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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Smyth v British Airways plc and another company [2024] EWHC 2173 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling underscores the real-world and procedural hurdles to advancing representative actions. The court accepted that such claims call for a contemporary, adaptable approach, yet maintained the claimant cohort must share the same interest, or something near to it. If the initial class features many, markedly differing interests that demand individualised assessments, the action will, without a viable plan, probably fail to satisfy the rule’s jurisdictional threshold. Accordingly, only a class with genuinely aligned interests will meet the rule’s threshold at the jurisdictional gateway stage. The principal points from this case, relevant to future representative actions, include: CPR 19.8 demands that the proposed claimant group hold the same interest in the proceedings. Although ‘divergent’ interests can be tolerated (as recognised by the Supreme Court in Lloyd v...
Worcester v Hopley [2024] EWHC 2181 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? Parties should not proceed on the footing that a costs management hearing will automatically result in ‘costs in the case’. Under CPR 44.2 the court enjoys a broad discretion and will consider how each side has conducted the budgeting exercise when deciding what order to make on costs. Master Thornett commented on the entrenched High Court practice of listing costs management after, and apart from, case management. He observed that doing so tends to save time for both advocates and the court because it allows an interval in which parties can revisit, refine and, frequently, agree their budgets, or at least narrow the remaining points. Against that background, the court expects a pragmatic approach to costs management, with figures advanced that are not only sensible for the work...
DJ v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council and another [2024] EWCA Civ 841 What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Appeal has effectively resolved the earlier gap in the law concerning familial foster carers, who are now to be treated in the same way as non-familial foster carers for the purposes of vicarious liability. Where familial foster carers have been assessed and approved by the local authority, vicarious liability may attach even if they receive no remuneration. It remains possible that the Supreme Court will be invited to re-examine the position. What was the background? The claimant, then aged ten, had been deserted by his parents, and the local authority arranged a placement with his maternal aunt and uncle. A foster assessment was undertaken by the local authority, which later assumed parental responsibility for the child. Many years afterwards, the claimant alleged he had been...
In this issue: Road traffic accidents Claims involving fraud and fundamental dishonesty Damages CRU and NHS charges Case management Other PI and clinical negligence developments Lex Talk® PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Road traffic accidents High Court dismisses child’s claim for negligence in road traffic accident The King’s Bench Division in Gadsby (a protected party by her mother and litigation friend Ms Laura Youmans) v Hayes (formerly Emms) dismissed the claimant’s negligence action against the driver. Aged 12, the claimant was on a pedestrian crossing returning from school when a Vauxhall Astra driven by the defendant ran into her, causing severe injuries. The court concluded that: Applying established principles to the evidence, the defendant bore no liability in negligence for the injuries; Having regard to the Highway...
Signature Litigation LLP v Ivanishvili [2024] EWCA Civ 901 What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Appeal used this case to restate a well-known worry: as Lord Justice Coulson observed at [22], the 1974 Act has been widely criticised for not being updated to reflect modern practice. When the SA 1974 came into force, conditional fee agreements ( CFAs) were unlawful, and retainers were largely based on an ‘entire contract’ model, allowing costs to be fully quantified for any period while litigation was ongoing. That is not the position with conditional fee retainers, where the total costs payable (covering all additional liabilities) cannot be fixed until the litigation has concluded. Accordingly, solicitors should note that under any CFA—even a ‘discounted CFA’—interim invoices will not be final statute bills if an additional fee is intended to be added to that invoice once the case...
Riley and another v National Westminster Bank plc [2024] EWCA Civ 833 What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment carries significance for practitioners for these reasons: It indicates that fraud does not invariably undo everything; there are equally weighty policy grounds supporting the enforcement of settlements. Where a party has concluded a settlement in a personal capacity, issuing a later claim as an assignee or in some representative guise does not, without more, prevent the settlement terms from biting. If such complications may arise, the prudent course could be for the would-be assignee to refrain from taking an assignment at all......
In the wake of the ruling, compulsory mediation was brought into the UK civil justice framework for small claims. The Civil Procedure Rule Committee ( CPRC) launched a consultation to gather views on the courts’ authority to require ADR, and the Civil Mediation Council ( CMC) introduced a new board to set mediation standards. Here, we examine these developments and what they signal for ADR’s future. Mandatory ADR and the courts The Court of Appeal’s decision in James Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council confirmed that the English courts can direct parties to participate in ADR. The case arose after James Churchill found Japanese knotweed in his garden. The defendant local authority acknowledged treating knotweed on neighbouring land but denied liability for its encroachment onto Churchill’s property, instead pointing him to the authority’s internal complaints process. Churchill chose to commence...
In this issue: Costs Clinical negligence Coroner's inquests Daily and weekly news alerts Costs In Worcester v Hopley, the King’s Bench Division issued targeted costs directions within a clinical negligence claim arising from the defendant’s care of the claimant’s mental health. A case management conference had taken place, leaving costs management to be addressed later. At the subsequent budgeting hearing, the claimant’s anticipated expenditure was markedly reduced. The claimant contended that costs should follow the event, asserting they were the ‘successful party’ since the approved figure exceeded the defendant’s offer, and seeking an order to that effect by the court......
In this issue: Starting a claim or counterclaim Clinical negligence Daily and weekly news alerts Starting a claim or counterclaim Issuing claim forms in and out of time—important lessons from the Court of Appeal ( Guo v Kinder) Jian Guo, the appellant, brought a professional negligence action against her former legal advisers. The proceedings were struck out as time-barred. Invoking CPR PD 7A, para 6.1 (formerly para 5.1), together with the court’s inherent jurisdiction, Guo maintained that her case should be treated as issued in time by reference to an earlier claim form she asserted had been filed. That prior form was rejected by the court office owing to substantive defects on its face and the method of submission. Dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal offered helpful guidance on what constitutes the ‘claim form as issued’ for the purposes of CPR PD 7A, para...
Guo v Kinder and others [2024] EWCA Civ 762 What are the practical implications of this case? CPR PD 7A, para 6.1 states that proceedings begin when the court issues a claim form at the claimant’s request. However, if the court office received the form before the date on which the court formally issued it, the claim is treated as “brought” for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980 on that earlier date, as expressly emphasised. This decision warns against leaving issue until the eleventh hour. It also makes clear that both litigants and practitioners must remain alert to the hazards of making material, substantive amendments or alterations to a claim form that was rejected on a first, in-time attempt at filing, before it is re-filed out of time, particularly where reliance on CPR PD 7A, para 6.1 is intended......
JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky and others [2024] EWHC 1837 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? As a general rule, when documents or witness testimony are cited during a hearing in open court, the limits on their use in CPR 31.22 and 32.12 usually cease, because the material has entered the public domain. Permission of the court remains necessary where the material is treated as not having entered the public domain owing to the bar on collateral use (for example, where it is covered by a freezing order or a confidentiality club). In addition, if the documents at issue are schedules to particulars of claim, they are not, strictly speaking, part of the statement of case, and therefore cannot be inspected or disclosed without an application under CPR 5.4C. When assessing whether to grant permission, the court drew a line...
Adams and others v Ministry of Defence [2024] EWHC 1966 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling underscores the need to commence and manage group litigation using the most fitting procedural route. For group claims brought on a single claim form, convenience remains the sole criterion. Practitioners should weigh the court’s convenience alongside that of the parties, and be ready to substantiate, with comparative evidence, why the selected procedure is more convenient than any alternatives. Where the court has determined common issues in a group claim but individual matters, such as quantum, still require determination, careful thought is needed about case management. Although CPR 7.3 empowers the court to disaggregate claims, it is unlikely to be convenient for the parties or the court for every individual claim to be, in effect, re‑issued. Technical...
PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—8 August 2024 In this issue: CPR updates Clinical negligence Public authorities and the state Other PI and clinical negligence news Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information CPR updates Civil Procedure ( Amendment No 3) Rules 2024 SI 2024/839: This instrument updates the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 ( SI 1998/3132), which regulate practice and procedure in the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal, the High Court and the County Court. The revisions address ten areas: Alternative Dispute Resolution ( ADR) References to Judges in the CPR Extension of Fixed Recoverable Costs ( FRC) Time limit to seek permission to appeal from the Court of Appeal to the UK Supreme Court Procedure for references concerning assimilated law (formerly retained EU law) Delegation of functions to Legal...
Consult Practice Note: Litigation funding agreements—investment top-ups. For overviews...
In this issue: Occupational disease Road traffic accidents Fraud and fundamental dishonesty Case management Costs and funding Other PI & Clinical Negligence news Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information New content Occupational disease Supreme Court refuses permission to appeal in low-level exposure mesothelioma cases On 28 June 2024, the Supreme Court declined permission to appeal in White v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and in Cuthbert (executrix of the estate of Derek Barry Cuthbert, deceased) v Taylor Woodrow Construction Holdings. Earlier, the Court of Appeal ( Civil Division) had rejected both appeals. The claims alleged that two deceased workers developed mesothelioma during employment spanning the 1950s to the 1970s. The appellate court concluded that the trial judge had been entitled to find no breach of duty by the...
In July 2023, the highest UK court sprang a surprise, contrary to earlier assumptions, by determining that numerous funding arrangements used by litigation financiers amounted to damages-based agreements ( DBAs) and would be unenforceable unless they complied fully with the DBA regulations. The ruling created a hurdle for claimants and funders seeking to make use of Britain’s growing collective action regime, as DBAs cannot bankroll opt-out claims before the Competition Appeal Tribunal ( CAT). A period of intense lobbying followed, and the previous Conservative government moved to push through legislation intended to reverse the judgment’s effect, before politics got in the way. In the months following the Supreme Court’s decision in R v Competition Appeal Tribunal, known as PACCAR, defendants to collective proceedings — including Apple, Master Card and Visa, as well as Sony — sought to challenge the agreements struck by class...
In this issue: Abuse and criminal injuries Clinical negligence Fundamental dishonesty Case management Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information Abuse and criminal injuries Court of Appeal finds local authority vicariously liable for abuse by foster carers who were related to the child The Court of Appeal ( Civil Division) in DJ v Barnsley MBC upheld DJ’s appeal from the High Court, which had concluded the council bore no vicarious liability for the abuse DJ suffered while placed with related foster carers (the Gs). In Armes v Nottinghamshire CC [2017] All ER ( D) 87 ( Oct), the Supreme Court had determined that a local authority could be vicariously liable for torts by a foster carer not related to the child, but left open whether liability might also arise where the carers were...
Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su and others [2024] EWHC 1749 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling ranges across important matters of procedure as well as economic torts and freezing injunctions. It emphasises the bar on deploying, as evidence, judgments from proceedings to which the defendants were not parties, and warns against placing excessive reliance on interim judgments. It also illustrates the breadth of defences that should be evaluated at trial, even where substantial defences have not been pleaded by those defendants. The court analyses the relatively new Marextort, concerning conduct said to thwart enforcement of court judgments. Finally, it distils the principles relevant to allegations of unlawful means conspiracy in the setting of attempts to breach a freezing injunction. It further underscores the continuing difficulties that claimants may encounter when suing unrepresented and disengaged defendants who...
ISG Retail Ltd v FK Construction Ltd [2024] EWHC 878 ( TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling reminds contentious construction practitioners to choose the correct route where any factual controversy persists or may emerge. Where material facts remain in issue, Part 7 is generally the more suitable vehicle. The judgment offers clear procedural guidance on deploying Part 8 and confirms that, to succeed under Part 8, a claimant must demonstrate the dispute is unlikely to involve a substantial dispute of fact. It also shows the court is prepared to step in and exercise its discretion to divert an existing Part 8 claim into Part 7 if Part 8 is found to be unsuitable. In essence, the decision reinforces the importance of ironing out all areas of factual contention before commencing Part 8 proceedings. Practitioners should keep this front of mind...
In this issue: Court Funds Office—interest change CPR updates Clinical negligence Case management Other PI and clinical negligence news Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Court Funds Office—interest change Court Funds Office reduces special and basic accounts interest rate With effect from 12 June 2024, the Court Funds Office lowered the interest applied to both special and basic accounts. Special account interest moved from 6.00% to 5.25%, while the basic account rate shifted from 5.00% to 3.94%. See: LNB News 16/07/2024 55. CPR updates Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—7 June 2024 The CPRC minutes dated 7 June 2024 record a range of topics: Serious Crime Prevention Orders; proposed amendments to CPR 25 (interim remedies and security for costs); the e-working pilot scheme; the small claims paper determination pilot scheme; and “costs budgeting light”. The minutes did not address the Fixed...
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
