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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Brexit headlines Defra sets out scope of legislative alignment under UK- EU SPS Agreement The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs ( Defra) has outlined the EU legislation it considers to sit within the scope of the proposed UK‑ EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary ( SPS) Agreement. The statement confirms the government’s intention to seek legislative alignment with EU rules, including dynamic alignment, to lessen administrative burdens and reduce costs associated with agrifood trade. It indicates that, in most cases, alignment is anticipated to substitute for, rather than add to, current domestic requirements, despite the limited divergence since EU exit. Defra also signals that the referenced EU measures, together with related implementing and delegated acts, presently set the expected boundaries of the agreement’s scope, and that further updates and detailed guidance for businesses will be issued following the conclusion of...
What are the practical implications of the case? As the Supreme Court recognised, the most immediate and concrete consequences of this ruling will be experienced in Northern Ireland, where both government and educators will have to review how religious teaching and worship are delivered in practice, and the practical workability and accessibility of opt‑outs, so as to secure compliance with A2P1. Looking more widely, the Court’s judgment—particularly its endorsement of the European Court of Human Rights’ ruling in Folgerø v Norway (2007) 46 EHRR 47 (not reported by Lexis+® UK)—makes clear that merely providing opt‑outs from specified religious education or school practices will, taken alone, seldom avert a breach of A2P1 if those religious components of the curriculum are not communicated to pupils in an objective, critical and pluralistic way. What was the background? The case concerned JR87, a child enrolled at a...
In this issue: Brexit headlines Brexit SIs Post- Brexit transition guidance Constitutional and administrative law Judicial review Equality and human rights Public Procurement Subsidy control and State aid 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 headlines The Foreign Affairs Committee urges a White Paper on the UK- EU reset and the publication of the Dynamic Alignment Bill. Its Third Report of Session 2024–26, From a Common Understanding to Common Ground: Building a UK EU Strategic Partnership fit for the future, assesses the government’s approach and progress on reconfiguring UK- EU relations. Aimed at shaping parliamentary scrutiny of the next phase of UK- EU...
Misconduct in public office In November 2020, the Law Commission produced a report outlining the problems surrounding the common law offence of misconduct in public office. This centuries‑old common law crime, which applies to ‘public office holders’, carries a possible maximum sentence of life imprisonment. It has never been set out in statute, meaning its scope and elements have gradually been shaped by case law over time. The leading authority, Attorney General's Reference ( No 3 of 2003) [2004] EWCA Crim 868, offered guidance, describing it as an offence committed by a public office holder who, acting in that capacity, wilfully neglects to perform a duty or wilfully misconducts themselves to such an extent that it amounts to an abuse of the public’s trust in that office. Nonetheless, uncertainty persisted as to the meaning of ‘public office holder’ and the range of...
Summary The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman upheld a complaint concerning the settlement of an enhanced early retirement pension. Because the member was entitled to take an unreduced pension without consent at age 60, a late‑retirement uplift had to be applied to benefits taken at age 62 in order to satisfy the preservation requirements, and those requirements trumped the Scheme’s rules. The determination serves as a clear reminder that pension preservation legislation is overriding and therefore takes precedence over any conflicting scheme provisions. What were the facts? Professor N was a deferred member of the TPS Benefits Scheme (the Scheme). Having transferred his benefits across from a government scheme, he held special rights within the Scheme and could draw an unreduced pension at 60 without needing consent. Under Rule 6.3, a late retirement uplift was provided where a member had reached the normal retirement date (age 65) whilst...
R ( OAJ) v His Majesty’s Treasury and another [2026] EWHC 191 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of the case? The ruling highlights the considerable hurdles in contesting eligibility rules tied to the ‘no recourse to public funds’ approach. The court criticised the claimants’ contention that their exclusion conflicted with the purpose of the Child Care Payments Act 2014 and the Child Care Act 2016, calling it a policy or political stance presented as a legal point. Practitioners should note that courts allow the state a broad margin of appreciation when determining how scarce resources are distributed. Challenges to benefit schemes are likely to fail where the state can properly justify different treatment by pointing to the need to restrict certain groups of migrants’ access to public services. The judgment also usefully surveys case law on the PSED and reiterates that the court’s...
R ( C3) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2026] EWHC 34 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The court has made clear that Article 6 ECHR is not engaged where a claimant contests a refusal of consular assistance. The judgment refines the approach to deciding when Article 6 falls away: ask whether the impugned act reflects the exercise of certain categories of public authority prerogatives. If so, either no civil or human right is truly at stake, or any such right is only incidental, and Article 6 will not apply. This, in turn, has significant consequences for the procedural safeguards available to claimants in national security matters. Where Article 6 is not triggered, the individual cannot obtain the higher level of disclosure described in Home Secretary v AF ( No.3) [2009] UKHL 28 that would...
The EU’s senior competition chief, European Commission Executive Vice- President Teresa Ribera, described the deal as strengthening the established co-operation between the Commission and the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority ( CMA). She said the arrangement lays down a clear structure for EU– UK collaboration on competition matters and underscores a shared resolve to uphold fair, competitive markets for the benefit of consumers, businesses and innovation, reiterating the partners’ ongoing alignment across both jurisdictions today, together......
In this issue: Brexit headlines Constitutional and administrative law Equality and human rights Judicial review Public procurement Subsidy control and State aid Information law Other Public Law news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Brexit headlines Court of Appeal restricts education-based residence right under UK- EU Withdrawal Agreement— R ( Ayoola) v Home Secretary In R ( Ayoola) v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 1519, the Court of Appeal held that Articles 24(2) and 25(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement do not confer fresh residence entitlements; they merely safeguard education‑linked derivative residence rights that existed before withdrawal from the EU. Specifically, children of EU nationals had residence rights under Article 12 of Regulation 1612/68 (later Article 10 of Regulation 492/2011). Their...
Original news Mr E ( CAS-63587- P0K4)—22 September 2025 Summary The Pensions Ombudsman upheld a complaint concerning inaccurate information supplied by a pension scheme. Relying on the mistaken figures, the member left his role and proceeded to buy a home with a mortgage. As he had been expressly assured that the numbers were correct, the scheme could not fall back on the disclaimer contained in the benefit statement. The determination serves as a reminder that pension schemes cannot invariably place dependence on disclaimers in benefit statements. What were the facts? Mr E was a member of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (the Scheme). His employment record was complex, including an opt‑out from 1990 to 1994 that was later reinstated. In 2014, a system fault caused the Scheme to wrongly credit Mr E with an extra five years of pensionable service. His May 2012 statement, which carried a...
The Court of Justice concluded that the General Court had improperly inferred that the EU‑ UK Withdrawal Agreement contained express rules for opposition proceedings. Such an interpretation would have permitted earlier UK intellectual property rights to stretch across the EU after the transition period lapsed, yet that was not so, the Court of Justice held. It added: the General Court committed an error of law by failing properly to consider the legal effects of the transition period’s end and the territoriality principle of trade marks on the opposition disputed in this case. The ruling came after a decision in proceedings pursued by the Japanese company Nowhere Co Ltd against an individual’s 2015 application for a figurative sign depicting a small ape with the words ‘ Ape Tees’ below. Nowhere opposed the application relying on three prior signs it had used in the UK...
R ( MXV) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 251 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling will upend the long-established way in which unlawful detention claims for immigration detainees are pursued. For many years, the orthodox view has been that Article 5 ECHR contributes nothing beyond the domestic tort of false imprisonment, so Article 5 was typically tagged on as an afterthought, if pleaded at all. Yet in MXV at §170, the court signalled that IMA 2003 does not alter how the Court will consider Article 5 ECHR, and therefore has no bearing on the analytical framework the court applies under that Article. Consequently, Article 5 ECHR is now poised to become the primary route by which immigration detainees seek to secure release from custody. Practically,...
In this issue: Brexit headlines Brexit SIs Post‑ Brexit transition guidance State security and intelligence Equality and human rights Judicial review Constitutional and administrative law State accountability and liability Subsidy control and State aid Information law Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Brexit headlines Home Office confirms end of EUSS grant funding from 31 March 2026 The Home Office has announced grant funding for EU Settlement Scheme ( EUSS) assistance will cease on 31 March 2026, pointing to falling application numbers, easier routes to move from pre‑settled to settled status, and automatic extensions for pre‑settled status holders. It records that approximately £32.5m awarded since 2019 supported over 560,000 vulnerable people, yet demand has lessened, with 65% of submissions coming from repeat applicants. After March 2026, support will be available through the UKVI ( UK Visas and Immigration) Resolution Contact Centre, the UKVI EUSS Vulnerability team, and the Assisted Digital Service. It states that the...
R (on the application of Luton Landlords & Letting Agents Ltd) v Luton Borough Council [2026] EWCA Civ 35 For commentary on the earlier judgment, see News Analysis: No standing and no merit: Luton landlord loses latest licensing challenge ( Luton Landlords & Letting Agents Ltd v Luton BC). What are the practical implications of this case? For public law practitioners, this ruling offers clear guidance on what amounts to a ‘sufficient interest’ to pursue judicial review under section 31(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The enquiry turns on the character of the claimant’s stake in the subject matter of the proceedings. Individuals and legal persons such as companies will ordinarily be treated as having sufficient interest in decisions directed at them, or in measures that affect them in some way. Associations or other legal entities may, in a...
Advocate General for Scotland ( Representing the Ministry of Defence) v Milroy [2026] EAT 25 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling potentially carries significant real-world consequences for reservists who were kept outside pension entitlement for service rendered before 1 April 2015, when the Armed Forces Pension Scheme 2015 commenced. That said, it should be borne in mind that under the 1975 and 2005 Armed Forces Pension Schemes, which applied only to regular personnel, a two-year qualifying period was required before any pension rights arose. On the Employment Tribunal’s findings, and looking at typical annual duty days and cumulative service, most reservists would not, in any event, have met the thresholds for a pension under those earlier arrangements. When advising in a specific matter, the individual’s span of service will therefore be a critical consideration. The conclusion on the basic pay point...
Kearney and the BBC v Security Service [2025] UKIPTrib 13 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling reaffirms the Tribunal’s stance on the NCND practice, and the weight accorded to the state’s assessment of harm likely to flow from departing from it. In general, the Tribunal should accept that view unless it is shown to be irrational or otherwise infected by a public law error. Consistent use of NCND matters; abandoning the convention in a single matter may prompt inferences in other disputes where deviation was not warranted. Even so, departures have been found proper in some circumstances, including the decisions in DIL v Metropolitan Police [2014] EWHC 2184 ( QB) and Al Fawwaz v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 166 ( Ch). Whether NCND applies is sensitive to the facts. The IPT also considered the Court of Appeal in...
An updated statutory code of conduct An updated statutory code of conduct, which Phillipson has yet to lay before Parliament, is set to guide only public service providers and associations on their legal duties. It stems from the April 2025 judgment that protections against sex-based discrimination do not directly include transgender women. Speaking with clients of the Christian Legal Centre, Phillipson clarified that the still-unapproved code 'does not apply to workplace regulations'......
In this issue: Brexit headlines Brexit SIs Judicial review Public procurement Constitutional and administrative law Equality and human rights Public sector contracts Subsidy control and State aid Other Public Law news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Brexit headlines Government responds to NI Scrutiny Committee report on Windsor Framework The UK government has issued its response to the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee’s report, Strengthening Northern Ireland’s voice in the context of the Windsor Framework. Dated 6 February 2026, the reply accepts a number of recommendations and sets out various implementation steps. It also restates backing for the Windsor Framework while safeguarding the UK internal market. See: LNB News 11/02/2026 37. EFRA Committee raises scrutiny and devolution concerns over UK– EU SPS...
A. Sohail and A. Khalid v Lloyds Bank PLC (2202954/; 1600657/2022) Employment Judge Emma Burns, in a ruling released on Saturday, found that at the point when the pair sent internal Lloyds Bank PLC messages criticising Israel in May 2021, neither claimant possessed a protected anti- Zionist belief. She went on to record that by 10 November 2025, Sohail had formed a sincere anti- Zionist belief. That conviction, she said, is 'worthy of respect in a democratic society', despite the possibility that it would be captured by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism, she added. The working definition is a non-legally binding tool describing antisemitism as a particular perception of Jews which may manifest as hatred......
R ( EPS) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 3462 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling marks the first interim relief application about the withdrawal of MSVCC support to be determined after R ( ABW) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 3280 ( Admin) (‘ ABW’). ABW has plainly shifted the balance towards granting claimants relief in comparable future matters. It further illustrates that once guidance — even statutory guidance — is declared unlawful, its mere existence can no longer be deployed by public authorities as a persuasive reason to refuse interim relief. What was the background? The proceedings concerned an application for interim relief within a claim for judicial review. The claimant, a 53‑year‑old Chinese national, entered the UK in February 2002 and asserted he is a victim of modern slavery. On 20 May...
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
