senior Master’). The wider setting is the personal injury litigation commonly referred to as the rugby head injury litigation. The...
Nicholas Bacon KC of 4 New Square Chambers, acting for CILEX, sought on 23 February 2026 to persuade the Court of Appeal to reverse a High Court decision that bans unauthorised law firm employees from conducting litigation even when overseen by qualified solicitors. Bacon maintained that Judge Clive Sheldon had misconstrued the Legal Services Act 2007 ( LSA 2007). Properly read, the LSA 2007 provides that only authorised persons may assume responsibility for litigation — but authorised persons can assign tasks to other members of the firm, Bacon said. He submitted that if the High Court’s ruling known as Mazur stands, authorised persons such as solicitors would be prevented from delegating an array of litigation tasks, which would run counter to established practice in the legal sector since the 19th century......
PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—26 February 2026 In this issue: Key PI and clinical negligence developments Employer's liability Case management AI developments Lexis Nexis® Quantum Portal Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Lexis Nexis® Webinars Useful information Key PI and clinical negligence developments Appeal succeeds against the decision to hold a pre-trial hearing on litigation capacity The King's Bench Division ( Leeds District Registry) in Mohammed v Ali [2026] EWHC 401 ( KB) considered a rolled‑up permission application alongside two linked appeals brought by the Motor Insurers' Bureau ( MIB) challenging orders made by Recorder Cameron. The challenges related to case management rulings issued between 2–12 September 2025 in a personal injury action arising from a road traffic accident. Mr Justice Ritchie granted permission to appeal on every ground. The court then...
Birmingham City Council v Persons Unknown ( Re Protests in Support of the Bin Workers’ Strike) [2026] EWHC 373 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling confirms that public bodies may secure protest injunctions against ‘persons unknown’ when there is cogent proof of mounting, intentional disruption, provided procedural protections are scrupulously followed. By declining to waive service, the court emphasised that CPR 6.16 demands truly exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, claimants should implement robust alternative notification measures and adhere closely to CPR 6.15, with explicit provisions on deemed service and liberty to apply. Injunction terms should be bounded by time and geography, and supported by precise evidence addressing trespass, private nuisance and public nuisance. On substance, the decision clearly distinguishes peaceful assembly from intentional blockage of access or critical services. Although Articles 10 and 11 are in play,...
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
