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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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: Courts and the legal profession Damages Starting a claim or counterclaim Coroners' inquests New content Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Courts and the legal profession Minutes from King’s Bench Division court user meeting on 25 April 2024 The published minutes from the King’s Bench Division court user meeting held on 25 April 2024 are now available. The agenda covered seal date markings on court documents, timings for listing applications, the necessity of supplying bundles for hearings, delays affecting Foreign Process, and directing writs of possession to the local District Registry rather than the High Court at the Royal Courts of Justice, plus other matters including CE- File rejections. See: LNB News 01/05/2024 85. Mo J updates payment of court fees for whiplash...
Niprose Investments Ltd v Vincents Solicitors Ltd [2024] EWHC 801 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling highlights practical lessons for conveyancers and prospective claimants: Context-driven duty: a conveyancer’s care obligations are not fixed; they depend on the client’s grasp, the deal’s character, and any warning signs. Precision in pleadings is crucial: claimants must plead with particularity and evidence. Broad allegations across multiple claimants and defendants seldom succeed. Causation is central: showing risk alone is inadequate; claimants must connect the adviser’s alleged missteps to defined, quantifiable loss. Significance of warning notices: advisers may need to anticipate SRA alerts and similar guidance, which can lift expected standards in some settings. Developing area of law: conveyancers should track new judgments and industry updates, as these may shape liability in complex or...
Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2024] EWHC 902 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This notable judgment examines when it is right to direct a trial of a preliminary issue before the main hearing. The court emphasised that limitation issues are often apt for early determination, and warned that if such questions are left to be decided only at the final trial, the policy basis of limitation law would be weakened. It also confirms that the governing approach to ordering a preliminary issue trial lies in the ten factors identified by Neuberger J in Steele v Steele [2001] CP Rep 106 (not reported by Lexis Nexis®UK). In brief, while limitation is frequently suitable for preliminary resolution, the court must still apply those factors when deciding whether a discrete issue should be tried first......
Too many claimants–litigating multiple claims on one claim form ( Morris v Williams & Co Solicitors ( A Firm)) Morris v Williams & Co Solicitors ( A Firm) [2024] EWCA Civ 376 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling is a key judgment for practitioners who advise and act for claimants and defendants in multi-party litigation that is not expressly representative or group litigation. It will also interest a broader audience concerned with how the CPR is interpreted and developed. What was the background? About 134 claimants (the ‘ Claimants’) issued a single claim form against the law firm Williams & Co Solicitors (the ‘ Solicitors’). Each Claimant sought damages for alleged breaches of the Solicitors’ duty properly to advise regarding their investments in one or more of nine separate development projects promoted by the same corporate group. Northern Powerhouse Development Ltd ( Northern...
Russian trustee partially succeeds in a strike out application ( Kireeva (as trustee and bankruptcy manager of Bedzhamov) v Zolotova and Basel Properties Limited [2024] EWHC 552 ( Ch)) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment illustrates the court’s granular, issue-by-issue treatment of applications to strike out defences advanced on multiple distinct bases. The court may excise particular elements while permitting other grounds to go forward to trial. It underlines that claims backed by litigation funding can be vulnerable to challenge for champerty and maintenance. Here, the court was troubled by aspects of the funder’s conduct, especially in separate proceedings where it perceived a high degree of funder control over the litigant. Given those concerns, striking out the plea of champerty or maintenance would be inappropriate. That stance applies notwithstanding the comparatively narrow situations in which...
PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—25 April 2024 In this issue: CPRC minutes Courts and the legal profession Case management Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information CPRC minutes Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—1 March 2024 The minutes from the CPR Committee ( CPRC) meeting held on 1 March 2024 address several topics, including proposed new provisions on references and interventions relating to assimilated case law (or retained EU case law), and a status update on the rollout of fixed recoverable costs in clinical negligence. See News Analysis: Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—1 March 2024. Courts and the legal profession Tenth edition of the King's Bench guide published The tenth edition of the King’s Bench Guide was released on 19 April 2024. The accompanying notes identify the following revisions: updated guidance on open justice, anonymity and non disclosure orders updated...
The Civil Justice Council ( CJC) has announced it plans to issue an interim report by summer 2024, followed by a comprehensive report the next summer, examining how funding agreements might be regulated. Framed by the Post Office Horizon Scandal and debate over the implications of the UK Supreme Court ruling that could undermine existing funding arrangements, the publication will outline the landscape of third-party funding and analyse its effect on access to justice. The CJC added that it will put ‘clear recommendations for reform’ to the Lord Chancellor (the Minister responsible for the administration of the court in England and Wales). As third-party funding is presently governed by self-regulation, the review will also explore wider financing models by comparing practices adopted in other jurisdictions, as part of its assessment of effective regulation of such agreements......
Austen Hays announced it has filed a claim in the High Court, asserting that Grindr violated data protection rules by unlawfully handling and disclosing users’ 'highly sensitive' medical information to third parties without permission. According to the firm, advertising partners including Localytics and Apptimize received private data from Grindr’s users between May 2018 and April 2020, and potentially for a longer period, the firm added in its claim. Founded in 2009, the app calls itself 'the largest social networking app for gay, bi, trans and queer people', claiming 'millions of daily users' who use its location-based technology to connect across more than 190 countries. Austen Hays said the breaches enabled a 'potentially unlimited number' of third parties to direct advertisements at users and tailor those promotions. These third parties either delivered adverts themselves or operated as so-called adtech intermediaries, with the potential to pass data on to...
Mooij v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 814 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of the case? This ruling carries significant ramifications for how the court can pursue unidentified defendants involved in digital asset dealings, and clarifies practical routes for serving them in such matters. In contrast to earlier authorities, because the (unknown) parties had in fact been served with the claim, the court was comfortable in its jurisdiction and, in turn, able to grant non-proprietary relief judgments. The ‘unknown’ defendants fell into two principal groups: the fraudsters; and the beneficiary controlling the destination wallet to which the cryptocurrency was transferred. The court authorised service to be achieved by: an NFT airdrop into the target wallet; and filing the relevant documents at court. Accordingly, in cryptocurrency fraud cases against unnamed defendants, it is sensible to approach the court with...
Note: the CPRC has stopped issuing the background papers alongside the minutes; therefore, this News Analysis is not accompanied by documents elucidating the discussions. A copy of the minutes is available here: Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting. Welcome, action log and matters arising (item 1) The Chair reported the appointment of His Honour Judge Hywel James and Master Lisa Sullivan to the Committee. Approval was given to the minutes of the 2 February 2023 meeting (see News Analysis: Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—2 February 2024). The following points arose that were not dealt with under subsequent items: court documents ( UKSC Cape v Dring) consultation: this closed on 8 April 2024, with a proposal to return the issue for discussion at the May 2024 meeting Standard Disclosure in Workplace Claims— Annex C to the Pre- Action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims: HHJ Jarman KC...
Consult Practice Note: Litigation funding agreements—drawdown processes. For summaries...
In this issue: CPR updates Sports injuries Fraud and fundamental dishonesty Case management Other PI and clinical negligence news Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information CPR updates CPRC consults on alternative dispute resolution The Civil Procedure Rule Committee ( CPRC) has issued a consultation on draft amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules. This follows the ruling in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416. Submissions close on 28 May 2024. See: LNB News 16/04/2024 29. Sports injuries High Court finds liability in rugby injury In Elbanna v Clark, the King’s Bench Division found the claimant established liability in a personal injury claim arising from an amateur rugby match between opposing sides, when the defendant collided with him, causing a serious spinal injury. The claimant alleged the collision stemmed from a reckless or negligent breach of the duty of care owed by...
Clyde & Co must face ex-clients pared-back negligence claim Sean O' Sullivan KC, acting as a deputy High Court judge, dismissed Riad Tawfiq Al Sadik’s ( Al Sadik’s) allegations that his former lawyers were negligent for not seeking to amend his Cayman Islands claim, which had alleged Investcorp mishandled his hedge fund investment. However, he allowed Al- Sadik to continue against Clyde & Co for an alleged failure to warn of the risk that the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands would issue an anti-suit injunction after Al- Sadik commenced Dubai proceedings to set aside the agreement with Investcorp. The judge noted that, tempting though it might be to dispose of the case neatly, this issue was not suitable for summary judgment and should be determined at trial (see paras [340]-[346]). He added that, because this relatively small component of Al Sadik’s US$88m claim is the sole...
Lewis- Ranwell v G4S Health Services ( UK) Ltd and others [2024] EWCA Civ 138 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision is pertinent where: there has been a lapse in care delivered to a claimant with mental illness the claimant subsequently commits acts which, but for insanity, would amount to crimes the claimant is acquitted by reason of insanity In that setting, the judgment is significant: it confirms the illegality defence does not bar the claimant’s action. Such circumstances will be rare. In 2012 the Law Commission observed there were usually under 30 successful insanity pleas each year. Outside those facts, its impact is limited. It does not alter the law; rather, it is a definitive Court of Appeal application of the principles set out in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42 and later applied in Henderson v Dorset...
In this issue: Occupational disease Costs Other PI and clinical negligence news Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Occupational disease Asbestos litigation—date of knowledge ( White v SSHSC and Cuthbert v Taylor Woodrow) Both appeals turned on whether, when refusing the claims, the trial judge had adopted the correct legal yardstick for determining the existence of a duty of care, given that the deceased had only intermittent, low-level contact with asbestos dust up to 1960. The claimants, invoking Jeromson, Maguire and Owen, maintained that the judge had not applied the proper foreseeability test, and that, since exposure could not be measured during the period in question and it was uncertain what level might be considered safe, there was a duty to remove all exposure so far as possible. The Court rejected that proposition......
On 8 April 2024, the Competition Appeal Tribunal allowed Apple to contest the tribunal's March 2024 decision granting Justin Gutmann permission to bring proceedings against the technology giant on behalf of 24 million i Phone users in the UK. That permission had been granted following a reworked litigation funding arrangement, which the tribunal said successfully bypassed obstacles created by the UK Supreme Court's surprise July 2023 ruling in Paccar itself. In Paccar, the Supreme Court barred opt-out claims from using litigation funding agreements that seek to recover their costs by taking a percentage of the damages. The far-reaching judgment upended multiple class actions at the tribunal, and several ongoing challenges to funding agreements are already pending before the Court of Appeal even as the government has introduced legislation that would undo Paccar entirely......
Irwin Mitchell Trust Corp v PW [2024] EWCOP 16 What are the practical implications of this case? A Deputy is a fiduciary and must not place itself in arrangements where duty and self-interest collide. This judgment indicates that principle has been overlooked in practice, fostering a sizeable - and lucrative - habit of appointing linked investment managers or advisers. The ruling is, accordingly, a significant restatement of the law and a clear signal that the court will not accept intentional conflicts of interest. The potential financial fallout for the businesses involved (and not only Irwin Mitchell) could be considerable. What was the background? PW lacked capacity to manage her property and affairs. Irwin Mitchell’s Trust Corporation ( IMTC) was appointed as Deputy. After a process assessing other asset managers alongside IMAM, in which PW’s husband participated, IMAM was chosen to oversee her...
White and others v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care; Cuthbert (executrix of the estate of Derek Barry Cuthbert, deceased) v Taylor Woodrow Construction Holdings [2024] EWCA Civ 244 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision is of real importance to practitioners, confirming the proper method for evaluating foreseeability in general and settling the uncertainty about how those principles apply to asbestos litigation In Cuthbert, the claimant took issue with the judge’s findings of fact, even though the deceased had provided two witness statements setting out his exposure to asbestos dust, and the defendant had no contrary evidence with which to challenge them. The claimant also complained that the defendant failed to seek evidence on commission during the deceased’s lifetime. The Court of Appeal rejected those criticisms, concluding that the defendant was entitled to put 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
