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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Judge Finola O’ Farrell, sitting in the High Court, ordered BHP to contribute towards a £189m costs bill sought by Pogust Goodhead, the claimants’ law firm, which says the sum is owed for work on the proceedings up to the conclusion of the stage-one liability trial. O’ Farrell J directed that this be paid on account, noting that the amounts claimed are exceptionally high and that the level of supporting detail is extremely limited. She found that the claimants are entitled to 90% of a reduced figure for the liability trial costs, equating to approximately £72m. While a detailed assessment will follow in due course, the judge said the paucity of information currently before the court means a highly cautious approach must be taken to any broad-brush estimate of the likely recovery of these costs for the purpose of determining a payment on...
In this issue: Key PI and Clinical negligence developments Establishing legal liability Clinical negligence Costs and funding AI developments in litigation Lexis Nexis® PI & Clinical Negligence Quantum Database 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 The self-contained code strikes again: avoiding an unacceptable degree of uncertainty—a closer look at CPR 36.10 In Chinda v Cardiff & Vale University Health Board [2025] EWHC 2692 ( KB), the court confirmed that only a significant change in a case’s circumstances can warrant an offeror retracting or altering a Part 36 offer. The claimant’s vulnerability, even when considered alongside additional factors, fell short of that benchmark; accordingly, he remained bound by his Part 36 offer and leave to...
Taiwo v Homelets of Bath Ltd [2025] EWHC 3173 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? For the purposes of CJCA 2015, s 57, a claim seeking damages for anxiety stemming from harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is to be treated as a personal injury claim. Consequently, where such a claim is held to be fundamentally dishonest, it must be dismissed unless the court is persuaded that dismissal would lead to substantial injustice. Where fundamental dishonesty is established, the court may: dismiss the whole claim, including components to which no dishonesty is attributed award indemnity costs disapply QOCS protection in respect of enforcement make adverse costs orders for hopeless or abusive appeal conduct The judgment also underlines that persisting with meritless grounds of appeal, particularly in an undisciplined fashion involving repeated...
A solicitor’s file should include any instant messages for which a fee has been raised ( Mac Innes & another v DWF Law LLP) Mac Innes & another v DWF Law LLP [2025] EWHC 3252 ( SCCO) What are the practical implications of this case? Lawyers are increasingly corresponding with clients via Whats App and other instant messaging platforms, alongside letters, phone calls and emails. Although convenient, this creates fresh duties and risks, as this decision starkly illustrates. It is a timely prompt for firms to ensure they have procedures to extract and retain Whats App communications that ought to sit on the client’s file. The judge underlined that any communication for which a fee has been charged must, by definition, be included on the file, and that necessarily encompasses instant messages. Firms lacking robust policies and reliable systems for capturing and filing these messages expose...
Lewis- Ranwell ( Respondent) v G4S Health Services ( UK) Ltd and others ( Appellants) [2026] UKSC 2 Background The claimant, Alexander Lewis- Ranwell, faced charges for the murders of three men but was acquitted on the ground of insanity. He thereafter commenced civil proceedings against the defendants seeking compensation for the aftermath of the killings. The question on this appeal was whether the doctrine of illegality prevented him from advancing a negligence claim. He had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. On 10 February 2019, during a grave psychotic episode, the claimant attacked and killed three elderly men, Mr Anthony Payne, Mr Richard Carter and Mr Roger Carter, within their own homes. He acted under a delusional belief that they were paedophiles. He was arrested the next day following a further assault. At his criminal trial, he was found not guilty of murder by reason of...
Counsel for Nigeria told the Court of Appeal that a group of companies and individuals associated with the alternative asset manager VR Capital Group backed the efforts of Process & Industrial Developments Ltd ( P& ID) to enforce an US$11bn award obtained by fraud. Tom Ford of Essex Court Chambers argued the earlier judge erred in pausing Nigeria’s third-party costs bid against the VR Capital parties until P& ID failed to pay after a final assessment of the bill. He said P& ID has to date settled only £23.7m of the sums owed, and that came only following delays and threats that it would be debarred from defending the case. He added P& ID lacks assets to satisfy any ultimate costs order, and ‘there is every likelihood here of non-payment at the end of detailed assessment’. Ford said the VR Capital parties could have...
Chinda v Cardiff & Vale University Health Board [2025] EWHC 2692 ( KB) The background The claimant claimed there was a delay in identifying spinal tuberculosis associated with neurological harm. The defendant conceded a breach of duty for not arranging an MRI scan when the claimant presented to A& E in August 2020. Consequently, because of his injuries, the claimant is functionally paraplegic. He experiences neuropathic pain, paraesthesia and burning sensations in his back, and legs, together with bladder, bowel and sexual dysfunction. He was also found to have a syrinx which, according to the claimant’s neurosurgical expert, poses a small yet material risk of future deterioration in neurological function in his upper limbs, as well as a small risk of further decline affecting his bladder, bowels and sexual function. The defendant accepted several breaches and causation, and judgment was entered for the...
PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—15 January 2026 In this issue: Key PI and Clinical negligence news Psychiatric and occupational stress Employer’s liability Interim payments, periodical payments and provisional damages Costs and funding Road traffic accidents Lexis Nexis® PI & Clinical Negligence Quantum Database 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 Mo J announces Court Funds Office interest rate reductions following Bo E decision The Ministry of Justice ( Mo J) confirmed lower interest rates for Court Funds Office ( CFO) accounts from 9 January 2026, prompted by the Bank of England ( Bo E)’s base rate cut on 18 December 2025. The Special Account rate moves from 4.0% to 3.75%, while the Basic...
Overview The Mental Health Act 2025 represents a major reorientation of how compulsory mental health care is overseen in England and Wales. Although the reforms are not aimed at civil liability, they are expected to affect how claims involving psychiatric care are evaluated in practice and daily decision making. At the heart of the Act is a strengthened focus on patient autonomy, confining limits on a person’s liberty to only what is strictly necessary (commonly termed ‘ Least Restriction’), therapeutic benefit, and respect for the individual. These principles are designed to make sure that compulsory hospital admission and treatment are applied only where genuinely needed. Greater scrutiny of detention decisions The Act tightens the tests for compulsory detention, confirming that hospital admission should happen only where it is strictly necessary and where less restrictive alternatives are inadequate......
The case for reform The To R begin by asserting that the existing framework under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (the CPA) ‘…is no longer fit for purpose…’. This is expressed more emphatically than earlier communications from the Law Commission. At this preliminary stage, its stance appears to be that the issue is not ‘if’ reform is required, but ‘how’ it should be achieved. Clear echoes to the EU reforms The To R carry unmistakeable parallels with the recent EU overhaul set out in the new Product Liability Directive ( EU) 2024/2853 (currently in the implementation phase across EU Member States—read more here): Of particular note, the Law Commission indicates it will consider whether: the ‘burden of proof for claimants to bring a successful claim is too onerous’—might the Law Commission also be contemplating introducing ‘rebuttable presumptions’ regarding defect and/or causation?......
Celikdemir v PGR Timber Ltd and another [2025] EWHC 3118 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling confirms that, where justice demands, secret recordings may, in appropriate cases, be received as evidence if and when the interests of justice so require. Even so, the judiciary still regards the covert taping of clinical consultations as unpalatable and discourteous. Echoing Master Davison’s much-publicised judgment in Mustard v Flower [2019] EWHC 2623 ( QB), HHJ Shanks encourages the medical and medico-legal community to reach consensus on clear standards and good practice governing such recordings. What was the background? The case arose in a personal injury action disputing whether the claimant had sustained a traumatic brain injury. Both sides had agreed that neither party would record the neuropsychological assessments carried out by their respective experts. Despite that agreement, the claimant’s solicitor suggested she secretly record the...
High Court judge Joanna Smith indicated the photo library could challenge her decision that Stability’s use of Getty’s copyright‑protected collections of images to set the parameters of its Stable Diffusion model did not make the model an infringing copy of those images. She also noted this raises a novel and significant question of law about how the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 ( CDPA 1988) ought to be interpreted, a point not previously addressed by any court. That new question, she added, may carry far‑reaching consequences for AI models and for intangible articles such as software in general. Getty sought permission from the High Court to appeal the finding that Stability’s reliance on Getty’s protected image collections to configure Stable Diffusion’s parameters did not render the model an unlawful copy of those images. In written...
Counsel for the claimants told the High Court that the Australian mining behemoth ought to pay the legal costs in full, covering Pogust Goodhead’s charges, counsel’s fees and associated disbursements. Alain Choo Choy KC of One Essex Court Chambers contended that his clients had prevailed at the initial stage of the case against an adversary that had taken 'every conceivable step' to sidestep liability. He added they had throughout faced an 'extremely wealthy opponent that has fought tooth and nail for seven years'. The miner, which owned and ran the Fundão Dam via a joint venture, was sued in England over the devastation from toxic sludge and mud that tore through Brazilian communities in 2015, causing widespread harm. In November 2025, High Court Judge Finola O’ Farrell ruled in a judgment that BHP was 'strictly liable for damage caused to the...
R (on the application of LXR) v First Tier Tribunal ( Social Entitlement Chamber) and others [2025] EWCA Civ 1608 What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment, with its precise treatment of what medical evidence must show, underscores the core requirements for successfully re‑opening an earlier award. In re‑examining paragraphs 114 to 116 of the 2012 Scheme, Lord Justice Singh reviewed the principal authorities— Jones v FTT ( SEC) [2018] EWCA Civ 2367, R v CICA ex parte Williams ( C/1999/8155 27 June 2000) and R ( Colefax) v FTT ( SEC) [2014] EWCA Civ 945—which all merit attention when considering re‑opening. That said, the decision’s determinative points concerned the appellant’s particular medical presentation. It was argued for him that the psychiatric evidence before the FTT was capable of demonstrating a material alteration in his condition, brought about by gaining...
Many third-party litigation funding agreements ( LFAs) were left unenforceable after Britain’s top court categorised them as damages-based agreements in 2023. LFAs are barred from use in opt-out collective actions in the Competition Appeal Tribunal ( CAT), a forum that has seen rising popularity over the past decade. The Ministry of Justice ( Mo J) has now said it will adopt Civil Justice Council ( CJC) recommendations to undo the effects of the PACCAR decision, following its review of the litigation funding market. The announcement characterised the PACCAR outcome as restricting claimants’ access to third-party finance, leading to fewer collective proceedings being issued in the CAT. According to the government, the proposed steps will restore certainty to the litigation funding arena in the wake of PACCAR, bringing steadier conditions to the market overall, and ‘will mean......
Motor Insurers Bureau v Houston [2025] EWHC 3178 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? Although the outcome may catch seasoned credit hire practitioners off guard, it was driven in large part by the precise language of the debarring order in this case. The order confined any future debarring strictly to the question of rate and made no reference to reliance on impecuniosity for the hire period or for any wider purposes; appellant counsel on appeal suggested this flowed from a legacy version of a standard form. Practitioners familiar with credit hire litigation will know that, more often than not, directions orders bar a claimant from reliance on impecuniosity for all purposes following a failure to provide financial disclosure. Even so, the judgment is a clear reminder that the courts will apply the ordinary and natural meaning to the words of any...
In the matter of an application by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for Judicial Review ( Appellant) [2025] UKSC 47 Background This appeal addresses the proper approach to be taken when a court reviews, by way of judicial review, a coroner’s decision to disclose gists of information where Public Interest Immunity ( PII) has been claimed by a Minister acting on behalf of the Crown. The question is the criterion to be applied by the court when scrutinising such disclosure decisions. PII arises when an aspect of the public interest indicates that evidence which would otherwise be relevant and admissible in legal proceedings ought not to be revealed or placed in the public domain, and so must be treated as inadmissible, or only permitted in the condensed form of a gist capturing the information in the evidence. In this appeal, a...
The Association of Costs Lawyers, representing roughly 500 practitioners, reported that a poll of its membership indicates over seven in ten (71%) anticipate a rise in costs-related disputes in number by members surveyed. Prior to the Mazur decision, much of this work was undertaken largely by costs drafts people, who lack authorisation to conduct litigation. According to the trade body, the ruling has also driven many within the field to pursue the costs lawyer professional qualification so that they can continue their work......
In this issue: Key PI and Clinical Negligence developments Expert evidence Road traffic accidents Scottish claims Other PI and clinical negligence news 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 Enhanced interest on costs to be calculated using Aggregate Costs method after Part 36 expiry In Barry v Essex CC [2025] Lexis Citation 3734, Deputy District Judge Rathod, sitting at the Court County in Basildon, determined that where a claimant obtains damages at trial and improves on their own Part 36 offer, interest on costs incurred after the offer expires is computed by applying x% per annum to the combined total of all such post-expiry costs (‘the Aggregate Costs method’). Interest is not to be calculated on each separate...
Veale and others v Scottish Power UK Plc [2025] UKSC 45 Background Robert Crozier succumbed to mesothelioma in 2018. In this appeal, the Supreme Court is asked to determine whether his immediate family members can obtain damages from his former employer, Scottish Power UK Plc ( Scottish Power), under D( S) A 2011. Crozier worked for Scottish Power from 1969 until 1992. In 2014, he issued proceedings seeking damages against his former employer, having developed pleural plaques and asbestosis as a consequence of exposure to asbestos during the course of his employment. The dispute was settled by agreement between the parties. At the point of settlement, he had not developed mesothelioma; however, the sum paid included compensation reflecting the risk that he might develop mesothelioma in future. By virtue of that settlement, Scottish Power’s liability to Crozier was discharged, with the result that he could not...
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
