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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Bali v 1-2 Couriers Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1413 Note: In the judgment, any mention of the appellant’s solicitors refers to her former representatives. Her present solicitors were instructed after the events to which this appeal relates had occurred. What was the background? This was a personal injury damages claim by Mrs Bali arising from a road traffic collision on 2 December 2019; the primary limitation period, under section 11 of the Limitation Act 1980, expired on 2 December 2022. The appellant engaged solicitors very near the end of that period, on 22 November 2022. On 29 or 30 November 2022, those solicitors sent a claim form to the County Court Money Claims Centre ( CMCC) together with a Help with Fees application; it was received on 2 December 2022, the final day of the limitation period. The court then sought further details for the Help with Fees...
MW (a child by his litigation friend DW) and another v Wilkinson and another company [2025] EWHC 2300 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling focuses on the duty of motorists in the vicinity of schools and how causation is assessed in road traffic collisions. It clarifies when speed becomes negligent in areas with vulnerable road users. The court held that proceeding at or below the 20 mph advisory limit, a full 25 minutes after school had finished, amounted to ‘reasonably careful driving’. It dismissed the claimants’ contention that the driver should have slowed to 10–15 mph solely because an unaccompanied child ( M) was walking on the pavement, as M was not behaving in a way that would alert a prudent driver to an imminent risk (for example, standing on the kerb or running). The decision also bolsters the...
Mex Group Worldwide Ltd v Ford [2025] EWHC 2689 ( KB) What was the background? MGWL trades in financial derivatives and serves as the parent of the Multi Bank Group. On 18 October 2023, it launched Scottish proceedings against several defendants, among them Mr Colm Smith and CSM Securities SARL ( CSM), advancing a claim in unlawful means conspiracy. The core complaint asserted that the defendants combined to induce Mex Securities, a Luxembourg-based securitisation vehicle, to back out of a settlement concluded in Dubai in December 2020. On 20 October 2023, MGWL secured a worldwide freezing order in the English High Court to support Scottish action, relying on section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 ( CJJS 1982). Although other defendants moved to set aside the WFO, Mr Smith and CSM took no part and failed to provide the required...
Haley v Newcold Ltd [2025] Lexis Citation 2783 What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment offered an unusual chance for the court to grapple with causation where it is said the claimant behaved unreasonably, thereby aggravating injury after the defendant’s negligence. The court addressed core questions of factual and legal causation. It contains an analysis of when a novus actus interveniens arises and the fairness test to defendants articulated in Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] 1 AC 884 and related authorities. Beyond the doctrinal points, defence practitioners will note the probative material marshalled by the defence to convince the judge that the claimant’s choice to proceed to amputation constituted a novus actus not prompted by unendurable pain. Extensive surveillance was pivotal, as was the lack of prescribed analgesia in the medical notes, together with the range of leisure pursuits...
In this issue: Key PI and Clinical Negligence developments Road traffic accidents Public authorities and the state Clinical negligence 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 AI in personal injury rehabilitation Artificial Intelligence ( AI) is swiftly reshaping countless parts of contemporary life, advancing faster than most anticipated. Yet in personal injury, one thing endures: rehabilitation’s impact. For claimants, it offers a route to maximise potential and pursue the greatest independence and quality of life achievable. For defendants, it may lessen dependency and consequently diminish a claim’s overall worth. Against this backdrop, considering ways AI could augment—rather than supplant—the rehabilitation pathway is both opportune and vital. Authored by Pamela- Jane Riley, legal director in the...
The new Practice Direction 51ZH— Access to Public Domain Documents has been released and is scheduled to take effect on 1 January 2026. The Judiciary website has likewise issued a Guidance note explaining the scheme. The pilot is set to operate for two years, from 1 January 2026 until 31 December 2027—far longer than the initially envisaged six months—although a six‑month review is planned. Andrew Howell, partner, Helen Robinson, senior associate, Natalia Faekova, senior associate, and Charlie Balshaw, trainee solicitor at Taylor Wessing, consider what the pilot covers, its significance for litigants, and how to prepare for greater transparency and possible public scrutiny. Key features of the pilot scheme Implementing Dring v Cape The initiative represents the judiciary’s latest move to give effect to the landmark Supreme Court ruling (and subsequent High Court decision) in Dring v Cape [2019] UKSC 38. Those...
On 29 October 2025, the Legal Standards Board ( LSB) announced a review prompted by a decision that has unsettled lawyers whose working practices could now be judged unlawful. The exercise will look at advice provided and guidance issued in the years preceding the ruling and how regulators responded afterwards, with the activities of bodies such as the Bar Council and the Law Society placed under scrutiny. In a document setting out the scope of the review, the LSB said it would consider whether the regulatory objectives have been adversely affected by the acts or omissions of approved regulators and, where appropriate, other regulatory bodies, in their approach to advice, guidance and compliance concerning the conduct of litigation. The board confirmed it was embarking on this work following weeks of uncertainty triggered by the High Court's 16 September 2025 judgment in Julia Mazur v...
Qatar Investment and Project Developments Holding Co v Phoenix Ancient Art SA [2025] EWCA Civ 1300 What was the background? In this Court of Appeal matter, the respondents to the appeal (the claimants) applied, by way of an application, for security to cover their appeal costs. The appellants/defendants were Phoenix Ancient Art S. A., a Swiss company, together with Ali Aboutaam, a Swiss resident, and Hicham Aboutaam, resident in New York. The claimants had issued two separate claims against five defendants in total, of whom the first three were the present appellants: one action commenced in 2020 and a second in 2023 respectively. Each claim concerned the artefacts in issue, acquired and purchased from Phoenix, which the claimants alleged were counterfeit and inauthentic. The 2020 proceedings focused on a small chalcedony statuette depicting the goddess Nike. The 2023 proceedings concerned two further pieces, namely: a marble work...
Background to the report Gareth Davies, who leads the NAO, observed that cutting patient harm is the most effective route to curbing these costs. On the face of it, the answer seems straightforward: raise standards of patient safety and spending on clinical negligence claims should decline. Preventing harm also releases many thousands of NHS clinical hours and could return billions to the wider economy by reducing absence and productivity losses. The NAO notes roughly 2.4 million patient-safety incidents each year, 70% causing no harm. That still equates to about 720,000 harmful incidents, including around 12,000 cases a year involving severe harm or death. Incidents in private healthcare are not included. Helen Vernon, Chief Executive of NHS Resolution, made the same point: improving safety avoids harm, lowers costs, and eases pressure across the system. The challenge, though, is delivering significant and lasting...
What rehabilitation involves Rehabilitation is a broad umbrella term. At its best, it draws on a multidisciplinary model, with a team of therapists recruited and overseen by a case manager. The case manager co-ordinates and project-manages the input, monitors progress, and intervenes to secure the strongest possible outcome. Both therapeutic input and case management are fundamentally people-centred. However far AI progresses in the short, medium and long term future, it is hard to imagine a moment when either role could be automated completely, or even in part. Even so, AI can reduce administrative burdens and enable those involved to maximise contact time with people who need support. Harnessing data and AI If we consider the information typically available for each individual patient—previous treatments, medicines and test results—it is easy to see how this could be complemented by data on their...
The Minister of State for Justice, Sarah Sackman KC, confirmed that a request for evidence had already been issued widely across the sector. She added that the government would release its conclusions in spring 2026. In 2021, the Civil Liability Act brought in significant changes to the process by which motorists who suffer minor whiplash arising from road collisions pursue third-party insurance claims. It mandated the submission of claims via a new digital portal instead of through the civil courts. The Act also established a fresh tariff for whiplash damages......
In this issue: Key PI and Clinical negligence developments Road traffic accidents Clinical negligence Proving negligence or breach of statutory duty Costs and funding Part 36 offers Starting and managing online claims Service in England and Wales Other PI and Clinical negligence developments 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 ONS releases 2025 annual survey for hours and earnings figures The Office for National Statistics ( ONS) has issued provisional 2025 findings and metrics on workers’ pay and hours, based on the annual survey of hours and earnings. These outputs set out yearly estimates of paid hours and...
What are Event Data Recorders ( EDRs)? EDRs are compact units, roughly the size of a paperback, that provide crucial insight into collisions. They are an invaluable source of crash data for investigators indeed. Today’s vehicles capture far more information than many people appreciate. Found on the vast majority of cars registered since 2024, and on a notable proportion dating back to 2012, these devices record up to five seconds of pre-impact data through the vehicle’s airbag control modules. The scope of in-vehicle information is expanding rapidly as infotainment systems, telematics equipment, diagnostic logs and even autopilot computers store ever larger datasets, all of which can aid collision investigators. In practice, however, gaining access to such data is often difficult; and even when retrieval is successful, interpreting the results can be challenging because manufacturers are frequently unwilling to offer...
Conway (by his father and litigation friend Luke Conway) v Yeovil District Hospital NHS Trust and University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust [2025] EWHC 2488 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? Conway stands as a clear illustration of a court working through the Supreme Court’s principles in Meadows v Khan [2022] AC 852, though in a distinct context. In Meadows, the claimant underwent blood tests to check if she carried the haemophilia gene. She was told by doctors she was not a carrier and that any child she conceived would not have haemophilia. Her son was born with both haemophilia and autism. Had she known she was a carrier through genetic testing, rather than blood tests alone, she would not have proceeded to have a child. The issue was whether she could also recover wrongful birth damages for the costs...
The Access to Justice Foundation confirmed it will channel unclaimed funds arising from collective actions into priority, long-term financing that sustains free legal advice for those who require it. This commitment will be delivered both locally and nationally. The Foundation also noted it will draw on its advice and grantee networks to build awareness of legal entitlements, including consumer routes to redress. In addition, the money will be used to foster greater understanding of citizens’ rights and duties, while identifying, through research, where improvements are needed. The charity further stated that its grant-making approach will also encompass initiatives designed to back policy reform efforts and related activity......
The Competition Appeal Tribunal’s 23 October 2025 ruling that Apple abused its market dominance by imposing excessive App Store commissions clears the path to a potential £1.5bn ( US$2bn) payment for i Phone and i Pad users in Britain. It represents the first major consumer success under the decade-old collective action regime. The lawsuit, led against Apple by class representative Rachael Kent, was the first claim targeting a Big Tech company to proceed to trial before the CAT, and the first to prevail after a full trial on liability. Mishcon de Reya LLP partner Wessen Jazrawi called it a landmark for the collective action regime, highlighting that it delivers the first judgment in favour of class members. Jazrawi described the outcome as a strong win for consumers, achievable only through this collective route, and said it sends a clear signal to tech giants that...
Process & Industrial Developments Ltd v The Federal Republic of Nigeria [2025] UKSC 36 What was the background? The facts The appellant, P& ID, had secured an arbitral award against Nigeria arising from a gas processing agreement for power generation that Nigeria was alleged to have failed to perform. The award totalled US$6.6 billion plus interest. In 2023, Nigeria succeeded in the Commercial Court under section 68(2)(g) of the Arbitration Act 1996, the court finding the award had been procured by fraud. By then, interest had swelled the amount to about US$11 billion—several times Nigeria’s annual health and education budgets. Nigeria obtained an order for its costs. For the section 68 proceedings, Nigeria instructed English solicitors, Mishcon de Reya LLP, who billed in sterling and were paid in sterling. Nigeria’s costs claim is approximately £44 million. The issue P& ID maintained that Nigeria should recover its costs only in its...
Bellway Homes Ltd v The Occupiers of Samuel Garside House [2025] EWCA Civ 1347 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling lands swiftly after the Court of Appeal’s decision in Robertson v Google [2025] EWCA Civ 1262, with the effect that, unless the claimant could show material factual differences, the defendant’s appeal was bound to be allowed. The judgment considers two points: whether service by DX was effective (the claimant’s cross‑appeal)—the court gave short shrift to the contention that the issue was a mere defect in the step taken, rather than a failure to take any step at all. It underlined that, as a matter of principle, it is rarely worthwhile to distinguish between not taking a required procedural step in time and taking it in time but doing so defectively, a position the Court of Appeal has...
Paul Philip, chief executive of the Solicitors Regulation Authority ( SRA), told the watchdog’s annual compliance officers conference that the regulator will issue 'further guidance' for the profession. He gave this assurance after the High Court ruled in September 2025 that non-solicitors and staff without specific litigation rights cannot conduct litigation. The ruling has threatened the financial viability of firms that depend on paralegals, trainees and members of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, known as CILEX......
In this issue: Key PI and clinical negligence developments Clinical negligence Claims involving a fatality Public authorities and the state Road traffic accidents Costs Artificial intelligence developments 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 Firms in ‘purgatory’ as regulators respond to Mazur fallout A recent court judgment confirming that trainees and paralegals may not conduct litigation, even with supervision, has left some practices ‘in purgatory’, as they confront a ruling which, lawyers caution, could render large areas of work unsustainable. See News Analysis: Firms in ‘purgatory’ as regulators respond to Mazur fallout. Law Society publishes practice note on conduct of litigation following Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys The Law Society has issued guidance to solicitors, firms and legal businesses on ensuring that only those authorised under the Legal Services Act 2007 undertake the conduct of...
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
