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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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: Judicial College Guidelines, 17th Edition now available on Lexis+ CPR updates Clinical negligence Evidence and disclosure Costs Other PI and Clinical Negligence News Lex Talk® PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Judicial College Guidelines, 17th Edition now available on Lexis+ The seventeenth edition of the Judicial College Guidelines ( JCG) is now accessible on Lexis+. Locate it through Butterworths Personal Injury Litigation Service ( BPILS), Division IX, Quantum Summaries. See: Butterworths Personal Injury Litigation Service, Division IX, Quantum Summaries CPR updates 165th Practice Direction update—in force 6 April 2024 The Master of the Rolls and the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State for Justice have signed off the 165th Practice Direction ( PD) update to the Civil Procedure Rules ( CPR). This PD introduces changes allowing VAT to be recovered within fixed...
UK Supreme Court consultation on digital portal The UK Supreme Court confirmed it is seeking views on proposals within a three‑year change programme intended to strengthen users’ capacity to learn about, engage with and lodge cases at the UK Supreme Court and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—the ultimate court of appeal for UK overseas territories and the Crown dependencies. The package of reforms features a digital case management platform, referred to as the portal, built to provide an end‑to‑end service for court users. According to the court, the portal will make filing and overseeing a case simpler, more efficient and contemporary, thereby improving access to justice for users. The consultation, led by the court and supported by the Ministry of Justice, is open for submissions until 17 May 2024......
Various Claimants v Mercedes- Benz Group AG and others [2024] EWHC 695 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling provides direction on two comparatively uncommon applications arising within substantial group litigation concerning vehicle emissions claims pursued against the manufacturers. It confirms that, when addressing applications under CPR 31.22—seeking to curb collateral use of documents disclosed and deployed at hearings in open court—the starting point is the primacy of open justice. The court will require compelling, specific evidence to justify any curb on use, and, even then, will insist that any order is tightly confined to the particular documents for which restriction is genuinely warranted. CPR 31.22: The prohibition on collateral use of disclosed material used in open court is exceptional; the court prioritises transparency and will only grant limits where clearly substantiated, and then only in a narrowly...
PACCAR The government has acted quickly, within nine months of the unexpected decision by Britain’s highest court that many financial arrangements used by litigation funders were not enforceable. Ministers introduced a bill on 20 aimed at overturning the ruling, known as PACCAR, after strong lobbying from the litigation‑funding industry. The bill has been welcomed for offering clarity to claimants. However, Tamar Halevy, a partner at Marriott Harrison LLP, suggested the government may have yielded to pressure and hurried through measures that will leave funding companies unregulated without the ‘opportunity to be provided with a contrary view’. ‘ The litigation funding industry has put a lot of effort into lobbying the government in order to reverse the effects of PACCAR, and they have succeeded’, Halevy said. She stated that the bill removes the requirement for litigation funding agreements to comply with the Damages‑ Based...
In this issue: Damages Costs Other PI and clinical negligence news Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Damages Supreme Court unanimously dismisses appeal against decision to assess damages for PSLA concurrently for whiplash and non-whiplash injuries ( Hassam ( Appellants) v Rabot ( Respondents)) The Supreme Court has, without dissent, rejected the appeals and cross-appeals, endorsing the Court of Appeal majority view that compensation for pain, suffering and loss of amenity ( PSLA) arising from whiplash injuries ( WLIs) and non-whiplash injuries ( NWLIs) should be valued together when sustained in the same road traffic collision. Robert Weir KC and Tom Westwell of Devereux Chambers consider the ruling’s effects, noting fresh uncertainty over the method of calculation and the prospect of uneven outcomes. Shannon Eastwood of Atlantic Chambers also remarks that the ruling provides a much-needed definitive position for...
Rainer Hughes Solicitors v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd and others [2024] EWHC 585 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? Firstly, strict observance of CPR 32 and the requirements for documents where English is not the first language is critical at each and every procedural stage (see Correia v Williams [2022] EWHC 2824 ( KB) and Afzal v UK Insurance Ltd [2023] EWHC 1730 ( KB)). In this matter, the solicitors should have appreciated from the very start that their client was not proficient in English and, without statements carefully prepared and accurately translated, the result was plainly disastrous. Secondly, when wasted costs are pursued, consider whether the sums sought are eclipsed by the expense of dealing with the application itself, through the process as a whole. Any proportionality arguments ought to be raised at the earliest...
Group litigation—solicitors’ lack of authority to act may result in wasted costs and non-party costs orders ( Jalla & Chujor v Shell International Trading & Shipping Ltd) Jalla and others v Royal Dutch Shell and others [2024] EWHC 578 ( TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? Practitioners handling group actions should note the risks now facing the claimants’ solicitors after the court’s earlier finding that they lacked authority to issue the individual claims. Relying on the long‑established Yonge v Toynbee [1910] 1 KB 215, the court confirms that solicitors who warrant authority for persons named on a claim form may become liable for wasted costs and non‑party costs orders if that authority is later absent. The ruling emphasises the need for a careful, timely process to obtain actual authority from every named claimant before proceedings are started. It stands as a clear...
PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—21 March 2024 Occupational disease Co A upheld findings that intermittent/low asbestos exposure in the 1950s–70s was not a foreseeable risk; White v So S for Health; Cuthbert v Taylor Woodrow. Vicarious liability Piepenbrock v Michell: claims about a chambers profile were struck out—no pleaded entity, no vicarious liability, not authors/editors/publishers; out of time; extended civil restraint for three years. Abuse and criminal injuries AXO v FTT: UT misapplied para 49(1); no double recovery for lost parental services, but CICA may recoup £5,500 bereavement from £10,000 Article 2 damages. Costs Bill to amend s58AA CLSA 1990, reversing PACCAR; retrospective; second reading 15 April 2024. Hadley v Przybylo: fee earner attendance at rehab meetings not irrecoverable in principle; case-specific. Rainer Hughes v LV=: £3,000 wasted costs order upheld; solicitor negligence/breach; indemnity basis proper. Key PI & Clinical Negligence...
According to the tax authority, service of fresh legal proceedings and pre-action correspondence should be carried out by email rather than post, a policy brought in on 9 April 9 2020. HMRC added that every pertinent document must be directed to the specified email addresses, even where a lawyer, paralegal, or litigator within a department is appointed to the matter......
PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—14 March 2024 In this issue: CPR updates Costs Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information CPR updates Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—2 February 2024 The CPR Committee ( CPRC) met on 2 February 2024, with the session held entirely online by video conference. The record notes several topics, among them the widening of fixed recoverable costs, the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (the Hague Judgments Convention), and how Judges are referenced within the Civil Procedure Rules. It confirms that extending the Fixed Recoverable Costs regime to clinical negligence claims worth up to £25,000 remains in progress, with time earmarked for further discussion at the March meeting. See News Analysis: Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—2 February 2024. CPRC publishes details of annual open meeting on 10 May...
Note: the Civil Procedure Rule Committee ( CPRC) has stopped issuing the background papers alongside the minutes; this News Analysis is not accompanied by documents setting out the issues discussed. A copy of the minutes can be accessed here: Minutes of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee. The minutes contain references to items intended for a forthcoming Civil Procedure Rules ( CPR) and Practice Directions ( PD) update scheduled for April 2024. Please note that the CPR and PD updates have been published—see: LNB News 01/02/2024 82—163rd Practice Direction update approved—in force dates 1 February and 6 April 2024; and LNB News 01/02/2024 37— Civil Procedure ( Amendment) Rules 2024. Welcome, Minutes of 1 December 2023, and other matters (item 1) The CPRC approved the minutes of the 1 December 2023 meeting (see News Analysis: Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—1 December 2023), subject to minor...
Privinvest Shipbuilding SAL ( Holding) and others v Nyusi [2024] EWCA Civ 184 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision will aid practitioners navigating the intricate rules on service out of the jurisdiction and wrestling with the reach of state immunity. It further underscores the need to follow guidance issued by the Foreign Process Section. The judgment draws out these central points: CPR 6.40 permits a claim form to be served by any method allowed by CPR 6.42. Under CPR 6.42, service in a Commonwealth state that is not a party to the Hague Service Convention must be by “service direct”, unless PD 6B provides otherwise. CPR PD 6B, para 5.1 states that certain Commonwealth states not party to the Hague Convention “require” service under CPR 6.42(1)(b)(i) (through judicial authorities) rather than CPR 6.42(3) (service direct), and that a “list” of such...
PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—7 March 2024 In this issue: Clinical negligence Fraud and fundamental dishonesty Damages Case management Costs Key PI & Clinical Negligence developments Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Clinical negligence Administrative Court dismisses appeal in clinical negligence claim The King’s Bench Division Administrative Court ( Birmingham), in Chilton v Payne [2024] EWHC 451 ( Admin), rejected the appellant’s appeal against an order dismissing her claim for damages against the respondent surgeon for negligence. The case concerned an alleged omission by the respondent to provide, or ensure, sufficient abdominoplasty follow-up and/or aftercare. She maintained, among other grounds, that the judge had erred in fact and in law: (i) in concluding there was no breach of the post-operative duty of care; and (ii) in his treatment of factual...
Willis v GWB Harthills LLP and others [2024] Lexis Citation 187 What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment is best read alongside the binding Court of Appeal decision in FXF, as together they clarify the rules and principles governing applications to set-aside judgments or default costs certificates. Until these rulings, there was real doubt about whether CPR 3.9 was engaged and—as the Court of Appeal remarked in FXF—authorities appeared to support both sides of the argument. That uncertainty is readily explained: nowhere do the rules expressly label a default costs certificate as a ‘sanction’, and CPR PD 47, para 11(2)—which specifies the matters the court must consider—does not mention the CPR 3.9 criteria. The effect of Willis is to settle the position: applications to set-aside default costs certificates are to be treated as applications for relief from sanctions. Read together, Willis and FXF...
Justice Secretary Alex Chalk KC On 4 March 2024, Justice Secretary Alex Chalk KC pledged to reinstate the legal position that applied before the Supreme Court’s July judgment in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others [2023] UKSC 28 ( PACCAR). That decision concluded that most litigation funding models were unenforceable as they amounted to prohibited damages-based agreements. In response, funders and claimants crafted new arrangements with alternative fee structures, while defendants have argued that any litigation funding contract is void where the funder’s return is confined to the damages recovered. Major corporates, including Sony and Apple, have mounted challenges asserting that even the revised structures are unlawful, with those cases due to be heard by the Court of Appeal. Richard Pike, a Partner at Fieldfisher LLP, noted that, if and when the...
Zubaydah v Foreign and Commonwealth Office and others [2023] UKSC 50 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision is a rarity in two respects. First, it offers one of the few instances in which the general rule in PIL( MP) A 1995, s 11 was set aside by PIL( MP) A 1995, s 12 due to the significance of factors linking the torts to a different forum—here, England. The central message is that, when relying on PIL( MP) A 1995, s 12 to displace PIL( MP) A 1995, s 11, the court scrutinises how the key elements of the torts connect with each of the competing countries whose laws are said to govern. That assessment calls for a careful examination of the pleadings, a step taken only by Lord Sales in his dissenting judgment. Secondly, the case is unusual because, rather than...
The High Court has ruled that Your Lawyers Ltd may move ahead with its allegation that Capital Interchange Ltd and Therium Capital Management Ltd breached a 2016 non-disclosure agreement tied to a prospective group action over Volkswagen AG’s emissions scandal, a breach said to have resulted in a different firm publicising its own action first. Judge Elizabeth Jones KC dismissed assertions that the suit mounted a challenge to an earlier UK Supreme Court ruling or amounted to an abuse of process. She stated she did not regard the proceedings as a collateral assault on the Supreme Court’s judgment, nor as behaviour likely to bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and therefore not an abuse of the court’s process. The judgment records that the quarrel began after Your Lawyers and litigation funding broker Capital Interchange entered into a non-disclosure pact to secure finance for a planned group claim...
Introduction In recent years, AI has advanced markedly, notably in its capacity to produce sophisticated material via what is termed ‘generative AI’. This piece explores areas of construction disputes that might be streamlined and enhanced through a leading strand of generative AI: large language models ( LLMs), which can review and create substantial volumes of text. LLMs are trained on immense datasets, enabling them to infer and anticipate the next word, or sequence of words, within a passage. By modelling linguistic patterns across vast corpora, these systems generate coherent continuations that align with context over long passages. This underpins their utility for text-heavy tasks, particularly. On 2 February 2024, the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee issued its report on ‘ Large language models and generative AI’, cautioning against missing the chance to harness emerging AI and slipping behind rivals by...
In this issue: Road traffic accidents Clinical negligence Case management Other PI & Clinical Negligence news Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Road traffic accidents The Supreme Court, unanimously allowing Ms Armstead’s appeal, decided that a claimant’s contractual sum owed to a third party—where that liability arises because the defendant negligently damaged the claimant’s property—is not pure economic loss and is recoverable in negligence. The court further confirmed that once factual causation of the loss by the defendant’s breach is shown, the onus shifts to the defendant to establish any limits on the damages recoverable, by reference to the following principles: scope of duty remoteness intervening cause failure to mitigate contributory negligence Written by Quentin Tannock, barrister at 4 Pump Court. See News Analysis: Supreme Court—tortious damages available where physical damage results in...
The Tintometer Ltd and other company v Pitmans (a firm) and another company [2024] EWHC 370 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision offers concrete guidance for advisers acting for a party added to ongoing proceedings and contemplating an application to set aside an order already made before its joinder. In such a scenario, a newly joined party lacks standing to apply to set aside any pre-existing order under CPR 3.3(5). The judgment also serves as a timely reminder that, when exercising its discretion to substitute a party as a defendant under CPR 17.2, the court will assess whether doing so accords with the overall interests of justice, and will properly weigh any material prospective prejudice to the proposed defendant. What was the background? The first defendant, Pitmans, sought to strike out the claimants’ professional negligence claim. The claim concerned advice given by...
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
