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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
In this issue: Brexit highlights Brexit SIs Post- Brexit transition guidance Public procurement Constitutional and administrative law Judicial review Equality and human rights State security and intelligence Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Brexit highlights NIO publishes Terms of Reference for Independent Review of Windsor Framework The Northern Ireland Office has released the Terms of Reference for an Independent Review of the Windsor Framework, as required by Schedule 6A to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Initiated after a consent motion cleared the Northern Ireland Assembly without cross-community endorsement, the review will consider how the Framework is working and its influence on social, economic and political life in Northern Ireland. It is consistent with undertakings in the October 2019 Unilateral Declaration and the January 2024 Safeguarding the Union Command Paper. The resulting findings will be submitted to the UK Government, supplying vital insight into delivery and impact. See: LNB News...
R (on the application of Allen) v Secretary of State for Justice [2024] EWHC 2370 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? Allen is among only three rulings on the 2023 policy now in force—the ‘ Generic Parole Process Policy Framework 2023’ (‘ GPPPF’) at 5.83—and offers clear guidance on its proper application. The third, concluding factor, the ‘wholly persuasive case’ requirement, is approached as a proof-like threshold: at §54 the question posed is whether the case is ‘wholly persuasive’, as distinct from merely ‘moderately persuasive’. That determination rests with the Secretary of State for Justice and sits beyond the Parole Board’s remit. The suggested method is therefore: having addressed the first two criteria (whether adequate progress has been achieved and the risk of absconding), the Secretary of State should take a step back to judge if, taken as a whole, the matter...
What are the practical implications of this case? The challenge stumbled at the outset when the Court concluded the claimant had no standing. Section 31(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 stipulates that a claimant must show a ‘sufficient interest’. The Court therefore had to decide whether this membership body cleared that bar. The claimant was a registered company, with Mr Bains serving as its sole director. It was described as existing to supply guidance to its landlord members on landlord/tenant issues and licensing enquiries. Although, as individuals, those members would have been directly affected by the proposed licensing scheme, the proceedings were issued by the collective entity. ‘ Associational standing’ is engaged where an association seeks to sue on behalf of members who share a common interest in the matters raised in the claim and in the litigation overall......
In this issue: Public Law case law quarterly— Q4 2024 Brexit highlights Post‑ Brexit transition guidance Judicial review Equality and human rights Constitutional and administrative law Public procurement Subsidy control and State aid State accountability and liability State security and intelligence Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Public Law case law quarterly— Q4 2024 The Public Law case law quarterly sets out key decisions and commentary compiled each quarter by the Lexis+® UK Public Law team. Standout items this time feature: three Supreme Court rulings addressing pre‑ Brexit trade marks disputes, alternative remedies within judicial review, and the power to pause public inquiries; the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the London Metal Exchange lawfully cancelled nickel trades in 2022; plus High Court judgments on whether human rights obligations extend to a private care provider, and on the limitation period for bringing public procurement proceedings. Highlights for this edition are...
R (on the application of Elliott Associates Lp and another company v The London Metal Exchange and another company [2024] EWCA Civ 1168 What are the practical implications of this case? In what the Court of Appeal termed an 'ultimately straightforward case', this judgment underlines the breadth of latitude afforded to regulators and decision-makers, especially amid exceptional circumstances of this nature. The Court noted the situation was a 'once in a generation event'; permitting the trades to stand would have posed a real threat to the international metals market. It emphasised that the defendants were required to act with urgency, did so on information sufficient to decide, and were justified in rejecting the option of letting the trades stand as that would have breached their regulatory obligations. The ruling confirms that expert decision-makers will be granted discretion to take similar steps where a rational and...
R ( Here for Good) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 2817 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? There is a continuing pattern of the Home Office shifting matters practitioners might previously have expected under eligibility into the gateway validity rules. As this case makes clear, that approach allows an application to be refused at the outset without detailed scrutiny and without any right of appeal. In crucial immigration decisions—sometimes taken by relatively junior civil servants—the appeal route can act as a vital safeguard. The result of this case therefore increases reliance on judicial review, which is a more intricate and costlier route. For EUSS matters in particular, the two‑stage assessment for late applications remains in place, with acceptance or refusal determined at an initial validity stage. What was the...
Editor’s note Welcome to the closing 2024 instalment of the Public Law case law quarterly, reporting on the year’s fourth quarter and bringing the year to a close with this quarter’s developments. We open with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Skykick, where the Justices confirmed that the EU Trade Mark Regulation applies directly in the UK as a matter of continuity to ongoing actions already on foot before a UK court designated as an EU trade mark court prior to IP completion day, and that such courts retain their pre‑ Brexit jurisdiction in those matters. We then turn to UKSC decisions in Mc Aleenon, holding that neither criminal nor standard civil proceedings provide adequate alternative remedies for a claimant seeking to compel regulators to discharge their duties, and in JR222, where the Supreme Court addressed the standard a minister should apply when deciding whether to pause a...
The Kingdom of Spain v Lorenzo [2024] EWCA Civ 1602 The Court of Appeal determined that the discrimination alleged by Lydia Lorenzo, a dual British and Spanish national working as a translator at the Spanish Embassy in London, was not a sovereign or governmental act and therefore did not attract state immunity. Giving the leading judgment for a three-judge panel, Lord Justice David Bean dismissed the notion that whatever a senior diplomat says or does at an embassy is automatically a sovereign act. He noted that, if the legislature had intended to prevent foreign states being sued by anyone employed at their embassies for matters said or done by a diplomatic agent under an employment contract, it would have been straightforward to say so. In December 2023, the Employment Appeal Tribunal likewise ruled that Spain could not invoke diplomatic or state immunity to...
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal concluded that MI5 did not exceed its legal powers when it issued an 'interference alert' that accused Christine Lee of running political interference on behalf of the United Front Work Department, part of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party An alert released in January 2022 and shared within parliament stated that the 61-year-old had assisted the UFWD in forging connections with both seasoned and would-be Parliamentarians from all parties. It further claimed she had arranged donations to political organisations for overseas nationals. A panel chaired by Court of Appeal judge Rabinder Singh rejected the case advanced by Lee and her son, Daniel Wilkes, 30, a former aide to Labour MP Barry Gardiner, issuing a ruling delivered in part behind closed doors. Justice Singh, who also presides over the tribunal, said MI5’s ‘national security evaluation’ regarding Lee ‘had a...
L1T FM Holdings UK Ltd and another v Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster [2024] EWHC 2963 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? Although a challenge by way of judicial review to a government order under the NSIA 2021 can still succeed—for instance where there are especially serious or glaring procedural defects—the court has unequivocally and repeatedly signalled that it will not readily trespass upon ministerial judgement, including the selection of remedy. It is therefore, in practice, no surprise that the court endorsed the course taken by the government here and accepted the Secretary of State’s determination that the claimants should divest entirely their interest in Upp. The NSIA 2021 was framed to confer wide latitude on the government when identifying national security risks and deciding on appropriate measures to address them, and this ruling confirms that such an approach is...
R (on the application of Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport and Others [2024] EWCA Civ 1227 What are the practical implications of this case? The court’s principal focus was determining when, on a re-determination of a DCO, fairness calls for a further examination or a re-opening of the earlier examination. It held that the decisive enquiry is whether, considering the facts, the nature of the issues raised, and the statutory framework governing the decision-making process, extra procedural steps are required to secure fairness in the particular circumstances. Here, nothing justified appointing an independent expert to test the matters in dispute and report to the Secretary of State; accordingly, the re-determination was conducted in a manner that was procedurally proper and fair. The court also assessed the legal adequacy of ministerial briefings on which the Secretary of State relied when...
In this issue: Brexit highlights Brexit SIs Post- Brexit transition guidance Subsidy control and state aid Public procurement Constitutional and administrative law Equality and human rights Judicial review Other public law news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Public Law Highlights 2024/2025 Brexit highlights European Commission refers UK to EU Court of Justice over free movement law implementation The European Commission has resolved to refer the United Kingdom to the Court of Justice of the European Union for shortcomings in the application of EU free movement rules that persist for EU citizens protected by the Withdrawal Agreement. Announced on 16 December 2024, the referral concerns infringement files INFR(2020)2202 and INFR(2011)2054. The Commission argues the UK has not sufficiently remedied several issues, notably those...
Shabana Mahmood, the lord chancellor and justice secretary, said the review will weigh the creation of an ‘intermediate court’: matters surpassing magistrates’ jurisdiction, yet falling short of Crown Court gravity, would be tried before a judge sitting with magistrates, rather than in either existing tier. Brian Leveson—a retired judge, known for leading the 2011–12 public inquiry into British press culture—will be tasked with assessing if magistrates ought to take on a larger share of cases, and to what extent. This could release capacity in the crown courts, enabling focus on more complex and grave offences that demand attention. The review will also examine reclassification of offences and extension of magistrates’ sentencing powers in that review too......
Re an Application by Noeleen Mc Aleenon for Judicial Review ( Northern Ireland) [2024] UKSC 31 What are the practical implications of this case? The Supreme Court’s ruling, although grounded in Northern Ireland’s statutory scheme and enforcement arrangements, firmly confirms that the mere existence of alternative avenues does not, of itself, bar judicial review. Possible routes such as: a claim in nuisance, a private prosecution of the site’s occupier, or a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman do not automatically preclude JR. Judicial review remains a public law right, and a public authority’s failure to act is properly subject to scrutiny by the courts. The ramifications reach beyond Northern Ireland. Crucially, whether a claimant ought to have proceeded against another party by a different cause of action is, as a matter of civil litigation principle, for the claimant to decide—both as to the form of claim and the party...
In this issue: Brexit highlights Brexit SIs Post- Brexit transition guidance Public procurement Constitutional and administrative law Subsidy control and State aid Equality and human rights Judicial review State security and intelligence Information law Other Public law news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Brexit highlights Northern Ireland Assembly gives democratic consent to Windsor Framework — The Northern Ireland Assembly has backed, through a democratic vote, the continued application of articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor Framework for a further four years. This is the first occasion on which the Assembly has voted to grant democratic consent to the framework. See: LNB News 11/12/2024 24. Council approves 2025 fishing deal with UK for shared stocks — The...
In this issue: Brexit highlights Brexit SIs Post- Brexit transition guidance Subsidy control and state aid Constitutional and administrative law Public procurement Judicial review Equality and human rights Information law Other Public law news Lex Talk®Public Law: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Brexit highlights Northern Ireland Office explains Windsor Framework consent process for MLAs The Northern Ireland Office has issued detailed explanatory guidance outlining the democratic consent procedure for Articles 5–10 of the Windsor Framework. Aimed at MLAs, these documents also satisfy the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland’s duties under Schedule 6A to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Publishing them further facilitates delivery of the post- Brexit settlement tailored to Northern Ireland, equipping elected members with the...
Carozzi v The University of Hertfordshire [2025] IRLR 179 ( EAT) The EAT has decided that Elaine Carozzi’s allegations that managers at the University of Hertfordshire harassed and victimised her must be looked at again. Judge James Tayler explained that the tribunal below assessed whether the university’s behaviour was ‘because’ of her race, instead of applying the correct test of whether it was ‘related to’ race. However, this outcome does not disturb the earlier decision that set aside most of her claims, including every claim of religious discrimination and constructive dismissal. Judge Tayler stated that the tribunal’s mistaken approach to harassment was so serious that all rulings on the complaint about the claimant’s accent are unsafe and need to be determined afresh. His observations appear in a decision issued on 27 November 2024. Carozzi resigned while still serving probation, having been employed as a...
In this issue: Brexit SIs Guidance for the post- Brexit transition Constitutional and administrative law Judicial review Equality and human rights Public procurement Subsidy control and State aid Information law Further public law news Daily and weekly alerts New and revised content Key dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Brexit SIs Collective Investment Schemes ( Temporary Recognition) and Central Counterparties ( Transitional Provision) ( Amendment) Regulations 2024 SI 2024/1215: These Regulations facilitate putting into effect the government’s inaugural equivalence decision within the Overseas Funds Regime ( OFR). They modify two instruments of UK secondary legislation concerning financial services. The measures rely on powers conferred by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 ( FSMA 2023) and the Collective Investment Schemes ( Amendment etc) ( EU Exit)...
R (on the application of the Welsh Language Commissioner) v National Savings and Investments [2014] EWHC 488 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? This was the first judicial review concerning the Welsh language and the first conducted in Welsh. Although the governing law has since been replaced, it has consequences for all Crown bodies that have adopted Welsh language schemes. As a Crown body, National Savings and Investments is subject to a less onerous statutory framework than a public authority. It was not obliged to adopt a Welsh language scheme, yet did so. The scheme’s terms were found to create a legitimate expectation that NS& I would undertake a consultation before deciding to revoke it. The case underscores that where a procedural benefit—such as consultation—is legitimately expected, that expectation must be taken into account when exercising implied statutory powers. Failure to do so...
Backrgound Letter One forms part of one of Europe’s largest investment groups, whose portfolio features the Holland & Barratt health and well-being products retail chain. It was established and is owned by Russian oligarchs. In January 2021, Letter One bought Fibre One for £100m, and renamed it Upp. In December 2022, the then Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industry, Grant Shapps, instructed One Letter to sell Upp. It was sold to Virgin Media O2 for under £144m, which Letter One said it had already invested by then......
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
