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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Upper Tribunal considers experts acting under success-related fees ( Gardiner & Theobald LLP v Jackson ( VO)) Gardiner & Theobald LLP v Jackson ( VO) [2018] UKUT 253 ( LC) What was the background? The UTLC President characterised the ruling as addressing significant questions of principle about the proper conduct of experts. In essence, it examined the effect of success‑linked remuneration and the circumstances in which such arrangements might be regarded as acceptable. The tribunal adopted a notably broad stance on experts’ obligations where success‑related fees arise, prompting unease among expert witnesses and their employers. Although the dispute was a rating matter, the tribunal made it clear that its observations were equally applicable in compensation cases. The panel presented its guidance as having wider application across comparable proceedings in both forums. Fee arrangements in the case The surveying practice had undertaken all rating work for Gardiner &...
Advantage Insurance Co Ltd v Stoodley and another [2018] EWHC 2135 ( QB), [2018] All ER ( D) 79 ( Aug) What are the practical implications of the judgment? Two key, practical takeaways arise from this decision. Substantive point: a motor insurer granting cover under a DOC extension is insuring a liability that must be provided for under section 145 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 ( RTA 1988). Consequently, a DOC insurer may function not only as a contractual insurer but also as a hybrid insurer (a contractual insurer whose liability is adjusted by RTA 1988, s 148) or as a statutory insurer under RTA 1988, s 151. This will matter in situations where multiple insurers are involved. Procedural point: claimants who anticipate an adverse ruling cannot sidestep it by discontinuing before judgment and then attempting to re‑litigate the same issue. Where a...
SRCL Ltd v National Health Service Commissioning Board (also known as NHS England) [2018] EWHC 1985 ( TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? The court delivered a series of significant observations that merit close attention across multiple aspects of the dispute. On procedure, it highlighted the centrality of agreed lists of issues, stating that a List of Agreed Issues is an essential device in contemporary litigation, not just in the specialist courts but across the High Court. The court was distinctly unimpressed by SRCL’s effort to advance a new contention at trial that had not appeared on the agreed list, determining that parties should be bound by what they have settled in that list rather than treating it as merely indicative. As to limitation, the judgment demonstrates that the short time limits under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 SI 2015/102 ( PCR...
EDF Energy Customers Ltd (formerly EDF Energy Customers plc) v Re- Energised Ltd [2018] EWHC 652 ( Ch), [2018] All ER ( D) 02 ( Apr) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision restates—by analogy with personal insolvency authorities such as Harvey v Dunbar Assets [2017] EWCA Civ 60, [2017] All ER ( D) 127 ( Feb)—that, save in truly exceptional situations, a debtor company cannot revisit at the winding-up petition hearing the same contentions already determined on an application to restrain advertisement. The rule also captures points the company could have advanced earlier but did not. Allowing a second bite at the cherry would squander judicial resources and may engage res judicata. The ruling has consequences for how advisers approach applications to restrain presentation or advertisement: there is considerable peril in issuing a hurried application when not all potential arguments are...
Hotlinking does not constitute copyright infringement ( Wheat v Alphabet Inc/ Google LLC & Anor) Wheat v Alphabet Inc/ Google LLC & Anor [2018] EWHC 550 ( Ch) (26 March 2018) What are the practical implications of this case? The decision addresses the thorny issue of whether hotlinking can give rise to claims for breach of contract or copyright infringement. Its technical effect may divert searches away from the originator’s site to an aggregator, with a corresponding loss of advertising revenue. The case shows how evolving technology disrupts existing business models, and the difficulties of pursuing remedies for perceived wrongs within legal frameworks that can lag behind innovation. It further highlights the perils for litigants in person stepping into areas that test even experienced litigators. What was the background? The claimant, acting in person, runs the website...
Bosworth Water Trust v SSR and others [2018] EWHC 444 ( QB) What are the practical implications of the case? Children are recognised and expected to be less cautious than adults. Still, they should be afforded chances to take part in activities that offer both enjoyment and exercise. They are entitled to be given the opportunity to participate in such pursuits. Where such activities, however simple, present a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury, the law imposes a duty upon a parent, those acting in locus parentis, or organisers of those activities, to take reasonable care. That duty will often only be satisfied where it can be shown that proper instructions and/or supervision were provided. Harris v Perry [2008] EWCA Civ 907, [2008] All ER ( D) 415 ( Jul) — the ‘bouncy castle’ case — was widely regarded as a welcome departure from the...
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4, [2018] All ER ( D) 47 ( Feb) What are the practical implications of the decision? In this ruling, the Supreme Court confirmed there is no blanket immunity excluding police liability in the context of preventing and investigating crime. The police owe a duty of care, consistent with orthodox tort principles, not to inflict foreseeable personal injury on others by their affirmative acts. Defence practitioners have called it the most significant police case in a generation. Because the Court articulated wide principles regarding duties of care in tort and the accountability of public bodies, the ramifications extend well beyond the traditional bounds of civil claims against the police. The Court therefore reasserted conventional tort doctrine over the more recent judicial practice of resolving matters through...
What are the practical implications of this case? Under statutory limitation principles, an equitable set-off defence is ordinarily not caught by a time bar. Typically, limitation statutes render a claim unenforceable rather than erasing the underlying debt or liability. That is, time limits usually bar remedies without destroying the obligation itself. Hence the defence remains available. Consequently, equitable set-off, operating as a shield and not as enforcement, can still neutralise a claim for defendants who have acted a touch late. However, in this matter the High Court confirmed the parties’ contractual freedom to stipulate a different result: that their contractual time limit extinguishes the underlying liability entirely. Applying the now well-rehearsed canons of contractual construction, Mrs Justice May emphasised the need to read each agreement within its own context. This stands as a reminder to contracting parties not to assume that statutory...
Original news Redman (suing as widow and administratrix of the estate of Redman, deceased) v Zurich Insurance plc and another [2017] EWHC 1919 ( QB), [2017] All ER ( D) 07 ( Aug) The Queen’s Bench Division struck out a widow’s claim brought under TP( RAI) A 2010 against the first defendant, the insurer of the second defendant employer of her husband, who died in 2013. The court held that the second defendant became a “relevant person” for the purposes of s 1 when it was voluntarily wound up in 2014, predating the commencement of TP( RAI) A 2010 on 1 August 2016. It also concluded that the second defendant incurred the liability, within the same section, when the cause of action was complete, which likewise occurred before 2016. As the claim failed to satisfy either condition in s 1, the...
R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51 The Supreme Court upheld a trade union’s appeal, deciding that the Lord Chancellor’s scheme requiring fees from claimants in employment tribunals and appellants to the Employment Appeal Tribunal must be quashed because it obstructed access to justice. What was the background to the case? Employment tribunals were set up as an informal, low-cost and accessible forum for resolving workplace disputes. Their jurisdiction covers a broad array of matters, including enforcement of key rights that attract little or no financial compensation, such as the right to a statement of terms and conditions and the right to rest breaks. Many tribunal claims have their origins in EU law, although a substantial number are solely domestic. Claimants are often in a vulnerable situation—typically the weaker party in the contractual...
What are the practical implications of this case? Where the 2008 Regulations bite, not giving written notification of the cancellation right may stop solicitors recovering their fees from clients and block a winning party from obtaining costs from the opponent. It is a criminal offence as well. The 2008 Regulations cover any CFA concluded by solicitors and clients at the client’s home or workplace. If the CFA was agreed somewhere else away from the solicitor’s offices, the Court of Appeal held that one must assess the particular setting and the purpose of the meeting to decide whether the 2008 Regulations are engaged. The 2008 Regulations have no application to agreements made on or after 13 June 2014, when the Consumer Contracts ( Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 took effect. The Court of Appeal did not express a view on how matters would fall under the...
The pitfalls of reducing the protection of reserved legal activity ( Ndole Assets Ltd v Designer M& E Services) Original news: Ndole Assets Ltd v Designer M& E Services UK Ltd [2017] EWHC 1148 ( TCC) What was your role in the case and what were the key issues? Our construction team acted for Designer M& E Services UK Ltd, a specialist mechanical and electrical sub-contractor, as defendant and applicant for strike out. Designer undertook works on a Hackney development in 2010 for the main contractor, Sheldon Construction SRVC ( London) Limited. Their contract was terminated in 2011, followed by multiple adjudications. Thereafter, Designer heard nothing for five years. During that interval, via a sequence of loan arrangements and assignments, a British Virgin Islands company, Ndole Assets Limited, came to assert the supposed cause of action against Designer. Ndole commenced proceedings in October 2016. An...
Original news Vanden Recycling Ltd v Kras Recycling BV [2017] EWCA Civ 354 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling, in brief: affirms that once a judgment has been satisfied, further claims against other tortfeasors responsible for the same harm are generally precluded as a matter of course however, satisfying a settlement—rather than a judgment—will only preclude claims against other tortfeasors for the same harm if the amount agreed and paid was intended to determine and fix the claimant’s loss in full acknowledges (and succinctly sets out) the differences and practical distinctions between consent orders and Tomlin orders indicates that the court will look at the 'substance and effect' of a consent order’s terms and, if these are 'the same as would be made following a judgment', it is proper to treat the consent order as a...
In brief: When is an expedited trial appropriate in a public procurement case? ( Joseph Gleave & Son Ltd v Secretary of State for Defence) Original news Joseph Gleave & Son Ltd v Secretary of State for Defence [2017] EWHC 238 ( TCC) What should public procurement lawyers take note of? The judgment offers a helpful recap of the principles for deciding applications for an expedited trial, together with the core questions when considering a stay. It also makes plain that, despite Directive 89/665/ EEC as amended (the Remedies Directive), there is no presumption in favour of speeding up proceedings in procurement disputes, whether the challenge arises before or after the tender process has concluded. Applied to the facts, two practical lessons stand out: First, any party contemplating expedition should alert the opponent at the earliest opportunity to evidence genuine urgency. Second, a...
Original news Pickard v Marshall and others; Generali France Assurances v Marshall and others [2017] EWCA Civ 17 What are the practical implications of this case? The court rejected an attempt to limit the types of considerations relevant to deciding whether a claim has a ‘manifestly closer connection’ to a particular legal system under Article 4(3) of Regulation ( EC) 864/2007 ( Rome II). As a result, the kind of wide, fact-driven assessment used by the trial judge remains pivotal—especially elements such as the existence of other personal injury actions from the same incident, where the applicable law is unambiguous—which will continue to matter in cases of this sort... What issues did this case raise? The dispute centres on Article 4 of Rome II, which sets the applicable law for cross-border claims not founded on contract (ie almost all personal injury claims with a...
Original news The Civil Proceedings Fees ( Amendment) Order 2016, SI 2016/1191 What are the changes to trial fees? Proposals to revise trial fees were first considered by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee ( CPRC) in December 2014, when implementation was projected for April 2015. For a detailed breakdown of the proposals, see News Analysis: Changes to court fees likely in force April 2015—abolishing refund of hearing fees for early settlement. The anticipated commencement date of April 2015 was subsequently recorded in the minutes of the CPRC’s February 2015 meeting. For further detail, see News Analysis: Changes to court fees in force 6 April 2015—abolishing refund of trial fees for early settlement and streamlining automatic strike out for non payment. But......
In brief: NVidia’s groundless threats claim struck out and stay refused ( NVidia Corporation & Ors v Hardware Labs Performance Systems Inc) Original news NVidia Corporation & Ors v Hardware Labs Performance Systems Inc [2016] EWHC 3135 ( Ch) What should IP & IT lawyers take note of? This ruling offers two cautions for practitioners. First, think twice before issuing domestic proceedings—perhaps within a broader European litigation plan—unless your clients are genuinely prepared to see the dispute through to trial. Mann J’s decision makes it plain that the UK courts will not invariably grant a stay at a claimant’s request, even where doing so could plausibly conserve costs and judicial time. Discontinuance remains a route open to such a claimant, as Mann J observes in his judgment. Yet that course carries costs repercussions because, naturally, a claimant who discontinues in the UK must meet the...
Original news Vukota- Bojic v Switzerland ( Application no 61838/10) What were the key issues considered by the European Court of Human Rights ( ECt HR)? In Vukota- Bojic v Switzerland, the ECt HR addressed two principal matters: whether covertly obtaining surveillance material amounted to a violation of ECHR, art 8 (‘right to respect for private life and family life’), and if such material was relied upon in legal proceedings, whether that would result in a breach of ECHR, art 6 (‘right to a fair hearing’) In considering whether security camera footage obtained through covert surveillance constituted an interference with the claimant’s art 8 rights, what were the main factors taken into account (the permanence of the records, refusal of the courts to destruct tapes, etc)? In essence, the court held that acquiring secret surveillance infringed ECHR, art 8. It confirmed that the scope of...
Original news R (on application of Ingenious Media Holdings plc and another) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2016] UKSC 54, [2016] All ER ( D) 118 ( Oct) The Supreme Court ruled that statements made about the appellants by HMRC’s then Permanent Secretary for Tax to journalists at an off-the-record briefing were not justified under section 18(2)(a)(i) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 ( CRCA 2005). The court concluded that CRCA 2005, s 18(1) was designed to mirror the general principle of taxpayer confidentiality and that, properly construed, CRCA 2005, s 18(2)(a)(i) — read strictly — operates only as a limited carve-out, allowing disclosure solely where it is reasonably required for HMRC to carry out its core function. What was the background to the case? The Permanent Secretary for Tax had provided an off-the-record interview to two reporters from The Times about the...
Original news Hosking and another v Apax Partners LLP [2016] EWHC 1986 ( Ch), [2016] All ER ( D) 193 ( Jul) The Companies Court refused an application by the joint liquidators to pause the English proceedings they had commenced, pending the outcome of earlier litigation in the United States. The court decided that a stay was not justified and set out several reasons for that conclusion: It was not appropriate to censure the defendants for blameworthily bringing about parallel proceedings. Any judgment in the US case would not bind the defendants. The fraud allegations ought to be addressed at the earliest sensible opportunity. Nonetheless, a short stay until 3 October 2016 was ordered for case management purposes, given the imminent US ruling on forum non conveniens, which could encourage additional defendants to consent to being joined to the English...
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
