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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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: Public Law—key developments of 2025 and horizon scanning in 2026 Brexit headlines 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 Public Law—key developments of 2025 and horizon scanning in 2026 This News Analysis brings together selected highlights in UK public law from 2025 and signposts what lies ahead in 2026. It spotlights constitutional and administrative law, equality and human rights, public procurement, information law and Brexit. See News Analysis: Public Law—key developments of 2025 and horizon scanning in 2026. Brexit...
Employment Appeal Judge Douglas Fairley, sitting in Edinburgh, confirmed on 29 January 2026 a decision that the Mo D had penalised Major Charles Milroy. Fairley J said the department did so because of his part-time status, by ignoring his service before April 2015 for pension calculations and paying him less than full-time colleagues. In a judgment that may affect other army reservists, Fairley J rejected the Mo D’s case that Milroy was not a worker for the purposes of the Part-time Workers ( Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, SI 2000/1551, which protect the rights of part-time staff. Fairley J stated that the lower tribunal had ruled ‘that there was no substantial difference between the nature of [ Milroy’s] relationship with the Army on the one hand and that between an employer and......
For more on the principal developments in public law, consult: Public Law trackers—overview. Additional updates and commentary are available through our current awareness alerts and weekly highlights. Select ‘ Create Alert’ within your ‘ Alerts’ tab and adjust your preferences to subscribe. Constitutional and administrative law What were the standout developments in 2025? In October 2025, Lord Sales was named Deputy President of the UK Supreme Court, assuming office in January 2026 and succeeding Lord Hodge, who retired at December 2025’s end. For details, see: LNB News 24/10/2025 9 and LNB News 12/01/2026 27. Lord Sales is a distinguished public lawyer and commentator on modern public law challenges, previously serving as First Treasury Counsel prior to joining the judiciary, as reflected in his speeches and judgments. See: LNB News 24/11/2025 37, LNB News 07/11/2025 6, LNB News 12/08/2025 31 and LNB News...
In this issue: Brexit headlines Brexit SIs Constitutional and administrative law Judicial review Equality and human rights 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 Government outlines approach to resetting UK- EU relations The government has issued its reply to a House of Lords European Affairs Committee ( EAC) report on its strategy for resetting relations with the EU after the May 2025 UK- EU summit. The reply explains the government’s reasoning for recent agreements, and also describes the status of ongoing negotiations presently. See: LNB News 28/01/2026 21. Northern Ireland Office notifies Assembly of Windsor Framework decision on Non- Road Mobile Machinery Regulation The Northern Ireland Office has publicly released correspondence from Secretary of State Hilary Benn to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly regarding a Windsor Framework decision under Schedule 6B to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The...
Introduction PIA 2025 unveils pivotal adjustments for the energy industry, intended to accelerate the delivery of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects ( NSIPs) across England and Wales. The package seeks to clear barriers that have for years stalled economic expansion and delayed the roll‑out of clean power. At its heart sits a commitment to fast‑track 150 major planning determinations within the life of the current Parliament. For the energy sector specifically, PIA 2025 reshapes the NSIP framework, requires routine revisions to National Policy Statements ( NPSs), empowers Ofgem and ministers to hasten grid connection changes, and offers backing for long‑duration electricity storage ( LDES) and renewable deployment. Developers should see gains from simpler, more streamlined pre‑application processes, improved land‑access powers, and tighter, more targeted examinations, whilst funders are expected to benefit from increased certainty through Ofgem’s strengthened duties. Despite these advances, further change may still be...
In this issue: Brexit headlines Brexit SIs Constitutional and administrative law Equality and human rights Judicial review State security and intelligence 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 DBT reports on assimilated law reform progress The Department for Business and Trade ( DBT) has issued the latest Assimilated Law Parliamentary Report, spanning June to December 2025. It presents a refresh on the retained EU Law ( REUL) and assimilated law dashboard, the tool monitoring the quantity and status of assimilated law (previously termed REUL) across government departments. DBT has refreshed the REUL dashboard as well. As at 23 December 2025, it lists 6,925...
In this issue: Public Law case law quarterly— Q4 2025 Brexit headlines Constitutional and administrative law Judicial review Equality and human rights Public procurement Subsidy control and state aid Public sector contracts Projects and infrastructure Information law Other public law news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers New Q& As Useful information Public Law case law quarterly— Q4 2025 The Public Law case law quarterly sets out commentary and analysis on notable judgments compiled quarterly by the Lexis+® UK Public Law team. This edition spotlights several Supreme Court rulings of importance, including in particular: Jwanczuk, on the appropriate handling of decisions from courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction within the UK; Daly v HM Advocate, on the...
Majera v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1597 What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Appeal confirms settled authority on the “very compelling circumstances” requirement in section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 ( NIAA 2002), engaged where a person sentenced to four or more years’ imprisonment contests deportation. The statutory framework means that only in unusual, exceptional situations will the public interest in removal be overridden. Although a full proportionality analysis is always necessary, rehabilitation will ordinarily carry limited weight, and delay in decision-making will seldom attract significant weight. Consequently, despite the fact-sensitive nature of these appeals, rehabilitation and administrative delay will only infrequently establish very compelling circumstances against deportation in cases involving serious offenders. The Court of Appeal further clarified that, when the Upper Tribunal allows an...
Editor’s note Welcome to the fourth instalment of the Public Law case law quarterly for 2025, spanning the year’s closing quarter. We lead with the Supreme Court’s ruling in X v Lord Advocate, addressing vicarious responsibility for judicial conduct. In a clear ruling, the court concluded that the Crown bears no vicarious liability for alleged harassment said to have been committed by a Scottish sheriff. After reviewing Jwanczuk, Daly and JR87, we also highlight the Supreme Court’s decision in Home Secretary v Kolicaj, which revisited the public law duty of fairness as it operates in citizenship deprivation cases. This issue further surveys developments on equality and human rights, including Sussex Police v XGY, where the Court of Appeal once again confirmed the wide scope of common law advocate immunity in the face of human rights arguments, and ARC, where the...
Part 3 of the Landmark Planning and Infrastructure Act becomes law On 18 December 2025, PIA 2025 entered into law. This note sets out the immediate implications for practitioners. It introduces new nature levies that developers may choose to pay, or in some instances be compelled to pay, instead of satisfying certain specified environmental obligations linked to the development consent process. The potential reach is wide: any ‘environmental feature’ in England—including features in or beneath waters adjacent to England, and the English offshore regions—can be addressed through voluntary or mandatory levies in place of the existing mitigation and compensation measures required by environmental laws. Business as usual for now For the moment, there is no change for development, planning or nature recovery. Adjustments to current environmental protections will not apply until new ‘nature restoration levy regulations’ are made, and the first ‘...
What are the practical implications of this case? Under the non-fettering principle, Home Office caseworkers must remain open to exercising discretion when deciding immigration applications, even where an applicant does not satisfy the Immigration Rules or sit within a policy concession. Where exceptional circumstances arise, applicants should include detailed representations and supporting evidence, make a clear request for the use of discretion, and remind the Home Office of its duty not to fetter that discretion. Any decision should explicitly show that the possibility of exercising discretion was properly and sufficiently considered; failure to do so may provide a platform for challenging a refusal. However, the obligation is to consider discretion, not to deploy it. After genuine consideration, the decision-maker may still lawfully refuse the application. If a refusal does not confirm that discretion was taken into account, or if it...
Overview The Mental Health Act 2025 represents a major reorientation of how compulsory mental health care is overseen in England and Wales. Although the reforms are not aimed at civil liability, they are expected to affect how claims involving psychiatric care are evaluated in practice and daily decision making. At the heart of the Act is a strengthened focus on patient autonomy, confining limits on a person’s liberty to only what is strictly necessary (commonly termed ‘ Least Restriction’), therapeutic benefit, and respect for the individual. These principles are designed to make sure that compulsory hospital admission and treatment are applied only where genuinely needed. Greater scrutiny of detention decisions The Act tightens the tests for compulsory detention, confirming that hospital admission should happen only where it is strictly necessary and where less restrictive alternatives are inadequate......
In this issue: Brexit Headlines Brexit SIs Constitutional and administrative law Equality and human rights Judicial review Public procurement State security and intelligence State accountability and liability Information law Other Public Law news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Free webinars Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Brexit Headlines UK and EU reaffirm commitment to citizens’ rights under Withdrawal Agreement Following the 18 December 2025 meeting of the Specialised Committee on Citizens’ Rights, the Cabinet Office confirmed that the UK and the EU restated their pledge to fully deliver the citizens’ rights provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement. The session examined progress on Part Two ( Citizens’ Rights) and considered continuing matters impacting EU nationals in the UK and UK citizens living in EU member states. The co-chairs welcomed recent legislation clarifying aspects of status for certain EU nationals within the EU Settlement Scheme ( EUSS), stressing the need for a prompt move to permanent residence. The UK flagged...
The Court of Appeal agreed The Court of Appeal confirmed that an earlier arrangement Peter Cushing made before his death, granting Tyburn Film Productions the right to digitally ‘resurrect’ him after 1994 to finish a different film, had no impact on the Cushing estate’s deal with Lucasfilm. As the judges could find no right transferred between Tyburn and Lucasfilm, there was no basis for saying Lucasfilm was ‘unjustly enriched’ at Tyburn’s expense, the court ruled. The judgment observed that the point at which a defendant’s enrichment is at a claimant’s expense remains uncertain, and that drawing the boundary between sound and defective claims is often difficult; this was not the moment to attempt to resolve it. At most, the estate may have breached an earlier contract with Tyburn concerning use of Cushing’s likeness, but Tyburn did not plead any such case, the judges held. Tyburn...
Summary The Pensions Ombudsman partially upheld a complaint concerning the recovery of pension paid in error. The member was awarded compensation for distress and inconvenience because the Scheme took an excessive length of time to correct the overpayment. However, she could not rely on a change of position defence, as she ought to have recognised that the salary and service figures on her retirement statement were overstated. This decision underlines that a change of position argument will only succeed where complainants act in good faith... What were the facts? Mrs N was a member of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (the Scheme). Shortly before retiring in 2012, she received a benefit statement indicating entitlement to a pension and lump sum of £15,647, calculated using an annual salary of £33,116. The statement carried a disclaimer marking it as an interim award and confirmed the Scheme was awaiting...
Original news Mrs E ( CAS-48733- H1L4)—16 July 2025 Summary The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman dismissed a formal grievance alleging that pausing a spouse’s pension in a public sector pension arrangement breached the complainant’s right to a family life and amounted to unlawful age-based discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights ( ECHR). The pause came within the carve-out that the measure was “in accordance with the law and… necessary for the economic well-being of the country”. It was not discriminatory because the interference with her rights was not disproportionate. This decision indicates that the reach of the ECHR will sometimes need to be weighed in public sector pension matters. What were the facts? Mrs E was a pensioner member of the 1995 section of the NHS Pension Scheme (the Scheme). She was in receipt of a widow’s pension which, under the Scheme’s...
Bailey v Stonewall Equality Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1662 What are the practical implications of this judgment? Debate over gender‑critical positions and/or gender identity beliefs, alongside trans rights, is a highly politicised and emotive subject, drawing significant press and social media attention. The Court of Appeal has upheld the findings of both the employment tribunal and the EAT, confirming that, although Garden Court Chambers ( GCC) discriminated against one of its tenants, Ms Bailey, through the way it investigated tweets she had posted, that discriminatory treatment was not caused or induced by Stonewall, the LGBT charity that had complained to GCC about those tweets. In its judgment, the Court of Appeal substantially endorsed Bourne J’s reading of section 111 of the Equality Act 2010 ( Eq A 2010)—the prohibition of instructing, causing or inducing contraventions in relation to the Eq A 2010—and...
R (on the application of LXR) v First Tier Tribunal ( Social Entitlement Chamber) and others [2025] EWCA Civ 1608 What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment, with its precise treatment of what medical evidence must show, underscores the core requirements for successfully re‑opening an earlier award. In re‑examining paragraphs 114 to 116 of the 2012 Scheme, Lord Justice Singh reviewed the principal authorities— Jones v FTT ( SEC) [2018] EWCA Civ 2367, R v CICA ex parte Williams ( C/1999/8155 27 June 2000) and R ( Colefax) v FTT ( SEC) [2014] EWCA Civ 945—which all merit attention when considering re‑opening. That said, the decision’s determinative points concerned the appellant’s particular medical presentation. It was argued for him that the psychiatric evidence before the FTT was capable of demonstrating a material alteration in his condition, brought about by gaining...
Background Mr Kolicaj, a dual national of Albanian origin, was naturalised as a British citizen in 2009. In 2018 he was found guilty of conspiring to move almost £8m of criminal proceeds out of the UK and received a six-year prison sentence. After his conviction, the National Crime Agency advised the Secretary of State to consider depriving him of citizenship due to serious organised criminality. In January 2021 the Secretary of State issued a notice of intention and, thirty minutes later, made a deprivation order. The brief interval was designed to stop Mr Kolicaj renouncing Albanian citizenship, which would have rendered him stateless and so not susceptible to deprivation under BNA 1981, s 40. His appeal to the First-tier Tribunal failed. The Upper Tribunal allowed his appeal, but the Court of Appeal upheld the deprivation on different grounds, finding procedural unfairness because he had no...
In this issue: Brexit Headlines Post- Brexit transition guidance Brexit SIs Judicial review Constitutional and administrative law Equality and human rights Public procurement Subsidy control and State aid State security and intelligence Information law Other Public Law news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Free webinars Dates for your diary Trackers Public Law weekly highlights 2025/2026 Brexit Headlines Government responds to Independent Review of Windsor Framework, accepting majority of recommendations The government has accepted most recommendations focused on strengthening democratic scrutiny, engagement, business support and the functioning of Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements under Articles 5–10. Promises include giving the Democratic Scrutiny Committee ( DSC) more leeway within the two‑month scrutiny window, establishing a new policy triage to flag EU proposals earlier, improving...
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
