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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
A copy of the minutes is accessible here: Online Procedure Rule Committee minutes of meeting 14 July 2025, in full. Welcome, apologies and introductory remarks (item 1) The Master of the Rolls ( MR) opened the meeting, thanking Lord Justice Edis for serving as interim Senior President of Tribunals ( SPT). The Committee noted that a new SPT will be in post before the Committee reconvenes again in October. Formal approval was given to the record of the last meeting, which took place on 9 June 2025. SI and forward look (item 2) Members also considered proposals for the forthcoming enabling SI, covering OCMC and the DCP. Cooperation between the OPRC and the Civil Procedure Rule Committee ( CPRC) will be needed, and a joint working group—mirroring the Property and Possession Working Group—should be formed. The Committee also explored how best to frame...
Supreme Court upholds costs award in sterling ( Process & Industrial Developments Ltd v The Federal Republic of Nigeria) Process & Industrial Developments Ltd ( Appellant) v The Federal Republic of Nigeria ( Respondent) [2025] UKSC 36 Background This appeal focuses on a costs order arising from Nigeria’s successful bid to set aside two arbitral awards made in favour of P& ID, and, in particular, whether Nigeria’s legal costs were properly awarded in sterling rather than naira, its national currency. P& ID, the appellant, had contracted with Nigeria to build a gas processing plant in Nigeria. In the third year of the contract, P& ID commenced arbitration against Nigeria. The tribunal subsequently issued two awards in 2015 and 2017 totalling $6.6bn, plus interest at 7% (the Arbitration Awards), for damages for repudiatory breach of contract. In 2018, P& ID sought to enforce the...
The High Court ruled in September 2025 that non-solicitors and employees without specific litigation rights cannot conduct litigation A High Court ruling has placed the finances of some practices at risk, particularly those dependent on paralegals, trainees and Chartered Institute of Legal Executives ( CILEX) members. Damian Bradley, partner and head of legal operations at Express Solicitors Ltd, an injury claims practice, warned the judgment could render certain work non-viable and lead to closures. He noted that outfits built around a CILEX member with numerous unqualified assistants handling high-volume cases may find compliance impossible, leaving them in a state of limbo. The decision in Julia Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, delivered on 16 September 2025, has left firms grappling with weeks of uncertainty. Judge Clive Sheldon concluded that the Legal Services Act 2007 bars unqualified law firm staff from conducting...
Farnsworth v Chave [2025] EWHC 2677 ( Ch) What was the background? This judgment addresses a threshold question arising in unfair prejudice litigation between Adam Farnsworth and Kevin Chave, joint equal shareholders and directors of Essex and East London Van Services Ltd (the Company), a quasi-partnership company. Aaron Chave ( Aaron), Mr Chave’s son, worked for the Company as a fitter from September 2014, progressing to senior fitter/supervisor, before resigning on 2 May 2023. After Aaron left, Mr Chave transferred his shareholding in the previously dormant Kent Van Solutions Ltd ( Kent) to Aaron and other family members, with Aaron becoming a director of Kent and commencing trading in competition with the Company. By an order of 12 February 2025, the court directed a preliminary issue, determined in this judgment, namely whether Aaron and Kent should remain respondents to Mr...
Watson v Chief Constable of Humberside Police [2025] EWHC 2544 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision addresses who bears the burden of proof in claims for false imprisonment and assault, and underscores that any detention or use of force by police must be justified by the rationale an officer advances for acting as they did at the material time. It illustrates that disputes should be resolved on the pleaded issues and the evidence tested in court, and not beyond them. Positions resting on a narrative the court rejects will rarely withstand judicial examination, and judges ought not determine matters on hypothetical versions of a party’s case or on speculation. What was the background? The claimant, experiencing several physical frailties and impairments, made an emergency call saying he might cut his own throat owing to the distress he was...
XX (by her litigation friend YY) and another v Young and another company [2025] EWHC 2443 ( SCCO) What are the practical implications of this case? The principal practical takeaways are: Allegations of fundamental dishonesty ought to be pursued within the primary action under section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 ( CJCA 2015), rather than deferred to CPR 44.11 at a later stage. This case’s oddity—fundamental dishonesty being raised but never determined in the claim—serves as a stark reminder to ensure any costs order accurately captures the parties’ intended outcome. Reaching a conclusion on fundamental dishonesty at detailed assessment, absent a discrete hearing on that issue, would be plainly unfair. Finality is critical: detailed assessment is not the place to salvage or alter the consequences of imprecise drafting in an order. For claimants, the takeaway is to record...
How will this new national investigation differ from previous reviews such as Ockenden? In recent years, several high-profile examinations have scrutinised maternity services within NHS Trusts. Among them were the Kirkup inquiries into care at Trusts in Morecambe Bay and East Kent, alongside Donna Ockenden's review of services at Shrewsbury and Telford NHS Trust. While each set out broader lessons for maternity provision across the NHS, their core remit was to probe concerns arising within the specific Trusts involved. The Ockenden review, for instance, examined 1,592 clinical cases and found a notable share of adverse outcomes, including maternal deaths, stillbirths and babies suffering brain injury, that were probably preventable. A subsequent review led by Donna Ockenden is presently examining maternity care at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trusts, with findings expected in 2026. By comparison, Baroness Amos' national investigation is intended to pinpoint ways to cut the...
Keating (as Administrator of the Estate and on behalf of the dependants of Geraldine Mary Catherine Theresa Birtles) v Abdisalan and another [2025] EWHC 1926 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? A bereavement claim cannot be advanced by an estate: section 1A of the Law Reform ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 bars it on statutory grounds. Pressing such a plea hands the defendant victory and exposes the claimant to adverse costs. A dependency claim is more nuanced but, on these facts, is likewise unavailable. The decisive enquiry is whether the claimant has, or will, actually suffer the loss. If death occurs before that loss arises—even where the same negligence caused the fatal accident—the hypothetical, projected loss that would have been experienced had they lived is not recoverable. Although the court wrestled more with the legal analysis on...
In this issue: Key PI and Clinical Negligence developments Civil procedure rule committee minutes Occupational disease Road traffic accidents Public authorities and the state Clinical negligence Lexis Nexis® PI & Clinical Negligence Quantum Database 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 LSB looks at who can litigate after shock Mazur ruling On 13 October 2025, England’s legal oversight regulator confirmed that it is reassessing guidance issued by regulators and representative bodies following an unexpected ruling that has left law firms uncertain, casting doubt over which litigation activities may lawfully be undertaken by employees without any formal qualification. See News Analysis: LSB looks at who can litigate after shock Mazur ruling. High Court upholds use of surveillance footage despite flawed procedure and confirms privilege over draft expert report In Perrin v Walsh [2025] EWHC 2536 ( KB), the King’s Bench Division...
The Legal Services Board ( LSB) said that it will look at how regulators drew up their guidance on who could conduct litigation The Legal Services Board has confirmed it will scrutinise the way regulators developed guidance on who is permitted to conduct litigation. That entitlement has come under scrutiny following a recent High Court ruling, which has sparked significant unease among lawyers concerned that their working practices could be viewed as unlawful. According to the LSB, the review will examine whether approved regulators and regulatory bodies ensured that information about conducting litigation was both accurate and dependable. The intention is to draw lessons and to sustain clarity and confidence in the regulatory framework. The announcement follows weeks of uncertainty triggered by the High Court’s 16 September 2025 decision in Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 ( KB). In that case, Judge Clive...
The CPRC minutes for 4 July 2025—held in hybrid form at The Rolls Building ( Royal Courts of Justice) and by video link—address a range of matters set out below: interim serious crime prevention orders; digital rule-making for OCMC/ DCP and the OPRC’s prospective remit; changes on sealing/service of claim forms; a review of civil restraint orders; and the impending Extended Fixed Recoverable Costs stocktake consultation. Note: the CPRC no longer distributes the supporting papers with its minutes; accordingly, no explanatory documents accompany this News Analysis as such. A copy of the minutes is available here: Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting for reference and ease of access. Welcome, apologies and introductory remarks (item 1) The record of the 6 June 2025 meeting was approved (see News Analysis: Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—6 June 2025). A clarifying change to public question 13 from the 9 May 2025...
On 3 October 2025, the High Court ruled that Alaska Airlines must remit a flat fee to Virgin Aviation TM Ltd, as this sum constituted the minimum amount due for the right to use the Virgin America branding, now defunct. The court also held that Alaska’s argument was a fundamental mischaracterisation of the minimum royalties, dismissing the claim that a separate payment obligation had expired once Virgin was said to have breached the licensing agreement. As set out in the judgment, the supposed breach occurred when Virgin operated a customer loyalty programme that let travellers redeem points for domestic flights operated by Delta Air Lines. In 2022, the US carrier sued Virgin, alleging the British conglomerate had violated a deal to deploy the Virgin America branding on some of its domestic US services, because the trademarks were also licensed to its...
Legal representatives from 20 law firms and legal groups In a letter dated 3 October 2025 to Justice Secretary David Lammy, legal representatives from 20 law firms and legal groups said the Civil Justice Council had, four months earlier, produced a thorough and nuanced analysis of the funding sector. The cohort included Stewarts Law LLP and the Collective Redress Lawyers Association. The signatories said they were sympathetic to sensible reforms and reassured that the government is considering these carefully, but they underlined a single, unequivocal CJC recommendation: urgent, standalone legislation to reverse PACCAR's effects and remove the uncertainty undermining access to justice. As the letter made clear, the absence of action so far is disappointing, with the government saying only that the review would 'help to inform the approach to potential reforms' in 'due course', notwithstanding earlier promises......
In this issue: Key PI and Clinical negligence developments Noise-induced hearing loss Abuse and criminal injuries Coroner’s inquests New content 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 HMCTS issues form for out-of-hours applications to the Court of Appeal ( Civil Division). HM Courts & Tribunals Service ( HMCTS) has released a mandatory form to be used when applying out of hours in the Court of Appeal ( Civil Division). See: LNB News 08/10/2025 40. Noise-induced hearing loss Mo D hearing loss trial may shape broader claims. Law360, London: On 6 October 2025, thousands of former service personnel returned to court seeking damages for...
The Ministry of Defence ( Mo D) has acknowledged it owed a duty of care to ex‑forces personnel who sustained hearing loss, yet it disputes the criteria for establishing that the loss arose during service and the quantum of damages. A so‑called matrix agreement between the parties means the Mo D will not challenge this group of claims as being out of time. It has also agreed not to contest the levels of noise to which personnel were exposed. The ten‑week High Court trial, which started on 6 October 2025, will consider multiple test cases from different branches of the armed forces, covering a range of ages and varying severities of hearing impairment. Simon Ellis, partner and head of the specialist military department at Hugh James, represents around 5,000 ex‑servicemen and women. He said the result of the trial is expected to...
Gotti v Perrett [2025] EWCA Civ 1168 What are the practical implications of this case? The circumstances addressed in this judgment, and the issues it engages, are out of the ordinary and unlikely to feature frequently. Nevertheless, as the Court of Appeal remarked when granting permission for this second appeal, the issuing of a claim form is fundamental to civil litigation in this jurisdiction. Accordingly, it has wider resonance to recognise that a pre-action application for injunctive relief amounts to ‘proceedings’ for various purposes under the CPR. It is also of note that the power in CPR 3.10 to remedy procedural errors is sufficiently expansive and effective to allow an application notice to be treated as a claim form. What was the background? The appellant, the founder of a nationwide cosmetic surgery business, became embroiled in a dispute with the respondent, an independent advocate for cosmetic surgery...
Public Office ( Accountability) Bill What are the overall principal goals and intended purposes of the put forward Public Office ( Accountability) Bill legislation?......
Limits of court assistance under sections 43–44 Arbitration Act 1996 ( VXJ v FY, RH & XL) Limits of court assistance under ss. 43–44 Arbitration Act ( VXJ v FY, RH & XL [2025] EWHC 2394 ( Comm)) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling underscores that relief against non-parties under the Arbitration Act 1996, sections 43 and 44, is rare and closely policed by the courts. Tribunal leave, though a prerequisite, is not determinative; the court applies its own stringent criteria of necessity, specificity and proportionality. Advisers should warn clients that leave from a tribunal does not confer an automatic right to relief. Pinpoint drafting is critical: wide-ranging formulations such as ‘all reports since 2016’ will be refused as impermissibly broad. A witness summons must identify particular documents or tightly bounded categories, leaving no discretion to the...
London litigators are preparing for revisions to transparency rules London litigators are gearing up for changes to transparency rules that would widen the pool of court papers easily accessible to the public and the press. The pilot was initially flagged to commence with the new court term on 1 October 2025. Practitioners are still awaiting clarity on the drafting—no practice direction for the pilot has yet been issued. Most agree the scheme is a positive move towards open justice, though it would further highlight the divide between litigation and arbitration. Andrew Herring, a partner at Pinsent Masons LLP, warned that simplifying non-party access to otherwise confidential, commercially sensitive material in court cases could push sophisticated users towards arbitrators, whose processes are private. He added there is broad consensus that open justice in the courts of England and Wales is crucial and must be...
Employment Judge David Khan ruled, in a decision issued on 24 September 2025, that Eirini Kaloudi Tsikni’s reliance on Chat GPT did not justify setting aside the finding that Miltiadis Kontis, owner of Alphakon Ltd, sexually harassed her on six occasions during her short stint in 2023. In a reconsideration judgment dated 17 September 2025, the tribunal recorded that Kontis and his company had every chance to probe and challenge Tsikni’s evidence. The judge added that the panel was aware she had used AI tools to help draft her witness statement and factored that into its assessment of the material before it. The tribunal’s original May ruling noted that Tsikni was employed by Alphakon between February and May 2023 as territorial sales manager for England. Judge Khan concluded that Kontis sexually harassed Tsikni by issuing a sequence 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
