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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Sahara Energy Resource Ltd v Societe Nationale de Raffinage SA ( SONARA) [2026] EWCA Civ 54 The background facts Under a contract concluded in 2013 (the 2013 Contract), Sahara Energy Resource Ltd ( Sahara) delivered several cargoes of crude oil to Société Nationale de Raffinage SA ( Sonara), Cameroon’s state-owned crude oil refinery, during 2013 to 2016. To finance the arrangement, Sahara raised funds from a number of banks. Sonara was extremely delayed in settling certain sums that had already fallen due......
WM v Bradford District Care NHS Foundation Trust [2025] UKUT 396 ( AAC) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling confirms that the FTT may issue a statutory recommendation even where a clinician has already approved a form of leave under Me HA 1983, s 17. This gives the FTT greater latitude to decide which type of leave is most suitable for a patient at their particular point in treatment. It removes an unnecessary impediment to progression planning and makes clear that the FTT can recommend options that differ from, or go beyond, those currently in place. The judgment also broadens the FTT’s ability to make strategic recommendations that foster phased rehabilitation. The UT concluded that the FTT’s discretion to recommend is intended to identify the most effective route forward for the patient, and that successful unescorted leave can support...
In this issue Key PI and Clinical Negligence developments Claims involving a fatality Limitation Damages Case management Further PI and Clinical Negligence updates 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 ‘ Lost years’ damages available to child claimants: Supreme Court overrules Croke ( CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust) The Supreme Court in CCC (by her mother and litigation friend MMM) v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has upheld the appeal, confirming that children whose life expectancy has been curtailed by clinical negligence may recover ‘lost years’ damages. Disapproving the Court of Appeal’s stance in Croke v Wiseman [1982] 1 WLR 71, the court found no principled reason to bar very young claimants from seeking pecuniary losses attributable to the years of life taken away. The ruling brings the...
CCC (by her mother and litigation friend MMM) v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 Background On this appeal, the Supreme Court was invited to determine whether a child claimant may recover compensation for financial loss arising from her inability to work during the portion of her expected lifespan she has lost as a consequence of the defendant’s clinical negligence. Such damages are referred to as ‘lost years’ damages. The claimant, CCC, sustained a profound brain injury due to hypoxia at her birth in 2015, leaving her with a reduced life expectancy of 29 years. The defendant, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, runs the hospital where she was delivered and has accepted responsibility for the negligent care that caused her injury. At trial, it was common ground that, had she not been harmed, she would have enjoyed a normal life...
Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation v Dechert LLP [2025] EWCA Civ 1307 What was the background? The claimant, Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation ( ENRC), appealed a judge’s refusal to allow amendments to its claims for loss advanced at the quantum phase ( Phase 2) of two distinct sets of proceedings brought in the Commercial Court. Those proceedings comprised, first, a claim issued in 2017 against Dechert LLP and a partner at that firm (the Dechert defendants); and, secondly, a claim commenced in 2019 against the Serious Fraud Office (the SFO). ENRC was a public limited company and the parent of a diversified natural resources group with extensive mining operations. Following an 11‑week liability trial, delivered in May 2022, the judge found that, between 2011 and 2013, the Dechert defendants had breached duties owed to ENRC by disclosing confidential and privileged information to the SFO without ENRC’s...
What was the background? Baltimore Wharf SLP ( Baltimore/the claimant) commenced proceedings against Ballymore Properties Ltd ( Ballymore/the defendant) and WSP UK Ltd (the Part 20 defendant) following the collapse of a nursery roof at Baltimore Wharf, London, on 15 July 2023. The claims, advanced both under a collateral warranty dated 7 January 2013 and in tort, contend that the roof failed because the connection between the nursery roof steel beams and the RC frame gave way, with losses put at in excess of £2 million. Proceedings were issued on 31 May 2024; the defendant served its defence on 17 July 2024 and, the same day, issued a Part 20 claim against WSP. After the action began, the TCC sealed a Consent Order on 1 August 2024 staying the claim until 1 October 2024 to facilitate settlement discussions. Negotiations then moved forward, with...
HDL (by his litigation friend RCK) v Butt and another [2025] EWHC 3410 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment reaffirms the established test for securing an interim payment and should be on the reading list for anyone contemplating such bids. Put simply, at the interim payment hearing, the medical material advanced must be sufficiently robust to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that the trial judge would be compelled to make a final award from which the interim sum sought represents no more than a reasonable proportion. Where the dispute hinges on expert opinion (medical or otherwise), it is commonplace for that evidence to remain incomplete until shortly before trial, which may make obtaining an early interim payment problematic, if not impossible. Advisers will therefore need to weigh the timing and evidential position with great care before issuing an...
Neidle, who heads the think tank Tax Policy Associates, told the High Court that tax barrister Setu Kamal’s claim ought to be thrown out under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 ( ECCTA 2023), which empowers courts to reject at an early stage proceedings amounting to strategic litigation against public participation ( SLAPPs). He invited the court to characterise the suit as a SLAPP. Represented by 5RB’s Greg Callus, Neidle argued that Kamal — a sole practitioner and former member of Old Square Tax Chambers — issued the claim to suppress public-interest criticism that Neidle had made of him. Callus said Kamal’s clear purpose in his pre-action steps was to chill and interfere with Neidle’s freedom of expression, going beyond the lawful boundaries and remedies properly available through litigation......
The CPRC no longer circulates the supporting papers with its minutes, so this News Analysis is not accompanied by documents explaining the matters discussed. A copy of the minutes is available here: Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting... Welcome, apologies and introductory remarks (item 1) The Chair opened by welcoming attendees, with particular thanks to the Civil Justice Council ( CJC) observer, Mr John Cuss, joining as the new CJC link member. The minutes of the 7 November 2025 meeting (see News Analysis: Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—7 November 2025) were approved, subject to minor changes. The action log was noted: regarding the court’s power to order disclosure from a non-party, no further consultation is required and the intention is to include this in the next Civil Procedure Rules ( CPR) updates, ie April 2026. On the initial report concerning arbitral awards, it was...
PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—12 February 2026 In this issue: CPR updates Key PI and Clinical negligence developments Road traffic accidents Sports injuries Claims involving a fatality Claims involving a mentally incapacitated claimant Costs and funding Employer&39;s liability Abuse and criminal injuries Lexis Nexis® Quantum Portal Lex Talk® PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis® Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Lexis Nexis® Webinars Useful information CPR updates 193rd Practice Direction update—in force various dates The Master of the Rolls and the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State for Justice have authorised the 193rd Practice Direction ( PD) update to the Civil Procedure Rules ( CPR). See: LNB News 10/02/2026 26. Civil Procedure ( Amendment) Rules 2026 The Civil Procedure ( Amendment) Rules 2026, SI 2026/97, modify the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. Most...
Gilbert and another company v Broadoak Private Finance Ltd and others [2026] EWHC 153 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision underscores that the duty of fair presentation is exacting and fundamental to preserving the integrity of the court’s process. Before making a without notice application, an applicant must undertake proper enquiries and fully interrogate both the factual basis and the legal propositions on which they intend to rely. That obligation also embraces information that would have been identified had reasonable enquiries been pursued. Practitioners should approach these applications with meticulous care and balance, ensuring that relevant counterarguments are not minimised or left undeveloped. Make proper enquiries before any without notice application Fully investigate the facts and the legal arguments relied upon Include matters discoverable through reasonable enquiries Prepare in a...
One Hyde Park Ltd v Laing O’ Rourke Construction South Ltd [2026] EWHC 155 ( TCC) What was the background? The dispute concerned significant and widespread defects at One Hyde Park, a high-end residential development in Knightsbridge (the Property), completed in 2011. The claim stemmed from works carried out under a construction contract between the defendant contractor, Laing O’ Rourke Construction South Limited ( LOR), and the original developer. On 8 September 2010, LOR provided a collateral warranty to the claimant, One Hyde Park Limited ( OHP), assuring LOR’s performance of the main contract. The freehold was later transferred to OHP on 11 June 2014, and OHP continues to manage and oversee the Property for tenants under leasehold arrangements. In November 2014, corrosion was identified in the chilled water pipework, and ensuing investigations uncovered butterfly valve failures, leaking soldered joints, and a defective...
What are the practical implications of this case? SRN v Nekiwala and another [2026] EWHC 16 ( KB) underscores the wide judicial discretion in granting interim payments under CPR 25.10(1). It offers guidance on how courts estimate a reasonable proportion of the likely final judgment in brain injury claims where a defendant resists a TIL, challenges treatment and/or runs contributory negligence points. The claimant’s intricate immigration status also influenced the outcome; the defendant accepted that, if status is regularised in future and medical evidence shows significant ongoing symptoms, the claimant would have a stronger basis for a substantial interim payment later (para [23]). A further difficulty was the court’s refusal to fund a TIL because defence experts disputed its necessity and the claimant had not firmly committed to it. Claimant practitioners should assemble persuasive medical and witness evidence to support any proposed TIL and ensure the...
Tribunal chair Alison Kellet confirmed the SDT will, in principle, issue an order supporting Claire Gill, after misconduct proceedings brought by the SRA against her were thrown out. At a hearing in January this year, Gill’s solicitors said the SRA should cover close to £1m in legal costs and tax. The SDT resolved that a costs judge must undertake a detailed assessment of quantum in the High Court. That judge will also determine associated matters, including the legal basis on which costs are to be recovered, and whether any deductions should be applied to the overall figure. Kellet further noted that no interim payment would be made for the time being......
The High Court found that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia covertly installed the Pegasus spyware on Ghanem Al- Masarir’s i Phones, so as to enable tracking of his location, the interception of calls, and surveillance through the handsets’ microphones and cameras. Judge Pushpinder Saini determined that Saudi Arabia had no realistic prospect of successfully contesting Al- Masarir’s allegation that the Kingdom was behind a physical assault on him in central London. Taken together, the harassment and invasion of privacy left the activist with 'severe psychiatric injury', the judge said. Al- Masarir, a Saudi national resident in the UK since 2003, has since 2008 been a vocal critic of the Saudi royal family on You Tube. According to the judgment, his videos have attracted over 345 million views. In November 2019, Al- Masarir sued the Saudi Government for intrusive, secret...
In this issue Costs Public authorities and the state Occupational disease Lexis Nexis® Quantum Portal Lex Talk® PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Lexis Nexis® Webinars Costs The Public Accounts Committee has released a report on the surge in clinical negligence expenditure, setting out targeted actions after years of alerts. It reproaches the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England for not delivering meaningful change. The Committee records liabilities of £60bn in 2024–25, with £3.6bn paid out annually in settlements. It urges the DHSC to present a concrete operational plan to curb claim numbers and costs, and to publish David Lock KC’s review within six months of completion. Further measures sought include a national framework to strengthen patient safety, reform of the NHS complaints process to boost local...
The Executors of the Estate of Kenneth Collins v The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2026] EWHC 117 ( SCCO) What are the practical implications of this case? Costs Judge Whalan’s decision that wrongful interference with goods may amount to an intentional tort will interest practitioners bringing claims against the police, particularly where disputes over fixed recoverable costs might arise in that arena. Of broader significance are the conclusions on how the fixed costs transitional provisions in the Civil Procedure ( Amendment No 2) Rules 2023, SI 2023/572, should operate. The court received an extensive and wide‑ranging submission from the claimants on those provisions. That submission relied on the Minutes of the Civil Procedure Rules Committee from November 2023, which suggested that fixed costs were not engaged where the only live proceeding was a costs‑only Part 8 claim. The court has...
Rehman v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and others [2026] EWHC 6 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment reinforces judicial hesitation to let COVID-19 infection claims advance. In contrast to Edwards v 2 Sisters Food Group Ltd [2025] EWHC 1312 ( KB), the claimants framed causation purely by alleging a material contribution to injury and a material increase in risk. However, the real-world evidential difficulties in identifying the route of infection were sufficient to bar reliance on material contribution. The Master also held that the same evidential gaps prevented the claims from fitting within the Fairchild exception of a material increase in risk of injury, drawing a clear line between COVID-19 and mesothelioma. Policy considerations plainly influenced the outcome. The Master observed that permitting a Fairchild-based claim here would open the...
In this issue: Key PI and clinical negligence news Occupiers’ liability Clinical negligence Public authorities and the state Abuse and criminal injuries Road traffic accidents Costs Other PI and clinical negligence news 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 news HMCTS updates Form N215 certificate of service HM Courts & Tribunals Service ( HMCTS) has refreshed the English edition of Form N215 Certificate of Service for civil proceedings, introducing a new statement of truth. While the layout has been altered, the information to be completed is unchanged, with extra guidance notes now included to support completion. See: LNB News 27/01/2026 36. Occupiers’...
Lillystone v Bradgate Education Partnership [2025] EWHC 3341 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? Accidents caused by balls escaping play ( Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850) are not unusual. Incidents involving people climbing fences ( Phillips v South East Education and Library Board [2015] NIQB 91; Wray v Derry City and Strabane District Council [2020] NIQB 39) also arise. More broadly, the decision reinforces that OLA 1957, s 1(1) limits the duty of care owed by owners/occupiers to dangers stemming from the state of the premises and to acts or omissions in relation to that state. Relying on Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2004] 1 AC 46, the appeal court drew a distinction between hazards attributable to the condition of the premises where what was done, or not done, formed part of that...
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
